Good evening everyone. I call this meeting of the Township of Union Planning Board to order. Sunshine notice, please. Pursuant to the open public meetings law, notice of this meeting stating the time and place was satisfied by the filing of an annual notice with the local source and the Star-Ledger
newspapers of general circulation within the Township of Union and posted on the bulletin board of the Township of Union municipal building. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Here. Mr. Cohan. Here. Ms. Espinoza.
Mr. Frain. Here. Mr. Miller. Here. Ms. Perkins. Here. Mayor Frazier. Committee Woman Terrell. Here. Ms. Khan. Here. Ms. Kayal. Chairman Lee. Here.
Can we swear in the engineer? Do you swear the testimony that you'll give today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Um we have the minutes from the February 26th meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes? >> So moved. Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a
second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Frain. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes. Mr. Frain. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Ms. Perkins. Yes.
Committee Woman Terrell. Yes. Ms. Khan. Abstain. Chairman Lee. Yes. Uh we will start with a presentation with the Center District Parking Assessment. Can I call the representative? Yes. And I assume we would need to swear him
in as well. That's fine. You ready? Raise your right hand. Please uh state and spell your name for the record. Joseph Platt. J O S E P H P L A T T. Do you swear the testimony you'll give today will be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. Thank you for having me tonight. So, tonight I wanted to review the Center District Parking Assessment that we did. I believe everybody has had a copy of our report. So, tonight I just want to just kind of go over very high level that those findings.
Um and then answer any questions the planning board may have. Again, just recognize this is kind of a first step. This is a baseline assessment. This is a look at what's out there today. And how things are and kind of the the status of parking and the operations as it is today. There's a lot
of things that need to be done as things go forward and things grow. Again, we just want to review today kind of the existing conditions and the initial findings. Um you know, so here very quickly, you know, we counted about 743 parking spaces over
the municipal lots, structured parking, and curbside lots. The way we did this is through aerial surveys and through a new age drone through the Township um at regular intervals at a defined path. Um and we were able to stitch all those images together and it gave us actually
a photo of what we're looking at. We can do real-time counts through that. Um and that gave us a historical record of the counts as well. At the garages themselves, we were able to record operations over an 18-hour period uh through video technology and again, this is a video record of what we
had and also this is what we were looking for. Um we also looked through some of the policies of the Township. As I said, 743 parking spaces, 60% of those are off-street, so either in the garages or in the lots.
We looked at eight off-street municipal lots and the two private lots. And the images here show those lots and we can look at any of those if you have specific questions. Um this is an example of the data that was collected. So, this is one of the aerial shots that we had. Um again, we
flew these um 7:00 a.m. to about 6:00 p.m. throughout the day at regular intervals like these spots and time counts that we looked at. I just wanted to kind of show you the images we were looking at and the kind of the information we were trying to
gather. System-wide, we we found that parking supply is pretty good. You're at about 60% demand right now, so you got, you know, some some left out there to use. Um what we find is that it it operates on a peak during the weekdays. Um you
start seeing the peaks during the mid you know, the lots are are busier during the day. They kind of fall off. Um on the weekends, it's a little more steady. Um but but again, what we're seeing overall, there's a there's a adequate supply there. You're looking at a little more than half, 60% of your
supply is is being used at this Looked at two different ways. We looked at it on the weekday. We looked at it on the weekends over 12-hour periods. Um what we found 61% of that usage was in early afternoon and early evenings. As I said, you're seeing those lots
being used afternoon and evenings. Um off-street parking peaked in the afternoon. Again, kind of goes with the the commercial district and what what you see and what you might expect. Um lot 31 was was a peak. That was a a 98% in the morning,
um but all the other lots were were somewhere in the 80-85% range. On the weekend, little little heavier. Um you know, but again, what we're seeing is is about 81% of that off-street parking was used. Um there there were several lots that experienced
the high level. Okay, I can try to talk a little louder. Um I I again, we're we're we're seeing, you know, a lot of the lots there that don't have some usage, but you can see that the green are those municipal lots. And on the weekends, we weren't seeing a lot of usage of the municipal lots. We were seeing a lot more in the parking
garages and on the on-street. So, the way it kind of shows those on-street areas, the orange are the the municipal and then the greens are the Well, the greens are the municipal and the orange are the the structured parking. So, this just kind of shows how those demands are shifting. Um again, we did just very quickly here
what what we're looking at. What we compared it out is there was a 2019 study and a 2026 study. Um you know, and what we're showing is that the findings from from previous studies are generally consistent with what we're finding today. So again, that's kind of what this slide is just showing is that the thoughts and the the analysis that
was done back in 2019, it it's still carrying forward. Um a lot of the Thank you. A lot of the Ooh, there we go. A lot of the pressures we see are on the the on-street side um and making sure you're getting those turnovers on the on-street parking.
Um again, these are curb hotspots or these are that those on-street parkings that we talked about. Um there were roadways, you know, again, we're seeing 100% parking during the weekday and weekends. Um but but those are your turnover lots. Those are where you want them on your commercial lots.
You want people parking there a couple hours and then moving on. Um we're seeing very high utilization of those lots. Um maybe in deference to not parking in the in the the lots, they're actually using the on-street parking. Um we did see some improper parking or on-street parking places where they
shouldn't be. Um we we tried to highlight those on Marsden, um Emerson, and Rosemont um were a couple of areas we saw um parking that that maybe shouldn't have been there at the time. Um again, you know, real quick, here's the imbalance that we were just talking
about. Your curbside space is highly utilized. Your municipal lots not quite as utilized. So, that's really all we're saying here that you know, there's some some data there we can dig into, um but overall, we see a lot of on-street parking. We see a lot less parking in your municipal lot.
Um turnover, that's something we want to look at on the on-street cuz that's really what you want when you have your on-street parkings, make sure that it's turning over and and it's, you know, not being occupied all day by um by those users. By and large, we found 91% of people were there less than 2
hours. Um there was a small percentage of people, 6%, that were there 2 to 4 hours, and an even smaller percent that were there over 4 hours. There was actually one that was there 10 hours. Um so that, you know, overall, you're getting pretty good compliance on your on-street parking. Um you know, with the
exception of a couple outliers, and those are things we can work to address in the future. Um again, on-street parking, uh we saw a couple of areas where there there's improper parking, whether it be on-street. There were some loading zones and some areas that were striped that people were parking in and kind of making de facto parking spaces, running
into a into a business and running back out. Um so, we found some areas where people were just parking that maybe shouldn't have been, um but overall, it was it was pretty minimal. And the these areas here are kind of hotspot areas where we are seeing those um at various points in time. We are seeing what we we term as
improper parking along the curb lines. Yeah, and this is just the uh lots themselves. You can see, you know, we we talked about the on-street being pretty busy and these are, you know, kind of representative of some of the municipal lots we are seeing. Um very low utilization. Um the the one image is one on the weekday
and the one is on the weekend. And again, we're seeing seeing very low utilization of some of the lots and um the redevelopment parking, um you know, again, what we're seeing um it it is it it seems to be operating and functioning as it was intended.
We see in those lots high utilization of them in the early morning hours and then they drop down presumably when people are leaving for work or leaving for other things. So, you see those occupancies drop down. And then throughout the day it kind of ramps back up. So, what we were seeing is that generally that was functioning the way
it is during the weekday. On the weekends, we saw a little higher utilization cuz people weren't leaving quite as often. So, those high utilizations were still high, but we were still seeing that there was adequate space in those lots, you know, based on those redevelopments. We did see a little bit of spillover
into the residential area. Um it was very minimal. Um but we did see some weekend um spillover and you know, in and around the lots. Um we we took anybody that was was parked there on a Saturday morning, very early morning as spillover. Um
because we didn't observe them parking there, but they were there first thing in the morning. Um when other parking was readily available, so we took that as as improper parking. Um you know, again something we can look at over the course of our entire study that we found 13 vehicles improperly parked. So, out
of the 743 spaces that we found, we found 13 of them or found 13 vehicles that were improper. Um and then here here here you see that that represents about a 4% um impact on the on the parking.
