The May 20th, 2026 regular planning board meeting is called to order. And where I got it. >> Um, this is to advise that the notice, time, date, location, and to the extent
known agenda of subject meeting was primary posted in the public place reserved for such or similar announcements on May 8th, 2026, and transmitted to the times and the Princeton packet on May 8, 2026, filed with the township clerk on May 8th,
2026. Please call the role. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaktel. >> Mr. Panho. >> Yes. >> Mr. B, >> yes. >> Miss Bar, >> yes. >> Miss Apple >> here.
>> Councilwoman Jvers >> here. >> Mayor Marte. Vice Chairman Hobberman >> here. >> Chairman Court >> here. We have another. Thank you. First thing I'm going to ask Jerry to make an announcement regarding an
amendment to the agenda. >> Yeah, just a housekeeping matter. Uh you might recall that we had the Princeton send application before us on May 6th and um board was not ready to uh to decide it. the applicants and when when it's more
time to maybe make changes. Um we decided to carry it till tonight just for the purposes of carrying it to a date certain. Um in the interim though apparently they have told uh Lisa that they want to go back to TRC. So what I
suggest is we tonight just carry it to a uh carry it without date and then we'll see what happens with that and we might wind up um just starting all over again. But for now, I think that's what we should do. >> Yeah, >> that was the sign application.
>> That was a sign, >> the monument. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think we need a vote on that. >> Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to continue the um Vincent. Vince.
>> So move, Mr. Chairman. Second. Simon, second by Sue. Um please call the role. Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Panov, >> yes. >> Mr. B, >> yes. >> Miss Bar, >> yes. >> Miss Apple,
>> yes. >> Councilwoman Gver, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman, >> yes. >> Chairman Cart, >> yes. Thank you. >> Okay. The date of which will be determined another time. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So, that would mean even though it's on
the projected agenda for June 17th, that might not happen. That might not be it appear. >> It appears that it will not happen on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, next up is uh public comments on
non-aggenda non-pending items. Please step up to microphone, state your name and address for the record. None. Seeing none. Thank you. Um, regarding the minutes from April 15th, does anybody have any changes, amendments? Um, the very thorough
minutes from it. >> Very, very good. Just one um quick tweak a little bit on page three. Um, says, "Councilwoman Gver's reference lighting concerns raised by the township engineer emphasizing proper garage lighting for senior developments." And I'd like to
just insert and and other developments. I just didn't want it to be just the um all about senior developments. >> So just and and other developments. >> Yeah, I told. >> Okay. Right. Thank you. >> I'll entertain a mo any others. I'll
entertain a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes from April 15, 2026. >> Amended. >> As amended. >> So moved. >> Moved by second. >> Second by Mr. B. >> Um all in favor say I. >> I. I. for those eligible to vote. That
is >> I was uh I abstain. >> Simon abstain. Thank you. It's approved. Next up on the agenda is resolution PD19-13, third amendment.
>> Jerry, >> yes. You have in your um packet that the resolution um this is Bear Creek Senior Living. Um there is a development. It includes a significant amount of affordable housing. There's been two two
amendments to it to kind of modify things to make it more attractive to a uh a developer. And now a third one came in. It was just approved. Um they're basically it's laid out all the uh proposed changes are laid out in the
resolution and um there were not not any um variances or waiverss that were required and the conditions are set forth on pages 6 through 8 and there's not a lot of them.
>> Right. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve resolution PB19-13 amendment. So moved moved by M by Mr. B. Second >> second. >> Second by Miss Jvers. Miss the roll.
>> Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> M >> Councilwoman Jvers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bade. >> Yes. >> Miss Apple. >> Yes. Vice Chairman Hovernet. >> Yes. >> Chairman K. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Um DOA leazison. Um is there any environmental commission? >> I realize this the meeting the last one. >> Okay. So nothing. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Next up application PB26-04 PLG BLG West Windsor amended final subdivision. Mr. Chair, proof of publication and service are in order and the board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Um, my name is Ron Shimanowitz. I'm from the firm of Hutch Shimanowitz and Pler here on behalf of the applicant BLG West Windsor LLC. We're before you tonight seeking amended final subdivision approval and bulk
variances. This application regards the property known as lot 12.011 block 9. This is the lot that hopefully is somewhat familiar to the board. It's the lot that serves the uh previously approved Fogo de Chowo restaurant as
well as the hotel. Uh both of those uses uh were site planned on the one lot. Uh application's pretty simple tonight. This is a two lot subdivision. The purpose of the subdivision is to divide the subject property into two lots. One
of which will serve the Fogo de Chow restaurant, one of which will serve the hotel. Uh that new subdivision line which is u substantially for financing purposes for making it a little more user friendly. Uh uh that subdivision
line does create some um setback variances. Uh actually three variances. There's one for lot depth and there's two for setback. You'll hear from our planner on that. Uh we have basically one witness tonight who is our our planner Sean Delaney. Uh I would just
like to state um for the board that uh during TRC uh it was raised to us that there was existing reciprocal easement agreements because you have the commercial portions of this development and the residential. uh whatever
amendments are needed if any uh into in the reciprocal easement agreement we will make and obviously be subject to uh the township's review. Uh and um if there are any cross easements that are
required in particular between uh if indeed the board grants this amended subdivision approval. If there are easements between the two new lots, the restaurant and hotel, obviously we will set those up as well subject to um the planning board's uh council review or
township council review, whoever does those things. And with that introduction, unless there's any other housekeeping, like to call our first witness. Actually, I do have a housekeeping question. As this goes on, throughout the documentation that we received as board members, I see
different references to the two parcels. Some labels are 12.011A and 0011B. And on the Bowman uh part, it's labeled
property 12.011. 011 and 12.0112. For tonight's discussions, what are we naming the two properties? Uh we we should refer to the numeric the the the letter designations were done early on
as sort of a placeholder because until we apply we don't know what the town assessor, engineer, whoever might be assigning lot numbers, what number they'll assign. So we I would say the A and the B should sort of fade away. So I'll do my best to refer to numbers. I
would ask Mr. Delaney to refer to numbers as well >> just to be consistent throughout our whole discussion today. >> Absolutely. And just to call that out, lot 12.011 uh is uh the restaurant or proposed
restaurant lot. Uh uh uh 12.011 011 uh two is it do I have to take yeah is the is the proposed hotel lot so we'll stick with numbers I appreciate that clarification >> who owns the lots if you're going to
divide in the same owner does that change at all >> right now the both of those well the the one lot today is is owned by my client BLG West Windsor LLC if the subdivision is approved they will still own the two lots but they'll be able to deal with
those two lots uh a little more easily. In terms of financing, I guess if there were a a sale or a transfer, that would be facilitated, too. But it's right now it's more about the financing. >> And the liquor license stays with the hotel.
>> The liquor license, I believe, stays with the hotel, but I think there's some reciprocity with the the restaurant, but whatever the liquor license arrangement was before this application would stay would stay the same. So, so the hotel gets the liquor
license, but the restaurant uses it. >> I That's my understanding. Yeah. Yeah. >> That's okay. If there's two different lots that >> So, I'm going same owner. >> Same owner. >> Same same ownership. Yeah. And And you know, it's a very good question. We will certainly double double check that with
our client. And u but I'm it's the subdivision is effectively a um you won't know the difference looking at the buildings uh or other than this sort of line between them. Uh otherwise
everything functions the same >> liqu they'll use it just for the restaurant not for the hotel and the restaurant that it'll be >> I don't think they can use it for both. developed. >> That's what I didn't think. >> Yeah, it was it's just for the
restaurant. >> Yeah. >> Does the will the hotel have a restaurant or is the um restaurant in 111 the restaurant for the hotel? >> The hotel does not have a restaurant
>> and it will not have a restaurant. >> You know what? Let's swear let's swear the gentleman in who's testifying. I hadn't planned on calling, but fortunately, we do have a representative of the of the developer, so we could have him come forward. So, yeah. Yeah. Steve, why don't you step forward?
