This is >> this is not been working. >> Okay. Was it sorry? Go ahead. >> Well, was it already recording or does he need to reset state his name because he had >> Sorry. Will you state it, Reggie? I'm sorry. >> Okay. I won't go into the hockey stuff again, but Reggie Janets Tran Isabelle
Sadik Shadenian on behalf of the applicant. Um, this application received site plan approval back in 2024. Since then, um there had been some confusion I guess with the applicants
and at that time uh they presented but I think they were told either the day of or at some point around then that the license number uh the permitted license numbers had changed um they had when
they had applied there was more than a sufficient number. Then it was changed and reduced and so at that point uh they were told there were no licenses available.
What we have done and as I've referenced in our submission letter this matter is currently in litigation to challenge the fact that our permit and by the way we haven't been denied a permit. There just has been no action on
it. We have been given conflicting information as to how to proceed with regard um to the bureau. We have been diligently pursuing that. But we have first and foremost uh filed action against the bureau to
basically say that at the time that we applied and when I say not only to this board but when the licensing and permitting was applied to uh with the bureau that under the general theory of you know the time of application
we were complete we were timely and then but for the administrative actions of the burrow they have been denied the ability to proceed but again I would say denied in the sense that it's stifled we have not given up that
uh uh application we have not given up the intent to proceed at that location uh the my client stands ready, willing, and able to carry out the permit uh that they
applied for the resolution and approvals that they received from this board. Um they are not sitting on their laurels. >> So, Mr. Jenkins, can I ask you a question? Sure. >> If the burrow settled with you today >> and said, "Sure, you can have your
license." Are you ready to build tomorrow? we would be in a very good position to do just that. >> Have you made applications to the D? Have you been pursuing your D approvals? >> I'm pursu I'm assuming you have D
approvals you're going to have to get do what have have you done anything with the D? Have you contacted the D? Are you in communication with them? >> Uh we are. >> You are. And where do you stand on your D approvals? >> And I'm hesitant only because that aspect is being handled by separate
council. Uh, >> so here's the Mr. Jenkins, here's the problem I have. The licensing and and this has no bearing whether the board grants the extension or not, but from a land use perspective, your land use application is not contingent upon you getting a license
from the Burough of Redbank to open a cannabis facility. It obviously goes to the center of why you want to do what you're doing. >> But you have site plan approval. You could build that building tomorrow. pres presuming that all your approvals were
in place as far as DP approvals and any other construction permits that you need. You don't need the license the cannabis license in order to build the building and there's a lot of work that needs to be done on that site to clear what's there now and to build it. So we
would need an up. So theoretically you could proceed to with your de with your approval that you got from the land use board regardless of the license getting it from the town. So it's kind of important for this board to understand
where you are in the D approval process. So, and I and I understand your point, but I think that actually improperly I was going to say conflict, but actually dis dis uh, you know, separates
them because we really cannot proceed with the building of a building to retrofit whatever is going to be there. >> Um, why not? Because why are then are we doing that? We are
doing that we are going in there to operate that property as a cannabis dispensary. >> Understood. But that has nothing to do with your site plan approval. >> But it does because that's a whole intent. >> It it it does it does that's your
personal intent. Yeah. I don't mean you personally. It's your client's personal intent. that's what they would like to do with the property. From a land use perspective, you are permitted use within the zone. Hence the reason you were here. The on from a land
use perspective, I'm not talking about a licensing perspective. From a land use perspective, you're permitted. Anyone could walk in here now whether you had a light whether there were any license available for a cannabis use or not a cannabis use. And it's my understanding at the time of the hearing and I was not here that the applicant was actually
told there's no licenses available prior to the conclusion of >> the start of the meeting >> the very start of the hearing. So So your so your client knew at the very start of the proceedings that the town was taking the position that there were no license available yet your client decided to proceed with the application
regardless because for whatever you were told behind the scenes we don't know that you weren't told that by the planning board. The planning board was very clear that there were no licenses and you were very clear to the board at the time that you were going to proceed nevertheless because a license being available was not a condition precedent
to proceeding with your land use application. And the same virtue you could build that building today exactly as was approved without the licensing. You may not be able to open a cannabis facility, but you could proceed with knocking down
what's there now, cleaning up the site, um, building the building exactly as as conceived by via site plan, all without the licensing. You just can't open a cannabis facility. And that may seem counterintuitive to someone who's trying to whose goal ultimately is to open a
cannabis facility, but we have to look at it from a from a land use perspective. We're not looking at it from a from a burough licensing perspective. We have nothing to do with the burough licensing. You're a permitted use. You have your you have your site plan. And and listen, if you're telling me you have no knowledge
because the because the other phases of the application are being handled by other council, I'm going to advise our board not to vote on this tonight. And really, they need to hear from that council and see some evidence as to what's going on because all you are telling us, and this is not your
problem, it's not your fault. you just only came here on the one issue is hey we're in litigation with the burrow but again that has nothing in my view that has absolutely nothing to do with the land use portion of this application which is what site plan protection is all about. >> See and and for forgive me because I
would respectfully disagree that's fine >> in that I think that is a more limited reading of what the statute says. What the statute says is if the applicant is pursuing all the permitting that they
need, all the government approvals they need for that use >> and for that operation and they are stymied from doing that, then the board shall grant the extension. In this case, and it is counterintuitive to, you know,
disconnect the the two. It is that is the sole re we we don't want to get a approval for a McDonald's. >> Mhm. >> Start building a McDonald's and be told you can't operate a
McDonald's. >> Yeah. But who would you be? But but the difference Listen, >> I think the difference here is I don't know that you're diligently pursuing all your approvals. I know you're diligently pursuing a lawsuit against the Burough of Red Bank. I don't know that you're diligently pursuing uh your permitting
before the D. I have and you don't know either. You've acknowledged that. I don't know what other permits are required to build this building at this spot. I do know that what was at that spot is still there and I don't believe anything's been done to it during all this time. Um and this is not the
board's first rodeo at that particular location. We've actually been through this before with this particular site and there and there came a request to this is the gas station site at the entrance. Right. So, so just so you know for a little bit of history, it's sort of ironic. Someone else would granted an
approval on that site. >> Came in before us to say that they were uh that they were asking for an extension of their protection period. Board denied that application. It was not a cannabis use. It was a hotel and basic and it became down to the D and whether they were diligently pursuing
the DP D board turned it down. Applicant sued us went to superior court and the applicant lost and they lost their protection rights. That didn't mean that they lost their site plan. Of course, you know, whether whether we grant the protection or not, your site plan continues into perpetuity unless the uh
burough council changes the ordinance. >> Correct. Of which I did in my letter. >> Yeah, absolutely. But right now, we don't know that there's actual diligence going on except that you're pursuing one avenue. So, we can say this. Let's say we settle tomorrow. You're not prepared to build tomorrow because you don't even
know where you are in the D process. And it could be a 10-year process with the D because that site is very environmentally sensitive. And then you're coming back and coming back and coming back. So diligently pursuing all your approvals would necessitate that you're also pursuing it before the D and
anyone else who you have to speak to in the meantime. And there was a lot involved in that application with the D which is why the hotel never got built. So, I would just suggest again I'm going to recommend to the board they not vote on this tonight that either you or the
other attorney who's handling this and maybe both of you come back and present to us the evidence of where you are in the D process and any other and and that's the only one that's popping up in my head because that was the main issue in the last one at this location. There may be other I haven't investigated. There may be other approvals that are
necessary but the I don't think the law uh contemplates that you can pick and choose which approvals you are diligently approving a proceeding with and then you can go and do the other ones later on and you can prolong this
into uh eternity because hey we're not going to pursue this appeal. We're not going to prove we're not going to proceed with this approval unless we get this approval. No, you sort of have to do them concurrently and you so that you really are diligently pursuing everything. >> And there was some discussion at the
time about an application to state DOT about traveling north off the site on Route 35. I don't know what the status of that is either. It was not something we were thrilled about at all >> in connection with this. >> I think so. >> Okay. And and again, I'm not being
obtuse on that is as you weren't here as well as you you know I was not the attorney who handled the hearings below. >> Okay. >> Um so that >> so we're all at a disadvantage the board members who were here. >> We are definitely at a at a disadvantage. Um I would say also again
with regard to the assertion of picking and choosing what to pursue. I do think that there is a threshold issue that we have satisfied which goes again
to my McDonald's example is that if we have been told that there is a threshold issue of the permitting can this actually now be used as a McDonald's?
Well, then regardless of whatever permitting may be required, if we're told that the sole purpose for us having come before this board previously is not available, well then that threshold issue must first be
rectified and addressed with some finality. And that question and the finality that we're looking for is first and foremost with the superior court. >> And I respect your I respectfully
disagree with you. Um I I think we have to look at everything. I don't think we can just look at in a vacuum and say, "Okay, we're only dealing with the uh with the suit against the the burough." So we can respectfully disagree. That's why there's nine people on a Supreme Court. They don't always agree with each
other either. So, um, so again, I would suggest that we don't answer this tonight and it's up to the board, of course, if the board doesn't agree with me. >> I I mean, I don't I don't love extensions. I would very much like to hear exactly where you are with the D
and any other approvals, whether it's um New uh uh >> anyone else. I mean, it was a heavily contaminated site. There were a lot of deed restrict or there were deed restrictions. I I don't want to characterize them as a lot, but I don't
I don't love the idea of an extension. I would rather hear back from you exactly where you are with everyone. I'd love to see that building built. I think that building would look great there. The use I'm not so I I I don't know where I feel about the use, but I think that I would
love nothing more than to see that gas station torn down and a building built. >> Yeah, we'd like to for whatever use. >> Yeah. And I and I think by the way and I think that has been the one uh repeated point that we have heard anytime or at least I've talked about this site is they want it built. They want it cleaned
up and made look nice. >> Well, nothing's preventing them from knocking down that building now. >> Well, >> they could go get their demo permits and knock it down. >> Well, the current I mean the you know the current owner >> Oh, you don't own it? >> No, we're you know we're still the contract purchaser. >> That was going to be my question. Who
owns the property? Is it your client or No, no. We're still under >> Yeah, we're still the contract purchaser. >> Is there an expiration date on your contract or is it >> It's It's you know, it keeps getting We're trying to extend it then we get threatened that you're not you know
what's going on with the court and stuff like that. So, we are a court bobbing along on not just one but multiple currents here. So, we are hamstrung by walking in and knocking it down
tomorrow. >> You are, but you are not. You're you're hamstrung from opening it as a cannabis use. I will stick to the fact that you could open a, as the chairman just said, a very nice building that would look a lot better on that site than the current gas station, which is an eyesore.
Probably goes back to the mayor McKenna being mayor. He's nodding his head. Uh, that that it was I think it was vacant back then. So, it's been a long time this town's wanted to see that site uh remediated and cleaned up. >> So, if you want the chance at getting an extension,
come back and sell it with exactly who you've talked to and the status of where you are with anyone you need approval from to to build this site. And I think it would it would help your situation if you were to do that. I'd
love tear it down tomorrow. You'll never get a construction loan because any bank half worth anything is going to ask you if you're ready to open and you're not because you don't have a permit for a cannabis location. But I'd love to see
the building built, but I realize that might not happen. Your opportunity for an extension, I think, is improved by coming back and and really pitching to us exactly what you've done in the dates you did it. And I mean you, I mean the applicant, the other attorney, whoever.
I don't care who you bring back, >> but some more definite information about what has transpired over the last couple years >> and where you are with all of the any of those agencies, I think would go a long way. >> And Mr. Chairman, just just to piggyback
off what you just said, Jess, you you mentioned that they wouldn't get a a financing, but I don't know if that's true because there are many permitted uses which could operate on that site underneath the zoning ordinance. Yeah, but they'd have to lie to the bank about what they wanted. >> Not necessarily. They they they could a contractor could say, "I have approval
to construct a building and here's my building and the tenant is yet to be >> right." You're right. >> Right. >> And I've seen that done. I I'll tell you, we did we did this exact similar application in Keyport where the uh
Hello, Keyport. Uh we did the exact same application in Keyport where someone came in to what we knew was going to be a cannabis facility, but they had yet to obtain their license and they came in and they said, "Look, we're not here to get the cannabis facility. We want the building because we're under because
we're going to sell the we're just building the building and then the cannabis people can come in and if they want if they need anything else, they can come in and get a site plan for it." So it is 100 and ultimately they did get the license. They did open the cannabis facility, but but they built the building and then it was retrofitted to
fit the cannabis. So the same thing could happen here. And so so anyway, so >> so that's that's my point. So anyway, I think you've heard the board. We would like to hear further information on where you actually are in the process other than the lawsuit with the uh with
the burrow and uh you don't have the information and I'm not going to try to get information that you don't have and because that wouldn't be fair. So, we'd ask that you come back at the next meeting with further information and we'll we'll hear you first and get and get you out of here. >> Yeah. No, that that's fine. And I hear you and to the extent um whatever
information that I can provide, I will. Um because we're not here uh to kind of do any kind of bait and switch or whatever. If I have facts, I'm giving to you. Uh >> well, you have one fact that you're giving it to >> No, I said if I I said if I have
>> if you get it. Okay. if if I get it. But I'm also I just want to reiterate my objection to the reading of the statute as being put forth this evening. I'm just going to say that I understood that's fine. I understand you don't agree with me and and I respect that.
