The February 18th planning board meetings called to board. This is to advise that notice, time, date, location, and to the extent known agenda of subject meeting was prominently posted in the public place reserve for such or similar announcements on February 6, 2026.
Transmitted to the Times and the Princeton packet on February 6, 2026, and follow the township clerk on February 6, 2026. Trish, please call it. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Lamar,
Mr. Shelf Mr. Panto Mr. B >> Yes. >> Mat >> here. >> Councilwoman Chver >> here.
>> Mayor Mart. >> Vice Chairman Herman >> here. >> Chairman Car >> here. We have a quum. Thank you. Okay. Um, okay. At at this point in time, I'll
turn it over to any member of the public that wish to speak on non-aggenda, non-pending items. Please step up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. If any member of the public would like to speak on non-aggenda items, that
means no items that are before the board tonight or pending items before the township planning board. Please step up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Would you like to speak? >> If it's regarding tonight's agenda, I'll
give everybody time to speak on tonight's agenda items. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll let um everybody have a chance to look at the the January 21st um minutes,
>> any amendments, changes, clarifications? >> I think I was here to change it. >> Okay. Um Trish will look into that. >> Yeah, just one line. Um on on page two says, "Councilwoman Jvers
pointed out. Just delete that line." >> You got that, Trish? page two of the >> the executive session. >> Oh, the close. Yes. >> Okay.
Got it. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the January 21st regular planning board meeting, not the closed session meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second by the mayor. All in favor say I.
>> I. And he just notices who's eligible for vote. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Um um obtain a motion unless there's any other changes uh regarding the close session meeting minutes from January
21st. A motion to approve. >> So moved by the mayor second. Second by >> second we get one change. Yeah. >> Okay. Second by Sue. You were here that day. All right. >> Well, why don't we
>> Let's have someone else second, please. >> Anybody? How? >> Second. >> Okay. Linda will second. >> Motion by the mayor, second by Linda. All in favor that eligible to vote say I. >> I. >> Okay. Close session meeting minutes are
approved. Thank you. >> Note that Rob has arrived. Yes, Robb's here. >> Um, >> environmental any um my first meeting February 12th, Thursday, um, manage natural landscape
draft ordinance continued to be discussed and I believe they'll continue to discuss in the future weeks as well. uh one of the members presented on the use of technology to monitor snow removal operations was really interesting. A soft copy of the presentation was shared with the
commission and forward it on to our board in case folks are interested in taking a look. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next order of business is ordinance referrals from township council. Gary,
you had something to say about that? >> I just want to explain what we're doing. Um, Township Council has introduced a series of ordinances. They're all identified in the agenda and they've been referred to the planning board for determination of whether the ordinances are substantially consistent with the
master plan. That's the only issue before um the planning board. There will be what assuming goes be goes ahead from there. There will be what's called second reading before council at which council will entertain any comments
members of the public wish to give on the ordinances. But that's not our role here. Our role is very limited. So I just wanted to lay that out. Um and we're not going to be reviewing any concept plans u any site plans. It's
just purely consistency with the master plan. Okay. So, so everybody realizes that we're going to look at the ordinances and we're not going to vote on any concept plans that go with the ordinance. We're just looking to make
sure it's consistent with the with the master plan and David's going to kind of go over that for us. >> Okay. So, you want to >> Yeah. You raise your right hand. Do you swear a reference test bring the truth?
>> I do. >> So this morning from Please state your full name for the record. >> Of course. Good evening everybody. Nice to see you again. It's been a long two weeks, but I'm back. Uh for the record, my name is David Novak. That's NOVAK with Burgess Associates. We are the Township Planning Consultant. And
tonight we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight or so ordinances to discuss. Um won't give the statutory background as Mr. Mhler just went through that. But what I will do is just somewhat briefly go chronologically through these ordinances as they are
listed on the agenda and just provide a brief description of what's going on there. Um starting with ordinance 2026-2. This pertains to the B2A district. Uh just to situate everybody, this is located in the easterly portion of the
township at the south westerly corner of Princeton Heightstown Road and Southfield Road. It's identified by your tax records as block 47 lines 1 2 3 4 5 and six. It's directly across from the Caffrey shopping center. So as you get off 133, you're driving towards center
of township. You see those we'll say somewhat older and uh dilapidated houses. That's this area as well as well as the dentist office. um has a very brief history on this, >> David. It's also the um the Valero lot
that's catty corner to what you just described. >> That is also same zone. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, just as a very brief background of this, the township had adopted a new zoning ordinance a few years ago that in part
permitted gasoline service stations, drive-through restaurants, and car washes as an accessory use to a gasoline service station in that area. Um, subsequent to that, there was a site plan that was approved for a quick check. It was a preliminary and final site plan as well as a preliminary site plan for a drive-through restaurant. um
that drive-through restaurant is no longer necessarily envisioned in the Westerly portion of that area I was mentioning prior. Um thus there is a draft ordinance that's been uh prepared that modifies the use and bulk regulations of that district. Uh notably
it adds car washes as a permitted use as opposed to being existing accessory use. It adds some additional standards for uh queuing for car washes as well as an adjustment to accessory structures for car washes, specifically the vacuums. Um
when we look at our 2020 land use plan element, that land use plan element encouraged retail and commercial development, which would be more appropriate for the area. It did not necessarily identify car washes as a permitted use, but it still identified car washes as a use in the area. So just
food for thought as we consider consistency to the master plan. Um the next ordinances I will touch upon all deal with >> D you ready to go on to the second one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just I want Jerry to kind of like
just mention something. >> Yeah. And I think maybe this is what what you were going to say the rest of these ordinances and you could say you could see they're all referred to as affordable housing. These are the ordinances which implement the housing element and fair share plan for the
fourth round. Um but and and so that that's where they're coming from. We also have a limited amount of time under the rules in place for the fourth round. We have to get them adopted by March 15, 2026. We have a little time, but not a
great deal. um and that we really don't have the time to be sending it back back and forth between the council and and the planning board. And Sam, do you want to add anything to that? >> Well, basically, it's all part of settlement fair housing.