>> Why don't we swear in both both your witnesses? If you could each raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth? Or in your case that you've already given? And if you could please set your full name and well, do you swear affirm
testimony about to give be the truth? >> Okay. And um could you please say your full name and spell your last name? >> Stephen Sharf. I'm the uh STD ben ca
senior vice president development and asset management for Briad Group. >> I'm sorry. You're senior vice president for development where >> senior vice president of of development and asset management or the briad group
>> the company the we have a company called the Briad >> the Brian Group BLG the group BLG the name >> Steve the confusion is the applicant is BLG West Windsor LLC is that an affiliate or it's an affiliate of Briad
>> it's an affiliate owned by Yeah, >> one individual and I work for that individual. >> Got it. >> And Sean Delaney Sy Consulting Professional Engineering Plan States. >> Okay, thank you. Thank you. Your license is uh
>> license. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The I think we went down this road with Mr. sharp because there's question regarding the restaurant use and the liquid license >> about whether there's going to be a restaurant in the hotel. A lot of hotels
like to serve like breakfast, lunch. >> That's the purpose of the seating area that we have. It's breakfast only. >> Okay. Breakfast only. No more darn breakfast. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, the liquor is strictly the
restaurant use. Yes. Okay. Great. Any anything? No. Okay. >> Mr. Sharp is available in case. Okay. Other questions? We could have Sean Delaney step up. >> Sean, while you're getting ready with your exhibits or your plan, if you could
give the board the benefit of your qualifications. >> Certainly. So, uh, 1999 graduate of India civil engineering. Um, been practicing since 99 over 26 years. Licensed professional engineer since 2003.
licensed planner since 2008 has fought multiple boards throughout the state of New Jersey over the course of my career including this one on his application voice. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, Sean, you can jump. The plan you have up on the easel, is that the plan
set that was submitted? Is that correct? >> Uh, yes. These are the plans that were submitted uh the re revised plans that were resubmitted. uh that if uh amended file is just subjective approval plan revised 4276
that were resubmitted to the board >> and is that what is that what's before you >> before me nothing new >> okay so we're not going to mark those just the plan set unfie >> no pretty
>> the question was asked of whether we'll mark that as an exhibit we don't have to do so because They were part of the plan set. >> They're matching what we have. If they match what we have at >> Sean, if you could take us through the the the plan set oriented to the
property and then describe the subdivision and then of course the balance. >> Certainly. So, I'm going to start on on page two of the set which is the uh existing conditions shows the existing property block 9 block 12.011 011 4.13
acres over 120 acre hotel and an 8,75 restaurant 3 that's located the center of the of the plan. Uh down below there's a
easement area uh that I was dedicated for use five with the the subject property for hotel parking u that was on the mutation lot to say southwest
probably subject properties and you have the um the bike path that runs along route one as well that's shaded in gray. Moving over to page three of the set which is the proposed division plan as
was mentioned for subdividing 12.01 into two lots proposed lot 12.011 is the new restaurant lot to route one and the hotel lot is 12.0112 0112 and that is on the right side of the
page. The subdivision line is the dark black line that runs between the two buildings, the parking areas uh from the ring road top down to the adjacent parcel at the bottom. Lot sizes are
1.065 for the restaurant lot and 2.523 for the proposed new hotel lot. It's important to note there is no change to any of the site plan approved improvements that were presented previously. This is just a uh it was
mentioned a subdivision primarily for financing terms to separate two bots into for those entities. Um some comments that came off the TRC professional review letters related to some easements on the property. All the
previously proposed dements are going to remain the same widths and same locations. They're not changing. There's no impact to the physical locations though. The only modifications will be that required will be referencing the new property numbers, the new lot numbers for each one of them. So the
bike pass noted on there. Um we get a new lot number 12.0111. That's 12.011 there. And then the water line usements will have to be revised for both lots as
you take transfer over two lots. So those will be updated as Mr. Shan has pointed out any of the um reciprocal easement agreements as well as the parking ement agreement on the adjacent lot those will be updated or any new the
new lot numbers as required. Um we did have uh when we submitted the application it was noted there were several uh submission waiverss that were asked for. Um nine of them in fact one of them was eliminated. Um item four which is names
of owners adjoining properties. The revised plan added that information um on sheet two existing property owners around the site as required. The other items related to primarily to development type requirements for the
submissions. Item eight, location of percolation test. Uh uh preliminary EIS item 10. Item 12 identification of distinct woodlands and grouping trees. 13 an aerial photo to show the effects of Tom existing vegetation and
