[I. ROLL CALL]
[00:00:03]
ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, THIS IS, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP IN SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 23RD, 2024. THE TIME IS NOW 7 P.M, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT. NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS. MATT, CAN YOU, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? YEAH. BLODGETT YEAH. HERE. ROSENTHAL. ABU ZABI LAZOVSKY HERE. WALMART. HERE. WOOD. HERE BRUHNS. HERE. URBANSKI. HERE SHAH. HERE. MAIDA. HERE TORILLO.
HERE. CLAVELLI HERE. RAKESH. DAJI. PRESENT JOSEPH. FISSINGER HERE. GREAT. THANK YOU, KEVIN, CAN YOU LEAVE IT TO THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG, PLEASE? PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, TIME OF OUR MEETING WHERE WE OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS, OR Q&A TO THREE MINUTES WHEN PROVIDING COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APPLICATION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. SPELL YOUR LAST NAME. FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU PREFER NOT TO PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE ADVISE, WHICH TOWN YOU LIVE IN. IF COMMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE ALREADY STATED, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION GROUPS ARE ASKED TO SELECT A SPOKESMAN, BUT I, I SEE NONE, SO THAT'S ALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST, STEP, HERE IN OUR AGENDA, THE RESOLUTION CASE, BA TAC ZERO THREE, TAC TWO THREE. THE APPLICANT WAS TO MAYOR KARROUBI. THIS IS A BLOCK 24001 LOT, 37, THIS IS EIGHT COUNTY ROAD 518. THIS BULK VARIANCE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT.
AND, EVERYONE WAS SENT THE, THE RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THIS APPLICATION, THIS THIS AFTERNOON IS THE VERSION FOR, HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY GOT A CHANCE TO READ THAT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CAN I HAVE A MOTION, TO MEMORIALIZE, THAT APPLICATION. SO MOVED SECOND. GREAT, CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL, MATTHEW LOZOVSKY. YES. BLODGETT YES. ROSENTHAL. YES WALMART. YES. WOULD YES. BRUHNS.
YES ALL RIGHT. IT'S OFFICIAL. MISTER KRUPA, YOU HAVE, OUR OUR OUR RESOLUTION. SO GOOD TIMING TO WALK IN, AND, NOW THAT THAT IS OVER, SO I'VE, INFORMED, OUR COUNSEL AND I'VE BEEN INFORMED OUR VICE CHAIR, THAT OUT OF A COMPLETE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION FOR ANY, APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT, THERE IS NO CONFLICT. BUT OUT OF ANY APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT, I AM GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF, FROM THE APPLICATION THAT'S, BEFORE US, SO I'M GOING TO HAND OVER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE OF THIS MEETING. AND FOR THE DURATION OF THE MEETING TO, MISS ROSENTHAL. SO ALL RIGHT. AND THANK YOU, GUYS, I AM I'M GOING TO LEAVE. SO THANK YOU. YES, THANKS. THAT'S. ALL NEXT. OKAY.
[V. APPLICATION]
OKAY. WE ARE OPENING THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS CASE BA DASH ZERO SIX, DASH 23. THE APPLICANT IS STELLAR LAND ASSETS LLC. IT IS BLOCK 35001. LOTS TEN, 15 AND 16 AT 1045 ROUTE 206. IT IS A MAJOR SITE PLAN AND USE VARIANCE TO COVER THE TWO EXISTING VACANT TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS TO A TO CONVERT THEM INTO A NEW AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY. THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS APPLICATION IS JULY 31ST, 2024, AND AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION REQUIRED AND IS REQUIRED AND PREVIOUSLY FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. SO LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE[00:05:06]
APPLICATION THAT WAS STARTED AT THE LAST MEETING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JAY BONE. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SCHILLER, PITTENGER, AND GALVIN, PC. I CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT IN THIS MATTER AT THE BOARD'S LAST MEETING, WE PRESENTED SOME TESTIMONY AND WE WERE GIVEN HOMEWORK TO MAKE SOME PLAN CHANGES AND SEEK SOME OTHER INPUT. SO WE'RE HERE TO REPORT THE RESULTS OF THAT ACTIVITY, I'D LIKE TO START WITH OUR ENGINEER, DAVE SCHMIDT, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN QUALIFIED. THANK YOU. ARE WE READY? WE ARE READY. WE ARE READY. OKAY. WE HAVE OUR FIRST PLAN THAT'S ON THE SCREEN TODAY, WHICH IS THE SITE PLAN. IT WAS DATED AUGUST 24TH, 2023. IT WAS REVISED MAY 6TH, 2024. IT'S NOT AN EXHIBIT.IT WAS THE SUBMISSION PACKAGE THAT I MADE IN MAY FIFTH OR SIXTH. SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE, AS YOU KNOW. SO, WE HAVE ROUTE 206 HERE. WE HAVE WALL STREET RIGHT HERE, AND LOT 15 IS IN THE MIDDLE, IT IS THE TOTAL AREA OF 1.9974 ACRES IN THE H C HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE, WE ARE HERE TONIGHT FOR A VARIANCE FOR FAA REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THE FAA REQUIREMENT FOR MONTGOMERY IS 0.20. WE'RE PROPOSING 0.2813. AND IT WAS 0.4003 THAT WE'RE REDUCING THE F A R, WE STILL REQUIRE A USE VARIANCE, PER THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW, WE ARE ALSO NOW REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT. IT WAS, MONTGOMERY ORDINANCES 55. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY 88.89, AND WE'RE PROPOSING 90.24. AND THE REASON WHY THAT IS WE WERE ADDING ADDITIONAL, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, BECAUSE OF THE SIDEWALK, WHAT THEY ASKED US TO DO, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLANS.
WE ARE NOW ADDING IN THE AREA ON OUR PROPERTY, A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK THAT RUNS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, TO THE EXISTING APRON. AND WE'RE CONNECTING, A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK TO THE BUS STOP.
AND AS PER REQUEST OF, FISSINGER, WE'RE ADDING A SIDEWALK TO GO TO THE PARKING LOT. I ADDED A STRIPE AREA SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD TO GO TO WORK HERE AT, AT THE DEALERSHIP CAN GET OFF THE BUS, TAKE THE SIDEWALK AND WALK TO THE PAVEMENT AND THEN WALK TO THE OFFICE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT I MADE TO THE PLANS. ALSO, WE ADDED TO THE PLANS, WAS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR CUSTOMERS. WE ADDED, WE SHOWED AND HIGHLIGHTED THE TEN PARKING SPOTS WHERE THE CUSTOMERS WERE GOING TO PARK. AND WE ADJUSTED THE CUSTOMER PARKING. THERE'S A CHART OVER HERE. WE ADDED THE SERVICE AS WE'RE NOT PROVIDING ANY SERVICE AT THE SITE. SO WE REDEDICATED THE CUSTOMER PARKING. THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS IS TEN. THE CUSTOMER PARKING IS TEN. NEW VEHICLE PARKING IS 60, FOR THE PRE-OWNED PARKING IS 26, AND EMPLOYEE PARKING IS TEN. SO WE HAVE THE EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AND THE CUSTOMER PARKING DESIGNATED. WE HAD 111 PARKING SPACES. WE'RE NOW DOWN TO 110, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE PAINTED ISLAND THAT I PUT IN FOR THE PEDESTRIANS. BASICALLY, THAT'S ALL THAT I HAD TO DO FOR THIS, THIS, REVISIONS. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT I NEED TO DO, FOR THE REVIEW MEMORANDUMS, WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS AS CONDITION OF APPROVALS IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED. SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE CHANGED SO FAR TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. PUBLIC YEAH. DOES ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC KNOW I DON'T DO I SEE ANY PUBLIC? DOES ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS, WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFICALLY THIS, HIS TESTIMONY , I SEEING NONE WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS. AND I'M NOW TO ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE BOARD THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS. YES, WE DO WANT TO ASK ABOUT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, PARTICULARLY FIRE TRUCKS. IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU OR SOME OTHER. RIGHT. WE DID GET A REVIEW MEMORANDUM, FROM, ADAM VERDUCCI AT 213. I DO HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT I WAS GOING TO PREPARE, BUT I WAS GOING TO THE WAY WE WERE GOING TO STRUCTURE THIS WAS TO GET THE SITE PLAN TESTIMONY OF THE ARCHITECT, THE
[00:10:02]
PLANNER, AND THEN GO THROUGH THE TRAFFIC MEMOS, WHICH WOULD THEN ALSO HAVE THE, THE, THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF THE TRUCKS, AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY ON HOW THE TRUCKS CAN GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND ADDRESS ADAM'S COMMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ENGINEER? SEEING NONE, COULD WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, MOVE ON WITH RALPH, RALPH FANELLI, DOES ANY DOES. I'M SORRY, DOES ANY OF OUR, PROFESSIONALS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR. OKAY, I DO HAVE ONE, MADAM CHAIR. JUST. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE MEMOS LATER, SO I'LL HOLD THAT.THERE WAS A OPEN QUESTION, DAVE, AT THE END OF THE LAST MEETING REGARDING WHERE THE SHOWROOM VEHICLES WOULD BE BROUGHT IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING, DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GO OVER THAT? CAN YOU CONFIRM HOW THE CARS ARE GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE SHOWROOM, WELL, AGAIN, RALPH FANELLI WILL WILL GO OVER THE. WE HAVE THE, EXHIBITS FROM RALPH. HE HAS A COLOR RENDERING WHERE THE DOORS ARE GOING TO BE PLACED. BUT AS I KNOW THAT THERE THERE'S A DOOR LOCATED IN THIS WAY FOR GETTING THE ACCESS INTO. I BELIEVE IT'S BUILDING H. AND THEN THERE'S A DOOR TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, AND THERE'S TWO DOORS OVER HERE AND HERE, I BELIEVE, AND I THINK HE ADDED ONE TO THE SIDE. SO MY PLANS HAVEN'T BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW THE DOOR LOCATIONS. BUT RALPH FANELLI'S PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO SHOW THE DOOR LOCATIONS. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. DAVE. BASED OFF OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, IT LOOKED LIKE THE DOORS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE SIDES, OF THE BUILDING THAT'S CLOSEST AT THAT BUILDING, THEY LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ON THE SIDES, ONE JUST OPPOSITE THE AREA WHERE YOU HAVE THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SHADED.
NOW, THIS ONE. YEAH THIS THIS THIS DOOR WAS, WAS ON, ON, ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. RIGHT.
THERE ARE TWO LARGE SLIDING DOORS ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING, ONE FACING THE CURRENT DEALERSHIP AND ONE FACING THE SIDE WHERE YOU ARE NOW. IT'S RIGHT, RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHERE THE EMPLOYEE PARKING IS. SO I THINK THERE IS A CONFLICT. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT JOE IS GETTING AT. THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN, THOSE DOORS AND THE SITE PLAN, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SMALL RETAINING WALL ON THAT SIDE. YOU HAVE EMPLOYEE PARKING ON THAT SIDE. AND ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, IT'S KIND OF A TIGHT AISLE. IT'S A 20 FOOT WIDE DOWEL. ALONG THE BOTTOM, THERE'S A 20 FOOT AISLE. SO BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE. I THINK WE TALKED RIGHT, AND I DID I BELIEVE RALPH HAS AMENDED THIS . I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE I THOUGHT IT'D BE BETTER THAT THE DOORS ARE ON THIS SIDE COMING IN. OKAY. SO THAT WAS AMENDED. AND THEN I ALSO HAD THEM CHANGE THE DOOR LOCATIONS ON BUILDING G AS WELL. SO OKAY, BECAUSE ON THE OKAY, THERE IS A DOOR IN THE FRONT, BUT ON ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THE MOST RECENT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DOORS ON THE SIDE, RIGHT SIDES ARE STILL THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE GET TO THE CONFUSION. THERE WAS A SUBMISSION MADE BY RALPH ON MAY 6TH OF 2024, AND THEN CHARLIE CORONA AND I HAD A MEETING OUT IN THE FIELD, AND WE WENT OVER THE DOOR LOCATIONS AND WALKED THE PROPERTY AND FOUND OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE THE BEST LOCATIONS FOR THESE DOORS. AND SO WE HAVE A NEW EXHIBIT WITH DOOR LOCATIONS FROM RALPH. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S NEWER THAN THE MAY, MAY, MAY SIX. WE WERE ON A SHORT TIMETABLE TO GET THIS IN, AND THEN I, YOU KNOW, ONCE RALPH FINISHED IT, CHARLIE WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED. AND THEN I MET, YOU KNOW, ONCE I SUBMITTED IT, I THEN WENT MET WITH, CHARLIE AT THE SITE, AND THEN WE MARKED UP THE PLAN. SO RALPH WILL GO OVER THE DOOR LOCATIONS, HE'LL GO OVER THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND, HOPEFULLY, CLEAR UP THE ISSUES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, I THINK WHEN CHARLIE AND I WALKED THE PROPERTY, WE PUT THE DOOR LOCATIONS WHICH WERE THE BEST GRADES. SO THERE WAS MINIMAL RAMPING OR ANYTHING THAT THAT HAD TO BE DONE. SO I'LL LEAVE IT TO RALPH TO GO OVER, HIS FIRST. I THINK WE SHOULD GO WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL COLOR RENDERING AND THEN GO INTO THE DOOR LOCATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU.