Um couple things that we we want to look at are you know, just just we want to shape the behavior of parking. Parking, you know, people kind of just get used to what they're doing. So, if you you kind of give them a a new norm to kind of shape that process. Um that that those are things we want to start working on. Um things like pricing,
things like timing. You can you can vary things by time of day or you know, day of week, but you know, just just different concepts to kind of push people. Maybe maybe you you start incentivizing the lots when when you when you you see higher demands on the street, you can incentivize people to go to the lots through pricing or other
other functions. Um certainly something like parking permits if you get into that when it gets into a shared parking situation or if it's for businesses, maybe you know, get them into certain lots that may be a little further from their business, but it would incentivize them to use those those lots so the ones closer to their business can be utilized
by patrons and residents. Um and then the development policy, you know, that's something is always that's an ongoing thing. You always want to make sure that what you're doing is congruent with what the development is doing and that your your parking is still there. Um like I said, we're looking at about a 60% supply right now.
So, you you got some excess. Um but it that's something you constantly got to monitor and you just want to make sure that as you're going through it, you're making those decisions almost in real time. Um cuz you know, you can shift this around, you but it's really getting the people there. So, you want to make sure that what you're doing is putting people where they where you want them to
be. Um again some some near term adjustments that we that we were just thinking about is is working with the police departments to to re re uh reinf refine enforcement. I was going to say
reinf refine enforcement. Um like knowing where those hot spots are, knowing where we were seeing those improper parking. Just make them aware of that so that they can get that on a loop and they can get that as part of their patrols as they know that there there's a a persistence of improper parking here. It's just something, you
know, again just very very minor stuff that can be done um you know, throughout the course of a normal shift of a police officer um that that can just kind of reinforce that cuz you know, the once the enforcement occurs, you know, then maybe that that behavior may change. Um wayfinding is always an important part. Just having people know where
those lots are um may encourage them to get there. You can get very technical and get into the very high level, you know, type signage that tells you how many spaces and how many lots all throughout the township um or just have better signage that says that there's a lot here.
Um you know, and again just strongly encourage them to kind of push them to that location. Um optimizing your curb spaces, looking at the times along your curb space, looking if there's ways to incorporate some kind of loading zones or or short term things for for businesses, recognizing they need that curb space, too. Um are there improvements we can
make along the curb line? Um just to kind of optimize that and again force that turnover cuz the curb the curb side where you really want people turning over as quick as they can so that they're not camping out there all day. If they're if they're planning to be there multiple hours, you want them in the lots. You don't want them on the curb line. Um and anything you do, you want to
monitor those changes. And you know, you just want to make sure that you're making the right decisions. You're doing them incrementally um so that you can see that that had a positive impact. Um and then look at other ones. If it didn't have a positive impact or didn't have the impact you intended, you can have a chance to re refine that. You're not jumping all in
and and going crazy with it. Um again, these are some very high level strategies that we're looking at. It is working on, you know, key performance indicators. It is looking at, you know, you have your curb line, you have about a 91% compliance on your curb line, for example. Do you want to make that 95%?
Do you want to make it is 91 okay? You know, you kind of kind of pick that so that you make sure you're benchmarking what you intend and make sure that the policies and decisions you're making are beating that. Um you know, the uh
Excuse me. The the payment in lieu of parking, um you know, using that those fundings and prioritizing those fundings for enhancements. Um you can do those to en- en- enhance the signs, enhance the streetscape, enhance the visibility of parking. Um again, just again attracting
people to where the lots are. Um so they're not just driving around looking for spaces um or circling blocks looking for on-street spaces. You you giving them some kind of enhancement or incentive to to go to these lots. Um shared parking always an opportunity there for shared parking. Looking or
incentivizing ways for businesses that maybe are a a 9:00 to 5:00 business and their lots are empty during the after the the the the evening hours, but maybe there's an opportunity for them to enter into some other agreement. Again, that's that's a complicated situation cuz you're dealing with with businesses and other entities, but if there's ways to
incentivize that that work for everybody, you know, certainly the town can benefit from that. Um and then curbside management maybe is is a little bit more lofty of really what's going on your curbside, looking at locations for loading, looking at Uber and Lyft drop-off and pick-up area.
Like there there's all sorts of things that can kind of come with curbside management. Um not just parking happens along the curb line. So, really coming up with a way to make sure you have people um accessible to to where they want to be and giving them options is really what that comes down to.
So, with that, I know I went through a lot here. Um I wanted to leave some time for questions and and kind of just talk through some of the data that we were finding. Thank you for your presentation. Uh questions from the board? >> [clears throat] >> I have a question about the the payment in lieu of parking. Yes. Obviously
that's from a developer who has a parking efficiency. Yes. How does that help us? We get money, but there's still no parking. Correct. So, I'm not saying you would accept payment in lieu. I would say if you have an opportunity for that and it
it would it's it's funding available to you. I'm not maybe suggesting take a payment in lieu of parking to do things. I'm just saying it if there's that funding stream in the township and there's an opportunity to do it, maybe it it's not maybe it's it's not something you want to consider now cuz you want to
prioritize the parking. Again, it's just something, you know, tools in your toolbox. Whether it's today or 3 years from now or maybe never. Um you know, we're just trying to put some tools out there for you. But I have both questions. What's the time frame you did this study on? What what
month was this? We did these What was the month? It was right before the big blizzard. That was in January. Early February. Yeah. So, it was it was the Thursday before and a Saturday before cuz it snowed and we
were trying to rush to make sure that our our pilots were safe getting home cuz we we had wrapped it up right around 7:00 p.m. that evening. Um and the blizzard came in somewhere around 9:00 or so. But yeah, it was the right around that time. And again, this is a snapshot. I mean, you know, I've talked to Vince about it. This is
like having this baseline, but it again, it's real time. And with the with these drones, like you can you can do this. You can have the video. You can go back and look at it. We can also do that at regular intervals. If you wanted look at it in the springtime, you want to look at how seasonal shifts happen. You you you can do all of that, but you know,
but to establish a baseline, we thought that was pretty representative, you know, of you know, there's not a whole lot of demand outside of life that would alter that. Mr. Platt. Yes, sir. In your opinion, do you believe that there is enough parking in town for all the programs that are development is going
on? Do you believe that there's enough? So, I personally am not familiar with every project going on in the in the township and knowing all of the details. I can say that you have excess parking now. You know, we we're showing you have 60%
of your parking spaces. You have 40% excess parking is what I can tell you. I I I I would would be unfair to say that what you have is good or not cuz I have not studied each and every one of those developments to say that. Um what we looked at is what you have and we say
that you have excess parking within the township to the tune of about 40%. And what is that in numbers? In lots and spots? 40% of 743 is Vince, can you help me out? 280. >> about yeah, about 280 285 spaces. >> Just want to make sure.
>> Yeah, and then and I believe a recent structure just came online. Um that's not included in this data as well. Okay. So, there was a couple of weeks ago one came online. Um that our data predated that. So, you have even more space out there now that that's not
being utilized, but unfortunately that's not in our data right now. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any further questions from the board? Just a quick question on on my end and I know you um talk about um priority prioritizing funding investments into
pedestrian access. Um and as I saw your report, it was very striking to me about the the Stow Street lot. I do believe it's lot lot eight. That was one of the most underutilized municipal lots. Um
would you say as part of what you would recommend to the township is that not only in terms of utilization of of of of the pilot's, but also really considering that as part of
a planning um consideration as further developments would come to the center that can we find ways to increase that pedestrian access so that um as more developments would come in that that component is being taken into
account so that hopefully it would move more um residents, patrons of businesses to utilize those lots. So I think if I understand your question is can you have private industry fund some of those improvements and look at
as as part of their projects? Like like basically how do we um leveraging the information that you have, how do we encourage and leverage that information to incentivize and encourage developers to also consider
increasing pedestrian access to those underutilized lots? Yeah, so I think that would be one of those near term is looking at your policies and kind of drilling down on that and seeing where we can insert those things and insert those concepts. Um and what triggers that and how how that all works it through the land development process is something I think we'd have to do a
little more digging into how that happens. Can it happen? It likely can. I just the mechanisms and the actual execution of that will take a little time to work through how that would look like. Understandable. Thank you. Uh Any further questions?
Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um hey Joe, thank you for this. Um One one of the things that's come up and I know we've talked to uh some of the administration about it is currently in our redevelopment area we have one for one parking. So, you know, each one of the units has
um just one parking space associated with it. I know you do this stuff in multiple states. Um it what you found here in this study is the one for one working here? Um Yeah, by and large what we're seeing is
is that that that that strategy and what you're doing now seems to be working. Um you know, it might just take a little education of where people need to go. But by and large that that strategy seems to be working at least through the developments that you've seen and kind of I I do I do know that it's a goal to increase
that a little bit to give it a little bit more of a buffer so that the developers are, you know, in future developments are looking at, you know, 1.2 or something like that just to give a little bit more. Um do you you in favor of that? Yeah, I think
I think we'd have to look at that and again it's maybe looking at where those excesses are and where the development is and can you reach it cuz, you know, it certainly doesn't make sense that you have to walk a 2/3 of a mile to have an excess parking. So, you really want to tie it to
is the parking in the area where the development is? If it's not, then yeah, increase parking requirements certainly makes sense because it it's less likely somebody's going to walk 3/4 of a mile in the rain to get to their resident. Um you know, usually we we couple 1,500
ft is about where you're going to be. For the for the benefit of the public uh the the vast public that's here. The um I I know that one of the things you're being charged with going forward is coming up with potential ordinance changes
uh looking at more traffic patterns and and circulation, you know, so that's going to have a lot to do with it as well. So, I think that this is a story and I like, you know, hopefully the administration will let you come and talk to the planning board periodically uh and I know that we're going to be seeing you on larger applications
representing the board. So, I look forward to that. >> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, exactly. Like again, this is baseline information, you know, just kind of give you the status of where you're at. Um like we said, there's there's a lot of things that can be done, you know, how quickly or how slowly or how important they are, you know, we kind of got to work through.
But, you know, certainly just as a snapshot it was looking, you know, pretty favorable, but certainly room for improvement. Thank you. Any further questions from the board? Questions from the public? Well, thank you very much for your presentation and we look forward to
working with you uh further down the road. Thank you everybody. Have a good evening. You too. All right. Um So, before we go into further business, um I'm going to ask that we uh move to go into executive session to discuss uh
pending legal matters. Uh so, can I get a motion? So moved. Moved by Mr. Kohan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mrs. Perkins. Uh roll call, please. Mr. Alexander Oh, excuse me. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Kohan. Yes. Mr. Frame. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mrs.
Perkins. Yes. Committee Woman Terrell. Ms. Khan. Yes. Chairman Leake. Yes. And we will be back soon. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Yes. All right. Well, good luck. It's been nice seeing you guys. it.
I don't know how much. I don't know. Mhm. I don't know. Mhm. Jack in the Jack in the Mhm. Jack in the Are you in
No, no. Are you in the Mhm. You work Are you in No, no. I'm trying to You you were really good at this. It's I don't even know what I'm talking about. What is your French fries.
What is your guilty pleasure? What is your guilty pleasure? Cross sticks. Cross sticks? Cross sticks is my guilty pleasure. I'm not sensitive. I don't know. Yeah. French fries. Yeah. This time I like
I like just Jimmy John's I had >> [clears throat] >> I like it when you have the time on the weekend, I like to go Yeah. Mhm. Yeah.
What about the Mhm. Jimmy John's I like You know, I like Yeah. Do they have it? I never had rice noodles, but they did when they came to the capital. The area.
Yeah, yeah. My grandma did Or two. Mhm. Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Yes. Moved by Mrs. Perkins to leave executive session, seconded by Mr. Cohan. Roll roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes.
Mr. Frame. I'll call him. I think he just Mr. Miller. Yes. Ms. Perkins. Yes. Committee woman Terrell. Yes. Ms. Khan. Yes. Mr. Frame. Yes. Chairman Lake. Yes.
Can I get a motion to approve the resolution authorizing the board to execute the settlement agreement to resolve ongoing litigation with American Landmark? So moved. Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Frame.
Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes. Mr. Frame. Yes. Mr. [clears throat] Miller. Yes. Ms. Perkins. Abstain. Committee woman Terrell. Yes. Ms. Khan. Yes. Chairman Lake. Yes.
All right. We will now go into new business. Application 2025-11 amended American Landmark. I call on Mr. Hale, the representative. Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board member. Stephen Hale representing the applicant amended American Landmark amended
application for phase four of the project. And just by way of background, board members Mr. Chairman, this application involves the board previously approved phase four, section four of the American
Landmark project, which is fronting on Stuyvesant Avenue. And the original approval was for 54 units and approximately 9,800 square feet of commercial space. Amended four, which is generally consistent with the redevelopment plan that's in place for
that area, increased the number of units, residential units, by 38, bringing it to a total of 92 units and approximately 14,000 square feet of commercial space. I just again by way of overview, at the October hearing before
this board, we had the testimony of our architect, our engineer, our traffic engineer. And I might say thank you for the presentation of Mr. Platt because his findings were generally consistent with that of a Joseph Steiger of Dynamic Engineering with respect to the adequacy
of the parking. And then we had our planner Nicholas Graviano provide justification for the minor relief that was sought in connection with the application. So again, the the project involves the increase in those units. We did have detailed testimony and I provided my
summation at this time. And uh uh if the board has any further questions, but we would look forward to the board approving of this application so we can move forward with the the balance of of the project. Thank you, Mr. Hale. Any further questions or comments from
the board? Hearing none, can I get a motion to approve application 2025-11 amended American Landmark? Mr. Chairman, if I if I could just make one one statement. >> Sure. Yeah. Um just from an engineering perspective, I
wanted to close the loop here. Uh based on the report that was talked about tonight by Traffic Planning Design, the uh center uh the center district parking assessment, uh we we at Collier's find that there is adequate parking in the
neighborhood in the central uh central district for phase four of this application. So we have no objection to to this moving forward. So with that, uh can I uh get a motion to approve the application?
So moved. Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Frame. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes. Mr. Frame. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Ms. Perkins. Yes. Yes, for phase four,
yes. Committee woman Terrell. Yes. Ms. Khan. Yes. Chairman Lake. Yes. Thank you very much again for your time and efforts in this regard. Thank you, Mr. >> Enjoyed working with you on this. We do have the resolution um tied to the
application, so we will now entertain a motion to approve the resolution pertaining to the application. Can I get a motion? Motion. Moved by Committee Woman Terrell. Uh, is there a second?
Second. Seconded by Mr. Cohan. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes. Mr. Frain. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Ms. Perkins. Yes. Committee Woman Terrell. Yes. Ms. Kahn.
Yes. Chairman Lay. Yes. Thank you again and have a great night. >> Thank you, Mr. Appreciate your time. All right. Uh, last on our new business is application 2026-02, 2735 Route 22 Associates. Can uh, the
representative please approach? Good evening, uh, everyone. Um, >> [clears throat] >> Lisa Lamela, I'm going to try and get this to my height. That seems right. So, uh, Lisa Lamela [clears throat] from Murphy Schiller & Wilkes on behalf of the applicant, um,
2735 Route 22 Associates. Uh, this application is related to uh, what uh, we discuss as the old Clinton Manor site. Uh, it is the old Clinton Manor site. Um, the applicant has already um, demolished all the buildings on site and done significant clean up
uh, on site. Uh, although the entity name is the uh, land owner, uh, the group is associated with the Open Road Group which operates Chevy and Subaru uh, which are obviously right right next to this this lot. The
area is uh, that this uh, property's in is in the uh, amended uh, Clinton Manor Redevelopment Plan. So, the applicant is here tonight for uh, approval of their phase one site plan. Uh, the eventual
uh, plan for the site is to have an automobile dealership at the site. Uh, until that time, uh, now that the buildings are down, the site's been cleaned up. Uh, the intention is to have this uh, a parking lot, a vehicle storage lot that will supplement the
Open Road Subaru site. Open Road Subaru site is uh, small for industry standards for auto dealerships are typically about 3 acres. This one is 1 acre. So, really provides the applicant with the opportunity to use the site to improve site circulation for the Subaru site.