surrounding land uses. 14 which really actually should have been a nonable line item wetlands LOI for a minor sub check submitted as a minor. So um that one actually 15 is a wetlands LOI for this major
grading plan so water control plan. All these wa are related to proposed development which has already been approved for these two sites. All that information was provided previously as as part of those applications. Um, so we're not changing any of those applications, not changing any of those
impacts or design that were done. So projecting those really are not not two weeks subject application. So we don't request any granting up those waiverss for this. And finally, uh, getting into the variances, there are three variances that we're requesting. Two relates the
restaurant hop 12.0 drawing along the one. Uh that's minimum block depth measured from group one to the new subdivision line. The 200 ft is required or 184.2 is proposed. A sideyard setback
which is from the property line to the building 15.5 ft where 20 ft is required. Um we did note in the application origin was submitted call for an impervious cover variance for the whole sorry for the restaurant lot as
well. um do some um review of his ordinance has mentioned any professional review letters. There is not a requirement for purpose coverage for a restaurant. Uh >> clarification on setbacks. Um
uh for the restaurant tract indicate and point to me what is the front yard? >> Front yard I would be the front yard would be the area. >> Okay. So you just referred to the space between the restaurant building and the
the hotel building as a sideyard setback. Is that correct? >> I did. Yes. >> So it's a even though if so if you have a front yard set back towards highway correct >> and yet at the rear of the property
would be a side yard setback. That doesn't make sense to me. I, you know, looking at that myself and I could see how it could be done. Uh, look at either way. Um, you know, either way, the the setback requirements for a front yard or sorry,
a sideyard or a rear yard are the same. They're both 20. >> So, it's a language issue. >> It's a language thing. So, yeah. >> Depending on how the development looked at previously because there might have been consistencies on how things were identified under the original subdivision plant. Uh so you know
whether it's in the sidey yard or a rear yard the dimension is 15.5 ft the requirement 20 ft is required so a barren is necessary >> under both situations >> under under either situation. >> Thank you. Okay. >> So and the other uh
uh variance needed is the setback for the hotel at 5.1 ft whereif where 15t is required. Uh that's also been labeled as a sideyard setback, you know, at this location or this way. I think you probably say it's got double
front entrance again. Um what you're referring to is that the difference between the hotel and the restaurant. The >> the five the 5.1 is the hotel to the property line between the two. >> Okay. And how many how much uh space it's 15t on the other side? >> 15.5
buildings was approved on the site. Okay. >> We haven't changed any of the dimensions at all. Got it. Okay. >> And that so uh that's and that's the important note because yeah I believe all three of these variants just put my planner add
on uh justified under the C2 criteria which is the purpose of the admissible land use law be advanced by the deviation uh from the zoning ordinance requirement and the variance can be prohibited without substantial damage to the public good. The benefits of this deviation would substantially blade
outweigh the detriment and the varian will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance just the negative criteria. uh the granting of the C2 variance in this case will advance the purpose of zoning or sorry the purpose of planning pursuant to the miscellaneous law uh specifically I
believe a public health safety morals and general welfare you know it's the variances for life depth and side setbacks are the result of a financial subdivision essentially that does not impact anticipments that was previously approved by the board uh through the
approval process uh so same um uh item is related to the public health safety of all air circulation uh coverages that storm water all aspects of that are all remaining unchanged. There's no benefit
still is here with even the sub and then first we got to apply there open space once again no changes addition site plan improvements which were approved which would contain all those features as well. Uh with regard to the negative criteria, no variance or other relief
may be granted without showing that such variance or relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially bear the intent purpose of his own plan and his own ordinance. My opinion that these variances can be granted without
substantial detriment reasons to subdue for purposes. There's no changes again to that's the underlying fact. no changes to the site as was previously reported. So it's my opinion that the variances can be granted without substantial appearance to the zone plan
ordinance that the benefits of granting away variances will substantially outweigh veterans. Thank you very much. >> Any of these changes um has the uh EMS chief for the township reviewed these variances or were there any issues that
came up? uh we would have to we'd have to get in touch with them with the obviously the identification of the building the new bots um get their approval of that but um the layout of that buildings they still would have had numbers on there the addresses may have
been the same and so the same unit on four class so there's really no impact to anything subjectively create any changes to what we already reviewed by >> so so what do you so so is there anything you need from emergency services.