I GOT THAT, RALPH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OUR BOARD PROFESSIONALS? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THIS TIME. THANK YOU, SO WE SHOULD NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT WITNESS. YEAH. RALPH FANELLI IS THE NEXT WITNESS. HE. HE ALSO WAS SWORN IN, QUALIFIED AT THE LAST MEETING. RIGHT SO JUST WHILE THIS IS UP. SO BECAUSE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THE BUILDINGS AREN'T ON ONE DRAWING. SO YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING ON ONE DRAWING HERE. SO I WILL JUST POINT OUT, AS DAVE HAD MENTIONED, THERE IS A CAR ACCESS DOOR HERE FACING 206. THAT'S THE ONLY CAR ACCESS DOOR IN THIS BUILDING. ON THE BACK BUILDING THERE IS AN ACCESS DOOR HERE. HERE HERE AND HERE. SO
[00:15:09]
THERE'S FOUR IN THE BACK BUILDING, ONLY ONE IN THE FRONT BUILDING. AND THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF MAN DOORS THERE. SO WHILE IT'S ALL ON ONE SHEET, THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE. AND WE CAN ADVANCE TO THE ARCHITECTURAL IF YOU LIKE. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THEM BUILDING BY BUILDING. LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE. THE THAT IS THE OPEN. SO BUT BEFORE YOU START TESTIFYING BASED ON THIS EXHIBIT, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD? YES. SO THIS IS THIS IS A FOUR PAGE RESUBMIT VERSION OF PLANS FROM, MAY WHATEVER DATE THAT WAS MAY 6TH, I BELIEVE. CORRECT. YES. AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE THE DOORS IN LOCATIONS THAT HAD BEEN CORRECTED. SO I DON'T WANT TO IT'S GOING TO BE CONFUSING. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT ANY MORE CONFUSING. BUT I THINK THE, THE COLORED EXTERIOR, RENDERINGS ARE PROBABLY THE ONES THAT WILL ADDRESS QUESTIONS WE HAD LAST TIME ABOUT DESIGN. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE PLANNER, WHO ARE WINDOW SIZES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL AND THEN THE SORT OF TOP LINE OF THE BUILDING, THE PARAPET OF THE BUILDING. SO THOSE WILL ADDRESS THOSE, I THINK, PRETTY CLEARLY, ON AS FAR AS THE BUILDINGS ARE CONCERNED THEMSELVES, THE THESE ADDRESSED ONE, ONE OF THOSE DESIGN ELEMENTS WAS THE ADDITION OF AWNINGS OVER ALL OF THE ENTRIES. SO IT WAS A DESIGN CRITERIA RECOMMENDED IN THE ORDINANCE. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ADDING THEM. AND SO WE'VE DEPICTED THEM. SO EVERY PLACE, EVERY PLACE YOU DO SEE A DOOR OPENING, THERE IS AN AWNING COVERING THE DOOR. OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'S PRIMARILY THE CHANGE IN THE PLAN THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THE ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN. YOU ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE, THESE ARE THE THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE JUST RECENTLY SUBMITTED, SO BUT YEAH, I DIDN'T SEE THE DATE ON THE TOP. SO THESE ARE THE 522 I DID BRING. IF YOU FIVE WHAT THE DATE 522 522. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT . HERE'S MY COPY HERE. DO WE NEED TO MARK THESE WITH AN EXHIBIT NUMBER? YES, PLEASE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT. I DON'T KNOW. WE'RE ONLY THREE LAPS. FROM WHAT? EXHIBIT NUMBER WILL THIS BE? YEAH, I DON'T I'M NOT SURE. ON TWO. VERY. THE LAST ONE IS THE DATE PLAN. SO UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE'S NOTES ARE BETTER, I THINK WE'RE UP TO EIGHT FOUR. OKAY. OKAY RENDERINGS FOLDER DOWN HERE. YEAH I'LL CALL YOU. TRUST ME ON THAT ONE, OKAY. IF YOU HAVE THOSE OPENED OR IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN. SO THIS IS THE BUILDING CLOSEST TO 206. THIS IS THE SHORT SIDE FACING 206. AND THERE IS ONE CAR ACCESS . IS IT OKAY TO PROCEED OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT TILL WE GET THOSE DISTRIBUTED. THAT'S THE SAME. NO THANK YOU. READY EVERYBODY. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY OKAY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS BUILDING H, THE ONE CLOSEST TO 206, PERPENDICULAR TO 206. THERE IS ONE CAR ACCESS DOOR CENTER OF THE BUILDING FACING THE HIGHWAY. THERE ARE PEDESTRIAN ENTRIES MIDWAY IN THE SHOWROOM. A LITTLE FARTHER BACK IN THE OFFICE SPACE ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE SHOWROOM. PEDESTRIAN ENTRIES. ALL OF THE ENTRIES HAVE CANOPIES IN THESE AREAS. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE TO THIS BUILDING. AS YOU[00:20:02]
LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DRAWINGS, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THOSE CANOPIES SORT OF FILLED THEM IN DARK GRAY JUST SO THAT THEY COULD STAND OUT AND GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHERE THEY ARE AND HOW THEY, YOU KNOW, SORT OF HELP BREAK UP THE ELEVATION A BIT. SO YOU SEE CANOPIES OVER, OVER ALL OF THE ENTRIES AROUND THE BUILDING. THE BACK BUILDING, BUILDING G, TO THE LEFT OF YOUR SHEET IS FACING WALL STREET. SO YOU SEE THE CAR ACCESS IN THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING, CAR ACCESS IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, FLANKING THAT UTILITY BUILDING THAT YOU'VE SEEN ON ALL THE OTHER DRAWINGS. CAR ACCESS THERE, CAR ACCESS THERE, AND YET ANOTHER CAR ACCESS HERE. SO THERE'S MANY WAYS INTO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AS WELL AS PEDESTRIAN ENTRIES FOR CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES HERE, HERE, AROUND THE BUILDING AND THEN FOLLOWING AGAIN WITH THE. YEAH. LIKE THE ELEVATION SCHEME THAT THE CANOPY SHOWN IN DARK GRAY. SO I MEAN, VISUALLY, NOT A LOT OF CHANGE. I'M GOING TO GO TO THE COLORED RENDERINGS, IF THAT'S OKAY. UNLESS THERE'S QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT A4, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TODAY IS FOUR PAGES. IT IS A, FRONT, IT IS A EXTERIOR ELEVATION AND INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN FOR BUILDING G AS WELL AS AN EXTERIOR ELEVATION AND INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN FOR BUILDING H CONSISTING OF FOUR PAGES. YES, SIR. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY. GRANDSON G NO. NUMBER.THERE YOU GO. NUMBER THREE. NUMBER THREE. HERE. FIVE. SIX. COMMISSION OKAY.
OKAY. YEAH SO WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW? WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, MAY 6TH. I'M GOING TO BYPASS THE FLAT DRAWINGS BECAUSE IT'S ALL ONE PDF. AND THE FLAT DRAWINGS ARE THE SAME THING WE JUST SAW A FEW MINUTES AGO. BUT BEFORE WE MADE THOSE DOOR CHANGES. AND THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT, ABOUT COLORS AND SOME OF SOME OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS. SO AND SHOULD THIS BE MARKED A5? THIS WAS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. THIS WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL, MAY 6TH. OKAY. BUT AS I MEAN, IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS HEARING OR WAS IT PART OF THE IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. IT WAS A REVISED SUBMISSION MADE AFTER THE LAST HEARING. BUT PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE REVISED ENGINEERING PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, I DON'T OBJECT IF YOU WANT TO MARK IT FOR CLARITY. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLAN, THEN THAT, THEN THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. I GUESS WE CAN'T CAN'T BLOW IT UP TO. I WANT TO BLOW IT UP A LITTLE BIT. WHERE? OVER HERE. NO, I'M. IT'S UP TOP. OH. GOT IT RIGHT THERE.
YEP THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO USE THE SCROLL BARS TO. THERE'S NO HAND. GOSH. GIVE ME MY MACINTOSH, SO THIS IS I JUST ZOOMED ON HERE BECAUSE IT PROBABLY SHOWS ALL ANSWERS, ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS BUT ADDRESSES ALL THE QUESTIONS. SO ON THIS DRAWING YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECTED CANOPIES OVER THE ENTRIES. WE ALSO CHANGED THAT COLOR TO HIGHLIGHT THEM. SO, AT THE CAR ENTRANCE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING THERE WAS SOME QUESTION OR SOME CLARIFICATION REQUESTED ABOUT, NATURAL MATERIALS. AND WE HAD TESTIFIED LAST TIME THAT WE WERE LEAVING THE BRICK ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE BUILDING. SO YOU SEE THAT YOU SEE THAT RENDERED HERE. ONE OF THE PRIMARY QUESTIONS, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WINDOW PATTERN WAS, THE BASICALLY THE THREE BAY WINDOWS AND THE TWO BAY WINDOWS ON THE SECOND, ON THE SECOND LEVEL, THE PLANNER PLANNING REPORT HAD, BROUGHT UP ONE OF THE ARTICLES OR ONE OF THE SECTIONS ABOUT THE CONTINUITY OR THE REPETITIVE NATURE OF THE PATTERN THAT WAS PREFERRED AS A
[00:25:02]
DESIGN GUIDELINE. AND WE HAD EXPLAINED AT THE TIME THAT THE DESIGN WAS TO GO FROM THE SMALLER WINDOWS AT THE PEDESTRIAN SCALE TO BIGGER, BROADER WINDOWS, BECAUSE THE EXPECTATION THAT THE VIEW OF THOSE WINDOWS WAS FROM FARTHER AWAY. WE WANTED TO CAPTURE THE CARS THAT WERE GOING TO BE HOISTED UP CLOSE TO THE CEILING, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST PART OF THAT RHYTHM. SO I THINK YOU GET A BETTER PICTURE OF IT IN THIS SENSE, AND THEN THE LAST OF THOSE, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST OF THOSE DESIGN AND, CRITERIA FROM THE GUIDELINES WAS THERE WAS THE PRESCRIPTION FOR A, A CRENELATED OR ARTICULATED PARAPET ROOF, AND WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME WE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THAT UP AT THIS TIER, WE HAD DESIGNED A SERIES OF LOUVERS, THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW THE EXISTING. YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING ROOF IS BACK THERE.WE'RE NOT RAISING THESE BUILDINGS. THE EXISTING ROOF IS BACK THERE. SO THIS IS REALLY A VISUAL SCREEN. AND SO I HOPE YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FROM THE SHADOW LINES, ESPECIALLY THAT WITHIN EACH OF THOSE PANELS THAT THAT SCREEN IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IS SET, THEY'RE SET AT ANGLES. SO THEY KIND OF GO IN AND OUT. SO THERE'S A LOT MORE VISUAL INTEREST IN THE SHADOW LINES THAN, THAN IT PROBABLY IMPLIED IN THE FLAT DRAWINGS. SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, JUST SHADOWS GOING ON IN SOME DEPTH AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE INTEREST THERE.
I THINK TECHNICALLY WE PROBABLY STILL NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO ALTER THAT, THAT TOP LINE, BUT THE DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO ALTER THE TOP LINE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. AND I THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND, AND DOES REALLY WHAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WANTED IT TO DO WAS TO OFFER SOME VARIATION IN THE KIND OF IN THE SILHOUETTE AND IN THE PATTERN OF THE BUILDING. SOME OF THE OTHER VIEWS WE JUST PICKED FOR FROM A MODEL WE HAD MADE JUST FROM FARTHER AWAY, SHOWS THE EXISTING PRINTS AND DODGE IN THE FOREGROUND, AND HOW THAT WOULD LOOK. PRETTY MUCH, PRETTY MUCH HEAD ON FROM 206 BUILDING THE FOREGROUND, THE DOORS, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, UP TOP THE LARGER EXPANSES OF GLASS AND, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY A BETTER VIEW OF THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HANGING UP THERE IN THE CEILING. GET A PRETTY GOOD SENSE HERE WITH THE SHADOW LINES OF HOW THAT, HOW THAT LOUVERED SCREENING, YOU KNOW, WRAPS AROUND AND HAS SOME INTEREST UP THERE. AND THEN, THAT VIEW IS PRETTY MUCH THAT'D BE WALL STREET HERE IN THE FOREGROUND.