>> Yeah. Right. And and as part of that settlement agreement, we were able to get the number down significantly from what they were originally posing to us and uh was a we were able to reduce it. >> Yeah. The first uh the first number that
was assigned to the township by the DCA was around 680 or so. >> I think 661 >> 661 >> 661. Um that was uh through a uh very complicated process uh adjusted to 480 affordable units, but
480 affordable units is still a sizable amount to deal with. Um yeah, Mr. Muller stole my thunder there. This is why we're looking at these ordinances right now. The other thing I would add too is that that deadline uh is established not only by the settlement agreement but also by the state of New Jersey being March 15th. If you check your calendars,
that is a Sunday. The irony is not lost on us. Um and towns that miss that deadline, you risk losing your immunity from builder's remedy lawsuits. So
while during the normal process we'd have a little bit more time to go back and forth, uh the state of New Jersey is not allowing in this process. >> So So I'm just going to reiterate as a result of a settlement in the fair share housing
uh litigation back and forth. It's 480 units. You said >> 480. And so these ordinance come out of the settlement agreement and that we're required to come up with solutions in different areas in the township in order
to accommodate these 480 units. I just want to make sure that the public and everybody understands that it's not us pushing it out. It's us being it's placed on us to to uh come up with the these ordinance and solutions.
>> Yeah. And just to add just a tiny bit to that, the number Mike gave was correct. We actually adopted a program that would provide for more than that number of units. It would provide for 507 units. 57 credits. Credits is important because
that's not all units. We were able to get a number of credits uh for various demolition, a couple of different reasons that that um David can go into. And I think the number of units actually is it 411 Dave >> and just around. Yes. >> Yeah. And then the rest of the rest of
credits bonus credits. >> Yes. Uh you have 411 total units including 96 bonus credits for 57 total credits. And that was all when discussed our uh hearing two weeks ago the housing audience. >> Yeah. Just want to jog everybody's
memory that you know this is a settlement and the reason why the audience are here and coming before us is because of we had to um pursue that settlement and implement it. >> And um this is not a process that is just unique for West Windsor, >> right?
>> Um our firm represents probably 40 municipalities or so going through this housing plan process. It is a tight schedule for every municipality because of state legislation, >> right? >> And very very very little to no wiggle
room for going past that on March 15th deadline. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um those of you who were here last time, I did get it off my chest. But uh these ordinances a nice way of powers to
be essentially told us you are going to do this and much not much choice and again question keeps coming up whenever something oh that's not zoned for residential none of these properties are zoned for residential we are forced we are being forced to zone them for
residential under a under duress by the court and by the fair share housing center. So whenever people say oh you don't have to worry about that that's not zone residential they can force you to do zone it residential which is essentially what has happened for every
one of these properties every one of these properties I mean we are taking some prime office properties out of Carnegie center and turning into residential because we are forced to find some place to put 480 and we did
our best to find locations that are most favorable to us As Jerry mentioned, we used every available bonus credit that we could find and maximize the bonus credits as many as we can. But
essentially, we are forced to do this. If you don't like this site, you have to come up with some other site. If not, you lose the immunity if we don't do it by March 15th. And then any laws, any developer can sue saying my site is the prettiest site in town.
So, so this is the best solution to a difficult situation. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Um, go ahead, David. >> On that, right? No. >> I'd like to ask one thing. Um, it seems
to me that ordinance 2026-02, which is this uh B-2A district, the the car wash situation. Could we first deal with all the affordable housing ordinances and then deal with that one separately? I don't see them as, you
know, in the same pot. >> Well, they're not. >> That's Thank you. >> My point. >> They're not. So, what we're going to do is we're David's going to go through all of them. >> No, I mean, I'm wondering if we should focus immediately on the affordable housing ones and then come back to the
neighborhood business item. >> Okay. Let let's go through all let's go through all the items first and then we'll come back and and probably the most questions will be on that one. So then we'll focus on >> that's my point. My point is that >> okay but let's let's get let's get
through David's kind of summarizing >> clarification from David. So March 15 is the deadline by which we need to pass these ordinances so we don't lose the immunity to build a remedy. That's right. Otherwise, they're gonna the the
courts will, you know, and the powers that be will sue us and the the developers will come back and say make changes and it'll be a lot worse. >> Right. So, but it's more about the zoning and less about the building of >> Oh, yes. >> Oh, they're not getting built tomorrow.
They're right. They just >> They are. But the zoning is what needs to be done. >> The zoning needs to be >> adopted by margin. Yes. the the these areas need to be zoned and ordinances put in place that allow for the building of these affordable houses. If not, and
we missed the deadline, it's going to get a lot worse. The number is going to go up and the uh the areas that they'll want to build on will we'll have to find more places. >> Yeah. And especially I mean we we already have within what's called the program and there were a couple of
objectives that they want their particular sites to be included. um and uh we have not included them because we've used and we have tremendous amount of discretion what we we thought were the most appropriate sites to use and David can get into whatever detail he wants on that.