>> I mean, you are changing the lot numbers. So, they don't ask get information from them related to nothing. >> They're more concerned about uh addresses and and they can get a number
for whatever the property number is, >> right? We didn't change the location, >> right? Fire hydrant and um sprinkler systems. It's already been approved. That's all previous >> and it's not like with this tonight's
submission we have any new report right >> from buyers. >> Yeah, I don't I don't have >> we don't we don't we shouldn't because the buildings nothing's changing only lots. >> Can you point out where the location of these two retail ads are?
one to the southwest of the building the bottom of the page. >> Oh, okay. So, it's not on there. >> That's not >> That's why I wanted to >> Okay, that's why I was kind of curious. >> Okay. Any
>> We have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. >> Let's hear from our professionals. Plus, uh, anybody from the board have questions? Okay. Um, first we'll go. >> I I'll swear you all in and >> you know we always swear in our our own
professions. You swear affirmative testimony about to give be the truth. >> So sort of affirm just just state your name. Go around stating your name. >> I do. Ed I guess from Burgess Associates. >> I do. Francis Guzzik, township engineer.
>> I do. Aaron Carden Township land use manager. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to go first? >> Sure. Great. >> Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Filling in for Dave Povac tonight. Uh we have a report dated May 13, 2026 wherein
we reviewed the subject application. Um I won't go into the particulars. I think the applicants provided the the r the rationale as to why they're asking for this uh deviation or this all also for the subdivision itself. Uh the location
is in the PMN-1 district which has various standards associated with it. Uh what's been contemplated and the purpose of that zone is sort of a overall mixeduse style development which this maintains that character and and aspect from a planning
perspective even though this is a lot subdivision. Um so there really would not be any physical change as what was identified in the uh direct testimony tonight. I concur that there are in fact three variances associated with the application uh to address one of the questions that came up with regard to
the rear yard. On a corner lot, it's often very difficult to define where your rear yard is. It's sometimes defined as the most distant from a front lot line. So therefore, you may see that shorter segment of the lot become the rear yard in this instance. I think that's how that's been interpreted. So
we wanted to point that out. Um I find that I concur with all their various other criteria that they've identified. Um, and it's really just for the nuance of the overall subdivision. We had also the same question with regard to the number of uh numerals or letters associated with the lot numbers. Uh,
it's the first time I've seen that many numerals being used for a lot number. Um, but yet this is always the first time. Um, the zoning table, they will be correcting that to identify the the proper lot numbers associated with that. So, we have the proper record on file. And then the easements, I think they
correctly identified them. You had addressed though in your direct testimony that the easement to the south was for the hotel parking. Isn't that also for the hotel and restaurant use as well? >> That's what it's identified as. Okay. >> Certainly. I just wanted to confirm
that. But that's all the questions and comments we have. Thank you. >> Let me I don't know who else asked traffic. There's no traffic engineer report because nothing's changed on that. >> Correct. Just like the site plan and the fire safety. Nothing's changing on the
site plan, so no traffic is >> okay. Thank you. >> Good evening. Francis Guzik, township engineer. We did a memorandum dated May 14th, 2026. Um, Mr. Delaney had provided testimony
related to the checklist waivers that were requested. Uh, we have no objection to granting any of those waivers for the reasons cited by Mr. Delaney. Um, a lot of the testimony addressed the
items that were requested for testimony by the applicant. So, I have no additional comments about that. Uh, under comment 1.02, there are several bullet items related to some of the technicalities of the minor I'm sorry, had me saying minor subdivision now, uh,
of the amended major subdivision. So we just ask that those be made conditions of approval as well as the uh review memorandum done by Mike Maguire of Geotrek uh environmental and surveying
associates. Uh we retain them as the professional land survey to do the technical reviews of subdivision projects in the town. So they have a memorandum also dated May 14, 2026 with
uh a few technical comments related to the subdivision. And uh that's all I really had. So unless somebody has a question or comment for me, >> the only question I have is that um in 1.01
little letter a justification for each waiver request is required to be provided. Are you s satisfied with the justifications that were given? >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Delaney hit on each one and I was satisfied with the responses that were provided.