SO YOU SEE THE FRONT BUILDING AGAIN, JUST REPEATING THE BRICK, THE NATURAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN, THE RED CANOPIES OVER THE ENTRIES HERE AND HERE, AND AGAIN, GRANTED, NOW THAT THE DOORS HAVE CHANGED, SOME THOSE CANOPIES REMAIN. THEY JUST MOVED AROUND WHERE THE DOORS ARE. AND I THINK PRIMARILY THAT'S WHAT WE ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN REVISIONS, AS DAVE HAD MENTIONED, AFTER, AFTER HE AND CHARLIE, YOU KNOW, REALLY MET OUT THE SITE AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY STUDIED TRAFFIC PATTERNS, GETTING PRODUCT IN AND OUT, GETTING PEOPLE IN AND OUT SAFELY, EFFICIENTLY. WE ENDED UP CHANGING A LOT OF THOSE DOOR LOCATIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW IN THE FLAT DRAWINGS. AND SORRY FOR SOME CONFUSION ON THAT, BUT BUT EVERYBODY FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE ABOUT THE SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF ALL THAT AT THIS POINT, MR. DA, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOORS? I. KNOW YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOORS BEFORE. OH, YEAH. I THINK THE DOOR QUESTION WAS SATISFIED THROUGH THE TESTIMONY THAT THAT THE APPLICANT, ARCHITECT AND MR. SCHMIDT PROVIDED THIS STILL SHOWS THE DOORS. BUT I BELIEVE THEY SAID THAT THEY REVISED IT SINCE HERE SINCE THIS TIME. SO THERE ARE NO DOORS ON THE SIDES, CORRECT? YEAH. MADAM CHAIR, I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION WHILE WE'RE ON THE DOORS, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE RED AWNING THAT SHOWS ON THE WHAT I GUESS IS EXHIBIT A FOR IN SOME CASES THAT SHOWS THAT CANOPIES GOING. IT'S NOT DIMENSION, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE BASICALLY THREE DOOR WIDTHS OVER, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A MAN DOOR ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. IS THAT SO? YEAH. SO THERE ARE INTENTIONAL. IT'S INTENTIONAL.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS, YOU KNOW, LIKE LIKE THIS LOCATION WE'VE GOT NOW AGAIN, IT'S I REALLY APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. WE HAD A CAR DOOR THERE. THERE'S NO LONGER A CAR DOOR THERE. THERE'S A MAN DOOR THERE. BUT THE PATTERN OF THIS
[00:30:01]
STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, IS BASICALLY THAT 25 OR THAT 20 FOOT GRID. THAT'S THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. AND WITHIN THAT THERE IS EITHER WINDOWS OR THERE ARE CAR DOORS, OR THERE'S A MAN DOOR. SO IN A SPOT LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAD, YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE PATTERN, I WASN'T GOING TO STICK A FOUR FOOT CANOPY OVER JUST THE MAN DOOR PORTION. I TREATED THE WHOLE BAY. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE SPOTS LIKE THIS. IF THAT CANOPY IS WITHIN THE BLACK AND WHITE FRAME OF THE BUILDING, THEN IT'S A FULL COLUMN BAY. IF THE CANOPY IS OVER, JUST THE MAN DOOR BACK HERE IN THE BRICK, THEN IT'S JUST THE SIX FEET OR SO OF THE BRICK. IT'S THAT WAS IT. I'M.I'M THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS QUESTION LATER ON AS TO WHETHER WHERE THE CANOPIES WERE OR WEREN'T. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN SHOWING? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. I KNOW WE DISCUSSED LIGHTING IN THE LAST MEETING. HAS THERE BEEN ANY PROPOSED CHANGES FROM WHAT YOU HAD SHOWN TO US LAST MEETING, OR ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT YOU KEEP THE LIGHTING AS IT WAS? NO. PROPOSED CHANGES, EXCEPT, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT WE NOW THAT WE HAVE THESE CANOPIES, WE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, JUST RECESSED HI HATS, JUST PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENTRY. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT, LEVEL OF ILLUMINATION AT, YOU KNOW, AT, AT ALL OF OUR POINTS OF ENTRY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A DOOR THERE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ILLUMINATION. SO IT'S ONLY ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDED A NUMBER OF DOORS, AND WE'VE CERTAINLY KIND OF DISTRIBUTED THEM DIFFERENTLY AROUND THE BUILDING.
EVERY PLACE THERE IS A DOOR, THERE WILL BE A RECESSED HI HAT, BUT BUT STILL NO, NO GROUND MOUNTED FIXTURES AND NOTHING ON THE BUILDING. THAT'S A THAT'S A FLOOD. THAT'S ILLUMINATING, YOU KNOW, A BIG A BIG AREA. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE CANOPIES. YEAH. SO THE SAME KIND OF CANOPY IS GOING TO BE OVER THE CAR DOORS AS, I MEAN, THE DOORS FOR THE CARS AS WELL AS THE, CUSTOMERS. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. WILL THAT CREATE CONFUSION FOR CUSTOMERS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE INTO THE BUILDING? I MEAN , IF THEY'RE LOOKING AND THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY, WELL, THERE'S AN ENTRANCE AND THERE'S AN ENTRANCE AND THERE'S AN ENTRANCE. THAT'S MY QUESTION. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. YOU KNOW, THE CAR DOORS ARE BIG SLIDING DOORS. I MEAN, THEY DON'T YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE A DOOR. YOU CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, PULL THE HANDLE ON, SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE HOPING FOR THE BEST, YOU KNOW. YEAH. IT'S ONE OF THOSE ONE OF THOSE TESTS, YOU KNOW. NO, I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S CONFUSION. SO THE CAR DOORS WOULDN'T, WON'T HAVE HANDLES.
THE CAR DOORS WOULD. THE CAR DOORS WOULD BE OPERATED FROM INSIDE. THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, KEYED AND OPENED, YOU KNOW, SLID, YOU KNOW, IT'S TEN, TEN FEET OPEN SO THAT YOU CAN GET A CAR IN AND OUT, NOT WORRY ABOUT THE MIRRORS, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO YOU KNOW, THE REGULAR MAN DOOR IS A THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT SWINGING DOOR. YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT WALL OF GLASS. SO, SO THE CANOPIES REALLY ARE ONLY TO CREATE SOME VISUAL INTEREST OVER THE CART FOR THE CAR DOORS AND, AND NOT NOT TO VISUAL INTEREST, NOT TO BE INVITING.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MEANT TO PROVIDE. WELL, THEY'RE THERE TO BRING PROTECTION. YES JUST SOME RAIN AND SHADOW. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT DEPTH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE MOSTLY JUST A, YOU KNOW, AN EXTRA SHADOW, JUST AN EXTRA BIT OF INTEREST. AND I, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING, I MEAN, THE REDS ALL GOING TO POP OUT, GOING TO MEAN SOMETHING. SO I PREDICT YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH SIGNS LIKE THAT ARE ON THE DOORS BACK THERE THAT YEAH, THAT'S MY PREDICTION. YEAH. JUST JUST GIVE ME YOUR CONTACT INFO AND WE'LL CALL THEM. OKAY THANKS. IS IT. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION, SO THERE, IN TERMS OF, PUBLIC ENTRANCE AND EXIT, THERE'S JUST TWO DOORS ON BUILDING ON THE, ON THE FRONT BUILDING. NO, THERE'S THERE IS A THERE IS NO PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE ON THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING.
THERE IS A MAN DOOR. THERE ARE TWO MAN DOORS FACING WALL STREET. THERE ARE TWO MAN DOORS FACING SOUTH, AND THERE IS ONE MAN DOOR FACING WHATEVER'S LEFT OVER ON THE ON THE COMPASS EAST.
YES OKAY. AND IN IN TERMS OF ANY, SHRUBBERY OR LANDSCAPING, IS, IS THERE ANY OR IS THIS JUST , A, RENDERING OF WHAT THE BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? AND ALL AROUND IT IS ALL I JUST PAID ATTENTION TO THE BUILDING. OKAY I HAVE A QUESTION. DO THE LOUVERS HAVE A FUNCTION OR ARE THEY JUST A DESIGN ELEMENT? THE LOUVERS HAVE, I MEAN, THEY HAVE A LITTLE FUNCTION. THEY'RE MOSTLY THEY'RE MOSTLY, VISUAL, JUST JUST TO BREAK THAT UP IN, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK TO LOOK LIKE
[00:35:03]
YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THEM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T I DON'T REALLY WANT THEM TO BE, YOU KNOW, REALLY WEATHERPROOF BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE. I DON'T WANT THE WIND LOAD ON IT. SO THEY'RE PERFORATED AND, SO IT'S REALLY SHADOW AND TEXTURE. OKAY. YEAH. HAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, COMMENTED ON ON THIS RENDERING AND THE LOUVERS IN LIGHT OF ANY EFFECT ON, WILDLIFE OR, DO YOU HAVE TO TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. PARDON ME? WERE YOU WERE YOU ASKING ME? OH, I SAID, HAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WHICH WHICH DID A REPORT, HAD THEY COMMENTED ON, THIS RENDERING WITH THE LOUVERS, VIS A VIS EFFECT ON ANY ANIMALS, BIRDS, ETC, THEY ISSUED A MEMO ON MAY 17TH. IT DOESN'T SAY WHICH. WELL, THE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.YES. THESE ARE THE MAY SIX PLANS. YES. SO THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE MAY SIX PLANS THAT THEY WERE COMMENTING, I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOUVERS IN THEIR MEMO. DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON, ANY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITH REGARD TO THE LEVER, THE RENDERINGS AND THE LEVERS? I DO NOT I DON'T EXCUSE ME, I DO NOT EITHER, I DO HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION, MR. FANELLI, IS CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THE MATERIAL FOR THE LOUVERS, WHAT THEY'RE MADE OF OR PROPOSED TO BE MADE OF? REALLY? EVERYTHING ON THE EVERYTHING IN THIS NEW SKIN IS GOING TO BE ALUMINUM. ALUMINUM. OKAY. I'M SORRY. EVERYTHING WAS WHAT EVERY EVERY PART OF THIS NEW SKIN IS ALUMINUM. OTHER THAN THE GLASS, RIGHT? GLASSES, GLASS AND ALUMINUM FRAMES, THE COLUMN, COVER EVERYTHING IS ALUMINUM. OKAY ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, I HAVE ONE MORE. THE AND THE LOUVERS SECTION THAT IS ONLY AS HIGH AS IT HAS TO BE. RIGHT? YOU'RE TRYING TO JUST COVER THE EXISTING ROOF, RIGHT? YES. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A LITTLE EXTRA HIGHER THAN IT HAS TO BE. NO. OKAY. AND OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MEAN, I JUST I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A LITTLE GRATUITOUS, A LITTLE EXTRA JUST TO FOR. OH, NO. NO, I MEAN, PROPORTIONATELY, WE, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF WORK BACKWARDS FROM WHERE THAT SORT OF THAT SOLID GUTTER LINE IS TO CREATE THE, THE TWO WINDOW HEIGHTS AND THE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT SAME HEIGHT SORT OF PROPORTIONALLY UP IS AT THE RIDGE OR WITHIN A FOOT OF THE RIDGE OF THE EXISTING GABLE AND HIP ROOF. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE FROM OUR BOARD EXPERTS, YOU HAD ME MAKE, WELL, I HAD MADE A RECOMMENDATIONS, ARCHITECTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING. AND WITH BOTH MY REPORTS, I BELIEVE THAT THE CHANGES THAT MR. FANELLI MADE ADDRESSES MY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, SO JUST TO OFFER, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN MORE DETAIL, I CAN. OTHERWISE I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS.
GREAT. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY OUR PLAN. OKAY, SO THEN JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE GOING TO STAY WITH THE TWO OVER THREE WINDOW PATTERN. AND THAT'S THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT AT THE END. BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TWO OVER THREE WINDOW PATTERN OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE WE'RE ALL HAPPY WITH THIS.