>> Okay, just going back to Curtis's let's go through all of them and we'll go back in order. We're going to look at um B-2A after after David goes through all of his. We're going to look through we're going to discuss the first one and give
the public a chance to talk. Okay, thank you. Okay, the bright note is uh to you. >> Okay. Uh so we will go through ordinance numbers 2026-3 through 09. Again, these are all related to affordable housing. These are all
ordinances and uh resonings that were contemplated not only in the settlement agreement but as well as the housing element and fair share plan. So as a spoiler alert for these ordinances, these will be consistent with the housing plan that the township just adopted two weeks ago. But to uh briefly
summarize them, ordinance 2026-03 establishes what will be calling the R5E district uh in the housing plan. That's what we call the BMS site. That is located in the northwesterly portion of the township near the intersection of US Route 1 and Nassau Park Boulevard. It's identified by block and lot records as
7.04 lot one. Uh that district will permit multif family uses at a density of 29.2 2 units per acre with an affordable housing set aside of 25%. And what that would could generate is a total of 650 total units including 163
affordable units. And again, that is a component that was identified in our housing element and fair share plan. Uh I was not going to necessarily go through the bonus because that's not necessarily contemplated in zoning, but um the BMS site would generate 81 bonus
credits because uh it is a redevelopment of a former commercial space. Next, we have ordinance 2026-04, which is the R5F district. That's the Woodmont commercial site as it's referred to in the housing plan. that's located in the northwesterly portion of
the township near the intersection of Meadow Road and Canal Point Boulevard. Identified by tax records as block 86, lot 58.02. That zone will permit multif family uses at a density of 24 units per acre with an affordable housing set aside of 25%.
And it's contemplated that that site can accommodate 35 total units including nine affordable units. Next would be the uh ordinance 2026-05. That is the R5G district, otherwise known as the Ogles Llaka site. That's
located in the Norly corner of the township. Identified by your tax records as block 7, lots 9.01 and 31. That zoning district will permit multif family uses at a deadly 15.86 86 units per acre with an affordable housing set aside of 25% which could potentially
accommodate 80 residential units including 20 affordable units. Ordinance 2026-06 uh will establish the R5H district uh in the housing plan as referred to the BXP Carnegie Center 400 series site. Um, oh,
I'm sorry. Let me backtrack regarding the Opalsa site because that is a former commercial area that would generate 10 bonus credits. Sorry about that. Uh, back to ordinance 2026, that's 06. That's the R5H district. Uh, again,
located at the northwestly portion of the township near the intersection of Carnegie Center Boulevard and Carnegie Center Drive. It encompasses block 9, lots 83, 84, and 85. And again, it'll permit multif family uses at a density of 11.8 eight units per acre. Uh a
affordable housing set aside established at 25% that can generate a total of 326 total units including 82 affordable units. The next ordinance is ordinance 2026-07 which will establish the R5i district
and the housing plan that was adopted that's noted as the BXP Carnegie Center 901 series site that's located in the northwesterly portion of the township at the intersection of US Route 1 and Carnegie Center Boulevard. It's identified by municipal tax records as
block 7.15 lot 12.09. Again, it'll permit multif family uses at a density of 27.5 units per acre. Uh with an option for age restricted development there as well. Um an affordable housing set aside would be established at 25%. It's contemplated
that that site can generate 275 total units including 69 affordable units. >> How many uh AFS affordable? >> Uh 69. >> 69. >> Thank you. Next we have ordinance 2026-08
which will establish the R5J district. We call that the ALR tractor supply site in the housing plan. That's located in the northwestly portion of the township along the US one corridor somewhat across from the BMS site. Uh the site that was previously approved for a track
for supply as well as a hotel and an urgent care facility. It's identified by your tax records as block 8 lot 17 24 and 30. The zoning will permit multif family uses at a density of 17.4 units per acre um with an affordable housing set aside
of 25% that can generate 216 total units including 54 affordable units. Uh the other ordinance we have is ordinance 2026-09 that deals with the RP7A and RP7B
district which are both located within the Princeton Junction redevelopment area. right now all part of the RP7 district. Uh this is a twofold ordinance. So it deals with two different sites, two different components. However, since they are located in that redevelopment area and since they are so close together and
somewhat interconnected, we combine this into one ordinance. Um first we'll talk about the RP7A district that encompasses block 5, lot 20. It's it's the Ellsworth center site. Um, we're making some modifications to the existing zoning there to allow for residential uses to
be located on the first floor of any new buildings or additions going forward. So, right now the district only allows for mixed use commercial on the ground floor, residential above. This would allow some additional flexibility of residential on both ground floor and upper floors. However, the district
still requires mixed uses uh and specifically retail and personal service establishments to be located within the first floor of existing buildings along Cranberry Road. So, still trying to maintain that mixeduse look along Cranberry Road, transitioning more for residential as you go back into the
property. Um that draft ordinance also increases the affordable housing set aside from 20% to 25% for new units to be generated after the adoption of the ordinance. Why does it get new units? Well, there's a site plan approval there already for a
certain number of affordable units. So, anything that gets built above and beyond that now needs to be at a 25% set aside. So, it is contemplated that this site can accommodate 26 total residential units including six affordable units as well as the commercial uses that are presently there
and could be approved in the future. Uh, next we have the RP7B district that's located literally right next door. It's block five, lot 62 and 76. This would >> This is the lot that's adjacent to Ellsworth that's along Cranberry Road.