Um, if anyone's driven down Route 22 when they're getting uh, deliveries of cars, they see that you know, the the tractor trailer, the car carrier comes in is right uh, on on the shoulder. That issue will be eliminated. Um, and and
it it will function uh, really as one property until the uh, applicant is able to uh, source a dealership for the site. Um, obviously the uh, auto dealership is not immune to some of the uh,
uh, government uh, issues going on, tariffs and uh, the EV credits which are sort of no longer favored and increased gas prices. So, the auto industry is is is taking a hit a bit. So, this allows the applicant to use the lot in in a way that uh,
supports Subaru until they can get the right dealership in um, to support uh, that fits along that corridor uh, and that would support um, the township. So, um, we're here tonight um, kind of excited to present uh, what will go on
that former site. Um, we have Excuse me. Uh, Andrew French um, is our engineer who will present tonight. And we have some uh, we have witnesses on behalf of the applicant. The owner himself is was unable to attend uh, this evening, but we have some
representatives here uh, in his stead. Yes. Please uh, stand and state your name. Uh, Andrew French, A N D R E W, French F R E N C H. Do you swear the testimony you'll give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do.
Okay. Um, I first want to apologize to the board. It's been a few years since I've been here and I see the nice monitors up here and I brought some boards. So, uh, if you could just bear with me, I'll set them up here so you can see them and if there's any questions, certainly let me
know. Okay. And um, we'll need to have uh, uh, Mr. French qualified as a as a expert in civil engineering. Uh, Mr. French, can you provide us with your educational background and licensure?
Yes. Um, I graduated from NJIT with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering. Uh, I'm a professional licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. I've been practicing engineering for the past 25 years. Uh, I've been in front of numerous boards as a site plan
uh, presentation as site plan engineering. And your license is in good standing. Yes. Board stipulates. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'm going to pause you for a moment. I have to get that on camera, so if we could just Okay. And it'll be able to show up on the
board on the screens. Is that good? Oh, okay. Okay. You can continue. So, this is a existing conditions aerial plan from 2024. Uh, what we've done is in yellow we've
highlighted the subject property. Uh, and the purpose of this plan was just to give the board uh, the site itself back in 2024. Uh, as Lisa had mentioned, this is the former Clinton Manor Hotel and Banquet Facility. Uh, and you can see on the plan here the
existing buildings are situated in 2024. Uh, as part of the redevelopment plan uh, you know, the applicant was uh, requested by the township to demolish and remove those buildings which he's done uh, to clean up the site. Um, you know, so from that perspective
uh, there's been a better betterment already out there in the site of what the conditions are. Um, but this gives your perspective of the surrounding uses. Um, to the west and north of our site is um, county owned property. Uh, as you can see up here in the blue
in the top portion of the exhibit is the Rahway River. Uh, and the purpose is I'm showing this is you know, there's nothing wrong right behind or to the side of the the subject property. But uh, the Rahway River also has a flood hazard area associated with a riparian buffer. And in the engineer's
review letter made mention about that. So, this exhibit shows the green dash line that's as close to the river is the riparian buffer. Uh, the the lighter uh, aqua cyan color uh, blue is the flood hazard area associated with the Rahway River.
The purpose of showing this is that it's not on the subject property. So, DEP permits are not required. There's no work being done in environmental sensitive areas. And uh, just for the record, this is we'll mark this as exhibit A1. Uh, yes. >> Cuz you're
I don't want to interrupt, but I wanted to get you at the pause. Yep. Yeah. Um, so furthermore, the the property is 2735 Route 22. Uh, it's got frontage on Route 22 about 347 ft frontage, irregular shaped lot where
portion of the lot does go behind the existing Subaru dealership. Uh, it's 4.23 acres. Um, you know, the surrounding property again, the county is on the west and the north. On the east side of the property is the Chevy dealership. Uh, and as indicated, the Subaru kind of
is the notch of the property. That's the irregular shape there. Um, so on the other side of Route 22 on the south side again is these commercial uses along that portion of the of the 22. So, I just want to grab the site plan just
uh, Andrew, actually if you could um, if you want to uh, just keep the existing conditions for 1 second. Um, on the existing conditions plan, I believe there was a uh, it was in the county in in the engineering review letter that there was um, some encroachment of the
asphalt onto the county uh, property which you can see in this plan that has been removed and Andrew will will show that that uh, applicant's also done that uh, work as well already to remove that. Yeah, so on the north side of the property um,
there's uh, you can see if you look closely uh, it's actually tractor trailer containers uh, and asphalt pavement that extended beyond the property line north into the county's uh, property. Uh, what the applicant has done as he's
gone in there and part of the demolition and the cleanup of the site, he's removed those those trailers, uh the pavement, there was a lot of garbage and debris back there off his property. He's removed that and cleaned it up at this point in time.
Question. So, that was from the Clinton Manor owners, that was an encroachment on the county's property? Yes, that's correct. So, this this is from a 2024, March of 2024 before the applicant purchased the property. Uh and then once he purchased
it, the idea was he wanted he was instructed and requested to take down the buildings and clean up the property. So, at that moment in time, he he's doing what he thinks is right in the back of the property, all those trailers and pavements beyond it, he had
removed that. So, this next exhibit uh is actually just the site plan that was part of the application that was submitted to the board just to give you an idea of what the proposed improvements are. I mean, they are minor in nature. Uh what the applicant has done, uh you can see in
gray here is where the buildings were located. So, he went back there, he removed those buildings, and to have a stable, secure space instead of just leaving holes in the ground, he he went and he paved those areas to to get it to be a stable, uh flat surface. Um you
know, Uh quick comment. Uh are the are these exhibits marked? That the first exhibit was marked, this was submitted with the site plan, so this is not an exhibit, and then any other ones will Okay. All right. Yeah, it
I'm sorry. This is uh sheet three of eight, uh the site plan is part of the application to it. >> Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. So, uh uh So, part of the improvements are that he was going to use this for outdoor vehicle storage
um and propose uh striping it so that there's uh utilizing the existing access driveways off of Route 22. There's three points that currently exist into their property, they will remain, stay the same. Uh then it's going to be striped out to have
uh you know, typical like a a storage for parking, uh two-way 24-ft wide access aisles, 9 by 18 parking spaces, situated so that there's good circulations around internally in the site. Um the other minor improvements is
uh the besides the striping and the and the pavement is proposed site lighting, and that's for illuminating it for not only the the use of the vehicles, but for security purposes as well. So, the lighting is to be consistent with the
redevelopment plan requirements. They're 25-ft high light poles. Uh they're the low-profile LED fixtures that are that just illuminate downward. Uh when I say low-profile, they're very thin, so that they they it's not a big
head on the on the lights themselves. Um the lighting design is is complying with the requirements except for one design waiver we're requesting. Uh the redevelopment plan has a standard of maximum intensity of foot candles of seven. Uh whereas right below the light
fixtures themselves, where they direct the light down, there is some spots that are greater than seven foot candles that maximum. There's some that are 14.7. This is very common on site lighting where you're going to have that lighting that's a little more intense right below
the fixture itself. But, the lighting complies with all the other standards, it's nice uniform lighting throughout. Uh it's really the purpose is of for security out here. Um but it it is compliant other than that one design waiver we're requesting.