ALMOST AS HAPPY AS I AM. BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I MEAN WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S A VARIANCE. BUT JUST THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT THE ABOUT THE CONTINUITY OF THE TOP PARAPET. RIGHT. OKAY. THERE WAS ALSO A VARIANCE SOMETHING ABOUT THE VERY TOP. YEAH. SO THE HC ZONE REQUIREMENTS, THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE VARIANCES. SOME OF THEM ARE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT'S A BIT AMBIGUOUS WHEN IT COMES TO THE CORNICE. MY RECOMMENDATION IS JUST ASK FOR THE VARIANCE. I THINK IT'S THE SIMPLEST THING. THE OTHER ONE IS USE OF NATURAL MATERIALS OR HIGH QUALITY. MAN MADE MATERIALS. WHETHER ALUMINUM IS HIGH QUALITY, MAN MADE MATERIALS NOT DEFINED. I THINK IT LOOKS FINE, IF ANYONE IS UNSURE. AS FOR THE VARIANCE WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, AND I DID ISSUE A UPDATED REPORT ONCE THE NEW MATERIAL CAME IN AND ON THE LAST PAGE I SCRATCHED OUT THE VARIANCE FOR BUILDING ENTRANCE ARTICULATION. AND ALSO SEPARATION OF PARKING. I KNOW THAT'S A DIFFERENT SUBJECT, BUT, JUST TO NOTE THAT YOU NO LONGER NEED ONE FOR THE BUILDING ENTRANCE ARTICULATION THAT'S PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE. NOW NATURAL MATERIALS AND FLAT ROOF CORNICE. IF WE'RE ALL UNSURE, I WOULD JUST SAY ASK FOR THEM. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. WHAT? JAMES? WHAT PAGE OF YOUR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR MAY 21ST REPORT? YES. 23 OF 23. YOU'RE ON PAGE 23. YEAH. THE
[00:40:05]
LAST PAGE. YEAH. THE VERY LAST PAGE. OKAY. I SEE YOU, YOU YOU YOU, UNDER NEW VARIANCES, YOU DELETED THE I SEE. YEP. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY THEN WE WANT TO CALL OUR PLANNER. PLANNER JOHN MCDONOUGH. MR. MCDONOUGH WAS NOT SWORN AT THE LAST HEARING. THANK YOU. MR. MCDONOUGH, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO. DO WE HAVE TO QUALIFY HIM, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME? SPELL THE LAST FOR THE RECORD? SURE HI, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS JOHN MCDONOUGH. MICK CAPITAL D O N O U G H. I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL PLANNER HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND I'M ALSO CERTIFIED ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL ACP. BOTH ARE CURRENT AND IN GOOD STANDING, I'VE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THAT CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, INCLUDING HERE IN THE PAST. THANK YOU. WE'LL ACCEPT IT. OKAY. MR. MCDONOUGH, WOULD YOU GIVE THE BOARD THE BENEFIT OF YOUR RESEARCH AND OPINIONS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? SURE THING. WE'VE CONDUCTED A STANDARD PLANNING ANALYSIS IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION, USUALLY FOUR PARTS. AS YOU LOOK AT EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS, YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING AND THE RELIEF THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING, YOUR PLANNER, MR. CLAVELLI, HAS GIVEN THE BOARD A GOOD LIST OR ROADMAP, IF YOU WILL, OF THE RELIEF THAT I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH. AND THEN FINALLY, THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THAT RELIEF, THE LIST IS RELATIVELY LONG, BUT YOU'LL SEE FROM A QUALITATIVE STANDPOINT, THEY'RE RELATIVELY LOWER LEVEL, EXCEPTIONS TO YOUR ORDINANCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING. AND I THINK THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WELL VETTED, PARTICULARLY WITH THE LAST HEARING, THE EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES BEFORE ME. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE REVISIONS THAT HAVE COME FORTH BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT OUR COURTS ENVISION IT BEING. AND I THINK WE'VE LANDED HERE AT A GOOD SPOT WHERE AS I GO THROUGH THE RELIEF, THE BOARD WILL FIND THAT THE JUSTIFICATION REASONS ARE THERE, AS A PREDICATE FOR THE JUSTIFICATION, I NOT ONLY LIKE TO TURN TO THE TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD, BUT LET THE SITE ITSELF DO A LITTLE TALKING AS WELL. I'VE PUT FORTH SOME EXHIBITS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH I HAVE IN THE HANDOUT FORM. I ALSO DO AS HAVE AS A THUMB DRIVE SO I CAN ENTER IT WHICHEVER WAY THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC PREFERS. I WOULD DO A THUMB DRIVE. SO THUMB DRIVE FROM THE. YEAH, DO THE HANDOUT. BUT I WOULD LIKE A HARD COPY, FOR MY OWN RECORDS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR THUMB DRIVE AND I'LL SEE IF I. NOW, IF I TAKE THIS OUT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO DO? AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A SIX. I THINK SO, RIGHT. IS THIS A SIX? YEAH COULD I JUST CHECK IN ON ONE THING, MR. MCDONOUGH. SO SO. AND I'VE INTERRUPTED YOUR FLOW IN THE PAST. I DON'T I DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT. I JUST WE HAD SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ABOUT LIGHTING, WHICH I UNDERSTAND ARE A BIT MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE RATHER THAN PART OF THE PLANNING TESTIMONY. IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF YOUR PLANNING TESTIMONY? DO YOU PLAN ON DISCUSSING LIGHTING AFTERWARDS? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO THAT. YES, I'LL HIT THAT AS WELL. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. OKAY, AGAIN, THIS IS A5, A5 FOR THE RECORD, IS A FOUR PART EXHIBIT. I BELIEVE IT'S AN AERIAL, A SERIES OF AERIAL DRONE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE TAX LOT BLOCK 35001, LOT 15. IT'S ALMOST TWO ACRES, DEVELOPED WITH TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE TWO STORIES, PLUS TWO PARKING AREAS. THAT'S THIS OTHER ONE. IT UP. GET IT UP. NOPE. I DON'T HAVE IT ON HERE, I HAVE TO DO A COPY PASTE. OKAY. NO. FIRST. SO AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE FAMILIAR L SHAPED BUILDING. TWO BUILDINGS THAT, COMPRISE THE SITE. THAT'S THAT BROWN ROOF, THOSE BROWN ROOF STRUCTURES THAT YOU SEE, WE'VE GOT THE AUTO DEALERSHIP THAT I HAD TESTIFIED TO SOME TIME AGO, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT ON LOT 16, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN[00:45:03]
THE SUBJECT APPLICATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS SOME INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE TWO IN THE FORM OF A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT. AND YOU HEARD THROUGH, ENGINEERING TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT. SO LOT 16 IS ONLY INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS SOME MODIFICATION OF THAT, THAT EASEMENT. BUT AGAIN, THE CORE LOT HERE IS LOT 15, WHICH IS JUST UNDER TWO ACRES AND DEVELOPED WITH THOSE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THAT L-SHAPED CONFIGURATION, WE'RE HERE AT THE CORNER OF 206 AND WALL STREET, WHICH IS A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. THE SURROUNDINGS ARE ALL NONRESIDENTIAL. WE'VE GOT A DEALERSHIP, WE'VE GOT OFFICES, SORT OF AN OFFICE PARK HAPPENING HERE WITH SHARED ACCESS THROUGHOUT, WE'VE GOT THE AIRPORT ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AS WE FLIP ON OVER, WELL, ACTUALLY JUST TO PAUSE HERE FOR A SECOND, ONE OF THE NICE THINGS ABOUT THIS STRETCH OF 206 IS THAT NICE CONTINUUM OF A GREEN BAND ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.THERE'S SOME RELIEF THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD AND OTHER RELATED RELIEF, RELATED TO LANDSCAPING. BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IN THE PUBLIC REALM, ALONG THE PRIMARY CORRIDOR OF 206, WE DO HAVE A GOOD GREEN STRIP, WHICH YOU'LL SEE AS WE GO THROUGH THE OTHER EXHIBITS AS WELL, IS NOT GOING TO BE ALTERED OR CHANGED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD. SO IN THE FOREGROUND OF THIS VIEW SHEET, NUMBER ONE, YOU'VE GOT 206. WE'VE GOT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. YOU'VE GOT THE PRIVATE ROAD OF WALL STREET RUNNING UP AND DOWN ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. YOU DO HAVE A GREEN BAND ALONG WALL STREET, AS YOU CAN SEE AS WELL, WHICH IS GOING TO REMAIN INTACT. SECOND PAGE NOW OF A5, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT AN AERIAL DRONE VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PANNING TO THE SOUTH. AND YOU CAN SEE ALONG 206 HERE AGAIN THAT WE DO HAVE A NICE CONTINUOUS GREEN BAND, WHICH IS GOING TO BE PRESERVED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD. SO WHILE THE APPLICANT DOES NEED SOME SETBACK RELIEF, WE'RE NOT DISTURBING THAT GREEN FRONTAGE ALONG ALONG THE PROPERTY. YOU GET A SENSE OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USE CONTEXT AS WELL, AND THEN NEXT VIEW ON PAGE NUMBER THREE, WE JUST SPIN AROUND AND LOOK AT THE REVERSE VIEW TO THE NORTH. THE AIRPORT WOULD BE ON YOUR LEFT FROM THIS PARTICULAR VANTAGE POINT, WE DO HAVE SOME SIGNAGE ON THE DEALERSHIP NEXT DOOR. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SOME RELIEF. RELATIVELY MINOR. MINOR RELIEF IN COMPARISON TO WHAT'S, NEXT DOOR. WE'LL HIT THAT AS WE GO AS WELL. AND THEN AGAIN, THAT CONTINUUM OF GREEN BAND AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY UP TO THE NORTH ON 206 AS WELL. FRAME NUMBER FOUR IS NOW A VIEW LOOKING TO THE WEST. BACK AT THE AIRPORT. AND THIS JUST GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING CONTEXT. AND THEN FINALLY YOU'VE GOT SORT OF A PLAN VIEW HERE, ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY THERE WAS A LOT OF CARS BECAUSE THERE WAS SIMPLY MOVED FROM THE LOT NEXT DOOR AS SOME MAINTENANCE WORK WAS GOING ON ON THE LOT NEXT DOOR. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU SEE ALL THOSE VEHICLES PARKED THERE ON THE PARTICULAR DAY THAT WE HAPPEN TO BE THERE, WHICH WAS APRIL 25TH, OR ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO, WITH THAT PREDICATE. THIS IS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OR A CONVERSION OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TO AN AUTO DEALERSHIP, WHICH IS ACTUALLY GOING TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF APPROXIMATELY SOMEWHAT NORTH OF 10,000FT■!S OF FLOOR AREA. SO WHILE THE APPLICANT DOES ASK THE BOARD TO MOVE ON FLOOR AREA RELIEF, IT IS GOING TO BE SMALLER MASSING THAN THAT WHICH IS PRESENTLY THERE. WE'RE HERE IN THE HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT WHERE PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO. RETAIL RESTAURANTS, OFFICES, THEATERS, CHILD CARE, ANIMAL HOSPITALS, OR ALL THE THINGS OR EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT COULD GO HERE AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE.
LIKEWISE, WE'VE GOT PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES, WHICH INCLUDE CAR WASHES, SOME AUTO CENTRIC USES, SERVICE STATIONS. YOU'VE GOT MOTELS, HOTELS, PUBLIC UTILITIES. AND IN TERMS OF CONFORMANCE, THE PROPOSED USE HERE ACTUALLY IS A CONFORMING USE AUTOMOBILE AUTOMOBILE SALES THROUGH FRANCHISED NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS IS A PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USE. SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT, NO CONDITIONAL USE RELIEF IS BEING ASKED FOR HERE. THE BULK IN TERMS OF YOUR BULK CONTROLS IS ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERALL LOT AREA, THE LOT WIDTH, THE LOT FRONTAGE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT, THE PARKING ALL COMPLY AS WELL. AGAIN, YOUR PLANNER, AT THE BACK OF HIS REPORT HAS GIVEN YOU THE LIST OF RELIEF THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE PRIMARY RELIEF HERE, THE ONE THAT REQUIRES THE FIVE VOTES IS THE D4FAR OR FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF, WHERE THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE BOARD TO MOVE AT 0.28. FLOOR AREA WHERE
[00:50:02]
UNDER THE BONUS PROVISIONS, 0.225 WOULD BE WHAT'S ALLOWED HERE, WHICH IS A DRASTIC IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CURRENT CONDITION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY UP AT 0.40. SO THE APPLICANT HAS MOVED SOUTH OF 0.3, WHEREAS NOW IT'S AT 0.4. SO CERTAINLY MOVING THE NEEDLE CLOSER TO CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT THE ZONING WOULD WANT. THERE'S A BUCKET OF SEA RELIEF HERE AS WELL. LOWER LOWER ORDER SUBSIDIARY SEA RELIEF. AGAIN FOLLOWING THE LIST IN YOUR PLANNERS REPORT, WE'VE GOT RELIEF FOR LOT COVERAGE, WHERE 90.24% IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE BOARD TO MOVE ON, WHERE 55% WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED. THAT IS THE SAME AS WHAT EXISTS THERE NOW, 88.89% PLUS THE NEW SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT THAT SLIGHT UPTICK TO 90.24, OTHERWISE THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE ABSENT THOSE SIDEWALKS IS NOT WORSENING. IT'S STAYING EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT IS AT 88.89. THERE IS SEE RELIEF FOR THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH IS AT 49.3FT, WHERE 75FT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT'S REQUIRED. AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THIS RELIEF, IS A FUNCTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS. BUT I THINK THE BOARD CAN FIND THAT EVEN IF THIS WERE A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE RELIEF WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. AND WE'LL LOOK TO THAT 49.3FT AS BEING REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE HERE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I'VE GIVEN YOU IN PARTICULAR SHEET ONE, YOU CAN SEE THE NICE VARYING SETBACKS ALONG WALL STREET THAT GIVES SOME VISUAL INTEREST AND PROVIDES SOME SOME BUILDING INTEREST AS WELL, AND VARIETY. CERTAINLY THERE ARE BUILDINGS ALONG WALL STREET THAT ARE CLOSER TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A BUILDING IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THAT SETBACK CAN MARRY UP NICELY AND CO-MINGLE WITH THE OTHER SETBACKS IN THE AREA, AND WILL NOT CREATE SOMETHING UNUSUAL OR ATYPICAL. SO I RECONCILE THAT UNDER THE C TWO BALANCING TEST, AS WELL AS A BETTER ZONING ALTERNATIVE. LIKEWISE THERE'S SEE RELIEF FOR THE SIDE SETBACK, WHICH NOW TAKES US OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. THE COMMON LOT LINE WITH THE DEALERSHIP. WE'RE LOOKING AT A SETBACK OF 20.1FT OR 25FT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT'S REQUIRED. THAT'S FROM THE COMMON LOT LINE WITH LOT NUMBER 16. AGAIN, IT'S AN INTERNAL SETBACK. THIS IS NOT A SETBACK ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, BUT INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY THAT IT DOES SHARE. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION WITH. WE'VE GOT SEE RELIEF FOR THE BUILDING SEPARATION. AND THAT PROBABLY COMES OUT BEST ON THE LAST SHEET WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE TWO BUILDINGS, THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, IS AT 17.9FT, WHERE 20FT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT'S REQUIRED. WE BELIEVE THAT'S ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE THAT IT SERVES, WHICH IS PRIMARILY CONNECTIVITY ON A PEDESTRIAN SCALE, NOT A VEHICULAR SCALE.THERE ARE NO CARS DRIVING THROUGH THE SPACE, SO WE DON'T NEED THAT ADDITIONAL WIDTH. BUT THE 17.9FT FUNCTIONS ADEQUATELY AND EFFICIENTLY, KEEPING THE BUILDINGS AT THE CORE, AND AGAIN, MODEST RELIEF IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL ZONING REQUIREMENT AND THE DEGREE OF DEPARTURE.