>> Yeah. So, but either way, um I will be back. We will be talking and um hopefully we can get this resolved. But again we do have the acknowledgement though that the extension is not the site plan qua site plan it is the
protection. >> Yeah 100%. >> So I again so I understand there's reticence about the word extensions generally. I think everyone on the board understands that whether or not they grant the extension, the cannabis use
could continue to be operated on that site into perpetuity absent the council changing the zoning ordinance not to allow the cannabis use. And that was the case in the last case too. By the way, the hotel could have gone up. They it was still approved for the site. The ordinance hadn't changed and they still
sued saying that they wanted the site plan extension. So, but everybody knew it. They could have still built the hotel. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, so the board, like I said, the board's experience on this particular site and in this area of the law. >> Got it. >> Because they went through it not that long ago. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much. And, uh, I will be back. >> Next, >> well, and that's what are we looking at in terms of dates? >> May 13th is our next meeting. >> I can't do that. What I will do, um,
>> we could do June 10th, >> let's provisionally say June 10th. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> And for whatever reason, if some other hiccup comes up uh in scheduling, I will be in, you know, >> right? And and I assure you, I will not allow the board to say, "Hey, you're out of time to be requesting this
extension." >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I won't that wouldn't be fair either. And I would suggest if you can get a timeline from this other council, maybe you can submit it ahead of time for for us to review rather than you sitting up
here and trying to read a list. >> Oh, no. I would >> Okay. >> We we would try to map that out ahead. >> Okay. Perfect. >> All right. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> I will see you June 10th or somebody June 10th. >> Ladies and gentlemen, from the public, if you are here regarding this extension
request, come back on June 10th. >> That's just to let everybody know. 7 p.m. Yes. >> Uh, we have 2628 Shrewsbury Avenue. Susan, who's hiding behind Victor or not Victor, the other guy who I don't know.
Scott, how you doing? Come on up and fill us in on where we are. uh press the so where we are is um last time I was here about a month or so ago I think um we went through the redevelopment
rehabilitation plan and you all had some comments some revisions so I put forth a a very short memo I think it's only a page summarizing the proposed revisions to the and and I can take you through that mostly on design. I think that was the
majority of the board's comments. So, they're fairly targeted uh redline revisions. I don't know why my computer's taking forever. Okay. Okay. So, first of all, um just kind of a big
picture design. We'd had some discussion about the amount of uh commenting and amount of um revisions that the planning board will have essentially how much leeway you'll have once this application presumably comes to you for site plan review. So, there are design parameters
in the rehabilitation plan. Then there are also renderings um of the proposed application as it stands now. Um originally there had been language to the effect of um you know basically the design should be substantially similar to these renderings and if it is then
the planning board you know basically would accept it. Um I think there was some concern about that and feeling like that really didn't give the board enough um leverage or or you know flexibility. So um the proposed change basically is that the final design and whatever they
submit for site plan needs to be quote generally consistent with the renderings. I think that's comparable to how you would look at you know master plan consistency. Um you basically are you know reviewing anything that they would submit for overall consistency with the renderings as well as the
rehabilit rehabilitation plan itself. Um, so I think that that hopefully accomplishes the uh the goal of having some more flexibility. And then further to that on page 14, there's a clear statement that ultimately the planning board has discretion over the final
designs submitted to you and reviewed by you u for consistency with this rehabilitation plan. So that's the first big picture. Um and then there are some design details. Um we had talked about um vertical articulation, vertical
breaks and adding the word meaningful before that. Um that has been added um really just to give a little bit more teeth. We talked about u reflective materials or colors. There was cons some concern about the use of a lot of white materials that that would be jarring. So um language has been added discouraging
that. Um there were some numbers on signage. I don't know that this came up specifically by the board but I noticed it. we had numbers and the way that it was reading is that this will be the size of the sign and so we really just changed that to the maximum. Um, you know, it might be smaller. Um, it
shouldn't be bigger. Um, so really just to kind of give a little bit more of a range. Um, we talked about rooftop equipment and structures uh, and that there needs to be material and paint and other uses uh, or strategies to camouflage those materials. Um and then
this board wanted to see as part of site plan submission specific building elevations that they will be they will be showing um their project and how that affects them. And the specific ones were um you know from the swimming river that shows the Galleria building. That was a concern I think from the board as well
as members of the public how this building will affect that view. Um and then as well as Shrewsbury Avenue both north and south. So that they will need to provide you know renderings of the proposed development with those from those views as part of their site plan submission
um for landscaping lighting and then the public riverfront walkway. Um I think a lot of this is a little bit housekeeping. Um just a requirement that when they submit their site plan application the plant schedule has to comply with burough ordinance. um provision that the environmental
commission can have the opportunity for an advisory review of both the landscaping and the lighting plans. Um and then we had had some discussion about public seating. Uh it's a little tight and there was some concern about whether uh the applicant's going to have room to to put seating in and what that
might look like. And I think the feedback we were getting from the board is that you wanted that um provision to you to allow for seating if it's possible. And so we basically just had added some language that um seating and public amenities should be provided as feasible. Um there there may be ways to
incorporate those as part of landscaping. Uh and then added a couple of of illustrative images just to show how that might be done. Not necessarily how it has to be done but um different you know different context how that has been accomplished. And then lastly on
the uh question of sustainability and green building designs, there was some confusion because we had we had language that they shall provide green building strategies and then we had sort of a list of of different strategies and that they were encouraged and there was some confusion about the use of the word
shall and also encouraged. So, it's been clarified so that they have to um provide green building strategies and then the list of examples are really just meant to be examples, you know, ways that they could get there, but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation and the requirement to provide uh those
green building strategies. So, that's u a summary of of all of the um proposed revisions to the plan. Uh you should have all gotten a redline version of it and hope hopefully you got this memo, too. Um, but I just took you through all of them page by page. So, happy to
answer any additional questions and I'll pull up plan just in case. Wilson. Yeah. >> Yeah. I have a followup uh which is a little deeper than just a revision. Uh what was can you refresh my memory on the discussion on the
um can you uh rehash reiterate the discussion we had about the public walkway ending in the dead end over by the marina why that was they could not design that to be a a through loop
>> I think it's primarily to do with the topography that they're sort of down at such a level that they would have to go back up across somebody else's property essentially. And there really wasn't a way to make that connection both on property that they don't control and also with the topography. There'd be no
way to really create that kind of connection. Certainly not one that's accessible. >> Why couldn't they go up their own lot line? >> It was >> the building's pretty close. where the tracks are
>> the PL it in addition to the elevation change I think the building is like 6 feet >> from the right of way for the train station >> and wouldn't they need um what is it DP approval to connect it uh that connection because that's not
>> right that easement is belongs to the state not to us that walkway easement that's correct >> what that easement is what >> that uh easement belongs to that walkway easement belongs to the state. So, I believe to connect to it, and I'm just
going off of my memory um from the conversations, they'd have to get approval from the state to do any connections. >> And you'd still have to solve for the elevation change. >> That too. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, it's a real challenge for sure. >> I don't love the idea of making it easy for people to get to the train tracks for whatever they're up to. Yeah, I can see. >> But you're right. It's a dead end until we hit the lottery in town >> and buy the damn thing everywhere.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's the plan forever. >> That has been the plan. >> Piece by piece. >> Yeah. Anybody else have any questions for Susan? Anyone from the public have any questions regarding
what we've talked about so far? I didn't think so. Um, so what we're looking for here is whether or not the board wants to recommend to the mayor and council that they approve
>> this send it to the mayor and council for consideration because it's originating here >> and it's an ordinance. >> We already approved this though last week. I mean, sorry, last month. So it the >> Oh, we we approved it based upon subject
to the changes being made. >> Yeah, it was. >> So, do we need to That's what Dan and I were talking about. Do we need to >> do we need another referral? >> We just vote to confirm that it's in final form and you're happy with it just to safeguard it.
>> So, does anyone have any interest in approving that voting to >> on these changes to the referral we've already made evidently to the mayor council? I'll make that motion. >> Second.
>> It's a bit of an odd duck. >> Thank you, Susan. >> Yeah. Yeah. Do a roll call. >> Shauna Banks. >> Yes. >> Christina Bonitakis. >> Yes. >> Dan Monuso. >> Yes.
>> Luis Dementoto. >> Barbara Bos. I think I have to abstain. I wasn't at the original meeting. >> No, >> you don't have to. There's not that type of application. So, if you've read the if you've read the plan that's been submitted and you are happy with it, then you can vote yes.
>> Then yes, >> Wilson BB. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you, Susan. >> Thank you. Next up, 187 Riverside Avenue, block 401, lot 1-3,
All Things Vic LLC in the BR1. Site plan approval for the application is to change use of a property from gasoline service station, which let's face it, it's really not a gasoline service station anymore, is it? Uh to a restaurant, which means the next time I go into a new corner for a piece of
pizza, I will hear it about the fact that we've approved another pizzeria. So I'm I'm preparing my response which has been John people get to do what they do. Um so Mr. McKenna welcome back.
>> It's all you and well let me mark in the following exhibits Mr. Chairman. Uh A1 will be the final the preliminary and final site plan. A2 will be the topographic survey. A3 will be the architectural plans. A4 will be the storm water report. A5 will be the
traffic impact and parking assessment plan uh a report rather and then I have the following exhibits on behalf of the board. Exhibit B1 will be the TNM review letter of March 25th, 2026. Uh B2 will be the Shade Tree
Commission's comments uh which came by way of an email dated March 26, 2026. and B3 will be the comments from the environmental commission uh which came by way of an email dated March 30th, 2026. Those are the exhibits I have. Mr.
McKenna, have you been have you been given copies of the three board exhibits? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you have them. That's all I have. If you just want to make your appearance, Mr. McKenna, and proceed. back. >> I'm good. >> Hey,
there you go. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, Mr. Mr. Lex, I would like to uh refer to the fact that uh we did present an additional um
item this evening. Uh the environmental commission had requested an update as to the status with the uh department of environmental protection and uh we got it. We literally got it today. the uh letter, it's very descriptive. The
environmental cleanup is complete with the exception of four monitoring wells and that's it. So, the site is essentially clean. Whatever surface water may have any kind of issue um of
sorts that will fade away. So the monitoring wells are going and that's >> are the wells installed or you're waiting >> they're installed. >> Okay. >> So is this a is this a no further action letter from the DA? >> It's essentially saying that there will be a no further action letter that's going to be
>> forthcoming. It's forthcoming but they they have to monitor the wells and then once they are satisfied with the results which we think is going to be very quick uh then uh we will have an arro and >> all right so I'm going to mark in as
exhibit A6. We'll call it a uh D. What do they do they title it anything in their letter or is it >> It's not from D. It's from It's from the LSRP. >> Oh, it's from the LSRP. Okay. >> Yeah. From Slack Engineering. >> It's the LSRP letter. So, we'll just mark that. That makes it easier. Is Do you have a date on it?
>> Um today, I think, right? >> It's literally today. >> Yeah, we just got it. >> Okay. >> It literally came in today. >> So, is the LSRP letter dated April 8th, 2026? We'll mark that as exhibit A6. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um I'd like to start out by uh calling up uh Tyler Sandlas. He is going to go through the architecture. Uh and um he's also going to discuss the variances and waiverss. Um >> do we have to sign in or swear in?
>> I'll swear. >> Yeah, I guess. Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be? >> I do. >> And you're you're an architect? >> I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. >> And your license? >> It is. >> Can you just state your name by your last name? Correct.
>> Sure. It's Tyler Sandless. S N D SS. All right. Well, thank you for your time and consideration for this project that aims to bring some life back to a prominent but challenging location. Um in general the project maintains the
existing principal structure um with some minor modifications to exterior facade materials and some additional program that's essential to the business operations of a restaurant. So, the proprietor of of this proposed
restaurant operates the one right next door and is leveraging his experience in the industry in the area and infrastructure to ensure that this project has a positive impact on the area.
So, it's a pretty simple building. I think you guys have all probably driven by it. Um, it's about 1,700 square f feet. It has a pretty simple floor plan. There's kind of the reception area with support spaces. There's a an ADA
bathroom, janitor's closet, and dishwashing sink or dishwashing area. And then the main dining room which has you know a small pizza oven kitchen uh a bar uh bar seating let's say and uh some
uh some general unfixed seating. So the material changes I think that are most notable are on the two facads that essentially make up that corner. Uh, as of right now, we're planning to use uh a brick system for the majority
of the facade and then kind of an accent on the corner that in a way speaks to the other restaurant. So, it's right now we're looking at using core 10 panels. Um, we do have some building mounted signage that uh as far as we know is is
in compliance with the signage requirements. And then I think we'll have to talk a little bit further with our civil engineer about the uh ground mounted signage that uh exists at the corner but actually outside of the property line.
I don't know if you have any questions for me immediately, but >> I mentioned a bar. >> Uhhuh. >> Is there a liquor license for this property that's going to be used? >> Sure. Is it? That's my next question. Is it
shared? Can you do that? >> Yes. >> How convenient. Okay. Um I don't have any other questions so far about what you said. >> Would you would you uh run through with I mean I'm trying to speed it up a
little bit for you, but you want to just quickly address the uh the uh variances and the waiverss. >> Sure. Uh, is that Yeah, I think that's probably best.