>> If you are standing >> across from the the roadway that that comes behind >> Yeah. You know the roadway that goes to the park in the back, >> right? >> The open space in the back that will eventually one day have a small park there. >> That's the site. Okay. >> So, if you're standing at Cranberry Road, you >> I was reading the ordinance. I couldn't
figure it out exactly. >> It's Yeah, you can see a little bit better in the housing plan. If you were standing at Cranberry Road, you have Ellsworth Center right here. Then you'll look to the right, you'll see that road and then two older houses back there. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Understood. >> And there's actually a zoning board approval years ago. I think it was a zoning board approval um for a detention
basin there that would be associated with the elsewhere center development. >> So, it's on the Walgreens side of the street, not the railroad side of the street. >> No, it's still on the railroad. It's all still across the street. >> Yeah. If you're standing at El Center, it's to the right of that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Didn't Ellsworth buy that that
property? >> That's Yeah, that's on there. >> Yep. And this will be uh developed by uh Kumnian um for a townhouse development with a density of 25 units per acre and a 25% set aside which would allow for 37 total units including 10 affordable units. Uh
we do get bonus credits for the um Komadian site uh because it is located within close proximity to a train station and the legislation that was adopted allows for a bonus credit for that. So when you add that all up that gets you to 411 total units. Let me
rephrase that. 411 total affordable units. When you look at total units it's a lot more. Uh as well as 96 bonus credits. Um, which gets us to 507 total affordable credits. As we mentioned, we have a affordable housing obligation for the fourth round of 480
affordable units. Might lead to one to question, well, why are you providing more than you're required to do? And it's because uh of the famous Mike Tyson quote, everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face. Um, we had a plan for the third round. Certain
developments changed. Uh, certain developments added more units. other developments reduce their number of units. It's good to have that flexibility. >> So we have so basically this is a cushion in case developers change their mind in the numbers that they they're
going to put they're going to develop. >> Uh yeah, exactly. Or if there's a change in the market five years from now, these are 10 year plans. So >> and and the credits give us even more flexibility because you don't have to develop the actual unit because you have
the credits to offset that. Is that correct? >> Uh well, we would still want those units to be developed prior to the fourth round. Uh because those Yeah, >> but we we'd only have to put 411 somehow in if because we have the credits.
>> Uh we have some we do have flexibility. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh and again, these are the projects that were all contemplated and discussed in the housing plan two weeks ago. Um, and again, it's it I know it seems like a very tight and rigid time frame, but
that's because it is a very tight rigid time frame. Um, it is not ideal, but that is what's been developed by the state. Um, of course, affordable housing is an important need throughout the state of New Jersey. Um, so I know we are talking and offering some criticisms
regarding the timeline of this and the amount of work that needs to go in into a very limited amount of time, but it is for an important social good. >> Yeah. >> Could you use the bonus credits that are left over from this round in the next round?
>> Uh, potentially. Um, potentially. It all depends on what the township status is at that point, which attorney that we're dealing with, whoever might be objective. >> This would be another round. >> Yes. But sometimes there is that flex. >> Maybe you'll be >> sometimes there is that. No, that's a
it's a really it's a it's a very interesting question because >> uh in certain instances, yes, you can't carry over to the next round if you have additional credits. It just deals it it's deals on who you're dealing with. Um, >> is that something Jerry you could write fair share housing center and and say
look for any reason we go over what our obligation is we would want credits for the fifth round. Well, I think I think we can at some point, yeah, I think would be premature to do it now, but as we get closer to the fifth round. Um, and I I think there'd be a certainly we'd want to take the position that we
we the extended site is built out, we want to get the bonus credits for it as well if it's a site that's generating. >> Yep. And uh it could be worse, right? We could have a 250 year old farm that needs to be developed, right? Like in
Cranberry. Yeah, >> I I have seen some news articles online that just sent shivers down my spine. Y >> so you're right. >> Uh we are not condemning any property with this process. >> Nor imminent
>> imminent domain. >> Okay. Anything else, David? On >> that's all I have. I know that's a lot of information. Um, >> anybody in the my colleagues with um questions or Okay.
Um, okay. Um, let let's let's give it over to the public to kind of make some comments and then um I'm sure some of the board members want to discuss especially there's a lot of interest in B2A. So, let's have the public step up and talk and then this way maybe the
board member who has questions can maybe address the public's um concerns. So, at this time you wanted to speak. It's now your turn to speak. >> Well, maybe not.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm I'm going to swear all the members of the public in if you >> can help with the microphone. >> If you could raise your right hand. >> You lower the microphone for you have just a second. >> Thank you very much.
>> You can raise your you can raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. So sworn or affirm. Could you please state your full name and spell your last name? Deborah Margolus M A R G U L I E F
149 Tunic Flower Lake. So am I correct that we can now speak to this ordinance? >> Yes. Speak on any of the items any of these ordinances you'd like to speak. Not all this other affordable housing. Okay, that's if you want to. I'm here.
>> Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure I was in the right spot. >> Yes. Yes. So, I just want to go on record as saying that I really feel a change to a master plan
that called this B2A district uh smallcale retail service uses, encouraging neighborhood serving commercial activity to protect adjoining residential neighborhoods and ensure
that parking signage and site elements are non-intrusive. Um, as it stands now, apparently a car wash as an accessory to like a quick check or a gas station of some
kind is permissible. And I not thrilled about that either. But I think a standalone fullervice car wash is totally out of character for the way this district is described. I
don't think it would enhance the neighborhood and I would not want to be living in one of those nearby neighborhoods and see my property values go down as a result. So, I just want to go on record that I do not agree with
this change that could occur. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> If you can raise right hand, do you swear affirming testimony about to give be the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your full name. Spell your last name. Uh,
>> Tza Warman, five Stonley Drive. Thank you. >> Um I uh come here tonight also to state my opposition to the proposed ordinance. Um
>> which one? >> I'm sorry. >> Which ordinance are you opposed? >> The car wash one or the >> I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Regarding the car wash. >> Okay. Uh that would be B-2A. >> B-2A. Yeah. Opposite Macaffries.