Um I don't know if there's any other questions. I had another exhibit I wanted to go over some circulation of the vehicles. Um I guess this would be exhibit A2 because it was not part of the application. Um This is vehicular circulation plan,
sheet one of one, uh dated November 19th, 2025. It's got a revision date of 3/24/26. Um so, as part of the review letter we received from the engineer, there was
questions about the site circulation. Uh so, on the left-hand side, this shows the car carrier, how it comes in off of Route 22, comes through the existing driveway, comes onto the property, allows the unloading of the vehicles on the property in the front, and then is
able to pull back using the existing driveway back on the Route 22. This is certainly a benefit as Leeson mentioned, we don't want them uh unloading the cars out on Route 22. It'll happen on the site, there's plenty of room in the front using the existing driveways. Um
the other on the right-hand side, this is actually showing the fire truck circulating through the site. So, the way that we've laid it out with the drive aisles and the parking configuration, the fire truck again can come through the existing driveway, circulate around the site, and then exit
out the existing driveways. Uh so, we wanted to show these just to um you know, address the comments from the engineer's review letter. And um in in addition, um well, it's went through the comments for
the the vehicle circulation as well. Um the storm water uh existing storm water system uh we know was repaired. Yeah, so when they were out doing the demolition work, they also did some repair of the existing storm sewer system. I know in the engineer's review letter, it made
mention about the discrepancy of the land disturbance versus uh you know, how much uh work was done out there. So, the the demolition activity in the land disturbance was less than an acre, 0.96 acres. Uh the other mentioned about uh the
entire site, well, they did do some mill and overlay of the pavement to freshen it up, but the purpose of that was to have a nice clean surface to to betterment the property, but that mill and overlay is not considered land disturbance when it comes to storm
water. It's just like a maintenance if somebody goes and mills and lay overlays their parking lot or or and so forth. So, uh from a storm water management perspective, we feel this is not a major development. It is as you can see on the original aerial photograph, the entire
site is covered in buildings or pavement under the existing condition. Uh so, under the proposed condition, uh there's no storm water being proposed other than the repair of the existing storm sewer system that's out there. And um also in the review letter, there's there's the engineer review
letter, there's mention of uh we testified to previously there was some encroachment in the county uh on the county parkland that was from the prior owner um that was removed. There's also was also um
you know, in in part of the cleanup of the uh garbage, and we have some um we have representatives of uh Open Road here to to describe if the board wants to hear to describe what was in that uh county parkland in terms of uh you know,
not not just fallen trees which was in the report, but garbage and um hotel furniture and um anything that you could think of if you uh you know, I drive it down Route 22 all the time. If you can imagine what the front of Clinton Manor looked like, you could
imagine what the back of Clinton Manor looked like into the and into the woods. So, um it's in the review letter, so we'll address it. We are working with the county on uh resolving some of the uh some of the trees that were you know, either inadvertently or or or mistakenly
or overzealously removed as part of the um you know, yards and yards of garbage that were taken out of there, and um if the board has any question as to sort of facts and what was taken out, that we have representatives here uh who can speak to that as well. I know Mr. Gamble from the county is also here um
to to speak to those issues as well. So, back to the storm water runoff. Uh given that the the application suggests that there'll be 100% impervious coverage. Yes. And the previous impervious coverage notwithstanding, you stated that you were working on the
existing sewer uh system that was there. The storm water sewer system. Have you tested it to ensure that there is going to be adequate storm water runoff? That there are there retention basins? Do they work?
Where do where does the water flow to? Yeah, certainly a good question. So, uh this is the traditional uh storm sewer drainage system where it has inlets out there, collects it uh from the runoff from the the impervious surface, uh and
then it's piped, and the pipes have the capacity to carry the the flow from your normal storm events, your your 10, 25-year storm events, it has the capacity to to convey that flow. It ultimately goes to the rear of the property, and then eventually discharges
back into the river. Um most of the properties along here, I would imagine, have the same conditions where, you know, those storm sewer, you know, with the the river being behind there, that's where it would discharge. But, in this particular case, there's existing drainage structures, they're piping underground, and then eventually does
discharge to the river. And do they require any review and approval by the DEP? No, because that's already existing condition. We are not doing anything affecting the actual discharge into the river or nothing off our property. We were just doing the you know, when I
say repair, there's existing structures out there. They're resetting them up to the to the to the to the grades from the the disturbance of taking the buildings down and re-situating them, but we're not installing new drainage out to the river. Okay, and and the the structures that
you're referring to, are they designated on the um the site drawings that you provided? >> Yeah, so if you look on sheet two, which is existing conditions, they are shown on that cuz they're existing conditions. On the site plan, they're also shown, but again, they're
existing conditions, so they're not um highlighted, so to speak, cuz we're not proposing to construct them. Got it. Does that make sense? Um I did want to point out two things too in the engineer's review letter. One was about the DEP that we spoke about, uh and you know, based on my first uh
testimony about not being in the flood hazard area or the riparian buffer, we're not disturbing any of the environmental sensitive areas with DEP. So, our opinion that DEP uh permit is not required. Um similar nature in the report, it mentions about uh DOT uh approval.
Again, on Route 22, there's three access driveways onto our property. We are not changing those, they're remaining the same. Uh the actual intensity of this use is outdoor vehicle storage of cars. Uh you know, the traffic coming in here is you know, the car carrier is going to
come in there, you know, uh very infrequently to bring in distribute the cars, but uh DOT requires permits if you have uh an increase of 100 trips in a peak hour or 500 trips in any day. So, we're
we're not going to meet those thresholds, so our opinion that DOT approval isn't required to keep the existing driveways and for this low intensity use that we're proposing here. And there's also a comment in the review letter um seeking testimony about snow
removal, how that would be handled on site. Again, we have representatives of Open Road here. Uh if if the board wants to hear that testimony, uh I'll say I've spoken to them already, and uh ultimately, snow removal is one of the you know, biggest jobs on a car
dealership site. It is done by the their uh contractor professionals and and um that is managed. Certainly, the uh witnesses here could provide contractor names or whoever does that, but that's part of their winter management. As we
know from this past winter, uh it was a big job. So, >> [laughter] >> um but that was a comment, and we could certainly provide uh more more information for the board if they have questions on that. Um And I also >> [clears throat] >> want to speak to a comment in the
uh review letter about um some provisions in the redevelopment plan that require after 2 years of this being approved as a outdoor vehicle site to have um the use remains a permitted use. Um the redevelopment plan requires the
applicant to add a fencing and to add landscaping. Uh redevelopment plan was passed in uh August of 2025. Um since that time, we know the struggles of the auto industry um and again, our representatives can speak
to this, but uh you know, certainly all of these companies that geared up for uh EV uh engines are now without the credits available and support for those are now uh stuck trying to switch back to gasoline
engines uh while having, you know, issues with tariffs. Um anybody who try has tried to get their car fixed recently probably knows um how the tariffs are are are affecting that. And now with um you know, oil supply being uh an issue,
uh and so um certainly, the board has the power to uh lessen the effect of of that requirement uh either through waiver or uh you know, through you know, in essence, really really through waiver, which um would allow the
applicant a little more time to get the right dealership in uh without having to go back and and ultimately um put up a wrought iron fence along the along the frontage uh and some landscaping buffers to then take them out again once the dealership is set. You know, this
industry uh whatever the dealership is dictates what the building will look like uh and the size of the building and other features um and so, ultimately, it would be uh if in 2 years' time, uh a site plan is not approved for that dealership, which
is the intention, uh it would end up in in essence being punitive uh to have these uh site designed uh site elements improvements placed on the site only to take them out again um once the dealership that is sourced
uh advises of their building requirements. Uh so, we would we would ask for relief in that as well. Um Yeah, I mean, part of that is too, I just add, I mean the ultimate goal of this applicant is to have two dealerships on this property. I mean,
that's how he's going to generate the the finances to make this work. He's spent a tremendous amount of buying that property and then cleaning it up, meaning taking air all those buildings down, and it's a much better condition than it was then. Uh you know, he is anxious to get a dealership here. That's
his business, that's how he's going to thrive. But uh as Lisa mentioned, the the EV step back, the tariffs, uh you know, the the stuff that's going on now, uh the automobile industry is is is been, you know, uh going through some difficult times.