>> Oh, sorry. You know what? The engineer said he'll do it. >> Yeah. I mean, I think maybe one last note is you'll notice on the bottom right corner of the page is the one thing that we're doing outside of the existing envelope is that support structure or that support program, the walk-in cooler and the trash area. So,
okay, we're kind of starting to get into the site the site element of our proposal. the existing garage doors that's there. >> That's the same. You're going to repurpose them. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's part of the aesthetic. >> So, no part of this building uh
footprint will be changed at all. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And where again are you putting the trash? >> Uh it's going to be behind a fence. Uh >> so that's the bottom corner. >> Correct. Right now we have it listed uh as 7 foot wide and 7 foot deep and six
foot wide. um to fit essentially four bin type roller uh you know trash. >> And where is that located on the site? >> So it is towards the back corner in in both from both Riverside and from Bridge
Avenue. >> Perhaps >> that's it right there. >> If it please the board, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I think maybe what what I'd like to do is get Mr. R sworn in. Uh so if if there are any questions that the board has,
>> you can always come back up >> and he he may be able to answer them so that you don't have to, you know, bring multiple witnesses in to address different issues. Um but as far as the trash is concerned, um I I can tell you
that his Mr. Ro's plan is to uh to deal with the trash on a daily basis >> privately. >> Yes. You know how we roll. Does anyone else from the board or the public have any questions for the architect? >> Come on up, sir.
>> You just got to speak into the mic. >> Tell us your name and address. >> This is questions only right now. >> Oh, is this question? Well, I don't know if this >> Yeah. If you want to tell us you love it or hate it, you have to wait. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll come back to you for
comments. Don't worry. >> We just like to save those for the end. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, I might have missed this, but um these plans are not the same set that we reviewed. They've been updated based on
our conversation with their team last week. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Because for example, the trash enclosure that you showed, we commented on the lack of a trash enclosure. So I just wanted the board to >> So I So I need
>> I need to know then what is the date of these? Are these what is the date of these architectural? >> The seventh yesterday. >> Okay. So we had marked in the architectural plans. They're still by William Mandera. >> Yes. >> Okay. But they're dated. These are dated
April 7th, >> correct? >> 2026. All right. That's going to be exhibit A3. I just want to make sure we're not going to have two sets of architectural plans marked in. >> Okay. >> And from an architectural standpoint, is it your testimony that the applicant is willing to comply with any comments that
the engineer has in her letter as it relates to to your discipline from an architectural standpoint? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. That's fine. All right. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Standless. Um, can I get
Mr. R sworn in, please? Thank you. >> Mr. R, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? >> Yes, I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Victor R. >> And spell your last name. >> R A L L. >> And you are the owner of the property, correct? Or the principal in the LLC
that owns the property? >> Yes, I am. >> Thank you, Robert. Uh this is Robert Freud. He's the engineer from the project. Like you have sworn in. >> Yes. The swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth. Nothing but the truth. Stop. >> Yes, I do. >> And just state your name for the record, please. >> Robert Frud, F as in Frank, R EU D. >> And Mr. Fruit, you are a licensed engineer and your license is in good standing in the state of New Jersey. Correct. >> It is. Yes. >> Thank you. That's all we need. >> I am also going to testify as a
professional planner. and your planning license and goods all. >> Thank you. >> Robert, if you don't mind, um, you have been retained. You're a member of Dynamic, correct? >> I am. Yes, I'm a principal and director with Dynamic Engineering.
>> And you've been you were retained by the applicant in this particular matter to perform the engineering that was necessary for this site. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Has the engineering has the site plan changed since the February 16th, 2026 plans? So, the the site plans that are
uh there that are of record have not changed. Our site plan exhibit that I'll go through this evening. We did make some modifications following our our call with staff. >> And that's fine, but as long as the site plan that we're referring to is the same site plan February 16th, uh we can mark
in as a seven site plan. What did you call it? >> So, you can maybe go full screen on these. So, this is an aerial uh aerial exhibit. >> Aerial exhibit >> overall aerial map exhibit and that has
today's date on it. April 8th, 2026. >> Okay. We will mark that in as exhibit A7. >> Okay. So, I'll just speak to this briefly. Uh this is just to orient the board, but I think everybody knows where we are. Uh you see uh the 35 bridge
coming in from uh the left side of the page. So the left is north here. Uh so as you come over the bridge uh it's a little different than the aerial. Uh you have the new construction that would be on uh the the northeast corner of that
intersection um uh with Bridge Avenue. So, Bridge Avenues could, you know, continue uh straight to the right and then you have Riverview that extends up. The yellow uh outlined area is the property in question. Um and then you
have actually you can go to the next We can do it right off this one actually. That's fine. That's fine. The next one is a zoomed in version, but you're handling it uh well for me. Uh so uh just to go into a little bit more detail on the existing conditions again you've
got uh Berraino uh above it or to the east uh of this site. You've got the lighthouse uh ice cream on the other side on the triangular corner and you've got the residential uh project going on uh north of this on the other side uh of
Riverview. Uh specifically the applications block 4.01 uh lots 1 to three and a portion of lot 26.02 lot 26.02 102 uh is the alley uh that extends uh to the south. So uh a portion of that will be uh part of this
application known as 187 Riverside Avenue. Um it's just under half an acre, 489 acres or 21,300 square ft. Um we are in the BR1 business residential one zone. Uh and the proposed use uh is a
permitted use. Um, again, this is uh the former Bridge Avenue gas station. I'm sure everybody on the board is familiar with it at the prominent intersection. Uh, it's a one-story building as you heard. It's about 1,700 uh and change square feet. There is also a small 400 and some
square foot garage uh that exists on site today in the southeast corner that's used for storage. Uh today uh as far as access there is one access um on Bridge Avenue and there is a total of
about 120 ft of frontage uh on route 35 uh that is to press curb access that served the gas station. Um the entire site is paved today uh devoid of uh any vegetation other really than
uh one sycamore tree that is along the bridge avenue frontage just next to the driveway. Uh there is also an existing billboard uh in the parking lot. Uh there was a billboard on the top of the roof that has been removed. Uh generally the site is flat uh minor uh sheet flow
grading uh towards uh Bridge Avenue going from east to west. Uh there is no storm water infrastructure on site collecting runoff. Uh and the building is presently served by all uh public utilities uh and will continue to do so. A couple things
to point out from bulk uh >> standard >> question. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Can I just ask an orientation question? On the uh south side of the lot where the current billboard is? >> Yes. >> Uh there's a chainlink fence and then a
parking lot between that chain link fence and the residence. Who's pro who owns that property? Is that Beravino property? >> That's Yeah. So, we we there's two lots where the gas station are that we just purchased. >> And then
>> there's two lots uh where the gas station were, lot one and two. And then the lot next to that is a lot that I own. Um and that is where that structure is, that storage structure that was an old garage. So, um and you can see it in
there in the yellow. You see to the um to the one side, >> it's in the upper right hand corner of the yellow. Yes sir. So that that chain link fence is our chain link fence and it did separate our property from the gas station at one time. Now we obviously own all three lots and both
properties. >> Thank you. >> So I just want to make sure I understand. Mr. McKenna are we're not consolidating these lots. >> Correct. >> Right. So they're going to stay separate. So are there easements being given for for any portions that are my
concern is I want to make sure that if Mr. Row's all things Vic decides at some point to sell this property that there's no portion of this site plan that is property that's owned or operated by the
entity that owns Beravino that I just want to make sure that that that that things are completely separate because that would be a problem. The fact that he owns all things today is great, but we have we have to assume at some point that the that he's going to
sell one of these properties and that this site plan would not be uh in trouble because of that. >> What we were just talking about is the three lots that make up this application, lots one, two, and three, not this from Beravino. But I thought I
just heard and I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that what I was just answered was that there is a piece of pro there's a portion of this that is owned by Beravino. Or did I misunderstand? >> Is that just as question?
>> Is the the property line on the rear of the property, let's call it the south of the property that has that chain link fence, is that your property line between this site and the house next door? So the the house the house next door is
where the yellow line is that she's following with the cursor. >> The the line between there then there's lots one and two which is the gas station. The line between that lot three is right about where the queue is in PIQ >> going up and down on the page east west. But all three of those lots are together
part of this application >> and none of them are owned by Beravino. So those the three lots that we're talking about in the yellow square are owned by All Things Vic. >> Okay. And those things are consolidated underneath one ownership. >> They're consolidated under one
ownership. And recently the there's like a a driveway between Beervino and those three lots. Um we thought it was an easement, but it was an actual lot 26.02 O2 that is also owned by All Things Vic.
So everything in that square is owned by All Things Vic. >> Okay. So there's >> LLC. >> So there's no portion of anything we're going to hear tonight that is owned by Beravino. >> Correct. >> Okay. That that's I got confused with the answer to Mr. BB's question because I thought I heard something different,
but obviously I misunderstood. >> Is 2602 part of this application? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. >> We're part of it. the the the portion of 2602 that parallels the the east
property line. 2602 does extend further to the south to the road, but we're not that's not part of this. We're only referencing the portion that is parallel to the south. >> Now, now I'm confused again. >> Yeah. I >> Yeah. >> I mean, Jackie, are you following or are
you a little confused? >> Because you're only using part of 2602. I think that speaks to the problem Mr. Lexine is talking about if you want to sell the pizza place down the road. >> What >> part of the lot that you're talking about? This 2602
is co is owned by all things Vic. Yes. The whole 2602 in its entirety is all things Vic. >> And I I'm used to having a pointer so I can but um so 26.02 2 is about 11 ft wide between the Beravino building and
Berino property. >> Runs east and west >> and it runs north south. >> It runs north and south. >> It's it it essentially is the the alleyway, but it's a it's it's a tax lot. It's about 11 ft wide between Beervino and the building and lots one,
two, and three, which is where the gas station is. So, at the top of the page here, you see a diagonal hatch line. That is the Beravino building and the Beerino lot. Then there's the narrow about 11 foot
wide. It's white. That is the alley that is 26.02 that is owned by All Things Vic. The same as lots 1, two, and three. >> So if you were ever to sell that, you would either have to All Things Vic and
you're going to sell the pizza place. You're either going to include 2602 or you're going to have to come back for a subdivision. Victor, if you want it for Beerino, you're going to have to come back for a subdivision to sell 2602 to Beerino if you're going
to sell all things Vic to someone else. >> So, as long as you're clear on that and all of 2602 is part of this application, I think that solves Mr. >> Is that what the PO stands for in the TNM review letter? Is piece of portion
of That's the that's the crux of the matter here. So that lot they're only showing half of it. That lot goes from Riverside to Recctor >> Brower. >> Oh, to Brower. Sorry. So there's a
portion that they're not showing on the site plan. >> It's got to continues. >> It continues. It has to be on the site plan. If it's part of its application, you can't only use a portion a portion of it. It's it's all or nothing unless
you're coming in for a subdivision, >> which you're not. >> No, we're not. >> So So it's it can't be a portion of 2602. It's got to be completely 26.02 has to be part of this application. >> I'm not trying to complicate or make anyone's life difficult, but but we have
we have too late. It's got to be shown on the site plan. It's there. >> Yeah. >> Do you want a moment, Mr. McKenna, to talk or you need a moment? >> Well, I I I certainly don't want to hold you up. >> You're not I think this is an important
point, right? I mean, this is an important point that we have to figure out. >> Yeah. I mean, you probably should subdivide the damn thing, but um because if you do, I I mean, is is that 11 ft ever going to be helpful to be veno? And if the answer
is ever yes, you probably should subdivide it. >> Well, 11 feet. >> Um, with all due respect, it's 11 feet and >> it doesn't matter if it's one foot.
>> I I understand. But my point is is that the that part of that property that is adjacent to those other two properties, the the home and the law office that is adj and on the other side it's adjacent to the lot of the parking lot of
Beravino. I don't think that that would ever be developed to include more parking etc. So if it was a requirement that that piece was included in our survey,
I confident that that would be fine. >> All right. So So and I'm hap and I'm fine with that. As long as as long as everyone in this room agrees that the site plan is going to be revised to incorporate the entirety of 26.02 into this application, I'm okay with that.
It's it's just other otherwise we're talking subdivision and we have a problem. will be surveyed, right? >> It's got to be part of the application. So the so the site plan needs to be revised. A survey obviously would have to be surveyed and uh you'd have to put
a revised survey in and a revised site plan completely showing all of 26.02 as being part of this application. >> And and perhaps the easiest way to address that is to in the in the event that you
decide to approve the application, make it a condition. Oh, abs. I'm not suggesting you need to come back. >> Yeah. >> Because we're talking about a very insignificant part of of as as Mr. Riley just testified to. It's a very small piece of land. Yeah. >> But it's but the plans have to be revised as a condition of approval to
include that as part of this application. >> We can do that. >> Okay. >> And I'd agree to that. >> Okay. And Jackie, you're you're okay with that. Or am I missing something? >> No. No. That that's perfect. Um Okay. I don't know if now is the time to talk about what access easements will need to be
given to those two properties. >> It is so other people >> other people use 26.02 to get >> to where they're going. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I I we can address that. >> No, we can't. very
>> um we have uh although we have uh received title to the property, we are going to and and this is unequivocal. We've we've had this discussion on several occasions going to give easements uh permanent easements to the owners of
the other two properties so that they can access their property, >> the law office and the multif family. >> That's exactly correct. Can Mr. McKenna why don't you sorry can you just take five minutes and so that you're all on the same page. I just want to make sure and and I'm I think it's to everybody's benefit so that we know
exactly what we're doing. >> I I I I think I can make one clarification. I was >> okay. The there were there were two properties that were going to have access to the rear of their property
through uh 2. Yeah. 2602. Um, we had prepare we were prepared to give both of them permanent easement so they could have access to their property. I was just advised that one of
them, however, um, and that's the property that is on on Bridge, isn't it? >> Bridge and Morford. >> Yeah. On Bridge and Morford. that property uh >> their access is on Morford now and they put a solid curb across the back. So the
only >> M you got to speak to the microphone. I I'm sorry. >> So where the X is on where the pointer is that property there is a law office and some other offices in there. Their axis is on Morford and there's a curb
across the back. It's been there for about 5 years now. the only home or property that has access is the next home that their garage is they would enter their garage from that property and in fact currently I rent
that garage. So >> So is there a curb cut on Morford? >> Yes, there was a curb cut on Morford. >> They come in and enter that you would enter Broward. >> I'm sorry. Broward place. Yeah. So they they they come in there's a curb cut. pull into their the garage that you rent
from the easement. >> It's a lot. It's not an easement, right? >> Um so yes, they can pull in there. There's a a curb cut and a curb depression uh as there is on the other side on Riverside Avenue. So they if anyone was to park there from the home,
which now I rent the two garages, but they would pull in there and that's the only other person uh the law office and the other offices there enter on Brower and they have their own parking and it's uh they've you know probably five or six
years ago they redid the whole building and the parking and I'm sure they came to this board for approval. So, so the so the law office no longer needs that easement and they're okay with giving it. They've never had it.