NEXT, WE HAVE A BUNDLE OF RELIEF RELATED TO THE ARCHITECTURE. AND I THINK THE VISUAL THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN HELPS THE BOARD IN THAT REGARD, THE BUILDING MATERIALS, THE REQUIREMENT FOR NATURAL MATERIALS. AND I'LL CALL THE EXCESSIVE GLAZING HERE, WHICH IS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE USE. THIS IS A SHOWROOM. IT IS FOR DISPLAY OF VEHICLES. AND I THINK THAT RELIEF IS JUSTIFIED AS WELL AS A BETTER ZONING ALTERNATIVE. YOU JUST HEARD ABOUT THE RELIEF RELATED TO THE BUILDING CORNICE FOR A FLAT ROOF. WE THINK THE BUILDING AS PROPOSED PROVIDES GOOD ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST, AND WARRANTS A RELAXATION OF THAT REQUIREMENT FOR AN ARTICULATED CORNICE, ON THE CORNER THERE. LIKEWISE, THE C RELIEF FOR THE BUILDING ROOFLINE OFFSET TO HAVING A VARIABLE ROOFLINE, IS MET BY THE VARIABLE UPPER FLOOR, WHICH DOES CREATE SOME VISUAL INTEREST AS WELL, WE THINK IS IN LINE WITH WITH SUBSTANTIALLY IN LINE WITH THAT INTENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE LITERAL OR STRICT REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE. LIKEWISE, C RELIEF FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF VEHICLES LESS THAN 50FT FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS MITIGATED BY LANDSCAPING. LIKE THE OTHER LOTS . AGAIN, WE'LL JUST TURN TO THOSE EXHIBITS TO SHOW THE NICE SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT GIVES THIS PROPERTY A SOFT EDGE AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES AND THE LAYOUTS THAT WE SEE AROUND IT. NEXT WE HAVE C RELIEF FOR THE PLANTING AREA. THERE IS
[00:55:04]
A REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST 45% OF THE LOT OR THE DEVELOPABLE AREA, BE PLANTED. WE THINK THE LAYOUT IS LOGICAL WITH THE BUILDING AT THE CORE, THE CIRCULATION COMPLETELY AROUND IT, AND THEN THE EMPHASIS ON THE LANDSCAPING ON THE PERIMETER IS A BETTER ZONING ALTERNATIVE AS WELL. AND WE THINK THE INTENT IS MET AGAIN BY THAT NICE SOFT LANDSCAPE EDGE LIKE THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WE SEE IN THE AREA. THERE IS C RELIEF FOR THE PARKING OFFSET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE LESS THAN 15FT, WHICH I BELIEVE RELATES TO THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE. AGAIN, WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND MAYBE OVER ON THE WALL STREET SIDE AS WELL. BUT WE DO HAVE A NICE GREEN EDGE ON WALL STREET AND ON THE DEALERSHIP SIDE, WE ARE INTERNAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE SHARE ACCESS WITH. WE'RE LOOKING AT RELIEF RELATED TO THE LAWN AREA WITHIN THE BUFFER, THAT IS ALSO FROM THE COMMON LOT LINE WITH THE LOT 16 DEALERSHIP AND RELATES TO AN INTERNAL COMMON CIRCULATION AREA AS WELL. C RELIEF FOR THE OFF STREET LOADING, WHICH IS NOT OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED. YOU HEARD A LOT OF GOOD OPERATIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT LAST TIME THAT THE LOADING CAN WORK EFFICIENTLY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE SITE WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THAT OVERALL SITE OPERATIONS AND WITH THE FLOW OF THE SITE AND ADDITIONAL DESIGNATED PARKING FOR LOADING AND OFFLOADING. WOULD BE EXCESSIVE AND IS UNNECESSARY HERE. WE THINK THIS IS A MORE EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE. THERE IS C RELIEF FOR THE SIGN AREA ON THE CORNER ON A CORNER LOT WHERE 22FT■!S IS WHAT'S REQUIRED IS WHAT'S PROPOSED, WHERE 20FT■!S S THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED.THAT'S FOR THE BACK BUILDING, NOT THE FRONT BUILDING. AND THAT'S FOR THE PORTION THAT'S FACING WALL STREET. AGAIN, 22FT■!S, WHERE 20FT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED. IT'S JUST A SLIGHT OVERAGE OVER THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. THERE IS SEE RELIEF FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT OF SIX FEET, WHICH IS MATCHING THE EXISTING LONG STANDING CONDITION, WHERE FOUR FEET WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED. AGAIN, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE USE AND FOR SECURITY PURPOSES, WE THINK THAT IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE AND A BETTER ZONING ALTERNATIVE. AND THEN I HAVE HERE C RELIEF FOR THE REFUSE ENCLOSURE LOCATED IN WITHIN A STREAM BUFFER. BUT BASED ON THE OVERALL SITE CIRCULATION AND YOU'VE GOT SOME A TURNING TEMPLATES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THAT THIS IS AN OPTIMUM, OPTIMUM LOCATION BASED ON THE OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION IN THE NEXT BUNDLE OF RELIEF ARE SEVERAL DESIGN EXCEPTIONS. WE'VE GOT DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR TREES WHERE THREE ARE PROPOSED, WHERE 28 WOULD BE THE MINIMUM THAT'S REQUIRED GIVEN THE OVERALL SITE AREA. AGAIN, WE THINK THAT'S A SAFER, FOR OVERALL CIRCULATION ON A DEVELOPED SITE. AND THERE IS AN ASPECT OF HARDSHIP THERE AS WELL. AND MEETING THE STRICT OR LITERAL REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS A RENOVATION AND A REUSE OF A DEVELOPED SITE, THAT DID NOT HAVE THAT CONDITION FROM THE OUTSET. SO AGAIN, WE THINK THAT RELIEF IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. THE DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR STREET TREES. LIKEWISE, I BELIEVE THIS IS OVER ON THE WALL STREET SIDE WHERE WE HAVE THREE BEING PROPOSED, WHERE NINE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM. THAT'S REQUIRED. AGAIN, THE JUSTIFICATION IS THE SAME AS ABOVE. WE HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY AND REUSE OF AN EXISTING SITE, THEN WE HAVE A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE SIGN HEIGHT FOR BOTH BUILDING G AND BUILDING H, WHERE 28FT IS WHAT'S PROPOSED, 20FT IS THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED. THE ACTUAL SIGN HEIGHT COMPLIES. I BELIEVE THEY'RE BOTH 18FT. BUT WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE CLEARANCE OF TEN FEET OR THE HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE OF TEN FEET ON THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE THIS JUMPS OVER THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. AGAIN, WE THINK IT'S GOT GOOD INTEGRATION WITH THE BUILDING, PROVIDES CLEAR AND SAFE SITE IDENTIFICATION. AND OVERALL IT'S IN GOOD CONTEXT WITH THE BUILDING THAT IT THAT FRAMES IT. THERE IS A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR SIDEWALK NOT ALONG THE 206 FRONTAGE. THAT'S WHAT'S TRIGGERING ADDITIONAL COVERAGE RELIEF. BUT ON THE WALL STREET SIDE WHERE WE DO HAVE A THIN CAPACITY, AND ON THAT SIDE THERE, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS TO CONNECT TO, PER SE. IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, AGAIN, THIS IS THIS HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS SORT OF A, AN OFFICE PARK. IF YOU WILL, WHERE WE DO SEE GOOD INTERCONNECTIVITY THROUGH THE PARKING AREAS AS WELL. LASTLY I PUT DOWN DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE LIGHTING LEVELS. AND I THINK THIS GOES TOWARDS JAMES'S COMMENT. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE BOARD TO MOVE ON. EXCESSIVE LIGHTING ILLUMINATION WITHIN THE PARKING AREAS. IT IS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE USE, BEING THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH PRODUCT
[01:00:04]
ON THE LOT, FOR SAFETY, TO HAVE A CERTAIN EXAGGERATED, ILLUMINATION LEVEL. WE LOOKED UNDER THE, INSTITUTE OF ELECTRIC, THE ILLUMINATION ELECTRICAL SOCIETY IS AND WE LOOKED AT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE AGREED TO MOVE THE LIGHTING DOWN TO WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. I THINK I HAD IT ON MY OTHER NOTES. I HAD IT AT 7.0, I BELIEVE IS WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING, WHICH IS WELL BELOW WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING. SO WE WILL MEET THE I E S RECOMMENDATIONS. AND IF I COULD JUST SAY FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL. SO, IT ASKS THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT IS FOR IT SAYS ADEQUATELY ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED FOR SECURITY AND SAFETY. SO THERE'S NO NUMBER GIVEN OUR REQUEST WAS FOR EXACTLY WHAT MR. MCDONOUGH PROVIDED, WHICH IS A COMPARISON WITH, A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD.SO IS IN THIS CASE AND, AND, THE THERE IS A RANGE THAT IS ALLOWED FOR AUTO DEALER OR RECOMMENDED FOR AUTO DEALERSHIPS. SEVEN FOOT CANDLES IS THE MINIMUM OF THAT RANGE. IT'S THE LOWEST ON THAT.
SO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THAT, MR. MCDONOUGH. BECAUSE I THINK IT RANGES FROM 7 TO 25 FOOT CANDLES AND THIS IS THE LOWEST THAT IS DEEMED SAFE BY THE EYES FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S THAT SECTION SIX OF YOUR REPORT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE YOU'RE REFERRING TO. SO THAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN MY REPORT , IT IT'S BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT ON ANY PLANS. UNDERSTOOD. IT WAS NOT IT WASN'T EVEN TESTIMONY. IT WAS MR. GRILL RECOMMENDING THAT, THAT WE SPEAK ABOUT THIS AND THAT I LOOKED AT THE STANDARDS MYSELF. I KNOW THAT SEVEN IS THE LOWEST FROM IS FOR AUTO DEALERSHIPS, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN HERE. SO, SO MY ARGUMENT WOULD ACTUALLY OR MY VIEW WOULD BE FOR 6.2, WHICH IS WHERE I ASKED THE QUESTION RELIEF WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED BECAUSE IT SAYS THE MINIMUM FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD IS THAT THAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR SAFETY. SO FOR MY NOTE PURPOSES, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT WHEN THE TESTIMONY IS OVER, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH HIS REPORT SECTION BY SECTION. AND I'M GOING TO WRITE C FOR CONDITION. AND MAKE SURE THAT I COPY EVERYTHING. SO I'M GOING TO ADD UNDER SIX TWO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO 7.0. THE EIS RECOMMENDATION. THE MINIMUM IS THE MINIMUM. THE MINIMUM RECOMMENDATION AS A AS A CONDITION. CAN I CLARIFY WHERE THAT LIGHTING IS? IS THAT LIGHTING INSIDE THE BUILDING OR OUTSIDE OR BOTH? THIS IS SITE LIGHTING. SO SITE LIGHTING THE IF THIS HELPS 16 DASH 5.4 BE ONE OF THE ORDINANCE HAS A THIS THIS GENERAL REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM SAFETY AND SECURITY APPLIES TO PARKING AND WALKING AREAS. SO IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING OTHER THAN THE BUILDING AND THE SIDEWALKS AND THE SITE IS A PARKING AREA BECAUSE IT'S AN AUTO DEALERSHIP, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO. ARE THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS ABOUT INSIDE OR NOT WITHIN A ZONING? NOT WITHIN THIS ZONING ORDINANCE? NO, NOT FOR INSIDE THE BUILDING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE. OH WAIT, I, I I'M HALFWAY THERE. OKAY SORRY. WE'LL GO BACK. WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE I'LL CALL IT THE PRACTICAL REASONS FOR THE RELIEF. I, I DO HAVE TO TIE IT BACK TO THE, TO THE STATUTE. SO, IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR THE D4 FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF, I'M GOING TO TURN TO WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE RANDOLPH TOWN CENTER CASE, WHICH BASICALLY REMINDS THE BOARD, IT'S NOT THE USE THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE. IT'S NOT AN AUTO DEALERSHIP, BUT IT'S THE OVERALL MASSING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND WHETHER THE SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE THE MASSING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. SO WE LOOK TOWARDS THE CONVENTIONAL POSITIVE CRITERIA, AND THEN WE COME BACK TO THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE THE MASSING , IN TERMS OF THE POSITIVE CRITERIA. IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE SITE AND THE PROJECT CAN ADVANCE ONE OR MORE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW AT NJSA 40, COLON 50 5D-2 LEADING OFF WITH PURPOSE, A SORT OF THE CATCH ALL THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE, IS BEING ADVANCED HERE BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL DELIVER A PERMITTED USE AND WILL PUT UNDERUTILIZED COMMERCIAL LAND BACK INTO PRODUCTIVE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE.