>> Yep. that would make it uh a second car wash in town. There already is one just down the block. Um I I think that uh uh even the current uh zoning which permits
an an accessory use is problematic to me. Um I have an environmental background. Um and I think uh a car wash will bring additional motor vehicles to the area. uh will result in more air
pollution with idling and more storm water runoff from the actual wash cycle. Um those are all things that I see as negatives. Um and that it is inconsistent with the master plan to go from accessory to
primary use. Um so I I think that the ordinance should be rejected. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> You can raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes. >> So sworn or affirm. Please state your
full name and spell your last name. >> Yeah. First name AJ. Last name Tmer. >> Could you spell >> if you could say that again? >> AJ A Y T O M A R. Address 6 code.
Okay. Thank you. >> So, I'm here to share my concern regarding the ordinance about the car wash. I don't remember the number, but that's I think we know. The currently under review. The adopted land use plan for this neighborhood allows a car wash
only as an accessory to a gas station, not as a principal business. Approving a standalone car wash would violate the adopted master plan. Such a violation would leave township vulnerable to litigations.
I'm prepared to file a lawsuit on behalf of my neighborhood if such ordinance is adopted without modifying the master plan underneath. If the administration wants to change the master plan, go ahead and change it.
Don't sneak it into the ordinance where the master plan says otherwise. That's my concern. And please be noted in the >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Right. Right hand. This will affirm the testimony of God be the truth.
>> Yes. >> So want to affirm. Please state your full name and spell your last name. >> Kevin Ronaldo. R A L L O 106 Harris Road. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh this is regarding the car wash
as well. Um just curious how how uh it will fit into the proposal uh with the current master plan. The property is presently governed uh by the existing master plan. Uh and does this change align with that vision? Under the
current plan, a car wash is permitted only as an accessory use. This proposal would elevate it to a primary use. I'm just curious how that's consistent with the intent and objectives of the current master plan. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Anybody else from the public wish to speak? Mayor say something. Um, okay. I don't see anybody else want to speak. So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Moved by mayor second by Jica say I >> I >> Okay. I'm going to talk about B2A since that seems to be a very hot topic. Um couple of points. One thing is I think people misunderstand what access and using but
before even that uh some of people came and spoke here uh when we were talking about warehouses they kept repeating 40 uses 40 uses per so I come up with another use and they say we don't like that I wish they said we don't want
warehouse and we don't want right then I would have found something else they kept saying no one of those 40 uses one of those 40 uses access now they don't like um one of the things about access and use is the reason we need to meet this
V2A ordinance is because the owner of quick check and the owner of car wash is different if quick check buys that car wash and builds exactly the same car wash at that same location we don't need this ordinance the only reason for this ordinance is because the owners are
different that's the legality that's the legal form of it People say traffic it's right on 571. I mean Taiwan should not know that significantly more traffic that it's on 571. People say housing nearby. There's no
housing nearby. There's a whole field between the car wash and the nearest housing and for the record the developer had proposed the warehouse on that location and I said no. So again, people
don't want warehouses. We got wash. We don't want either. Um there's a restaurant approved. The developer couldn't find anybody to build a restaurant there. We found a car wash. It's a reputable company. Some people we
are not actually doing a a site plan approval here. So I don't want to talk about the company how the car wash will look. if that opportunity is a planning board will get when it comes to death. Uh but because he couldn't find a restaurant, he found a
car wash uh someone wrote an email saying about taxes. Anything is better than zero. I don't know if should bring more tax revenue or um restaurant will make bring more tax revenue but either one of them
will bring more than zero tax revenues that's right there. So somebody will take down those storehouses that are for 40 years that I have lived here. It's a legitimate use
and I don't know if it's politics or people just say no to anything I proposed but it's a perfect use it's a perfectly good operator the developer is local if the project was stuck for previous time and again people who are
opposed to car wash zoning board had approved a car wash diodes the guy never built it but a car And 7-Eleven was approved there way before my time when no politics was involved. Nobody was coming here and claiming
about every proposal the mayor makes. So the car wash was proposed there. Car wash is allowed there. The valu station owner owns that Valero station. If he decides to build a car wash next to the station, there's nothing anyone of us
can do. He kind of owns it because it won't be it will be his own. He will own both of them. So it doesn't becomes an accessory user. So the reason we need this ordinance because of technical technicalities of of how the laws the owners have to do
business which is a perfectly good use and if people just want to say no to any development in town that's fine. I mean that's your choice but I would not say no this is a perfectly good perfectly good operator and it's replacing an ISO
that has been there 40 years right on a main road um I don't see any reason other than just say no kind of attitude to complain about the >> can I ask a couple questions and
isn't there a quick check going in there >> quick check is quick Okay. And and that's going to have a convenience store and a gas station there. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the car wash, if you didn't know it was a different owner, the car wash is kind of like right next to it, right?