>> They they may not be okay with, but they would have an easement if they want it, but currently they don't use it. >> Okay. So, let's assume being I can I have a crystal ball and a gentleman's going to stand up in a few minutes and say that he's not okay with the proposal that they don't have an easement. Are
you willing to grant the easement? >> Yes, >> absolutely. So, as as a condition of approval there, first of all, all of lot 26.02 is included in this application, and you will agree to enter into an easement
with the owners of I don't know what those two other lots are. >> Four and five >> lots and you can't just you can't just yell up, but but I I appreciate it. We'll get a chance, Jackie. According to their uh
site the cover sheet of their site plan, it looks like it's lot four is the the lot closest to to the property in question and lot five is the law office. >> Can you call up the site plan show? >> That is correct. >> Which let's just make sure that we get everything right
>> the cover sheet Sean >> right there. Good luck with that. All right. So, we're talking about lots four and five, >> correct? >> Okay. So, so you have, so as a condition of approval, you much you must give
easements to lots four and five, access easements. Now, the only rub on this is going to be what if uh you know they refuse to enter into the easements. Uh we can't you you rent that garage now. You do not own that garage.
>> I do not own the garage, >> but it's landlocked otherwise. >> Correct. >> That could that could potentially be I mean they might have sort of like >> has bridge
>> the garage doesn't. It's not well >> the property does, right? The garage does and it's always used it for probably going back like a hundred years. So that they they may they may have an easement by right uh o over that property. But he's willing to enter into
the easement and uh I mean that would be a condition but the problem board is going to be what if the and again I'm not trying to complicate this but this has to be dealt with. Um what if the people say no? Can I just can can we just cut to the chase? Can we just have this gentleman
come up and find out if he if he's going to say no to this or >> No problem. >> All right, sir. Why don't you come on up? Let's swear you in. >> Please tell us who you are and let me let me swear you >> swear you in. >> Do you swearing testimony you're going to give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the true self you got.
>> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Gary Carpenter. >> Gary Carpenter. Can you just spell I know how to spell Carpenter, but can you just spell it please? >> Spell your name. Your last name. D A R P N T E R. >> Okay. And what is your address, Mr. Carpenter?
>> I live in Middletown, 12 Castle Drive, but I property owner of of 55 North Bridge Avenue, which is lot point 4.01, lot 5 on the other corner lot that 4.01,
you know, I have one corner and and then the other party with the gas station is has the other corner on Riverside and and North Bridge Avenue. Are you saying you own a portion of >> I own the building? I own 4.0 uh 01 lot
five. The the law office. >> You own lot five? >> Yeah. That's number 55. >> I've had it for Yeah. What >> is that? Number 55, Carrie? >> It's 55 North Bridge. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, it's just lock five in block 4.01. >> Right. >> Okay. So,
>> and that that I get this is the first I've learned it. That alleyway is 26.02. that I've been there 25 years and that alleyway has been used initially that was designed to give access to the multif family homes that were built on
North Bridge Avenue that they were 45 ft or generally in width and on 50ft lots so you couldn't get a car from North Bridge Avenue so they had that access in the back to get to the garages and over the years the other you know the gas
station was actually years ago was a two family house Then in the 40s they took that down and put the gas station. >> So So putting the history aside, >> but I'm just get but but but the thing is that a few years no about about 20 years ago uh when we they developed a
lot to make a parking lot for Bervino. Um you know they I asked at the time I to pave the uh apron going into that alleyway and they said no we don't own it. you know, nobody owns it. I I did a
title search back to 1850. We couldn't find ownership of that that alleyway. I'm surprised now all of a sudden it's 2602 and and you know, they just assume ownership of it. I don't know. >> Well, well, I I think >> it was never sold, I don't think, with
these properties. It would >> Well, apparently it was I assume that's how they acquired it. It was assumed, >> right? So they they they have acquired it and they have a deed to it. I'm sure they have a title to it. So correct. Let's put all that aside. >> Yeah. >> All right. Are you willing to accept an
easement that would allow you to continue to use your property exactly the same way? Not to access your garage exactly the same way you access it today. >> Well, if they're going to assume their lot, you know, I would assume I'd rather have my five and a half feet of my of that property. You know, if joining
property owners back are are just getting that that land. I want the four the five and a half feet that I that that I own. >> You don't own You don't own any port. >> Well, how do they own it? Who did they buy it from? >> We bought a portion of it from the
burrow. We have a deed. It's been recorded. We did the same thing. We did a title search. We we got the information. We went back similarly uh to the to the e to the 19th century and
traced traced it back and back and back. And what happened was no one was paying taxes on it. Um and you're I'm sure you're familiar with that because you would have known if you were paying taxes on it. So no one paid any taxes on
it. So effectively it it the burrow designated it as a lot. We went to the burrow and said we have not been able to trace down anybody that is claiming ownership to this. We were in negotiations with the
burough. We reached an agreement. We purchased the property uh and now we are the owners of that property. >> And I did see >> this was not a vacation of a paper street. That was not the right not the
case at all. And there was uh in the in the there was a quick claim deed submitted along with the application. So let me mark since it's becoming a question. I'm going to mark that as exhibit 88 A8 as the quick claim deed just so we have it here. So so sir again
as long so they own they are now the fee simple title holder of that lot. So the question to you I think if the board approves the application >> he doesn't have to pay >> that. Yeah, that's the only way we can do it. And then it's the only way we can
do it. If they don't want to accept it, they don't want to accept it. >> What happens if the adjoining lot number four sold and that is developed? Will I have the option of buying that property?
>> You don't they don't own they don't own lot. >> The burough doesn't own lot four, I don't think. >> No. Lock four and five. Who are they buying from? What the burrow? He said he said he bought it from the burrow.
>> 26.02 they bought from the burrow part of it from the burrow and part of >> the portion of 2602 that adjoins my property and the property next door. Do we have the option of buying after the burrow? >> No. No runs from street to street. It's the
entire stretch. Yeah. From street to street. >> It is. >> So they're saying Gary, they're saying they'll give you an easement to use it. >> Oh, in other words, you bought that whole thing. You didn't just buy the section. >> No, we No, we bought the whole thing. >> It's one lot and they bought the whole thing.
>> Uhhuh. >> Feel free to make them an offer to buy your part. >> They was never offered. We never had an offer as a as a joining property owner. >> You wouldn't. It wasn't a paper street. >> I didn't mean to go off on a tangent on this, but but I think it all >> I'm just saying, you know, I mean, that
was >> Okay. So, in other words, they bought the whole thing, the property that's in the back of our property, too. Correct. All right. Okay. >> It's one lot. So So they couldn't have they would have to come in for a subdivision if they were going to subdivide it. No. >> All right then. All right. That take the
easement if you >> take take the easement. You're going to have the same rights and >> have to use it. But I I'll take >> Yeah. And Mr. McKenna will be reaching out to you at some point to offer you the to offer you the rights. >> Absolutely. >> So that's going to be a condition of approval that that you need to offer them the easement. I agree with you, Mr. McKenna. If they if either of the
property owners say we don't want the easement, that's not going to impact your approval. That's correct. >> Okay. All right. So, I think we we solved that. Again, I apologize, but I think it was an I think it was a necessary component to get that all wrapped into the application.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Nothing ever show. Okay. Good. Proceed. And I again Yeah. Thank you. Um and it looks like uh Sean has A7 back on the screen, which is the aerial exhibit zoomed into the site, which is in yellow. The only other things I want to point out real quickly on this before
we move into what's proposed. Um there are a couple situations where there are existing nonconformities uh with the site. Uh two of them are related to the building which is not being moved. Uh front yard to riverside uh 25 ft's required. It exists and will remain at
19.4 ft. and uh rear yard which because we're a quarter lot rear yard we're actually looking at the east property line is 25 ft required and it's uh 1 ft off the property line uh existing and will remained again because we're we're reusing this the structure
>> the other existing >> does the ordinance say you need there >> 25 ft >> okay so but you're picking up 11 with 2602 >> right correct so that one would go to 11 correct >> or 12 whatever We'll we'll check the
math when we append. But the important point is the building's not moving. Uh it's the same as it is today. If anything, that number does get better. Uh and then the final component is the unoccupied open space. 15% is required in the ordinance. As I mentioned, today
it's at zero. The entire site uh is or was paved. There was some remediation we talked about. So it's not all pavement uh but it's all uh coverage. So it's zero today. that will actually I'll go into the description, but that will actually be improved to 16.5%
which satisfies uh the ordinance. So, we're eliminating uh the variance there. So, that's that's the background of the site. Um now, if you could go to uh Shauna, the one on the end.
Well, and that would be I guess mark A9. So this is the alternate plan rendering. Uh it has today's date of April 8th, 2026. As I mentioned before when we were talking the site plans that are before the board um if if you don't mind just
leave it in the Yeah. And then I'll kind of go through um so as I mentioned uh in the beginning the site plans that are on file with the board uh are represented here. There's one uh minor change that I'll go through. Uh but what this is is again it's the site plan. We put the
landscaping on uh and color rendered it. It's the same orientation as what we're looking at with the aerial. So uh Riverside Avenue is on the left side of the page. Um and Bridge Avenue is at the bottom of the page. >> I'm I'm we're getting to that. Yeah. I'm going through the
>> just kind of going through what So again, you heard from the architect what's going to happen with the building. Uh that's going to be updated and renovated. No changes to the footprint there. The uh the walk-in that we talked about is you can see it here on the site plan in gray off the uh
southeast corner of the building that has the the smaller area that's in gray that would be the fenced enclosure uh for the for the trash containers. Everything that looks like red brick will be uh a brick paver type material that will provide some outdoor seating. Uh the entrance to the building is off
the truncated corner at the north uh west corner. Um and then everything beyond that on the site we're really trying to get organized. As I mentioned, everything was fully paved and covered. We're organizing this uh with curbing,
straight parking, uh defined entrance ways. Uh and I'll walk through that. Um I'll start on the south side because that's where the change is uh just to get that in for the board. So, originally we were using the entire paved uh width of the property and going
to the the south property line uh with the parking. What you see here is a shift of a little over 5t north to pull that off the property line. Uh that was the result of a call we had um with with Jackie and staff last week uh to pull
that off and create about 5 feet of space. Um in order to accomplish that, we narrowed the island uh around the billboard. The billboard is in that island that you see exactly in the middle uh of the paved area. That's where the billboard sits. So, we narrowed that island. Uh I think that's
about five or six feet as well. It's still landscaped. Um but that allowed us to create that space. We'll now put the fence. We're placing the chain link uh with a uh a vinyl uh solid fence in that area 6 ft high. We're also able to
provide uh some landscaping that you see along the edge of those parking spaces. along the frontages uh rotating clockwise. If you go to uh Bridge Avenue, we have the same driveway that exists today. The curb cut is the same. However, once you get into the site, you
can see that we're pulling the pavement back, defining that with curb. On that side, uh the pavement separation from the curb meets uh the ordinance uh frontage uh buffer requirement of 18 ft uh there. And you can see we have some landscaping in that area. There's a
rather large sycamore just south of that driveway uh that's going to remain uh and you can sort of see that on the rendering uh being circled. Now uh that's important because we are seeking waiver relief from driveway separation uh from the intersection. Uh that's a
60ome feet today. It will remain that distance. Um we'd have to take down a mature uh very nice sycamore in order to move that driveway. And because it's an existing condition, we feel like uh it's more appropriate just to to keep the driveway where it is and keep the tree.
As we move around again clockwise to Riverside Avenue, uh you'll see we're also pulling pavement uh off of the the right of way line. As I said there, that entire stretch is depressed curb. Uh as we understand uh there is a grant uh in
process for improvements along Riverside Avenue that will provide uh streetscape uh sidewalk and curb in that area. So we are not showing any improvements as that will be uh covered by the grant. But what we are doing is we're pulling several feet off the rightway line and
providing landscaping uh east and west along the length of that property line. We're also providing a series of ballards along the edge just in the landscaping along the edge of the uh seating area in order to protect that space uh from Riverside Avenue.