So, he wants to make sure that when he gets a dealership, he gets the right deal and it's the right dealership to be here so that it's, you know, something proud for Union Township for many, many years to come. I just think he needs a little more than that 2-year opportunity to make that
right decision for not only himself, but the community as well. Unless the board has any other questions from uh for Mr. uh Mr. Frank here, we can uh or any questions for the representatives of the dealership. Call them up as well. I have a question.
Um with regard to the 2 years, I just want to understand that it's a minimum So, you want relief for that, right? The 2 years because it might take longer to find the right dealership. >> Sorry. No, no, that's okay. I couldn't see you. >> No, no, that's okay. I couldn't [laughter] see you. I was trying to figure out where you were. I'm sorry. I'm like, where is she? Yeah. So, is it
So, you need time to find the right dealership. I understand that. Um is it a minimum of of 2 years, but it could be longer? Like I'm just trying to understand what what the thought is about in the time frame. >> in 2 years, as as pointed out in the uh
in Collier's letter, in in 2 years, the the use is still permitted. So, this can still be outdoor vehicle storage for the Subaru. Uh but a fence will be required along about 50 ft back from the frontage, a a metal picket fence
uh along the frontage, and there will be uh landscape isle uh islands within the uh the sort of drive aisle spaces. Um you know, the the intention is to get it have a dealership here. Um
we all know what was on this site before. We all know the the tax liens and you know, that affected the the the purchase price for this. Ultimately, Subaru's right next door. So, it made sense. Um the applicant took
those took the buildings down. I mean, he really he really has put effort into this. Um but this is not a sustainable lot for Subaru. Uh if it was, you know, frankly, we would have consolidated the lot, and we would have called it a day. We wouldn't even needed to really amend the redevelopment plan. The idea is getting
a dealership or two dealerships onto this lot. Um you know, things change quickly in this in this political environment, and so, at 2 years' time, you know, it becomes frustrating um because there
it creates a situation where you're not able to bring the right dealership in. You're bringing a dealership in because of uh having to put fences up or putting those fences up and then having the dealership you know, uh dictate where the building's going to go, what the building's going to look
like, whether there's uh a port You know the word I'm trying to >> Porte cochere? Porte cochere, thanks. In front of it. Those type of elements um are all dictated by the dealership. You know, the color of the color of the facade, whether there's landscaping in front, whether there's all windows in
front, all of this is dictated by by the dealership itself, uh not by the property owner or, you know, sort of operator as Open Road. So, um those provisions then become punitive. But the idea is this is not work as a parking lot.
So, the intention is to get that dealership in. Uh so, he's really just looking to avoid that, you know, effect of that. Thank you. You're welcome. I do have one question uh relative to the inventory that will be parked there.
Um we are familiar with these what I would call storage lots. Will the vehicles there be operational? Yeah, so this is not a I I this is not a what you would consider a storage lot. This is an extension of Subaru. Okay.
>> So, this is uh vehicle inventory. >> Inventory. So, when, you know, we you go to buy a car, you go inside, and then you this is areas where uh customers going to walk to, you know, potentially look at at cars. And this is a uh It is not in in what I think of as
vehicle storage. It's sort of behind these fences. Yeah. >> word, but Not not that. >> No, the point is um are they operational? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, these are new cars that you can drive off the lot. >> Other than the good lighting and the obvious location, will there be any other security? So,
there is security uh on site. I won't get too much into the details uh on public record, but there is security. There's There's all sorts of cameras. In fact, um the applicant already works with the police department for Subaru and a Chevy with there. I need to know. Yeah. So. Thank you. I agree with you
about on the record. Yeah, and uh we have representative Hi. Hello. Would you just spell and state your name for the record? >> Sure. Timothy Comprado. T I M O T H Y C O M P A R A T O.
And you swear the testimony you provide today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Uh so, it's it's not a typical storage lot. No, I used the wrong term. >> Yeah, no, it well, it's more vehicle display. Yes. We're able to keep more vehicles on site for the customers to
view. Mhm. Um as far as security, there we have tons of security that we work directly with Union PD with. Okay. Um the fence and the landscaping, as Lisa mentioned, is tough because depending on which manufacturer we're able to come to a dealer agreement with them to open You
know, they have their requirements and they're all different. So, if we open a Ford store, they may say you can't have that fence. If we open a BMW store, you know, it all depends on the manufacturer and what they require for their image. Um and the property is geo-fenced with
cameras. They're all motion detected. Uh as soon as someone enters property off hours, then, you know, there's some company handling that. >> Thank you. Yes. I have a quick question here. Was there anything else I can answer for you? I do I I have a I have a question. I
would I just would like to hear more about the issues that you have with the county and how those issues are going to be mitigated. >> Sure. Sure. Um I can speak to that. Um and and Mr. Campbell, uh county counsel, is here as well. Um We've been actively working with the
county to resolve uh issues, you know, um You know, there were trees that Ultimately, we Yeah, I guess the applicant was also fooled by the fencing and the tarmac where it was. There was, you know, some trees taken down and and uh
You know, we are working with the county actively to address those issues. Um and Mr. Campbell could speak to that as as well, but um Our position is we've always been a willing participant to resolve this. Uh and
uh You know, this is a site plan application uh in essence a conforming site plan application. Not the appropriate forum to negotiate with the county. However, we will work with the county. We have been working with the county uh to try and get this resolved. Um Certainly, if
the county asked us to put the uh landscape and whatever on the county property, um we will work through We'll negotiate with that and we are I'm not I apologize I'm not speaking to you directly today, but uh we will certainly work with the county on those
issues. Uh the applicant understands it. So, so are the issues just related to the trees At this point >> other things? So, at this point I believe it is it is just the the trees. The county also wants a a demarcation so that there is no further encroachment.
Uh and we will work with the county on that as well and and come to terms and an agreement on that. There are light poles that are existing that encroach on the county um that are I don't know if the facts of that are encroach. I believe there must be utilities They're PSE&G poles uh that
are on the county lot that were in the letter submitted by the county. Um the applicant would take them down if he could. They're just not his property. It's county property and PSE&G poles, but uh would would be willing to do that as well. So, so should you get approval, how soon
are you planning to start putting cars on the property and are those issues with the county going to be resolved before you start putting cars on that property? So, it is our hope that the issues with the county are a separate issue. Mhm. Uh and that the cars could
just be parked there. Um That That's our our request. Applicant has been actively negotiating these issues with the county uh for some time, really for almost a year now. And we'll we'll continue to do so. Um There's There's no There's no issue
there. I think [clears throat] Again, if if holding up a permit or or whatnot because of county issue, I don't know if that that's supported by the land use law, but that does not stop the parties from negotiating and we've been actively negotiating to try and resolve those.
I'm just disappointed for information on the engineer's letter 8.2 um that you would also have to have the appropriate approvals from such things such as the Union County Planning Board and Park Environmental Services anyway
before the issuance of the site, right? So. Yeah. Of course, I don't I don't know um that that uh there's county planning board approval that's required for this application, um but whatever outside agency approvals
are required certainly would be obtained. Okay. Yeah. Yes, so typically Union County Planning Board is required if you're on a frontage of a county property or you're uh have an impact on a county drainage system. So, in this particular case, you know, we're on Route 22, which is a
state highway. Again, we're not changing the driveways. Uh our drainage system is not changing. So, um you know, county might have a different perspective, but my perspective is yeah, that that jurisdiction is not warranted for what we're proposing here.
Um you know, certainly defer to your engineer as well as his thoughts, but um you know, not not being said about the other item, that's different, though. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if I if I could just weigh in here. Uh first off, um I want to I want to thank the applicant for
taking down the the buildings. I think it was very important administration. Um but beyond that, I think um I think it's really important for everyone to realize that the site all the site work's essentially been completed out there and it's being
parked currently. Right? So, so there's there's pavement that's done, the striping's done, the lighting uh is a partially done Yes. uh out there. Um so, you know, I mean, we're talking about something that's already completed.