>> So, the only reason why we're having this ordinance is because it's two different owners. If you didn't know, the car wash and the Quint check convenience store and the gas station were all lining up next to each other. It looks like an accessory unit, but the
fact that it's just two different owners is why the ordinance is is necessary. Okay. Um I said my piece >> it's not going to look like the one the shell station where it's actually >> I don't want to go I don't want to go
get involved with concept plan. >> I'm not going to go into any site plan detail >> plan will come to the plan. I mean he he needs to come back to the planning board to get approval but before he can come to the planning board he needs the ordinance so he's allowed it's a allow
you so we can talk about how it's going to look >> right one thing >> people have gone and looked at other location sheets but we can talk about that here but that's not in front of the plan >> no one thing I can at least bring up though is that we are not changing the
design standards of the B2A district in terms of how facade materials we you know we encouraged brick to match with not only the macaffies across the street but the CVS on the other side as well. So if you guys remember during the planning board process of the quick check we were also encouraging that
brick facade as well. >> Um so those design standards that encourage that look have not changed with this orders. >> Yeah. The point I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't two different owners and he was built and the car wash is getting built in Weber location, it's
next to the the Quick Check gas station next to the Quick Check convenience store. It I'm guessing it's going to because I I don't haven't seen a concept plan, but I'm guessing it's, you know, all in a row kind of semi semiattached or right next to each other and you
wouldn't know the difference if you other than the fact that it's two different owns. Right. Right. >> I think there's some separation between that the property the gas station quick check and >> they share parking. They have cross
sequ. >> So it's seamless. In other words, >> buildings aren't built, >> right? >> The buildings are not attached, but the parking lots are attached, >> right? They share a parking lot. So there's space between the two buildings, but the parking lot is with one giant
parking lot with two buildings on it. Okay. >> David, how do you reconcile the car wash use with the zone that's neighborhood uh
neighborhood development? How do you reconcile that reconcile in terms of the list of permitted uses there or >> Well, you know, I mean, the the zone didn't have car wash. I
mean, for the R2A zone didn't have it had it as accessory use. I get it. But how do you reconcile car wash as an independent use to what we're trying to achieve with neighborhood development
for the R2A? >> I'm not ignoring you getting the master plan up. Yeah, please do because I know there's descriptive there. I mean, um, and I'm pretty much restating Kevin's question, you know, on on how does this fit into the master plan and how do you
reconcile it? If it's already an accessory used then as uses something that goes with whatever is next door which is gas station I mean English is not my first language for me accessory is it goes
together with compliment gas station yeah complimented next door and as I said if the valo guy decides to build a car wash >> it would be an accessory use like you said right mayor >> accessory to the gas station >> right to the which part within the the
the zone within the the uh >> could be on that corner >> part of the zone the descriptive of the zone >> in the same development by the same developer developing same just getting two different >> two different entities one entity to own
a gas station one entity to want if he can get an entity to want both he doesn't have to come to us he can just go ahead and do it and then answer And like it's not part of Quick Check's uh mode of operation to do car washes
unlike say Royal Farms which does is a convenience store that has a car wash component. Yes. >> But that's not part of Quick Check's model at all. Am I correct on that? >> Uh that would be my understanding as well. Um so sorry and sorry for the dramatic pause there is getting up the
master plan. Couldn't find it and then I realized it's because I saw the housing plan up. So that was two different documents. Um, as a little bit of a brief background of the B2A district, uh, that was something that was recommended by the 2020 land use plan. Um, it was in part an
offshoot of the B2 district, which is also known as the neighborhood center business district. Um, there is a certain irony in that. Um, we call it neighborhood center business >> and and uh, the Southfield shopping center is a B2 district. >> B2 district. Yes. >> So, yeah. So, yeah. So differences
between that and B2A and why there are these differences. >> Uh the other important thing to note is some of the other B2 districts as well just because I want to explain what this background is. Um, so the B2A district, uh,
as you mentioned, also encompasses the Macaffrey Shopping Center. Um, >> no, B2, not B2A, >> I'm sorry, B2 district also encompasses the Macaffrey Shopping Center as well. Um the
intent of the B2 that was in part of East also to replace the underlying zoning of that area. Um so that corner that we're discussing which is both the properties
we just discussed with the quick check as well as the dentist office and this proposed car wash as well as the gas station which is caddyy quarter from there. Uh >> and am I correct those are the only B2A districts in Westminster. >> That's the only B2A districts in Westminster. Uh those were previously
located in both the residential district, the R1C district as well as the P1 district which used to be an office district which is no more. Um the when that district was developed, it was
understood or or understood that it was in an area that and specifically an intersection which predominantly featured other commercial retail uses. So the office zoning there as well as the residential zoning didn't really match with what was in the surrounding
character as well as encompassing those areas as well. Uh you had the gas station on one side and the dilapidated buildings as well as the doctor's office on the other hand. So the the whole overall goal of this district was to encourage more retail and commercial development that was appropriate
in consideration of that intersection in consideration of some of their other surrounding commercial uses and uh initially the district was designed for what we call smallcale stores and shops. Now when I say smallcale stores and
shops the uncomfortable conversation is always you know what is smallcale. Um, people usually envision mom and pop stores, which are also small scale, but in terms of zoning, we don't dictate who moves into there. We don't dictate whether it's a
commercial entity uh or a corporate entity or a LLC. We don't look at if it's um Starbucks that's moving in or um the mom and pop coffee shop I was just at across the street in Macaffries.