>> Uh as far >> thank you for mentioning the Ballards. I was working on a Tiger Woods joke in my head >> to talk to you about Ballards, but I'm glad you have them. That's >> we took care of that. >> Okay. >> Rob, are you also installing curbing in the island? Because I think that's
what we talked about. uh interior to the site. >> interior to the site. >> Yes. The So the the parking area that uh there's three parking spaces. One of them is Blue Handicap and then the end of that that will all be curbed. So >> No, sorry. I mean parallel to Riverside Avenue
>> uh in the right of way. No, >> on on your site on your side on your property to contain the landscaping and to provide additional protection from a Tiger Wood situation. and
>> the where's the north side of the landscaping? >> So, yeah, >> really on Riverside >> on Riverside, but on their property. So, you have all this depressed curb on Riverside, right? I'd like them to
protect the people sitting as much as possible by installing a full height curb that contains their landscaping, right? Like we would see on a landscape island. And the landscape island itself also has ballards in the middle for additional
protection. And then it's got landscaping in the middle. So it's it's it's like a landscape island with a full height curve. I thought that's what we talked about. >> I apologize. Uh Mark Whitaker, who's was in the meeting, is not here. I'm filling. >> I thought he said he needed it for for
grade changes, too. >> So he he was gonna he needed it to make the topography work as well. >> Yeah. I I there's not significant grade change. So adding, you know, 6-in curb would would affect that a little bit, I think, >> to prevent that situation of a car uh
coming through. Curb's not really going to solve that problem. Curb on a road is really just to provide guidance and separation. When you get into to safety, especially safety of the patrons, the ballards are 5T apart. So there's about 17 ballards in that space uh of seating
area. So we're not going to get a car that's going to be able to get between those five foot on center ballards. So, from a safety perspective, I think the Ballards uh do the trick. And then what what my concern would be is if we did anything in addition to that and then the sidewalk improvements came in, now
you've got some weird grade issues going on. So, we'd rather just have the the landscaping come right up to the right ofway line and then that'll match up uh with the sidewalk uh that comes in. >> So, is is it your hope that the grant will end up dealing with the curb that is currently depressed?
>> That that's our understanding. Yes. Yes, that's the hope. Um we're supposed to we received a grant to do um complete and green street improvement along Riverside Avenue. So the hope is to um rebuild the sidewalk for more pedestrian. >> I guess what I'd hope I'd see at some
point is your coordination with them to make sure that curb is there. Not that you know if if it takes two years I I would like to see the depressed curb go away. I didn't walk the site, but
you know, a tall enough curb might flip Tiger's car as he's coming around the corner recklessly. But um I would like to see the curb handled. Whoever does it at some point um in in association with the
application. Sean, I wasn't in the meeting with the uh when the bureau made their representation, but I my understood that my understanding was that they were going to do that. >> Is that correct?
>> Yes. Um the plans for the improvements of the sidewalk, they they aren't uh they haven't been solidified or planned completely as of yet. Um because we just received the grant and um it's going to
take a while to >> So if the town does it, great. But if they don't, you should do it. >> Some the grant falls through whatever they change their mind. Who the hell knows? There should be a real curb on river on along Riverside fronting this property,
not a depressed curb that would encourage someone to drive up it while everyone's out there eating pizza. So whether you do it or the town does it with the grant, I don't care. But I think it should be done one way or another
at some point. And you can enter into a developers agreement with the town or or you can come back here. I don't care. But I think if we if we had some understanding at some point in the near future on when the town was going to execute on the grant, that would I think
solve the problem for all of us. But if they don't for whatever reason, I think you should agree to replace all of that curb. >> And that could be a condition of approval, Mr. Chairman, that that if at some point the town declares they're not proceeding with the grant that they >> or they're not going to do the curb there or
>> they're not doing whatever the case may be that the applicant is responsible for doing that project. So, Miss McKenna, is your client willing to agree to that condition? >> Now, we need a couple of minutes. >> Okay. And and but before before you take your break because I'm still just for
clarification. This was called an alternate plan. >> What's alternate? Is this the plan that you're looking for approval on? >> Yes. >> But why is it alternate? >> So with the first thing I described, the only change from this to the as of submitted application is the 5ft shift
of those parking spaces and the narrowing of the island where the billboard is. That's the only alter. >> So So it's not it's not an alternate plan. It's a revised plan. >> Yeah. Revised plan. >> Okay. Because alternate usually means, you know, you can have this one or this one. >> No, it's a revised. >> It's revised. >> It's not A or B, right?
>> And before I understand now, so it's really it's really a revised plan. >> So So and the only other question I have out of curiosity that Iowa where the billboard is. I know it's not a done deal yet, but there is a very good possibility that billboard is going to be disappearing.
>> Yes. Very happy with it. >> And everyone would be happy if it does. If that billboard disappears, is that island still necessary? And and I don't I don't know. I mean, you tell me as the applicant, do you still want the island if if if the billboard disappears?
>> Yes. And I'll I'll explain why. Because on either side of the island, there's a 24ft drive aisle >> that is ordinance standard for backing out of a parking space and for two-way traffic. If you take a sixoot island out now you have 24 24 and six. So you've
got 54 feet of open pavement >> and that's fine. If it's I don't think that's >> Yeah. If you think it's it's better with an Iowa there regardless where the billboard's there then I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we that that >> that that be discussed because if the billboard goes away and you were going
to say yeah then we don't need the eye, you know, that should be discussed here too. I mean I don't carry the weight. If you think it's a better site plan that way then then so be it. That That's my opinion. I mean, I don't know. >> We want to keep >> Okay, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, you want your five minutes to talk about the curb?
>> About the curb? >> Yeah, please. If you don't mind, >> ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a five minute break. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, we are do a quick roll call to make sure everybody's back. Are you uh
>> Okay, we're going to continue with uh >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Christina Bonake. >> Oh, I can hold it. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank >> Luis Dementoto. >> Papa. >> Wilson BB
>> here. >> It's Hernandez. >> Hernandez did leave the meeting earlier uh at the very beginning of this application. So, she wouldn't be eligible to vote on it either. >> Go ahead. >> Right. >> So, uh, with regard to frontage
improvements on Riverside Avenue, our traffic engineer is also familiar with the the signal application that's going on as well and some other things. So, he's going to talk a little bit more about that. Um, so I'm going to table that and let let him talk about it. >> You passed the buck.
>> I I drew that well. Yes. What's good about going first to get um the only other thing I want to mention about uh access circulation, which I failed to mention, is uh I did when I first started. There's two driveways on Bridge Avenue today. One of them is right up on the corner. We will
be closing that. That one and uh anything that needs repair on Bridge Avenue will be done. curbon sidewalk there. That was uh in the letter. We'll do that. So, that driveway at the at the northwest corner of the property, that'll be eliminated, the one that exists today. So, what you're looking at
the plan is the only driveway coming off of Bridge Avenue centered on the property. >> Uh parking wise, uh the ordinance looks for 10 spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor area. In this case, that would require 17 spaces. Uh this project
has 17 spaces. uh six uh standard spaces at 9 by8 and one ADA space. Uh we're showing it as uh two 8 foot sections, an 8 foot space and 8 foot loading. We did review the uh uh letter from your engineer. We'll modify that to be 12 and
five. So the space is 12, the loading is five. That's compliant with the ADA that matches your ordinance, which therefore eliminates uh two waiverss uh that were originally uh in the application. and and they're exempt from EV because they're not uh they're not redoing the
parking lot. It's basically staying the same way that it is today. >> And true. Also, anything less than 25 commercial is not regarded. >> You're exempt anyway. Okay. Right. >> Right. >> Um so, uh again, waiverss related to parking. Uh parking in the front yard is
not permitted. Front of the structure or designated front yard in this case existing the entire uh paved area uh existed towards the front yard. Uh we do still have parking uh in that front yard towards Bridge Avenue. We're requesting waiver for that. Um I talked about the
driveway setback on Bridge Avenue uh as a waiver. I also mentioned uh the 18T safety island that's from the curb uh in the inside the street curb into the property uh to the first curb line is 18 ft. We do meet that on Bridge Avenue. We meet that to the parking space on
Riverside Avenue. We are uh a couple feet uh deficient. uh for the the we have a couple extra feet of turnaround from that last parking space by Riverside that uh gets us to uh
where are we? I'm sorry. Uh about a couple feet short. Uh so we're requesting uh relief there. Um again on on circulation uh this lot would accommodate a box truck. Uh however uh from an operational standpoint um any uh
deliveries uh will be handled uh coordinated with uh Beravino. Um pedestrian circulation again uh Bridge Avenue will have a new sidewalk uh access in through the parking lot through the uh handicap stall uh into the site will be accessible. Anything
coming uh from Riverside uh on the northeast side will have an opening. There's an opening uh into the uh patio area from 26.02 and from uh sidewalk on Riverside Avenue. Again, all utilities
uh are existing today. >> Yes. >> Could you just repeat what you just said about So, is there access to the parking lot from the alleyway 2602? >> Uh the paved parking lot, the the darker gray paved parking lot does extend up to
the alleyway for breakfast. Correct. >> So, there's ingress and eress through the alleyway. >> There is >> to the parking lot. >> Well, in the what I was referring to as pedestrian access in the northeast corner. So, if you're coming uh say
across the frontage of Riverside on the sidewalk into the site, you can cross through 26.02 into the uh patio area. >> But, but you're also saying cars can turn into that alleyway and enter the parking lot from the back. and vice
versa. >> Today there's a depressed curb. We are proposing to limit uh access there, right? We're going to go signage on that, >> right? >> Close it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So there there there will be no access in that direction on 2602
>> condition that you're going to close off >> Yeah. >> access to uh Riverside uh on to uh two 2602. >> Correct. >> Correct. But there would still be access from the other way. >> There has to be.
>> Yeah. For the >> uh I described some of the landscaping uh around the site. I'll just go into that in a little bit more detail as there are a few uh waiverss and variances associated. Uh one of which is is unique here. The the ordinance uh
requests 40 to 50 foot on center for street trees. our frontage trees that are the darker green circles, uh they range, um 20 to 30 feet. So, we tried to get a few more trees out there. I'll defer to the board if they like what we
have here, which is a few more trees. Uh or we could go to 40 foot on center, which would probably leave because we are going to lose the tree in the northwest corner because of the sight triangle. So, all the way by the corner, that tree will go away because of the
sight triangle. Otherwise, we would only have one on the north side of the uh driveway because of this 40 foot on center. And with the sycamore, we'd only have be able to add one more on the south side of the driveway. So, again, defer to the board. There's sort of a waiver on either side with how many
trees we're providing or meeting the 40 foot uh separation standard. Otherwise, I described uh the rest of the perimeter uh landscaping. the island next to the handicap space. Uh that will be uh a rain garden. So there's a
depressed curb uh going in just a narrow one, a couple feet that allow rain water to sheet flow from the parking lot into that as a rain garden and to recharge into the ground after discussing uh with staff. We're also going to do the same condition on the island where the
billboard is. So we'll provide uh a narrow depressed curve to allow sheet flow to get into that island uh to also act as a rain garden. Otherwise because of the size of this property uh we do not meet uh the the standards is a major development
requiring storm water. Uh so those rain gardens are really just provided for uh aesthetics and to provide some uh form of green uh recharge. Uh but we are below the threshold both for uh the burrow uh as well as the soil conservation district. Um, and because
we are reducing impervious and adding green space, we will have a net reduction uh in storm water. Uh, >> excuse me. I have one question for engineer Jackie. Do they need to to remove that corner tree or sight triangle?
I feel like that trees there really not going to block anyone entering the site from visibly seeing what they need to see. It always I hate It's It's Yeah, it's the intersection sight triangle, not the driveway sight
triangle. So, there's a You don't see it on here, but it's on the plan. It's 25 ft in either direction from the corner is the clear sight triangle. >> Okay. And just remind me again on 2602. Looking at the current state, I feel like a drunk Tiger Woods could just
drive down 2602 between Beerino and the gas station. So, what and you may have testified to this already. What are you doing to block 2602? Because right now, I could drive right down 2602. I mean, I'm looking at it. I could fit my car down there. What
are you doing to to block that off from >> So, so right now it'll be signed, but what we could do is we could put a planter box there that'll provide that would be a good idea just to cause a little concern in someone wanting to pull down that easement.
crash into Car's office on the way out. I mean, it all bad and she didn't bring him back. sometimes she wants me to come get him. >> So that um what about the other side of two 602? I know you have to provide the easement
to allow people off of whatever that street is uh to access the garage in lots four and five. But where it reaches this property above it, are you blocking that off also to stop the Tiger Woods from continuing down the street? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, so it would have to be do you need blocking on both sides of 26.02? >> No, no, no. So, definitely from Riverside Avenue. No, no aggressor egress there >> on for for 2602 coming from the south
into this property, the the this lot. Um, it'll be signed for no uh no access, but we're not going to physically restrict that. could drive their car all the way down from from what's the side street called?