LIKEWISE, WE SEE THE ADVANCEMENT OF PURPOSE G UNDER THE LAND USE LAW. THE PROJECT WILL PROMOTE THE PLANNING GOAL TO PROVIDE FOR A VARIETY OF USES IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. BECAUSE THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, THERE ARE OTHER AUTO DEALERSHIPS. THEIR BASIC ECONOMIC THEORY IS CENTRAL PLACE THEORY IS THAT DEALERSHIPS AND LAND USES AND BUSINESSES LIKE TO CLUSTER TOGETHER, AS OPPOSED TO BEING AN OUTLIER, AND THAT'S WHY WE SEE SO MANY DEALERSHIPS CLOSE
[01:05:04]
TOGETHER. SO THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION BECAUSE IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THAT CHARACTER OF THE AREA. AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S ALSO A PREDOMINANTLY NONRESIDENTIAL AREA AS WELL. SO THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE THAT COMMERCE ORIENTED PATTERN OF THE AREA. WE ALSO SEE THE ADVANCEMENT OF PURPOSE I THE PROMOTION OF A DESIRABLE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE AN OVERALL ESTHETIC UPGRADE, A RENOVATION OF A LONG STANDING ESTABLISHED SITE AND GIVE IT A FRESH NEW LOOK WILL ENHANCE THE IMAGE AND THE IDENTITY OF THE SITE AND THE AREA AS A POSITIVE PLACE TO INVEST. NEXT, WE SEE THE ADVANCEMENT OF PURPOSE M, WHICH IS OUR PLANNING GOAL FOR EFFICIENT USE OF LAND. THIS IS A RETROFIT AND ADAPTIVE REUSE WHICH FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT IS AS EFFICIENT AS IT GETS. IT'S A LONG STANDING, DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL SITE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A REUSE AND A RENOVATION OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. THAT ALL GOES TOWARDS THE POSITIVE CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA, I'M GOING TO FALL ON THE PREDICATE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT'S GONE BEFORE ME, THAT THE SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE MASSING THAT'S PROPOSED. HERE YOU HAVE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED TESTIMONY THAT HAS ADDRESSED ALL THE FUNCTIONAL, VISUAL, OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE MASSING AND THE USE THAT'S BEFORE YOU, AS I SAID, IN TERMS OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, THIS IS ACTUALLY MOVING THE NEEDLE CLOSER. THE FLOOR AREA IS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED FROM THAT WHICH PRESENTLY EXISTS. AND AS I SIT HERE NOW, IT'S MY OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO IMPACTS OF A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE NATURE THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED OR UNMITIGATED BASED ON THE ABOVE, I BELIEVE THAT THE D4 RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ZONE PLAN. NEXT, WE TAKE THE BUNDLE OF C RELIEF, LUMPING THEM ALL TOGETHER. I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL JUSTIFIED ABLE UNDER THE FLEXIBLE C BALANCING TEST, WHERE THE BENEFITS OF THE APPLICATION AS A WHOLE SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGH THE DETRIMENTS. AND THAT WOULD TURN US TO THE PULLEN CASE, WHICH AGAIN, ENCOURAGES THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATION HOLISTICALLY IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT POSITIVES, ALL THE D BENEFITS THAT I JUST GAVE YOU WOULD CARRY FORTH ALL OF THE C RELIEF THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE A POSITIVE REPURPOSING OF THIS SITE IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS, I JUST RAN THROUGH THE LIST WITH YOU, BASED ON ALL THE TESTIMONY, ALL THAT SEA RELIEF WILL HAVE MINIMAL, IF ANY SIDE IMPACT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THEREFORE ON BALANCING, I BELIEVE THE CLEAR WEIGHT IS ON THE POSITIVE SIDE. I THINK THERE'S STRONG WEIGHT HERE ON THE C-2 BALANCING TEST. IF WE WERE DEALING WITH A CLEAN SHEET OF PAPER, I THINK THE C-2 TEST IS MET. GIVEN THE ASPECT THAT THERE THIS IS AN EXISTING SITE, I THINK THE BOARD CAN MAKE SOME FINDINGS UNDER C-1 AS WELL. I'M NOT RELYING ON THAT, BUT MUCH OF THE RELIEF DOES RELATE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS, WHEREBY RELIEF RELATES TO THE LAND AND THE STRUCTURES THEREON. THERE IS A BASIS FOR THAT C-1 HARDSHIP AS WELL. THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO FIND BOTH ARE MET. IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. BUT THIS I THINK, IS DOUBLE STRONG THAT YOU DO HAVE BOTH. THEN LASTLY, THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN EXCEPTIONS. I USUALLY TURN TO THE DESIGN EXPERTS, AS MEETING A MORE RELAXED STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS APPROPRIATENESS, IMPRACTICABILITY, MEANING THAT STRICT OR LITERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE WOULD REALLY SERVE NO PRACTICAL PLANNING PURPOSE, THAT OVERRIDES THE OVERALL BENEFITS OF THE APPLICATION AS A WHOLE, IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD SAY THE OVERALL SITE PLAN MEETS ACCEPTABLE SITE PLANNING PRINCIPLES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXCEPTIONS THAT THE BOARD IS ASKING THE BOARD TO RELAX WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF YOUR SITE PLANNING, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. IN CONCLUSION, THE APPLICATION WILL REVITALIZE UNDERUTILIZED COMMERCIAL LAND. THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO GIVE THE SITE A FRESH NEW LOOK AND ENHANCE THE OVERALL IMAGE OF THE AREA, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOSE THREE BUNDLES OF RELIEF THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE BOARD TO MOVE ON THE D4. THE C AND THE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ALL MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THAT RELIEF. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD OFFER THAT APPROVAL IS WARRANTED. THANK YOU. IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC. SO WE'LL MOVE TO OUR, OUR BOARD IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS, PLANNER. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE, CROSS ACCESS FOR I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT THAT CROSS ACCESS TO LOT 16, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING A DEED? THAT BE RECORDED AS A DEED FOR THAT CROSS ACCESS TO THE LOT 15 TO 16? THAT WOULD BE AN EASEMENT AND THAT WOULD BE A RECORDED EASEMENT. THAT'S. YES.OKAY I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE FOR IF ONE PIECE WERE IN THE FUTURE BE SOLD, THAT IT'S
[01:10:09]
SOMETHING THAT STAYS WITH THE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOLLOWING THIS IS THE TRAFFIC QUESTIONS. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WILL BE SPEAKING. OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THE TRAFFIC. WOULD THE FIRE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DELAYING THE FIRE, THE, QUESTIONS TILL LATER, THE FIRE WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE REPORTS. AND THAT WILL PROBABLY BE DAVE SCHMIDT ADDRESSING THAT HE'S PROVIDED SOME TURNING TEMPLATES. OKAY, YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION, IT MAY BE RELATED TO THE DESIGN, BUT IN THE DESIGN, HOW IS THE RAINWATER COLLECTED AND MOVED AWAY AND OUT FROM THE TOP OF THE BUILDING? AND WHERE DOES IT FLOW? I DIDN'T SEE ANY, ANYTHING ON THE RENDERINGS REGARDING, DOWNSPOUT OUTS AND GUTTERS, THAT WILL BE EITHER MR. SCHMIDT OR OR MR. FANELLI. WE CAN. WE CAN ADDRESS. WELL, I CAN ADDRESS IT LATER. OKAY. YEAH ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNER FROM THE BOARD? NO. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNER FROM OUR, EXPERTS? I HAVE, I HAVE ONE. I'LL LET JAMES GO IN A SECOND. JOHN, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY? I THOUGHT YOU SAID IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT LOADING ON SITE. IT WAS MY RECOLLECTION FROM THE LAST HEARING THAT YOU COULD NOT GET A CAR CARRIER ONTO THE SITE WITHOUT CROSSING INTO THE OPPOSITE LANE OF TRAFFIC, AND CAR CARRIERS WOULD LOAD ACROSS THE STREET AT THE AIRPORT. CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ON SITE LOADING.SO CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE PLAN IS? I WILL DO THAT. CAN I JUST HAVE 30S? AND DOES THIS RELATE TO YOU HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC LOADING ZONE I BELIEVE YES. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT. IT'S A LONG REPORT. YOU KNOW VERY OFTEN FOR RETAIL USES, YOU EXPECT THEM TO BACK UP A TRUCK TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND BRING INVENTORY IN THROUGH THROUGH THAT. THAT'S WHY I WANTED JUST SOME CLARIFICATION WAS HE SAID LOADING WAS ON SITE. BUT I THOUGHT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, CAR CARRIERS WOULD BE EMPTIED OFF SITE AT THE AIRPORT AND THEN DRIVEN ACROSS. RIGHT. AND YEAH, OKAY. WE GOT IT TO WORK. SORRY ABOUT THAT CONFUSION. YEAH. THE LAST TIME I HAD HEARD OPERATIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT LOT 16, THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT WAS STRIKING, THAT IT'S THE AIRPORT AND I'M JUST GOING TO DEFER TO THE TURNING TEMPLATES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. OKAY. SO CAR SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THEN VEHICLE DELIVERIES WOULD BE SENT TO THE AIRPORT, OFFLOADED AND DRIVEN OVER TO THE SITE. AND THEN YOUR TYPICALLY YOUR TYPICAL DAY TO DAY DELIVERIES AMAZON FEDEX. THAT WOULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON SITE WITHOUT A DEDICATED LOADING ZONE. THAT'S CORRECT OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR THE PLANNER. THANK YOU. ARE WE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT CAR LOADING AND UNLOADING THOUGH. ARE YOU GOING TO MR. SCHMIDT. ARE YOU GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT? I'LL BRING UP THE EXHIBIT OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL SEE THE EXHIBIT FOR THE TURNING AND THE UNLOADING, AND I'LL. BE DOING THAT NOW. AND I DO THINK IT WOULD BE, FOR ME AT LEAST, BETTER TO HEAR THE TRAFFIC TESTIMONY, OKAY. BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE'S RELIEF. THAT'S THAT'S IN INTERTWINED WITH THAT. AND SO, TO, TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT STANDS OUT THAT GOES AGAINST ANYTHING OR SUPPORTS WHAT MR. MCDONOUGH SAID, I CAN THEN BRING THAT UP. BUT IT WOULD BE BEST TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE SITE WILL FULLY OPERATE. OKAY, SO, DO WE CONTINUE WITH THE TRAFFIC TESTIMONY THEN? YES, I LET'S DO THAT. OKAY. MR. SCHMIDT IS NOW BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. THIS IS A NOW, IT'S NOT AN EXHIBIT.