That's uh Grover's. Thank you, Grover's Mill. Uh, we're just setting the uses. So, the idea was smallcale stores and shops, which we're thinking small scale in terms of the actual size of the building. Uh, offices, eating and drinking establishments, bank fast food establishments with drive-throughs,
memory care establishments, gasoline service stations with convenience store, medical and professional offices, and and freestanding mortuaries, which ultimately was not identified as permitted use in that district. Um and then we also identified car washes as a
accessory use. So those uses were cast as something that would be smallcale in nature in terms of the size of the building in terms of the layout of those sites um but also something that would almost be uh complimentary and serviceoriented towards that corridor
and recognition again of that intersection that commercial intersection. So the car wash as an autorelated use certainly is not identified in the master plan as being a principal primary use. Uh but
>> in a neighborhood >> in that neighborhood business district yes >> in a V2A >> in the B2A. Um however you do have other autorelated industries and businesses and uses that are identified as being permitted in that district. Uh gasoline service station for example. um
drive-thru fast food establishment uh auto oriented types of businesses. So, while the addition of a car wash as a principal permitted use may not line up to the exact pex of that, what we're really looking to see, and this is going
to sound like an odd double negative, but if this ordinance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan to develop that area with smallcale commercial uses that can complement that corridor. Um so again uh
when you looked at the the specific recommendation of the land use plan no car washes are clearly identified as an accessory use. Uh when you look at the overall intent of that district there are uses in there that are autooriented like gas service stations
and like drive-through restaurants. Um so it is a balancing act that this board needs to contend with. >> Quick quick question on this. If if the gas station and the convenience store was on one corner and
the car wash was standalone on the other corner, would you be would you be acceptable that that was kind of an accessory use if they were so far apart from each other and consistent with the master plan at
that point >> and functioning as one cohesive >> two different owners. We and you know one corner is a standalone car wash. There's houses in between. There's gardens in between. And then on the other side is the quick check and the
gas station. I I personally would have a problem with that being an accessory unit to the gas station because they're not next to each other. So I just I'm trying to get to the point that even though it's two different owners, they're right next to each other sharing
a parking lot. Yes. It's a little space between the buildings, but they're sharing a parking lot and to me that's an accessory unit with just a different owner on on the on the car wash. >> Yeah. I mean, certainly >> does that make sense that it >> Yeah. When you look at something as being accessory, um you're looking at
whether or not it's supported in the incidental to the principal use um as well as site integration as well, right? So, you know, one the example that you gave reminds me of um something that pops up, not necessarily in this town, but in a lot of lake communities where
you might have a house, a roadway, and then something another piece of property closer to a lake where you have a dwelling on one property and then you have a roadway and then you have a garage on the other one, >> right? Typically, the garage would function as an accessory use to a dwelling, >> but because they're located on two different lots and separated like that,
often times that garage be considered a principal use on another lot require Dvarian, right? Which is a use variance. >> Um, so the two factors that you'd be really looking for at with an accessory use is whether or not they're supported incidental and what's site integration.
So if they were separated like that, then clearly >> we'd be looking at E1 news. >> Sight differential >> who wouldn't be there if they were so far apart, >> but just two different owners sharing a parking lot. Complimentary services, gas
station, car wash. Hey, let me go get gas and then run my car through the car wash. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry. >> Anybody? >> I have a couple of questions. Yeah, go ahead. You go ahead.
>> Does this open up um the possibility of other people coming and saying we want to build a car wash now in this district because it's allowed as a principal use versus only as an accessory use as it was previously. >> Uh short answer yes. So once you
establish as a permitted use in the district um it's established as principal use. So if the property caddy corner um which is the gas station that's uh gas station but the smaller one yeah the Valero if they wanted to develop as a car wash as well technically then yes they would be
permitted to develop as a car wash there. I think he's already been approved. He came before the board like 10 years ago, >> right? So that's an excessive. >> But what I'm talking about is as a principal use if somebody just comes in, >> not gas station ownership or whatever, you know,
>> standalone car wash, >> right? >> Although that's unlikely to happen because, you know, as a business uh from a business point of view, why would you have a third car wash come in? But >> keep in mind, there's only three problems.
We put our road station. >> Yeah, there's no I was about to say there's no place to build a car wash in that district >> except the thing. >> Well, we got to approve. >> How many years ago was that?
>> 10 years ago. >> 10 years ago. I remember >> but I mean that time it wasn't so and exactly the same >> he wanted to carve out two acres or something. I'm just going to carve out
two acres build a 7-Eleven and car wash. Yeah. >> And Sam just his since we're doing the history of car washes in West Ward Township. the valet auto wash highway 1 uh south of Meadow Road. Was that a zoning board application or planning board?
>> And why was that a zoning board application? >> Okay. And and that's currently a B2 district, correct? >> Yeah. >> Is is our car washes let now allowed in B2 district? >> No. >> No. >> Uh let me you know what? Let me double check that. Uh the B2 district is also
known as a business district. Uh the irony is that it does follow uh route one. Um that district permits a bunch of different uses including such stores and shops for uh retail business, personal
service establishments, offices, restaurants and neighborhood taverns, repair and servicing of uh any article for sale. attended laundry and dry cleaning, coffee centers and newspaper offices, hotels, fast food with drive-throughs, commercial recreation, cultural facilities, branch banks with
or without drive-throughs, convenience stores in conjunction with the gasoline service station, senior daycare facilities, urgent care, fitness and wellness, certain types of plant commercial developments, building structures and uh other uses owned by the township, farm and
agricultural uses, and then accessory uses. So now car washes are not identified for use in that district. I mean we again it's a good use footprint same as the restaurant that couldn't find the
restaurant we already own for the property property was sitting was owned previous owner went bankrupt property was owned by a bank in Texas we wanted to develop that we had to get rid of those lights houses we found a developer
who asked me whether you can build a car wash instead of restaurant and I found nothing wrong. I mean if you build a restaurant people will again you go drive through how many f are going to come and it's a business he has to stay in business and make
money nobody stays in business so perfectly good news if somebody died only across a car wash nobody can object because it's a permitted use he wants to hold property that was approved by more
just 10 years ago before nobody objected Then it's right on 571. No house is nearby. There is mass mass cla behind that. So planning to spend
inordinate amount of time making sure that no enter 71 facility. But the closest housing facility is quite far off. towards the commercial respect to commercial use and