>> Brower. >> Brower. So, someone could come down Brower. >> It'll be signed do not enter. >> Well, they're going to come down into Well, once they know that the place is there, they're going to drive down. Um, >> well, the people with the easement can ignore the do not enter sign,
>> right? >> No, the the do not enter is from here going south. So, I'll put a sign up >> off the other side. >> The other side of of >> the other side, >> right? >> No, no, no. Go, go, go, go. >> It looks like there's a >> right
>> probably a van a white van roof that you see there. We'll put a sign there that'll say do not enter. >> Wh Why Why don't you want to actually put some sort of blockage there? >> Well, didn't you say you're going to put a giant planter there? >> Yeah, we're going to put the planter on on Riverside to keep anybody from coming
in from Riverside. that that would without a doubt will be uh restricted because of the inter the interconnection with the state highway. >> Why would you want to invite vehicles to continue down Broward back up? >> Because someone's going to do it whether
there's a sign there that says don't do it or not. Why would you not want something to block it? >> So, not to punt again, our traffic engineer is here. I think it's not that we're inviting people to do it. Um one of the comments came up is that it's gravel. We're going to leave it gravel
because we don't want to encourage or invite people to to look at that as a >> encourage it, but people are going to do it. >> If if it's if it's if it's 1:00 a.m. and I'm drunk and I want or I'm sort of drunk and I want a piece of pizza and
this is a nice place to go to. I don't know if you're going to be over to one or whatever, but I would be if I was a pizza place in Redbank. Um, you're going to and and they can't get in there because those parking lots are full. you're going to drive down there and park along the street.
>> So, our traffic engineer will get in details. I don't know that there's any negatives associated with the use of that 26.02 to get to Brower, >> right? We're not going to encourage it. We're going to sign it. Do not enter. >> Is there any >> but for people to come the other direction?
>> Is there any separation from the main route? Is there going to be a fence? >> No, >> there's nothing. So, I could drive down Broward and pull into this parking lot regardless of whether you have a no do not enter or not. I mean, I don't know if the board cares or not, but the board should be aware of that.
>> Well, I I think it was. Yeah. >> So, again, >> our traffic engineer, >> that's fine. >> Yeah. >> It's not restricted, right? you you have both directions going cuz
the garage needs to be accessed. You you're not it's not going to be a oneway out. >> I understand that. But but if there was no if you I just want the board to be aware that if you have the access all the way through into this lot, people regardless of whether they put a sign, do not enter. People are going to drive
down that that alleyway >> and to enter into the parking lot. Yeah. Or whatever. I mean, but people are going to know because if you're familiar with the site, you're going to know that you also can exit that way. >> This is a a valid conversation,
>> but it's not for you. >> It's Yeah. Right. Right. So, I don't want to go too far down this road without you being able to hear from our traffic engineer. >> Good. Well, it's almost my bedtime, so speed it up. >> I'm trying. Um I don't have much left. Um lighting. Uh we have about uh 15 16
foot highlights. uh 16 foot 15 foot highlights throughout the site to provide adequate safety. Uh they'll all be LED lights. Um we saw notes uh in the engineering review letter. We'll be doing some modifications based upon the narrowing of the island and the ability to put some lights on the south property
line. Everything will satisfy the halfoot candle uh requirements as well as satisfy uh any spillage standards on site. So lighting uh will be appropriate. Uh last thing I want to talk about uh is the freestanding sign at the corner. U it exists today uh
identifying uh the gas station uh Bridge Avenue Gas. Uh that structure will remain uh where it is. It does exist just north of uh the property line slightly in the rightway. We intend to reuse it, reuse the structure and the
base. Um we will uh be refacing it so that it uh shows uh the restaurant as well as welcome to Redbank on there today. Uh the sign area is 54 square ft. Uh we would not go larger than 54 as we redo it. Um 10 ft is allowed. So we
would ask for continuation of that existing nonconformity. The sign is 20 ft high. Uh again we'll not go higher than 20 ft uh with any modifications. Um the ordinance says six feet high. Uh because this is a corner property and a corner sign, we do want
to excuse me maintain under clearance uh within that sight triangle uh for visibility. So we we need under clearance of 8 ft. So the six feet really doesn't uh doesn't work anyway, but we will stay within what's there today. Uh I'd mentioned the setback proposing to keep that the way it is.
And uh the illumination uh we are proposing to continue with the uh internal illumination uh for the side. Uh I went through a lot of uh a couple variances and a number of waiverss as I
went through this uh and provided the testimony. As I mentioned, most of the uh waiverss that are in the letter are either eliminated by the design modifications. They're reduced in general by the overall improvements to the site uh or there are things that
remain the same. So where that leaves us is we've got a site, we have an adaptive reuse of an existing building, improvements to the site, uh and we're looking at uh the variance and waiverss um really in a in a a C2 uh capacity
where we're looking at the positive and negative criteria. Um so I just want to point out quickly three uh purposes of the municipal land use law that are uh benefited from this application. One is light air and open space. As I mentioned, um the uh building coverage
is the same which is meets the ordinance standard. The impervious coverage is being reduced. So, we're improving that. We're providing therefore additional um space for vegetation uh and and trees and shrubs. Uh item B is to encourage uh
location and design of transportation routes to promote free flow of traffic uh resulting uh such facilities and routes which will result in congestion and blight or discouraging that in this case again we're going to eliminate uh
any veicular access uh from uh Riverview Avenue. We're going to take away an access at the corner on bridge and limit oursel to a single access to the site which is a significant improvement from a uh traffic and transportation uh standpoint. And item number three uh is
to promote desirable visual environment through creative development uh techniques and good civic design. Again, adaptive re reuse is a great um tool uh to promote purpose eye. There we're using existing building. Uh we're improving it aesthetically. Uh we're
aesthetically improving the landscaping by providing some where almost none exists and we're improving uh traffic circulation. So I think we're promoting uh purpose eye. Um with all of that notwithstanding negative criteria uh everything really with this site is a mitigation of uh anything that's there
today and a significant improvement. So I don't see any substantial negative criteria. And with that, uh, again, you'll hear some traffic testimony, but overall, um, related to the variance, which aren't really related to traffic and circulation, uh, with the positive criteria and lack of substantial negative criteria, it's
my opinion that there's no substantial detriment to the public good through granting these variances, and that granting these variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose uh, of the zone plan. Uh, that's all I have. Uh, I tried to incorporate anything from the engineering review
letter into my testimony. If there's anything I missed, I'll be happy to go through it with you. >> They will be on the roof. >> Okay, sir. >> Yeah, >> I got it. >> Does anyone else are on the roof? >> Yeah, correct. >> Does anyone from the board have any questions for Is it Fruit or
>> Fruit? Fruit regarding his testimony. >> Anyone from the public have any questions for Mr. Fruit? Come on up, sir. Use the mic. Give us your name and address. Comments later. >> Comments later. Questions regarding his testimony. Yeah, you got to hang on till
the end to tell us you'll love it or hate it. Sorry. >> All right. Next. John McCormack, traffic engineer. >> Mr. McCormack, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, only about the true self you got? Yes, I do.
>> And just state your name, spell your last name for the record. >> Yes. John McCormack. C O R M A C K. >> And you are a licensed uh PL traffic engineer. You're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey and your license is in good standing. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. That's all we need. Go ahead.
>> John, you were retained by the applicant in this matter to conduct a traffic study which you have submitted to the board. Uh but perhaps we could go directly to some of the issues that have been brought up. >> Yeah. um accelerate the uh timing. >> Yeah. Because never in the history of
the world has a traffic engineer that's been hired by the applicant ever testified that their application sucks. >> That's never ever happened. >> I'm going to tell you why this one is really good. >> Yeah. Well, do it quickly and then get to the other stuff we talked about. >> I understand
>> because I realize you want to say that it's a good application. I get that. >> I I understand. >> I don't want to take all night. >> Um so the way I look at it, this project has significant safety benefits. traffic ends. We're cleaning up the access. You've already heard that the frontage. We're reducing significantly the
activity that could come and go from the site and and I'll talk about in a minute. We have this gateway aesthetic improvement that we are going to we are going to tie into and have a seamless frontage. We did provide a traffic impact study dated February 25th. It talked about access trip generation
comparison, etc. I'll hit the highlights. Some of it Rob hit, but I'll just hit it succinctly here so that we can then talk about uh anything you you you need for for access. Riverside Avenue, DOT's jurisdiction. Currently, as Rob said, there's 130 ft of open
curb. Under the proposal, there'll be none. We're closing the entire frontage for vehicular access. It's a significant safety improvement, not only for the drivers entering, exiting the site, but also for the drivers coming into town and driving past the site.
Bridge Avenue, municipal jurisdiction. Right now, there's two full movement driveways. One of them, as Rob mentioned, is so close, it's in front of the stop line. So, that driveway is being closed. We are cleaning up and leaving the the south driveway in the
same location as it is today. We are proposing a do not block the box pavement marking in front of the driveway to make sure the driveway stays clear for our turning movements in and out. Brower Place is off the back. It's off to the right of the the image. We're
We I'm calling this the locals's driveway, right? This is currently it's a driveway. It's an alley. It's a lot. We've talked about it. We are going to maintain it exactly as it is. We propose it to be an entrance only for our site.
What that means is on the blacktop at the top of the page here, we're proposing do not enter signs and things to restrict vehicle exit from our site onto the alleyway onto that lot. Um, we
want to sign it obviously however we can do that. We want to maintain it as one way. There's really only there's only 100 ft of length between what you can see colorized in the rendering and Brower. doesn't seem like a lot. Someone may use it. I don't think it's the end of the
world if someone does. It's about 12 feet when you really look at it. But we we acknowledge that it's too narrow and it should be signed as one direction. We want it to be entrance. >> Um >> from Broward >> from Brower. Yes.
>> Talk for a second about traffic generation in the comparison. Um obviously it's a significant reduction the restaurant. >> Can you just go Can you go back now? Yes. >> No. Because before you said you were going to put a signage up on Broward
indicating do not enter. >> No. >> That's what was said before. >> No. >> So, so now so now the signage is going to be where saying do not enter from the parking lot. >> So the if you if you come to the top of the parking lot at the top of the screen there's that beige garage on the right side.
>> Yeah. There's going to be signage somewhere right there that is facing into the parking lot so that if you're in the parking lot, you are dissuaded from going out the alleyway. We are trying to maintain the alleyway as an entrance. Obviously, lots four and lots five, if
lot five wants to use it, can use it as two-way because of the magnitude and volume of traffic associated with those two lots. We want to use it as a oneway in. Similarly, we just discussed when you come to the top of the parking lot and
the uh cooler and the trash fence is on your left. We were going to put some signs there. We can enhance that with a planter box or something like that so that no vehicle can possibly go between the two buildings and out to Riverside. >> Right. That's not I think everybody gets
that one. Yep. >> And you're going to put a planter on the north end as well. to restrict people >> to restrict anyone coming in. Eventually, and I'll get to that, there will be a full height curb, so you won't even be able to get off a Riverside onto
that lot. >> Well, you shouldn't be able to >> unless Tiger Woods is driving you, >> okay? >> Right. >> So, are you agreeing So, you agreeing to what the chairman had suggested before? Is that what I'm hearing? That you'll take it on if >> So, all right, let's talk about this the
curbon sidewalk. So the curbon sidewalk, as we understand it, there's a burrow grant to do streetscaping in and around this area. There's also a burrow application before the DOT to put a traffic signal at Bodman.
I will say associated with the VNA building, but not conditionally associated with it. That application is more than halfway through DOT. We have gotten positive comments. that traffic signal is going to happen. Along with that traffic signal, there are
streetscape improvements, as you would imagine, coming out of Bodman going all the way down Riverside uh to the corner, which is just off the left of this image. There are sidewalk improvements in front of Beravino's driveway because Berraino's driveway is now part of the
traffic signal. That application can be amended in our next revision set of plans to include sidewalk and curbing from the Beravino's driveway to Bridge Avenue. So, there'll be two shots at it. Either the burrow
does it with a streetscape improvement grant or the burrow, because it's a burrow application, will do it as part of the traffic signal and streetscape installation. And are you okay with that curbing needing
to be done prior to a CO issue? >> We would respectfully ask that that not be a condition of CO because of the uncertainty of whether it's a burrow streetscape grant or it's the Bodman traffic signal improvement. So, the damn
thing could take 10 years. And ideally, it shouldn't, but I I'm not comfortable with this location being developed and open. I mean, let's you call it a depressed curb on Riverside Avenue. The
curb is is flat with the road. It's so depressed. I mean, it makes Light 1929 look like, you know, I don't know what summer camp. It's it's clearly at grade. That's right. That's what the press curb is. >> Yeah. So, I mean, you know, it's it's
not there. It's there. It's underground. >> Yeah. It's an open. >> So, I am uncomfortable with with this place opening, due respect, without that curb and ballards being done. >> Well, no. All right. So, the Ballards and the landscaping that you see on the
Riverside edge will absolutely be done. It's just whether the curb that rides along Riverside Avenue and the 4 foot of sidewalk will be done. Quite honestly, a a curb is not going to stop an errant
vehicle. The Ballards are okay. >> Yeah. They only got to be 5 feet apart. The ballards, >> right? They're seven feet. Okay. >> All right. Keep going. >> Okay. Um
This is off topic, but you just you touched on the the traffic light. >> Yeah. >> Um, remind me at the traffic light. So, there's landscaping. There's sidewalk along Riverside. Yep. >> That stops right now where there's
landscaping for Beravino. That's all going to that sidewalk is going to continue all the way down. >> Yes. >> So, the landscaping is going to be cleared, right? That's >> Yes. Currently, the application in front of DOT includes the entirety of the Beravino frontage
because we're tying into the driveway with the traffic light. We're coming down in front of the Beravino building and currently it stops at 2602. Now, what we will do, the next revision plan we submit to the DOT, we will extend that streetscape, that curb
sidewalk from 2602 to Bridge Avenue. Okay. and board. I've also agreed like so Saxom and the burrow needs an easement onto my property. I've agreed to give that easement at no cost to allow that
to happen because I think it's a safety hazard and it needs to be done and it should have been done years ago. It's obviously a very very dangerous situation. So now there'll be a traffic light and curb all the way in front of Beerino and that's part of that easement
process and what is already approved and >> and a safe left turn into your site for you. >> Correct. I mean if you want >> southbound vehicle >> right if you want meatballs and spaghetti you want to come in safely. >> I get it. >> You're right though, Dan. That's exactly
right. >> Makes makes great sense. We talked about it forever and everybody said, "Oh, no. State will never do it." >> So, I'm amazed. >> They're going to do it. >> They're very close. >> We're very close. >> Amazed. That's great news. >> I remember Mr. Mayor Mana looked at me and said, "I don't know." But okay.