>> Thank you. >> So, I I was just thinking about this during your uh testimony right here. Um is there any going to be any hotel signage on the Fogo property?
None none proposed. Did do what did we make any big decisions about signage in the original application? I can't remember. >> There were some directional signage out along the road >> finding signage. I meant like the major sign the major like route one sign you
know faith at the route one uh area. >> I don't remember what what we had decided on that. >> I know it was the restaurant. >> Right. What did the hotel The question is, did the hotel have any signage? >> We had building mounted signs.
>> Oh, on building building mounted. Okay. But nothing nothing like uh a monument sign. >> Okay. >> But nothing like a monument sign on the route one towards the route one. Okay, that's fine. That's satisf
I just go back over your um comment um 1.02 1.03. So I take it the first bullet would be a condition. The second bullet >> well the first in 1.02 2. The first bullet is just a comment
um because they've already made the changes to the the lot numbering. >> I see. Okay. And the second bullet, >> second bullet would be a condition. The fourth and fifth bullet would also
be conditions. >> And 1.03. Uh that's that's just a comment because with the plat having to be filed in the clerk's office, Mercer County Planning Board signatures will be required on that. So they'll get a copy when it goes
to the county for those signatures. in and in terms of Mike Maguire's um uh report his first halfway down based on my review of these documents said his first couple of
bullets um that first bullet is that duplicative of um of what you've done I think I think it's different we should put that in right that starts the consultant shall submit >> uh yes mhm Mhm.
>> Is it put in? >> Yes. >> Okay. And the second bullet obviously we talked about. Um and then the third bullet >> third bullet would be a condition. >> Yep. Okay. Good. Thank you. >> And on the other page
um the two bullets at the top. >> Yep. Those both in. >> Yes. Those will both be conditions. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. No, >> Francis, on your report on was it page
three? That third bullet that that'll be a condition. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. Um, okay. Any other questions or our our questions?
Um, Erin, is there anything you want to add >> at this point? I don't think any add um understand the intent of the subdivision at this point. I don't think it it certainly doesn't have a negative impact on any items that are moving before the
board. Uh it certainly does match the master plan tended for the zone. Um and uh I think that the applicant provided a proper testimony regarding positive negative criteria. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Bless you.
>> Okay. So then at this time I would like to open up to the public for any comments on tonight's application. Please step up the microphone say your name and address for the record. >> Um seeing none I'll entertain a motion
to close the public hearing. >> So move Mr. Chairman Simon second bake. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. >> Any anybody questions anything? Okay.
Um then I'll entertain a motion to approve application PB26-4P BLG West Windsor amended final subdivision with conditions that uh Jerry previously outlined. >> So move Mr. Chairman
>> Mr. Simon >> and the and the three easements >> and the three >> and the checklist ements >> and the checklist second by Mr. B. Please call the role for the vote. Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Panco, >> yes.
>> Mr. B, >> yes. >> Miss Bet, >> yes. >> Miss Apple, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Hobberman, >> yes. >> Chairman Cart, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh, meeting adjourned. What's this? >> Wow, that's new.