NOT AN EXHIBIT. OKAY? PART OF THE SUBMISSION PACKAGE. WE DID TWO, TRUCK EXHIBITS, PLANS OF HOW THE CARS COULD BE UNLOADED INTO THE PROPERTY. ONE WAS COMING, SOUTHBOUND. THIS IS THE EXHIBIT ONE. IT'S DATED APRIL 24TH, 2004. IT WAS REVISED APRIL 6TH OR MAY 6TH, THIS WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PACKAGE. SO I HAD MY STAFF COME UP WITH, TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF COMING IN, AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING, ONE WAS GOING SOUTHBOUND, COMING IN OFF OF WALL STREET, RIGHT, DRIVING DOWN WALL STREET, PULLING INTO THE SITE AND THEN BACK UP AND IN IS AN OPTION, IT'S NOT THE PREFERRED OPTION, BUT IT DOES WORK. AND PER THE
[01:15:07]
TRUCK TEMPLATE AND THE OTHER OPTION WE HAD IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PASSENGER WAS GETTING INTO IS UTILIZING ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WAS AIR PARK ROAD, WHERE THE TRUCK COMES IN, COME IN SOUTH OR NORTH BOUND, DRIVES DOWN AIR PARK ROAD IN THE WESTERLY MANNER. HE STOPS THE TRUCK, UNLOADS THE CARS AND THEN HE COULD BACK UP DURING THIS ACCESS ROADWAY RIGHT HERE AND THEN CONVEY DOWN AIR PARK ROAD AND EXIT AT A TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERSECTION. SO THAT'S HOW WE WERE PLANNING I THINK IS THE BEST WAY. AND THAT'S HONESTLY HOW SOME OF THE CAR DEALERSHIPS IN MONTGOMERY ARE UTILIZING ALREADY AS AS A WAY OF UNLOADING AND LOADING OR JUST UNLOADING CARS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE PLAN TO DO WITH THIS DEALERSHIP. SO AS A CONDITION, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THANK YOU, I HAVE A, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO DO YOU NEED AN AGREEMENT WITH ANYONE TO DO THAT? ANY THE IS THERE IS AIRPORT PARK. PARK ROAD IN THIS ROAD? IT'S IN AN EASEMENT, BUT IT'S A PUBLIC ROADWAY. IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD. IT'S. THE EASEMENT IS IN MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. I DID THE PRINCETON AIRPORT. OKAY, I, I DO HAVE A NOTE FROM LAST WEEK, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO SAID IT OR LAST TIME WE MET THAT SAID CAR DELIVERY CANNOT THEY CANNOT DELIVER IN THE STREET. IS, IS THAT, DOES ANYONE ELSE REMEMBER THAT AND DOES THAT INCLUDE AIR PARK ROAD OR IS THAT JUST 206 OR IT IS. HOW DOES THAT JIBE? OH, DEFINITELY. MY CONCERN WAS I DIDN'T WANT CAR CARRIERS STOPPED ON 206206. RIGHT ENOUGH SPACE. THERE'S TOO MUCH VOLUME ON 206 TO HAVE THEM TAKING UP A PORTION OF A TRAVEL LANE, SURE TO UNLOAD CARS. SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THEM OFFLOADING ON AIRPORT PARK ROAD. IT'S A MUCH LOWER VOLUME. THERE'S NOT REALLY THE PEOPLE. THE CARS ARE TRAFFIC THERE FOR IT. I JUST DON'T WANT THEM LOADING ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. OKAY. UNLOADING RATHER.OKAY. I WAS WONDERING IF IT WAS A LEGAL THING LIKE YOU'RE IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO. THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING. I THINK IT PROBABLY IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO PARKING OR NO STOPPING OR STANDING ON 206. YOU SHOULDN'T BE STOPPING ANY VEHICLE THERE, ESPECIALLY A CAR CARRIER. RIGHT. BUT AND I DON'T KNOW IF ON AIR PARK ROAD, IF THERE ARE ANY PARKING RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM, FROM AND THAT AND THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR YOUR TO INFORM YOUR OPINION. CORRECT IT. THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW RIGHT? YES. YEAH. IF THERE WAS BECAUSE BECAUSE IF THAT WAS THE CASE THEN YOUR OPINION ON AIR PARK ROAD WOULD BE THE SAME AS 202 206. I'M SORRY I WAS GET THOSE TWO CONFUSED. THANK YOU. PERMITTED. THEN IT'S NOT PERMITTED ON THAT ROAD. BUT I DON'T KNOW. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IF OTHER CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE USING THAT THEN AND THEY'RE ALSO USING THE ONE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT. IT'S, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE CAR WASH. IS ANOTHER DEAD END STREET, OKAY, THAT HAS LOW VOLUME AND THEY PULL IN THERE AND USE THAT AND THEN THEY BACK OUT. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN USING. THOSE TWO TWO AREAS. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A IMPERMANENT KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW, NOT IMPERMANENT. WHAT'S THE WORD I WANT, JUST NOT A REALLY OFFICIAL WAY TO DO IT. BUT IF EVERYBODY ELSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH EXISTING SITES AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAMMERED INTO ALL THE SITES THAT I'VE DONE ON 206, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT THE SHOPRITE, YOU GOT THE PRINCETON WELLNESS FITNESS CENTER, THEY'RE ALL OVER ON LOCK COVERAGE. THEY'RE ALL JAMMED IN THERE. AND THE TURNING MOVEMENTS JUST DON'T MEET BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T REALLY ASKED FOR AT THE TIME WHEN WE WERE DOING THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. SO NOW THESE THINGS ARE COMING UP. HOW DO YOU DO IT? WE'RE COMING UP WITH THESE THESE ANSWERS. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS A I ACTUALLY DID THE CAR DEALERSHIP, RIGHT NEXT TO THE PRINCETON AIRPORT. JEFF FISHER WAS ON IT, AND HE MADE SURE I HAD THE TRAFFIC MOVING FOR THE FOR A NEW DEALERSHIP. BUT YOU HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY WHEN YOU'RE YOU HERE. WE GOT LOCKED BUILDINGS AND DISTANCES THAT JUST MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE. AND THAT'S THE SAME TRUE WITH THE HONDA. AND ALL THOSE DEALERSHIPS. I'M NOT SURE HOW RANGE ROVER HAS IF THEY PROBABLY HAVE A DECENT MOVEMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT SIDE ACCESS ROAD SO THEY CAN PULL IN AND GET OUT. SO YEAH, I'M SURE I'VE SEEN AUDI AND VOLKSWAGENS BEING DELIVERED ONTO. OH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ROOM THERE EITHER. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN WE MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT, THAT THERE NOT BE ANY, THAT APPROVAL OR OUR POSITION IS CONTINGENT ON A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS NO DELIVERY FROM 206, RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE JUST SAYING. WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A REQUIREMENT. OKAY. HAVE TO DELIVER USING THE AIRPORT ROAD. OKAY. OKAY. SO MOVE FORWARD OKAY. SO, IS THERE A TRAFFIC, IS THERE A TRAFFIC? DIAGRAM FOR THE QUESTION REGARDING FROM ADAM BERG? THAT'S THE NEXT MEMO I WAS GOING TO GET. EXCELLENT. LET'S GO TO THAT
[01:20:06]
OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT TODAY. OKAY, FROM ADAM VERDUCCI AT TWO. HE HAS A FEW CONCERNS. SO THE FIRST COMMENT HE HAS ACCESS BEING PARAMOUNT WITH THE CURRENT PARKING PLAN, THERE IS VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTH, AND THE ACCESS TO KBJR PARKING LOT AND CD, DJ. OUR PARKING LOT IS CHRYSLER, DODGE, JEEP, RAM, SO I'M NOT SURE IF HE SAW THAT WE HAVE GATES, BUT WE YOU DO HAVE ACCESS FROM BOTH WAYS. I'M NOT SURE IF HE SAW THE ENTRANCE THAT WE'RE. I'M PUTTING THE MOUSE WHERE YOU CAN COME IN FROM THE SOUTH, DRIVE THROUGH AND COME OUT. SO I'M NOT SURE I CAN. I INTERRUPT FOR ONE SECOND.WE DO HAVE AN UPDATED EMAIL FROM FROM ADAM AT HOT OFF THE PRESSES AT 613 THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT FIRE TRAFFIC FLOW IS GOOD. BUT HE HAD A CONCERN REGARDING THE FTC AND UTILITIES ON THE EAST SIDE. OKAY. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE SAW MY EXHIBIT. YES. HE SO HE SAW YOUR EXHIBIT, THE ONLY OUTSTANDING. OKAY ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN. SHERRY. THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE IS THE FTC AND UTILITIES. SO COULD YOU COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? I'M SORRY. SO HE HAD THREE BULLETS, AND YOU'RE SAYING ONLY THE SECOND ONE? YES. IS A CONCERN? YEAH ADAM SENT AN EMAIL AT 6:13 P.M. THIS EVENING, TO SHERRY. ME AND JOE, AND IT SAYS FIRE TRAFFIC FLOW IS GOOD.
I'M STILL CONCERNED WITH FTC AND UTILITIES ON THE EAST SIDE. GREAT. THANK YOU. BECAUSE RIGHT INTO THAT. SO THE TWO THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, IS I'LL TALK TO ADAM. SO I THINK THIS IS NOW VERY, FAIRLY EASY. I TALKED TO THE ARCHITECT RALPH FANELLI, WE CAN MOVE THE FTC IS, YOU SEE, WHERE MY MOUTH IS LOCATED, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. I'M JUST. CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT AN FTC IS? I'M NAIVE. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION. THANK YOU. OKAY AND THAT IS LOCATED RIGHT ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND HE'S CONCERNED, THAT THEY HAVE GATES, WHICH I CAN ASK IF EITHER WE COULD PUT A LOCK THAT HE CAN OPEN OR ACCESS, OR WE CAN MOVE THE FTC TO THE AREA WHERE IT'S NOT FENCED IN. SO I WILL SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE FIRE CHIEFS. WE HAVE TWO. WE COULD EITHER YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THEM THE TYPICAL KEY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE, OR WE'LL MOVE A WATER. THE FTC LINE TO A LOCATION THAT HE CAN ACCESS IT DURING A FIRE. OKAY. I WOULD ASSUME HE COULD DO BOTH. I MEAN, IF HE NEEDS TO GET TO THAT, THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING, HE'LL JUST KNOCK THE GATES OPEN AND DRIVE THROUGH. BUT IF HE FEELS IT'S BETTER TO BE IN THE RELOCATED, WE'LL RELOCATE IT. SO AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE FTC, SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE FIRE CHIEF. PERFECT. YES GREAT. THAT ANSWERS THAT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC FLOW? YEP ONE QUESTION I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND. WITH THE UTILITY SHUTOFFS, ARE THEY ACCESSIBLE IMMEDIATELY? YOU KNOW, THE GAS ELECTRIC THAT'S NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EMERGENCY. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, IN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. I DON'T HAVE AN EMERGENCY SHUT OFF. OR IF IT DOES HAPPEN, IT'S UNDER NOT UNDER ENGINEERING. I SHOW WHERE THE GAS LINE GETS TO THE BUILDING AND WHAT APPARATUSES THEY HAVE. OBVIOUSLY WE I KNOW WHAT A FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION IS AND THE LIGHTING THAT THEY NEED, BUT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE FTC.
THAT'S THAT'S FINE, IT'S JUST THE, SHUTTING OFF GAS OR ELECTRIC, IN AN EMERGENCY, I THINK THE LAST, LAST TIME WE SAW IT WAS GOING TO BE IN A FENCED IN AREA, WHICH IS WHY ADAM WAS OBJECTING TO IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF AN EMERGENCY CAN FIREFIGHTERS GET TO THOSE? OKAY, WELL, AGAIN, THE GAS METER IS IN THE SAME LOCATION TO WHERE THE FTC IS. AND IF THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EMERGENCY SHUT OFF IN THAT LOCATION, I'LL TALK TO ADAM. IF YOU KNOW, ASK HIM IF YOU KNOW. DO WE PROVIDE THEM KEYS WITH THE LOCK TO GET IN, OR DO YOU WANT US TO RELOCATE IT BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS BEING RETROFITTED SO WE CAN MOVE THE UTILITIES AROUND IF NEED BE.
YEAH. CONCERN IS JUST WHEREVER IT IS. CAN WE GET TO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH LOCKED GATES? RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SCHMIDT? SO I GUESS THERE IS A NEW MEMO, THAT HAS BEEN, ENTERED IN AFTER. AND HE SAID THEN THERE IS NOT AN AN ISSUE REGARDING THE ACCESS TO THE WEST. AND, AND FROM THE, CD JR PARKING LOT, THAT'S WHAT WE THERE WERE THREE
[01:25:03]
BULLETS IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO, AND ONLY THE SECOND ONE WAS REMAINING A CONCERN. AND THEY JUST ADDED A AGREEMENT TO COMPLY. OKAY AND DID HE SEE THE, WHERE THE DOORS ARE, TO GET IN THE BUILDING? IS THAT, SHOULD THAT BE AN ISSUE, WE'LL WE'LL PROVIDE THEM THE UPDATED PLANS AND THE ACCESS DOORS, AND WE HAVE A CONDITION OF THE FIRE CHIEF SIGNING OFF ON THE PLANS.SO IF HE RAISES A RED FLAG, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT GOES THROUGH THE CERTAIN CHANNELS. YOU KNOW, RAKESH HAS HIS SIGN OFF, SULLIVAN HAS HIS. AND THEN SHERRY COLLECTS THEM ALL, AND WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE GET, ADAM VERDUCCI. AND HE'S GOING TO HAVE. WHEN I RESUBMIT FOR CONFORMANCE REVIEW, IT GOES TO EVERYBODY, AND IT'S GOING TO GO TO ADAM WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE ASIANS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL , AND WE GIVE THEM AN ITEMIZED LIST. IT'S NOT JUST A SUBMISSION. IT IS ITEMIZED TO ADDRESS EVERY COMMENT THAT IS. SO WE'RE WE'LL ADDRESS EVERY COMMENT, YOU KNOW, TO THE T OF WHAT WAS DONE. SO HE WILL SIGN OFF. AND THAT'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A CONDITION. NO IT'S STANDARD. THAT'S A STANDARD THING BEFORE BEFORE I GIVE A CLEAN LETTER SAYING THAT THE PLANS ARE ARE GOOD TO SIGN, I, I CHECK SHERRY AND I BOTH CHECK FOR, LETTERS FROM JAMES. JOE THE FIRE OFFICIAL AND ALL OUTSIDE AGENCIES BEFORE BEFORE WE SAY. YEAH, THE PLANS ARE GOOD TO SIGN OFF ON. THAT'S STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR US. OKAY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OUR OUR BOARD PROFESSIONALS? I HAVE ONE WHILE WE'RE ON THE FIRE TRUCK. JUST SO THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD, DAVE, THE FIRE EXHIBIT THAT YOU SENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INCLUDES ADDING A GATE IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF, WHAT, 15 IS THAT? AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? YOU KNOW, WE COULD BRING UP THE EXHIBIT FOR THE RECORD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ADAM SAW IT OR NOT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE RECOGNIZED THAT THE GATE WERE THERE WAS A GATE HERE AND A GATE HERE, AND THEREFORE THAT HE SAW THAT AND HE REFERRED. NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BOTTOM LEFT, ABOUT THE LOWER LEFT CORNER RIGHT HERE. YEAH. BECAUSE YOUR TEMPLATE SHOWS THE TRUCK COMING IN OFF AGAIN. I DID ADAM GET THESE PLANS? NO, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE ASKING THOUGH, IS, YOU KNOW, IF HE DID OR NOT.