>> And and sure enough, we're very close. >> Good. >> Okay. Um there's nothing else here in my notes. I mean, I we've said it all unless you have any questions for me or Jackie has any questions. I'm going to touch on the left in the restricted movement of the driveway. In our letter,
we suggest that they only have left in and um right in right out. They're they're asking for full movement >> for both driveways >> for >> there's only one drive their driveway on bridge. >> So, they're asking to be able to make a
left out of their driveway on bridge. They're going to solve that by um striping the a box on the roadway. So, >> I don't think a left on on
bridge is is all that necessary with >> Yeah, but you're you're not encouraging people to exit the easement on 2602 to Brower. I get that. one way that way, >> right? But I could turn right out of your driveway, right on Riverside and go
wherever the hell I'm going without necessarily having to turn left south onto Bridge Avenue. >> Well, what I'll say is the driveway is existing. It's been there forever. It was a gas station with tremendous amount of activity. The activity has dried up
significantly with the change in use. The do not block the box will help maintain clear space and clear sight line. The traffic signal, the phasing of that signal is very clear that there is a significant portion of two the two
minutes in the cycle there is no vehicle coming down bridge. So there are significant gaps. Um we would respectfully request keeping the full movement there. It locks his sight up if they can't, you
know, if somebody can't make that left, it just it just messes up. >> Turn right and go >> and go the they'll give up and go the other way. I mean, cars coming south over the bridge haul ass into that intersection >> and see the stop sign a little too late
for or the the speed limit sign a little too late for your driveway because that speed limit sign is is further south along that curb with >> uh the lighthouse. So that's my worry is cars coming in the
same way that we didn't want cars turning north out of the old Exxon station >> with that other application. >> But as I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, there is a very clear distinction when that light turns red for southbound R35 or
Riverside. Soon as that light turns red, if you think about it, recctor place, they do not make the 180 degree turn and turn into bridge. And no one can come from Molly Pitcher and make a left onto bridge. So there is a very distinct gap
in the traffic where there is no one coming south from the traffic light along bridge. >> That's true. >> You know what? Perhaps I could offer this as an alternative.
Suppose we leave it as two-way. However, we put a condition in that in the event that traffic safety the traffic safety division of the Burough Police Department thinks that there's a problem and they
want to change it. We're consenting to allow them to change it. >> I'm okay with that. I like that. Okay. That way if it does end up being a problem, then we're everybody's going to be okay.
>> You'll sign it right turn only. >> If that's the case, we would sign it right turn out only or no left turn. >> Right. Either way, maybe both. >> Okay. would say that it can be a right and left on the bridge unless the police department or traffic safety officer
unless traffic safety officer >> determines it to be unsafe. >> Yeah. Determines it to be unsafe at which point it will only be a right turn out >> and and yes and included in that is as as of today or as of if and when we're
approved and it's bu it's construction's completed it'll be you can take a left. However, if it's determined by the traffic safety officer and the the Burough Police Department that they they
take the position that it's unsafe, then we are going to be required to to cooperate and do it. >> And you're not going to come in here and ask for relief from that? No. When the time comes? >> That's exactly right. >> Okay. >> Okay. It's going to be it'll be a right
turn only with proper signage if uh >> if request >> if request by traffic safety offic. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Because nobody wants to see anybody get hurt. It's it's just that if if in I I think Mr. McCormix I great respect for his his uh perception and I
would say that I agree with his opinion. However, if we're proven wrong then then we've got to change. >> Okay. I like that. >> What else you got? >> That's it. >> Excellent. Does anyone from the board have any
questions for Mr. McCormack? >> Anyone from the public have any questions for Mr. McCormick? This isn't your chance to complain or comment yet, but you're getting closer. >> Yeah. Is it really going to be the proportions that are in the submission? >> Big do you want it to be? I want it to
be exactly as you sent in the application that we have because I think it looks fantastic. >> Can we see that? >> Yeah. >> It looks like the welcome to Redbank is perhaps twice the height of the RO sign >> in proportion. If you like it that way,
we would love to make it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm fine with that. >> And I think I don't know what the hell what do you got the logo of Red Bank or something on top? >> Yeah. It's basically your logo. We took it from um some images that I think
Shauna gave to to us. >> We'll get a good version of it before you build the sign because this is glorious as hell. >> No, >> we'll we'll let you approve it before we go. >> No, I don't want to do that. You send it to Jackie to approve. I don't want to look. >> Just a quick question. So, the lighting on the um signage and the lighting on
the building, it's going to be ROS is going to be um halo light lighting, the halo lighting. But is there internal lighting for the welcome to Redbank sign? >> How would you like it to be lit?
>> How would the board like it? I would just like it to be lit >> internally or externally. >> You know, I don't love internally lit, but externally is a pain in the ass to do. >> I I don't care how you light it, whether it's internal or external.
>> No LED. >> You do care. I care. >> Okay. What do you care then? Tell everybody what you care about. I want to hear it. Internal or external. >> I know we don't love internally lit signs. It's facing the uh the river
which we don't permit but signs facing the river. >> It is existing. >> Not welcome to Redbank. >> No, >> the sign is >> the sign is existing. >> The existing sign for the gas station,
however many square feet it was, is that what you're suggesting you're not increasing the size of with including Welcome Red Bank and ROS. Correct. >> Correct. >> I mean, it's barely facing the roof. >> Does anyone else have an opinion about
this? >> I kind of love mirroring the existing sort of retro form of that sign, just changing the >> style. >> Yeah. >> So, internally lit.
>> If it's internally lit today. Currently, it's internally lit >> and it'll be turned off when >> with the light. I I you would want to see welcome to Redbank when it's dark, I guess. 4 I whatever you Whatever you
guys want. >> What do we normally >> 2 a.m. 4 a.m. I don't know. Um, >> our lights at Berino are on from dusk till because of safety and people in the parking lot and our cleaning crews to 4:00 a.m.
Our general lights in the parking lot, our light signs, everything goes out at 4. I would whatever you would >> How um do you know what time the building is going to be open? Your restaurant's going to be open. >> I think it was 11 or 12 in in your
>> Yeah. And I like we we said Rallow's Pizza. I mean it's going to be >> off at 11. >> It's going to be some kind of whatever we decide some kind of restaurant and they you know whatever. It's kind of a placeholder but >> right >> it whatever like it'll be like Beervino
hours like I would say on Beervino like during the week by 11 o'clock we're pretty much done. Maybe midnight on Friday and Saturday 9:00 10 o'clock on Sundays. Um, but we said 12 o'clock. I >> So the RO sign was going to be off by
the whenever Barabino's same. >> Yeah. Currently, >> let me just let me just jump in a second because I want to make sure people come into meetings all the time and they give time closures. They're not meant to be conditions of approval unless the board specifically wants them to be conditions
of approval. And I tend to not like you must close your business by 11:00 >> to be I I I understand trying to get an idea but ra rather than make it because I don't think he should be re it's not my opinion it's not my concern but I mean it's not I don't get the vote but
board has to be very very careful because if you say it it's off by 11 then the business got to be closed by 11 and I don't think that's what the board wants. So, you're probably better off to say, uh, the lights need to be turned off with an hour after they close or or something like that.
>> That's a good idea. >> So, just just to protect you. >> Well, how about So, you have they're going to be on the same switch, whatever's on that board, the RO and the red bank. >> Yeah. So, you would want the red welcome to Redbank sign shut off when it's >> I I the only reason why I'm concerned is
because we get these random calls from neighbors that across the street complaining that the lights on and your neighbor is going to be a residential. >> But who's that facing? It's facing the new Saxon building. Oh, okay. Right. Right. >> So, you'll have people that call in that
move into that building and for some reason that light disturbs them. So, that's just my >> Can it be dimmed? I don't think they're dimmable, but we'll we'll agree an hour after we close, we'll shut the >> I think that's the >> I think that's a good idea. Yeah, that's great. We'll set a timer so an hour
after we close it goes off. >> That's >> only because I I know these complaints are going to come because someone moves in there and somehow the light is disturbing them. >> All right, I'm going to call it, for lack of a better term, the the standalone sign. >> Yeah. >> All right. One hour after closing,
standalone sign will be shut off. What else you got to add? >> Got it. >> Does anyone else have >> answer your request? >> Thank you. >> And so past my bed. >> Uh, does anyone else on the board have any questions or comments regarding the
application? Ladies and gentlemen of the public, if you have any comments you'd like to make, please come up. Come on up, sir. You've been very patient. Tell us who you are, where you live, and you can go from there. Sir, I'm going to swear you in. Do you swearing testimony?
>> Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, help you God? >> I do. >> And just state your name spelling your last name for the record. >> Eric Was w >> and your address and is Eric E R I C. >> Correct. >> Okay. And what's your address, Mr. Wilas?
>> 53 Leroy Place Redband. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> All right. Well, I'm again this is a good segue into what I wanted to talk about. Uh I'm uh a member of the of the environmental commission on the green team and I did receive these plans from Shauna. We did respond to them. I don't
know if any of them looked at our uh responses. I didn't hear anything up there. >> We have we have them and we actually marked them into evidence as exhibit your environmental commission. Yeah, that's exhibit B3. >> Yeah, I have
uh I did just do some pullup pictures. Everyone's familiar with this obviously it's been there since last century. So it's kind of a this is the gateway to Redbank and this is what you see and I brought you know here here's the >> Mr. W I don't know if we're picking you up. Can you can you just talk straight
into the microphone please? >> Okay. I'm sorry. This is the uh Well, this is like I say has been here. >> All right. So so so we need to mark these in. I'm going to mark them in as exhibit W. I'll mark them both in as as W1 and W2. Wocus one and one and the
first one's going to be what exists today. >> Existing exists today and W2 is going to be what's proposed. Go ahead. >> Correct. Okay. Well, it's an improvement, but I don't think it's that great of improvement. And Shauna brought up a good point. When they build the
condos next door, if I'm an owner of one of those condos, I'm going to have that sign right outside my window. And if I spend a million dollars on a condo, I don't want a pizza sign shining through my window. And the other issue too, internal and external lighting. External lighting is preferred. Down lighting is
preferred. The uh design light uh consortium that uh JCPNL and other utilities use for dark skies and development of lighting for quality of light protection of wildlife. You know, recommends down lighting to cut down on
light pollution. So having a sound sign with down lighting with the lights paced externally with the lights facing down is the preferable method. Also a light temperature of like 4 or three I'm sorry 3,000 K is preferable too which is kind of like a yellow light. You want to
eliminate reduce as much of the vi violent blue light that you can. So those are things that should be taken into consideration on the plans the architect had put on on there and had wanted to mention before on the side of the building he has these up- down lights on it where the light shines both
directions they should be replaced with just downfacing lighting again light pollution it's nothing to do won't interfere with security or anything and still I think aesthetically would still look just as nice but it should be downfacing light >> you mean that light on the corner above
the entrance and and along ong each side of >> these. If you look on the on the building plan, I think he knows what I'm talking about. They're they're >> they're they're up there. >> They're along the side on the pillars there. It looks like. Yeah. See, they're facing up. They should be facing down >> only. They're facing up down. They
should face down. >> And you just put the lights up higher, I guess. Should be down. The other thing that was mentioned was the uh the roof. I know you got the rain garden. I'm not sure if the the run off the water from the roof will go into the
rain garden or not. That just I just wanted to mention that's not the case. But the the main issue really is is the signage front. Again, this is this is a gateway entrance to Red Bank. And again, we had like what two gas
stations, I guess, as the entrance into Red Bank. Is that really what you want Red Bank to be represented by? >> No. >> No. I'd rather have a pizza place than And I I'm great. I'm so grateful they're putting the pizza place in there. If they're piece as good as their areti,
then it's going to be great. But I don't think they need a sign. I think the word of mouth and uh the quality of the food is going to be enough to make that business go. Plus, they got the sign on the building. So, I don't really think they need a street sign. Uh what Redbank
needs though is a street sign, a welcome to Redbank sign. Doesn't have to be 20 feet up in the air. Can be down near the ground. And a good example, >> well, it's in the air because of the sight visibility, the sight triangle. If you put it too low to the ground, it's
causing a a a problem with cars turning the corner, not being able to see properly because you can turn. >> The sign can be eliminated. We don't need the sign. >> Well, you just said you want a welcome breadbank sign. It needs to It needs to be up in the air. >> I don't think it needs to be 20 ft in
the air. I And plus a tight triangle doesn't have to be right in the corner. can be inside relatively close. >> It does have to be up in the air because you under my lease with the billboard company I can't block the billboard. So if you look at that sign currently the
sign is above the billboard and the reason it is there is because of sight triangle and because of the billboard. So >> below the bill billboard how many feet is the billboard up? >> The 18 ft. But the problem is if you go below the billboard then it's a sight
triangle problem for the engineer >> in the corner be the inside so it's doesn't interfere with the sight triangle >> I don't hate it >> I'm not talking about it >> I don't hate it >> okay well I just the only example I have I found in highlands which how they got
this the beautiful entry signs says a lot about highlands plus it gives all the opportunityities that go mr >> can you just tell us what that is that you are holding Because >> Oh, I'm sorry. This is a representative example of a sign at Red Bank.