Um so, I think that it's I think that it's um important that we put conditions in the in any approval that we have to make sure that all that work is verified that it was done as per plan.
Right? Cuz the paving's been done, right? The striping's been done. Uh the striping's >> I was out there this afternoon. It was It looks like it was all striped. There's There's striping There's no striping um There's no striping on the lot. Obviously, it was milled and paved as part of the demolition process. Um and
there are light sanctions that are that have been constructed using the old conduits, but uh there's no striping >> So, I think we have to we have to figure out. I have no problem with anything we you know, Drew's addressed all of our concerns.
>> Sure. The concerns that remain for us is that yes, you take care of the county the county issues because I I think they go hand in hand with with the town. And >> And there's And that's will absolutely be done. I mean, you know, frankly, the county has enforcement authority over
over their land and the issues that stem from the county is on their land. So, the county has the ultimate hammer of enforcement here. But that's not even really an issue. We've been actively negotiating with them. I mean, nobody's trying to skirt Nobody's trying to skirt
around the issues, you know, there As I said here, there's trees taken down. They'll be resolved. County wants barriers put up so that there's no further encroachment. Well, you know, we'll we'll take care of that. Listen, I I'm I'm trying to be argumentative, but I'm I am trying to record I believe
needs to be clearer. Right? That you're still in violation of another pre-approval that we typically put in our our approvals. So, we say, "Hey, we want to make sure you take care of the county. We want to make sure you take care of the soils. Want to make sure" Having said that, you don't have a
You don't really have a CO here. You're already parking the site, right? Maybe it's not completely striped the way we want. You already have You're You're already parking a lot of cars. I don't think we're kicking you off, right? But I don't think we're also going to give you a blanket approval to say, "Hey, everything's wonderful here" without
conditions because it's not. Because any work that you did with previous conduit, with paving, we have to make sure that it meets the standards. So, I think that any approval is going to be conditioned upon you doing what you were supposed to do. Right? Now, you went ahead and you
did it first. We understand. I thank you for doing some things that we wanted done. You went a little bit too far, right? I'm not saying that we're okay with that, but what I'm saying is that I don't think anyone's kicking you and saying, "No cars on the site." But we
are saying that we want to put the conditions in there to make sure that everyone's aware of the fact that you still have an obligation. Whether that be to us and or the county. We're not saying what you have to do with the county. You can argue that separately,
right? But we'd like a resolution and we don't want to say it's not an issue because it always is an issue. When the county's unhappy, we're part of the county. We want to make sure that we're not saying, "Oh, that's your problem." It's our problem, right? So,
I don't think it's going to affect your operation in any way, right? I just want to make sure that the record's clear. You know, my recommendation to the board that they make the record clear that these things either have been done without being inspected or
need to be cleaned up. Okay? >> Yeah. And I think that we could do that in a way where you can continue to operate what you're doing now. It's not going to affect your business. Cuz you don't have a building to put up where we have to say, "No, we're not letting you do this." I mean, I would hope by the time you need to put a building up that those
conditions are cleaned up cuz I think if that point, if it's not, then we'll have a problem. And and and I think we we are in agreement. Certainly, any of the work that's been done has been inspected should absolutely be inspected. That's not the suggestion. Um the suggestion is is simply that um
whatever agreements are worked out with the county, Yeah. we're we're going to work with the county. We're going to work with the county. We've been working with the county. We'll continue to do so. Those issues will be resolved. Um you know, as soon as we're able to finalize our negotiations with the I'll
leave it to our competent attorney to put language in there Yeah, if you I mean um you know, like I said, I'm not trying to make this as a a serious punishment. I know that a lot of that happened before you guys got there, right? But I think we have to
acknowledge the fact that there's still something open on the on the site. And and we're in agreement on that. We're we're not trying to skirt the issue uh at all. We're we're and not trying to skirt the issue of of sanctions being uh put in. That's that's another issue and um kind of what that was there is being
used. Whatever needs to be inspected, uh obviously will be inspected after the approval. Yeah, that that that's not an issue. And I did not uh want to convey that that the applicant's trying to skirt anything. We're just um trying to operate with permission.
And clean up anything that was done that shouldn't have been done. Right. I mean, so essentially, you're doing what you need to do out there now. You're parking out there now. I don't think anyone uh I haven't heard anybody say you have to kick all the cars off here. I think we want to work with you because you work with the town to get this cleaned up.
You you're spending money here. You've been a a productive member of the community and you expand that. Um so, that's great. So, I think we you need to keep working in unison, but I think our record needs to be clear. There's still some outstanding things need to be cleaned up. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're in agreement
on that. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Cohen, did you have a question? Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. So, [clears throat] the the use of this lot is exclusively for storage of cars? Uh [clears throat] vehicle storage and vehicle display.
So, there there you may have customers that may walk out on the lot to take a look at a car, Correct. take it out for a test drive. Correct. Gotcha. Uh does it are there are there vehicles stored there for any of your other dealerships or just for Subaru? Just Subaru, sir. I'm sorry? Just for Subaru. Okay. Thank
you. You're welcome. Any further questions that you would want to pose or witnesses you want to call up or Um no, thank you, sir. Okay. Uh questions from the board? Questions from the public? Good evening. My name is Kevin Campbell.
I'm an assistant county counsel for the county. Um this is more of a comment than a question and but uh I figure I'll make it now if that's okay with the board. Uh the comment is is about uh you've heard a lot of testimony from Ms. Lamelo
and her client and Mr. French. Um and also the uh engineer has weighed in. And I just want to uh confirm what the engineer said and ask you to uh put conditions in regarding the county's uh situation. Uh
the amount of trees that were removed from behind on our parkland was over 90 trees. It's a significant amount and it's a significant damage. It's got to be remediated. Uh and we have been working with Ms. Lamelo
um and it seems to be going okay. It's not very quick, but her client is, you know, outside the country. I understand all that. But we're going to have a negotiations back and forth regarding this. Uh so, that is one condition we'd ask for that the site permit not be issued
until this matter is resolved between the two of us. Uh the second issue the second uh condition I would ask for is to delineate the property with uh markers, monuments, or pegs, whatever you wish to call them. There are all kinds. Uh so,
that they understand and we understand, too, where the property line is. And finally, we're going to ask for a fence. Uh it's going to be a rail guide fence, the kind that you see along a highway. Usually, they're metal. We're going to ask for wood. Uh on our um
between our property and their property. So, that would be on the uh I guess the west side and the north side. Uh because our experience has been with cars, dealerships, and auto mechanics is that cars inevitably end up on our property, parkland
actually, uh unless there's some kind of barrier. Um it's not the management's fault. Management instructs the uh workers not to do it, but the workers are leaving at 4:30 on a Friday and uh they don't want to stick around looking for parking spots. Uh and it's been a
significant problem for the county cuz Green Acres is on top of this because it is Green Acre land and we're always having to go to these places and say, "Please remove the cars." Um and sometimes they don't and then we have to issue tickets. So, uh with those
three conditions, uh we'd be very happy with the we'd be accepting the application's approval. Just one question though I do have and that's regarding Mr. French. Mr. French, I was looking at the um lighting on the uh proposed um
area and uh some of the lighting, not all, some of the lighting of the serious lighting that's, you know, around 13 or 14 was right near our borderline. If that could be remediated a bit so that it would be moved back a little bit. I don't know if this is possible, but if
it could, we'd appreciate it. Yeah, so the lights itself are not pointing in that direction. They're pointing towards Route 22. >> Okay. Uh but we could add a house side shield on there that way to better uh mitigate any of the spillage, but the
design of the lighting is conforming with the standards that was established by the township. >> I understand that. So, okay. If you could put that out I just on the lights bordering our property. on the back, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Yeah. And and we would we would totally agree to to the
the condition on the spillage. Uh I don't I don't know what the details of the fencing are. Again, there's no um the applicant is not opposed to fencing. It's it's it's site plan application. Um you know, there's questions, right? So,
are we uh are we putting the fence on the county property? Um in essence, which is outside jurisdiction of this board. And as an applicant, I can't even agree to a condition that's not part of the site plan. It's not that
would not be a a per- permissible condition. Again, this doesn't mean that the applicant's not going to agree to do it. It just means that um I don't know how as the board attorney a a condition can be placed in the resolution that places um
fencing on the county land as part of this application. Uh so, from a uh a municipal land use standpoint, um it's it's problematic to have that be a condition in the resolution of approval.