I don't see any valid reason for anybody to say they don't like car wash. >> Hey Sam, corre correct me if I'm wrong. Did didn't um the owner of the property come before the board and wanted to put a huge number of highly number of houses there
>> the property? >> No, that was to the south. >> Oh, >> that was behind that was the zoning board use change application. >> Yeah, use better. right Tim >> 420 affordable units not that I remember it nor do I >> very and very dense like you want to put
a little pocket park and then build huge number >> and nor do I remember my car breaking down in a way to that meeting as well >> I don't know it was a lot of houses >> and that wasn't so that was important that was not
>> okay time anybody We we go through >> page by page of this organ and we >> like how how does the process work on that >> for the D2A district? >> Yeah, I mean if you want to
page by page >> Mike I was just going to say it's good that we're talking about car washing because many like six of them now on a municipal level have adopted bans on on car washing car washing >> because of the environmental
considerations and so >> goes down the drains >> right so >> you talking to my phone >> question is we're going to probably the question but we're going to see more and more opportunities in townships for new car washes I'm not saying New Jersey is
going to doubt that but there are some locations in New Jersey where it's already doubt Yes, that makes sense. Yeah. I used to wash my car in front of my house in Queens and the soaps went right down the sewers. >> Yeah. And there's things called closed
loop uh coral wash recycling system and uh these systems minimize environmental impact with strict New Jersey EPA and local water regulations and significant uh sewer water costs. So there there's some environmental things about with car
washes and all those required >> are they required now recapture is required. So if it's a law and it's required then >> So if it's a law and it's required then any new car wash would have to meet all those standards >> right at the end of applications they
say you have to get approval and other state agencies other agencies. >> Okay. Okay. Anybody else? >> Right. So, I just want to know since there was this threat of litigation um I I want to make sure that we're in good standing
um by saying that um this this ordinance is in fines. >> David seems to think so. And Jerry >> Yeah. No, I I would agree with David. I think it is >> and it meets the the criteria that you
know and I I pointed out the scenario where the two the two um businesses were would be separate you wouldn't meet the criteria for you know site uh differential however you quoted David
site difference site differential >> uh site integration >> site integration so that side by side it's like it it's like two town house is two different owners, right? It's they share a parking lot. It's like, you know, town houses that share a a
driveway, right? And it's complimentary use, a car wash and a gas station. I you know, and they're next to each other. >> Okay. >> And and just to reiterate too, when we talk about the B2A district and the 2020 plan, it's not just uses that we go over
too. also certain goals that we're looking to achieve overall in that category as well which is the development redevelopment of those properties um providing buffering and landscaping integrating parking and
signage and and strongly encouraging lot consolidation so we have a more cohesive design so those are other overall intents of the B2A district so when we talk about consistency it's not necessarily just with the uses but all overall what we're looking to accomplish
with the districts. >> So you're saying yes they are this would be in compliance master. >> I I think when you look at the language of the municipal land use law to see if this is not inconsistent with the intent of this plan. Uh no I don't think this
is consistent with the intent of the plan. I think that the language plan does invite orient businesses in this area. It encourages signage offering and lot integration to encourage the redevelopment of this district >> redevelopment.
>> Development and redevelopment. When I say redevelopment, little R redevelopment. >> Okay. Because I mean it's that like >> we are not doing an area need of redevelopment nor a >> that's not like it's area in need of redevelopment. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> I want to be careful with our language. >> Yes. Curtis brings up a good point. Uh when we talk about redevelopment,
there's big R and little R. Uh big R is area need of redevelopment and redevelopment plans. That's not what's being >> which we've done had to deal with as the planning group. >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Um this would be little R. >> Okay. Linda, you had some further points
to me. >> Well, I think whole bunch of things are have to wait, I guess, for the council. We're not going to discuss any >> well we can't specific >> we can't discuss concept plans or um site plan development and how it should
look and you know that's you know council level things I think that you're talking about and then if the applicantation comes before this board then we'll talk about aesthetics looks um buffering >> that with the planning board application
>> right when it comes before the forward with an application. >> Are they coming in with a cox plan? >> They are first to get the audience passed. Then they they will come with a plan and
>> they may just get the ordinance passed and they just come in with an application and you know we'll do what we always do is we'll shape the aesthetics. We'll make sure that the fences are this the right height and there's BMS if they
need to be BMS and the the facade of the buildings, you know, look uh aesthetically pleasing and match with the rest of the area and the signage is, you know, not too big.
>> Yeah. I mean, I have other questions. Hours of operation, the closed loop. >> Oh, we're not there yet. We're not We're not there yet. do that. No, I changed this. Okay. Okay.
>> So, what what we're going to do is we're going to I'm going to entertain a motion to uh approve ordinances 2026-3 through 09. >> Okay. We're actually not approving them. We're we're we're uh advising the motion
would be to advise council that those ordinances the board finds are substantially consistent with the master plan. >> Okay. So, I'm going to entertain a motion to accept these ordinances are consistent with the master plan, but to
I'm going to do them three through nine first and then we'll come back and do uh two. So, I'll entertain a motion to send this back to council as a um that these ordinances
uh consistent with the master plan. Do I hear a motion? So moved. >> Moved by the mayor. Second by >> second by Curtis. Please call >> three through nine. Correct. >> Three through nine. Correct. Please call roll. >> Mr. Pat. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavara.
>> Yes. >> Miss Bar. >> Yes. >> Missette. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers. >> Yes. >> Mayor Marte. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman. >> Yes. >> Chairman Karp. >> Yes.
Well, I'll entertain a motion to um submit uh ordinance 2026 is 2B-2A district back to the council that with the approval that is consistent with the master plan. May I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Moved by the mayor. Second by >> second.
>> Second by Jordica. Please call the role. >> Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavaro. >> Yes. >> Miss Bar. >> Yes. >> Miss Apple. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers. >> Yes. Mayor Marte, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Holderman, >> no.
>> Chairman Cart, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Um, >> we need to go into close secondary. >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Got the materials in our packet to make.
>> Sam wants to have one meeting before Elite does. He can't he he he may schedule a meeting on Friday for all I know. >> I thought you said to change your mind over time. >> Okay. >> Meeting a journ. Thank you.
>> Question. >> Yeah. So concerned about when are they going to clear those out? >> Soon. Soon. Within next month. within next month. Okay.