>> And what is it though? >> I'm sorry. >> Is that on That's on route 36 before you go down to into town. >> Correct. >> Along route 36 before you go down like if you're going to the ferry or to downtown because I think this is just a good example that you can come up with
anything you want. that was something I spotted and uh and I thought because underneath the sign you can see it has all the different little uh >> activities that are going on in the town. Hey, if you're coming across the bridge, you want to know when the the street fair is coming on. You want to know when they're going to
>> Oh, don't worry. They'll put up 9,000 signs for the streets. >> This is probably one of sight line. That's perfect sightine people coming off the bridge. But again, doesn't have obviously you don't want to block the traffic. You just have to bring it in a little bit so it doesn't block traffic.
So >> sir, can I ask? >> It doesn't have to be parked. Well, >> can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> Are you aware of the discussions that we've had with the bureau concerning >> concerning what the burrow wants? Because if you had been in on any of
those discussions, you would have heard a different point of view. That's all that's all I'm suggesting to. Okay. And I I I appreciate and respect your opinion and your right to have your opinion. >> That's not what we heard when we met with burough officials
>> and what what the bureau >> wanted. So >> Okay. Well, all right. I if I could meet with the burough officials and discuss this with them, I'd be glad to. But uh in my opinion, I think that the sign is too high. I don't think it's that much of improvement over what we had before.
Uh, I I love the welcome to Redbank, but I think we could do a lot better. And this is an opportunity to do it. So, just do it. And again, the sighteline issue I don't think is is really an issue because the sign could just be put back. I can't believe not having the sign up in the air is going to affect
your business whatsoever. This is you guys, like I said, you make good food, word of mouth, and and you got plenty of signage right there on the building. You you'll do fine. This is just unnecessary really
>> this this sign is is a product of discussions with the bureau. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's fine. >> And can I just >> opinion >> everybody at the bureau and discuss this them as well. And can I just confirm the the base of
the sign will be the existing base or are we will it be a new sign just conforming to the similar >> it'll be in the same location >> in the same location. >> But it'll be a new sign. >> A new sign. >> Yeah. >> But the base the base is exactly the same. The supports the base exactly the same
>> where where it says Bridge Avenue Gas. Obviously that would come down and would be replaced by what you see there. >> Got it. I mean I I agree um that this is it's it's important it is a gateway when we did the master plan our you know our planners also expressed a lot of ideas
we did you know a study just in this area because it is really important right and we have an opportunity to get it right you know they had other ideas you could do something sculptural like what really speaks to Redbank >> um but at the same time I also appreciate you know there is something a little bit historic about that sign even
its placement it's familiar to people and I like that you're preserving that Um, would you be open, Mr. Row, to and I I know there have been discussions already, but would you be open to doing a review with the the visual arts committee for the final appearance of
that sign? >> As as long as that the post of the sign stays as it is and our sign, we split it. >> Yeah. however you want the red bank portion of it to look. If someone gives us the design, we'll
give that to our sign people and they'll put up that sign as you like. The design of the Red Banks sign is I I think it is very important and whatever the town or the burrow decides, we would be glad to put up in that space.
>> Okay. Yeah, that would be great. I mean, just throw some folks who have some great visual ideas still conforming to these parameters. It could also be something to your point like maybe we want to minimize um the the light. So similar to what's shown, it's a black
background with white lights if it's internally lit. So we're being sensitive to that. So I'd love to get some other folks thoughts. >> All right. I I just want to make sure that I have this right. So the ROS portion and understanding it's probably not going to be called Rollins and it's just as All right. So the Rollins
portion of that sign would remain and because Mr. RA is only talking about the welcome to Redbank sign and that's all you're talking about going to visual arts committee. >> Yeah. The the the >> the upper half of it >> portion. >> Yes. The the the sign identified the business part would stay exactly as it is.
>> Yeah. >> As long as it's not crazy if they come up with something that's reasonable like you know Picasso is not designing it >> and and they work together. I mean, honestly, I'll tell you if we literally took the same block letters of the Bridge AB gas, but said welcome to Red
Bank or like that would look cool to me, but I would want someone to, you know, >> Well, that's just that's the sign that's used kind of the welcome to Red Bank sign that's been used. So, we put it up there. Yeah. >> If there's some other display that you would like, >> we would agree to to use in that
display. >> Right. So, I'm going to put work in conjunction with visual arts committee. >> Okay. >> And and Mark, I'm just curious about the billboard. Does that have to be there >> right right now?
>> Yeah, the billboard has to be there right now. There's a long-term lease with the billboard. There is a pending potential settlement with the in the zoning in a zoning board case that would eliminate that billboard, but it's not definite. Mr. Row has no control over that.
>> We fought for its removal. >> Yes, I know you wanted. >> I've been here a lot, >> but but it's not under your control. You could not you he could not remove that billboard if he wanted to, >> which he does. >> I bought this I bought the the property subject to that lease and that billboard,
>> right? >> How long it is that lease for >> currently to uh 2041. >> And then it probably has a right of renewal. >> No, it it doesn't. >> But that's the lease that Jimmy signed. We have we've we've made some
concessions with with uh out outfront and I know that the town is working hard. >> Yeah. Without >> hopefully it will be going away >> and maybe imagine if every day someone pulling out of one of those parking spaces knocked the sign over with their
car. At some point they're going to say enough. We don't need this sign anymore because every week they have to come and have somebody put it back up. That would be okay. >> Yeah. That's that's another job for Tiger Woods. You're right. That's true. >> Thank you, U Mr. Wilus. Appreciate it.
Anyone else from the public have any comments, questions? Love it, hate it, anything else you want to say? Gary, come on up. Mr. Carpenter, you're still under oath.
Uh, I want to address the Brower Street entrance to the uh access road that goes to at 2602. Right now, there's no sidewalk on that 11 foot stretch. Uh when Beravino uh
developed their property in 2005, they put a new parking lot in. There used to be a a house there. They the town required them to put in 110 ft of sidewalk. When I developed my property in 2001, the town required me to put in
130 feet of sidewalk between uh Bridge Avenue and the end of my property. But there was that 11 foot spot between us, between Mr. Roll's property and mine that nobody seemed to own. And the town
never put a sidewalk in there, so it's never had a sidewalk. And um and and actually the grade doesn't comply with anybody. If the town would go out and inspect it, it does not does not comply with the ADA recommendations. You
couldn't you couldn't get a wheelchair or a stroller or anything. It's so uneven. So that has to be, you know, graded and a sidewalk put in. >> Is there a driveway apron now to come off of >> driveway apron? But the apron only goes
back about five feet. And the the then there's about four feet or three feet. It's just gravel. And um if you wanted to inspect it, um you'd see that there's no sidewalk. It just doesn't go back all
the way. And it's gravel. And um and so it's it's really uh one of the few spots in the town that is just no sidewalk. Just never been a sidewalk. Um that was that that particular block for some reason. Redbank never developed it, you
know. Uh um they never put sidewalks in until people who around us commercial properties when you when you when you developed it, the requirement was you they made you put a sidewalk in. I had to put sidewalk in on North Bridge
Avenue also. Um uh same thing they had to do eliminate a curb cut and put curbing in that type of thing. But I just think at this point we have an opportunity to get that missing sidewalk put in the last time um that we address
this issue. Uh no one owned that piece of property 2602. We nobody we couldn't do we couldn't find out who owned it. So nobody nobody put the sidewalk in. But I think now is an opportunity that you know we we should have a sidewalk there
and it should be great. Looks like it's about 3 or 4 feet and then wide and then obviously the 11 ft deep. Mr. Roller, would you agree to to put concrete in there to match where the I mean, I'm I'm looking at it here to match the the
existing sidewalk only has about a foot that the driveway apron covers. It looks like there's another two or three feet. And it and it doesn't it doesn't match the grade. When um when the when the the exit was put in for the parking lot at Birino that they lowered the grade of
the sidewalk, you know, they lowered the grade so it would slope out so they wouldn't have any kind of a an apron going into the street. It was street level. And uh so now we created a little bit of a of a of a of a um
unevenness in that area. So it should be a sidewalk should be in. >> Can I ask what what portion? Where are you talking? I'm so I'm looking. >> This is on bread. >> No, I see that. >> That's So that's the beginning of 2602, >> right? >> Yeah. But there but there's a concrete
landing there. >> Well, there's a concrete apron there. >> Yeah, I need a concrete. >> The apron doesn't go back all the way to the sidewalk. The width of the sidewalk. that that apron or a sidewalk should be the width of the sidewalk and the end of the 11 ft. >> Oh, you're just saying to extend the
apron. >> Yeah, extend the apron a couple feet of concrete. >> I realize you're not pouring any foundations, but you know, you could roll a truck in there to do that. >> It looks like it's only about 50 square feet of concrete. >> I I understand. So, if we're asking to
put a sidewalk, it would require regrading that whole thing. If we're asking just to increase the apron so it's equal to the sidewalk so it's concrete all the way across. I would be glad to do that. >> And it needs to be level obviously. I mean your concrete contractor is going to know how they need to do this. And
we're going to inspect it. >> So that's what it's going to be. It will just be increasing the apron. You're not asking for a sidewalk. >> Yeah. Increasing the depth of the apron to match the existing sidewalk. >> Well, um the Gary is absolutely right. This apron is
lower than the sidewalk on the parking lot on his side and our side. So the parking lot of Beervino and the parking lot of his office building, the sidewalk is higher than that apron. So if you just continued that apron
another 3T or whatever it needs to be to equal to the sidewalk, it's still depressed. It's a depressed because it's the whole, you know, it's only 11 ft wide. >> It's depressed because you when you when you put that parking lot in, you that
grade was never like that before 2005. >> Gary, that was the grade that the surveyors had to do for for the parking lot. I just decided >> it doesn't comply with the with >> I agree with you. If I was walking stroller there, >> I it would be a problem. I would have to
>> I've seen people come down the street with a stroller. They have to go in a street to go around. They can't go down the sidewalk. >> But they're they're not making any improvements. Is that correct? To that uh that alleyway. >> We are not. >> So,
>> but if if Mr. Roll is okay with doing it, I got to tell you, looking at the pictures, I don't see the grade change you guys are talking about. I'm not saying it's not there. I'm >> You have to go look at it. >> And I will. >> There is a grade change. >> I I think >> there is a grade change. All right. I I mean I
So I mean if if they Yeah. I mean regrade it so that it pitches towards the street. >> I And I think I think even a pitched sidewalk is better than the gravel. >> Well, whatever. Down have you should inspect it. >> Well, yeah. It's part of the application. It'll get inspected. But
yeah, if you're willing to do it, I think that goes a long way. >> I we'll we'll do what's needed to to meet that. It's going to be a little difficult, but we'll work with the town to to make it okay. >> Great. And the other thing is I agree with the fella on the sign. I don't think that, you know, that we have to
have that sign right on the where it the location is now. I think it's a pretty busy location. You've got um a telephone pole right there where on North Bridge Avenue and Riverside. And then you've got a another pole where a pedestrian
can work this light where they want to cross to push the button. And then you've got the the sign right there. And if we're going to put a sidewalk in it, it it's going to be I think that sign is actually on the rightway where the sidewalk should be. I just think it's a
little busy and uh it could be moved back, but you know I you know I I'm I think the whole project is an is a very positive thing and and Beravino has been a good corporate uh neighbor of mine,
you know, over the years. He keeps the property up and landscaping and things very pretty, very nicely. I just think there's a, you know, these couple things would would would be an improvement, but overall it's a nice project and I'm very happy that he's doing it. >> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. >> Anyone else from the public? I'll make a motion to close the public portion of the meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Would anyone else like to make a motion
regarding the application? >> Um, Go ahead. >> Did you have a speech? >> No, I didn't. I I got my Tiger Woods joke in earlier. I'm done. >> Yeah, you got it in a dozen times. >> Several Tiger Woods. >> Okay. Well, I mean, >> I would I would I would move to approve
the application with the conditions that we discussed >> and it's okay. Motion a second. A second. >> Roll call. Yes. >> Donna Ebangs. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Christina Bonitakez.
>> Yes. >> Dan Manuso. >> Yes. >> Luis Dementoto. >> Yes. >> Robert Boaz. >> Yes. >> And Wilson BB. >> Yes. >> Thanks, guys. Look forward to the show. >> How long do you think before you open?
>> Tomorrow. >> Yeah. going to be selling pizza on the construction. >> Don and I had a conversation. Once we get everything going, as soon as we have the approval, we're prepared to start. So hopefully by the end of the summer, >> the entrance to Red Bank will look great
again. >> Great. >> Thank Thank you for buying the property. >> Thank you everybody and thank you for understanding. And uh we're happy to make the gateway beautiful again. >> Thank you. >> It is motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? Any opposed to adjourning?
>> No. >> Okay, that's good. >> How you doing, Gary?