Um again, it does not mean that it won't be done. It just means it's not the appropriate forum. Uh if the board would like to hear about um the trees that were taken out. We the one thing and Kevin and I got along very well in this process, but the one thing we were disagree on is the number of trees that
were taken down. The board has any questions about that. Um I know I was personally there um and you know, Tim was personally there uh and can explain the number um how the county got to the number. But I again, I don't even believe that that's an issue. We're working with the
county. We're going to uh you know, replant you know, whatever was requested. We're going to work on that and it's going to be resolved. Um I think there was a lot of fallen trees in the back as well as uh yeah, some other others that were removed as part of the demolition
process. But but Tim can speak to that as as well. So, uh myself and the applicant, Ms. Morais, we personally were out there on the county property picking up garbage. And the things that we found were mattresses, dressers,
hypodermic needles, truck tires, shopping carts. I mean, I I believe we filled three dumpsters if my memory serves me correctly. We've been good neighbors. Um we're willing to to to work with the county, obviously. Um I don't foresee there ever
being an issue of a car being parked on the county property just because of the amount of space that we have. There should never be a reason that happens. Um but we were out there literally with our own bare hands cleaning that up. Gloved hands. Gloved hands with the needle
part, anyway. Um so, you know, I guess the point I'm trying to make is there's not going to be an issue with that. Um we have made that site so much better than it was previously.
Um it was I know though I'm sure you all know it was a nightmare and we were neighbors to the Clinton Manor for I don't know how many years, 7 8 years roughly. And I can only tell you the things that we saw. It was I'm sure you all know. I don't have to get into it but our goal
obviously is to be continue to be great members of the community to give back. We do head adoption events at the dealership. We donate to the local school. We've been great members of the community. We're going to continue to do that. Um having this property has been great so
far for us. We've been able to increase our head count at the Subaru dealership by almost 30 which has been terrific. Revenue has been up. Uh obviously we know what all comes along with that. It's is very difficult right now to get into opening
another dealership because the all the manufacturers are losing tens of billions of dollars currently on tariffs and they're tens of billions of dollars they've just invested in EV that has literally gone out the window and it's
very very difficult atmosphere to operate right now. So even in our conversations with some manufacturers they can't even entertain another point because they wouldn't even they don't even know if they could support it at the moment. That is going to be temporary but that's where that 2-year you know
window comes into play that that that's challenging to be honest but yeah that county property was it was bad. It was very bad and there's I walk it personally that back of that property twice a week to make sure nobody's putting anything there because I helped clean it up. It's
personal to us so I just wanted to add that in. >> Okay. Just just regarding Just the number trees that were taken down. I mean a number of them were fallen trees or Yeah correct. There was a a lot of fallen dead trees. Um those obviously we cleaned up because
those could be a hazard. Um I I don't think it was anywhere near 90 to be honest with you. I I also I didn't count every one of them so I I We did. Um in terms of uh Ms. Lamelo's comment I don't see why a fence can't be included as part of the
uh application as a condition. Uh this is also a safety issue frankly. If the river's not far and if children you know run away from their parents and often do um they would they could get into trouble back there. Uh so installing a fence I
believe would be and in the best interest of the public and it would be along the border. Um so it there's no reason I see that this can't be done as part of a condition. Thank you. Yeah and and again I It's not it's not an issue with the
fence. It's just a matter of um I I I will defer to the board attorney but the the application is is uh the site and not the county property. It's not part of the application. It's in essence
a fully conforming site plan. I don't know that the that the miscellaneous law allows the board to require offsite improvements in this context. It does not mean it's not going to get done. It just means that um in in in essence as
well the county the municipality doesn't have review of county uh of the the county uh property. So if the county you know when the county wants to do their um uh something with the courthouse, right? They don't have to they might do a a
courtesy review for the for Elizabeth but Elizabeth can't tell them they can't do it, right? So it's just it's just outside the jurisdiction. Um I will defer to the board attorney on that. It's just um on behalf of my client I just want to ensure that the conditions in the
resolution apply with the law the miscellaneous law. Uh and that's really the the only uh issue we have with the conditions. These things could be worked out again. The county has enforcement power over their lot so that's it's not even an issue.
It's probably more of a of a deterrent than the uh actual conditions in the resolution are. And again to the engineer's point nobody's skirting these issues. It is just a simple matter of ensuring that the property easements are in place if they need to be put in place. It's located on the county
property uh in the appropriate location uh and the landscaping that that the county requires we're in discussions landscaped. Um there's no intention to have the uh to encroach on the on the county lot. The other issue as well is you know the drive aisle goes around the exterior of
this lot as part pursuant to the redevelopment plan. Um certainly that needs to be uh whatever fence is there needs to be compliant with Just just one comment in response to that. The I don't see any reason why it can't be an onsite improvement. Uh the
fence is not very large. I mean it'll be maybe 1 ft at the end of their property. Well that's the drive but that's the drive aisle of the So if I can interject I I I I think this is probably not the venue to negotiate a particular condition to the resolution. Um that
will be for matters once we have an uh uh an approval on the application and a resolution is formed to to memorize uh the application's approval with any kind of conditions to be put on it and what I would just defer is that you know our
board council along with our engineer and with your team and as well with the county to align on uh those the details of those conditions and whatever fencing occurs and who builds it or whatever but those details are not going to be
hammered out here. No I never understood that. Okay. Uh and it just I think Drew can speak to the drive aisle goes around the exterior of the building of the lot. Yeah it is but I you know I think it's probably not to keep going back on the same subject. I think reasonably everybody has agreed
that you know something's going to get worked out. I think our request is just make the condition so that it's allowable here that it's not exactly what the you know the requirements are that we're going to work it out with the county. That's that's the condition. Yeah. You know. Yeah.
Yeah. Mr. Cohan Uh question to our council. Can the Okay it's right here. I'm right here. It's right here. [laughter] I'm ready to go. [snorts] Um can the language in the resolution uh indicate something to the effect that
the uh the concerns expressed by the county be met to their satisfaction? So from to answer the the question that I'm sure everyone's having I'm I'm certain that there is language that we can come up with uh that that could potentially satisfy
primarily the land use law right? And the all the concerns that were addressed here. Um the board has uh broad jurisdiction over certain aspects of this but it has to be within a nexus
of uh relation to the actual application. I think we can find a path and uh I I I will meet with the council for the applicant and as well as communicate with the county uh to come up with language that uh
is satisfactory and complies with the law. Yes. Uh agreed and Thank you. Thank you. So I think with that any further comments from the public? Comments from the board? Comments from the public and I assume
do you have any further witnesses or >> no no further witnesses and uh we appreciate the board's time this evening. Um thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yes thank you. Yes thank you. Uh can I get a motion to approve uh application 2026-02
2735 Route 22 Associates noting uh some of the comments made tonight uh in preparation for conditions to be put forth in a resolution in collaboration with county council, board council and the
representative and and the applicant's council. So moved. Moved by Ms. Khan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Cohan. Roll call please. Mr. Alexander Yes. Mr. Cohan Yes. Mr. Frain Yes. Mr. Miller Yes. Ms. Perkins
Yes. Committee Woman Terrell Yes. Ms. Khan Yes. Chairman Lake Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Have a good night. Um with no further new business can I get a motion to adjourn? Motion. Moved by Mr. Frain. Is there a
second? Second. Seconded by Ms. Perkins. All those in favor say I. I. Meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. Have a good night. You can take them off the board yeah. You can take them off the board yeah. Not the ones I think just take A1 and A2
whatever