YEAH, BUT YOU'RE FIRED FROM THE FIRE TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN. I HAVE, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS THE SAME ONE SENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SHOWS A GATE IN ABOUT WHERE THE POINTER IS. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS PART OF THE APPLICATION. OKAY, LET'S LET'S LET'S MODIFY THE PLAN ACCORDINGLY. I I DON'T KNOW IF ADAM GOT MY PLANS, BUT LET'S BRING UP THE PLAN AND PUT IT ON THE RECORD. SO WE HAVE IT, YEP. SO THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. SO YOU SEE, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, I KNOW I GOT TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD. THIS IS THIS IS AN EXHIBIT. I PREPARED THIS AN HOUR AGO, TWO HOURS AGO. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT DOUBTING THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT I GOT. I GOT ADAM'S, I GOT ADAM'S, WE'RE PROJECTING ON THE SCREEN WHAT WE'RE NOW GOING TO MARK AS EXHIBIT A SIX. I THINK WE'RE UP TO. OKAY, THIS IS THE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS PLAN. EXHIBIT ONE PREPARED FOR LOTS 15 AND 16 AND BLOCK 35 001, IT IS DATED MAY 23RD, 2024. THIS IS TO ADDRESS, ADAM BUSH'S LETTER. THE TRUCK TEMPLATE THAT I'M UTILIZING IS THE NEW TRUCK THAT THEY GOT FROM MONTGOMERY FIRE COMPANY. NUMBER TWO, THEY GOT A LARGER TRUCK. I WAS GIVEN MANY MONTHS AGO. THE NEW TURNING RADIUS FOR F3697T-RAD. THIS COMES FROM ROY MUNDY, FOR THE LOCAL DESIGN ENGINEERS TO DESIGN BY. SO THAT'S HOW I, DID THE TRUCK PATTERNS FOR THIS THIS EXHIBIT, SO IT MEETS THE NEW. SO WHAT I CAME UP WITH AS A FIRE TRUCK IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT EASIER THAN A W 50, WHICH IS FOR DROPPING OFF CARS. IT WOULD HEAD DOWN SOUTHBOUND, WHICH IT WOULD BECAUSE IT WOULD BE COMING FROM 518. IT WOULD THEN ENTER THE EXISTING BAKER. EXCUSE ME.
SORRY, SORRY. THE EXISTING PRINCETON JEEP. AND THEN HE WOULD COME IN AND HEAD IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION. THEN EASTERLY, AND THEN CIRCULATE AROUND AND OUT SAFELY OFF INTO A SIX. SO HE HAS WAYS OF COMING IN OFF OF 206 THROUGH THE EXISTING PRINCETON JEEP. HE CAN ENTER QUICKLY, RIGHT, RIGHT WHERE I SHOW IT. CLOSEST TO 206. OR WE CAN GO DOWN WHERE WE HAVE THE NEW OPENING AND COME INTO THE EASTERLY SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND HAVE ACCESS. SO I IF HE SAW
[01:30:05]
THIS PLAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT THE RAKESH AND FISHER ARE TALKING ABOUT IS I AM PUTTING A PROPOSED FIRE EMERGENCY GATE, TO PUT IN THIS LOCATION TO BLOCK IT. I KNOW THERE'S NO GATE THERE. IT'S FALLING DOWN, BUT. SO WE WERE RIGHT. SO WE WERE THINKING, WELL, WE'LL EITHER PUT A FENCE OR AN ACCESS POINT FOR THE FIRE COMPANY. THAT WAS THE INTENT. WE PUT THAT AS A CONDITION. YOU CAN PUT IT SO DAVE, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF THERE IS, THERE'S NO GATE THERE. THERE'S NO FENCE THERE NOW. RIGHT. THE FENCE, I MEAN I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT'S LEFT OPEN. I LEAVE IT OPEN. YEAH. THEN SO THEN THERE WILL NOT BE AN EMERGENCY GATE THERE. IT WILL BE LEFT IN THE EXISTING CONDITION WITH A GAP IN THE FENCE. RIGHT NOW IT'LL BE WIDE OPEN. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GAP RIGHT NOW. AND THERE'S THIS DEFENSE, THAT FENCE IS GOING TO BE REMOVED ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WHERE THAT TRUCK IS GOING TO BE FREE. NO CAGE, NO, SIR. IF YOU'RE GOING TO TEST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS JUST SPEAKING IS OKAY, OKAY. YEAH. CHARLES CARONIA, THANK YOU. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE APPLICANT, HE WAS SWORN AT THE LAST MEETING. THANK YOU. SO CAN YOU JUST SHOW WHERE THE FENCE IS THAT WILL BE REMOVED? I SEE IT SAYS FENCE RIGHT THERE. RIGHT. AND SO THAT ENTIRE FENCE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE REMOVED. THAT IS CORRECT. GREAT THANK YOU. OKAY.AND QUESTION PRESUMING THERE'S, SAY, A ISSUE OR FIRE OR EXPLOSION IN THE GARBAGE PAVILION OR, DUMPSTER, CAN THAT TRUCK ALSO JUST ACCESS THAT BACK CORNER AT SOUTHERLY SOUTHWEST CORNER? I GUESS THAT IS I HAVE IT SHOWN WHERE THE JEEP PARKING LOT. I MEAN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE? IS THAT WHERE ARE YOU TRYING TO GET TO FROM WHERE YOUR ARROW IS? RIGHT, ALL THE WAY ALONG THE BOTTOM RIGHT TO THAT, TO THE, TO THE TRASH RECYCLING ENCLOSURE. RIGHT WE COULD DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN. WE CAN ENTER HERE, OR WE CAN DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN, AND WE CAN ENTER IN A 16 FOOT ALLEYWAY, AND THEN WE CAN LOCATE IT. MAKES A GREAT CIRCULATION. CAN THAT TRUCK TURN LEFT INTO THAT? INTO THAT SOUTHERLY GATE? IF IT CAN TURN INTO THE TOPIC AND TURN IT TO THE BOTTOM. BUT IF IT CAN MAKE IT INTO THIS ONE, IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE IT INTO THIS ONE. I CAN I CAN PROVIDE A TEMPLATE FOR THAT. BUT ALTHOUGH HE'S GOT PARKING SPACES THERE, I'M SORRY. HE'S GOT PARKING SPACES THERE THOUGH. RIGHT WHERE. NO, THESE THOSE SPACES ARE GONE. THOSE WILL BE OPEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, AGAIN, I WHIPPED US TOGETHER IN A COUPLE HOURS. THIS IS JUST A GENERIC PLAN WE PUT. OKAY, BUT THERE WE GO. BACK TO THE PRINCETON. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THOSE THOSE THREE SPACES ARE TO BE REMOVED, I SEE. OKAY AND IT DOES YOUR CIRCULATION PLAN ASSUME, WHEN THE LOT IS FULL, THAT THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES WILL HAVE THE SAME MOBILITY AROUND? THAT IS CORRECT. IF WE GO BACK TO THIS, WE HAVE THE STRIPING. THE TRUCK CAN COME IN. THIS IS 24FT WIDE OR 26. THIS SIDE OVER HERE IS 30. SO IT SHOULD BE IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE SAME TURN. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TRUCK PATTERNS FOR THE LARGEST TRUCK THAT MONTGOMERY HAS, IT CAN SERVE IT THROUGH THE THROUGH THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HITTING ANY OF THE PARKING STALLS OR THE STRIPING, WHICH IS NINE BY 18. OKAY THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SCHMIDT. ARE WE, IS THERE ANY MORE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT? OH I THINK WE GOT A WAYS TO GO, DON'T WE? YEAH. I'M ASKING YOU, SO WE'VE GOT A BUNCH OF REPORTS TO GO THROUGH. UNLESS YOU WANT TO TELL US THAT YOU DON'T NEED ALL OF THEM. WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT REPORT YOU HAVE LEFT. OKAY. WE HAVE, WELL. SO I GOT MOST OF JOE AND I HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH HIS MEMO MEMORANDUM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. HIS MEMO IS DATED MARCH 5TH, 2024, THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS MEMO, HE GOES THROUGH A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED. AND HE WRITES TRAFFIC IMPACTS, WE WERE ASKING FOR A WAIVER FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. HE DOES POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A AN INCREASE FROM THE OFFICE TO CAR DEALERSHIPS, BUT THAT THAT PEAK IS ON A SATURDAY, WHICH I FEEL IS THE LEAST TRAVELED OF ROUTE 206. SO THOUGH WE ARE INCREASING IT, THE INCREASE IS
[01:35:02]
ON ROUTE 206, AND I DON'T FEEL THAT A TRAFFIC STUDY IS NEEDED. HE HAS DONE THE COUNTS. THERE IS AN INCREASE, BUT, THE ACCESS THAT WE'RE UTILIZING FROM WALL STREET AND 206 IS A CONTROLLED INTERSECTION WITH THE LIGHT. YOU COULDN'T BE ANY BETTER. AND I DON'T FEEL THAT WE'RE NOT, IMPEDING THE TRAFFIC FLOW ONTO 206 AT THE MOST BUSIEST TIME, WHICH IS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.SO LET'S GO WITH NUMBER ONE AND HEAR WHAT JOE HAS TO SAY ABOUT MY COMMENT ON THAT. THE STATE'S THRESHOLD FOR A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. AND YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD THIS BEFORE, IS 100 TRIPS.
BASED ON MY CALCULATIONS, THEY'RE ADDING 96 ON THE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR. WHAT I WOULD ASK IF AT IF ANYTHING IS THAT, THEN YOU GET A LETTER OF NO INTEREST FROM THE STATE THAT CONFIRMS THAT YOU DO NOT NEED A NEW ACCESS PERMIT. SO THE THRESHOLD IS 100. THEY'RE PUSHING 96. I WOULD LIKE AT A MINIMUM FOR THEM TO HAVE HAVE A LETTER, GET THE LETTER OF NO INTEREST. THAT CONFIRMS WITH THE STATE THAT THEY DO NOT NEED A NEW ACCESS PERMIT. THAT'S TYPICAL. THAT'S THAT'S I'VE GOTTEN MANY LOW LETTER OF INTEREST, BUT NOT A LIE, BUT A LETTER OF INTEREST. YES, THEY ARE UNDER 100. SO I BELIEVE THEY CAN GET THAT LETTER. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU MAKE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THEY GET THAT OUTSIDE AGENCY APPROVAL. GREAT.
THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT'S NOT A COMMENT, DAVE, I THINK NUMBER TWO WAS ADDRESSED, RIGHT? NUMBER THREE WAS ADDRESSED. NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE YOU CLARIFIED, BUT DO YOU INTEND TO ONE JUST QUESTION ON THAT. WAS YOU STILL SHOWING A SEPARATE TOTAL FOR NEW VEHICLE AND PRE-OWNED AND PARKING, AS FAR AS THE BOARD'S CONCERN, AND DOES THAT DISTINCTION NEED TO BE MADE? IS IT JUST INVENTORY, YEAH, YOU COULD JUST USE IT AS INVENTORY.
I MEAN, I JUST BROKE IT DOWN. I MEAN, I WAS, I, I'VE DONE MANY CAR DEALERSHIPS AND IT COULD BE JUST BROKEN DOWN AS JUST ONE, WE COULD ADD THE TWO TOGETHER. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, NUMBER FIVE, YOU REMOVE THE SERVICE VEHICLES. SIX. YOU ACCOMMODATED, I BELIEVE YOU AGREED YOU'D COMPLY WITH NUMBER SEVEN, WHILE WE'RE ON THE PARKING AND THE SITE, PLAN ON IN FRONT OF BILL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING H. AND I APOLOGIZE IF RIGHT HERE, IF YOU WANT TO MOVE YOUR CURSOR TO WHERE I'M POINTING ON THE SCREEN, CAN YOU SEE THE MY LASER POINTER? DAVE. NO, I REALLY CAN'T. OH, I SEE UP HERE. YEAH. IS THAT I'M CONFUSED. ARE THOSE HANDICAPPED SPACES IN THE VEHICLE INVENTORY AREA OR IS THERE AN ERROR ON THE PLAN WITH REGARD TO STRIPING. BECAUSE IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY THAT THOSE SPACES WOULD BE FOR VEHICLE INVENTORY. AND I'M CONFUSED IF YOU HAVE A ADA PARKING SPACE AND VEHICLE INVENTORY. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T WOULD YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY NO, BUT I WILL CLARIFY IT UP, WE HAVE SO MANY SPACES, WE, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY NEED, TEN PARKING SPACES, PER THE ORDINANCE. AND I WILL BREAK OUT THE ADA PARKING SPOTS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE CLEARER FOR YOU, BUT I DON'T SEE IT. DON'T WANT TO SEE. I DON'T WANT TO SEE A PLAN TO COME THROUGH WHEN THE ZONING OFFICER HAS TO GO OUT AND SAY, WELL, YOU'VE GOT A CAR PARKED IN AN ADA SPOT THAT IS CLEARLY JUST MEANT FOR INVENTORY . I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SPOT IS ACTUALLY STRIPED THAT WAY. IT'S STRIPED, BUT OKAY, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S STRIPED AS A HANDICAP. I GET I GET WHAT YOU'RE GETTING. I MEAN, IF IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING, BUT I, I GET IT. AND WHAT WILL PROBABLY DO, IS I WILL PROBABLY UP THE CUSTOMER PARKING, A COUPLE, MAYBE TO 12 TO INCLUDE THOSE HANDICAPS. YOU MEAN TO REMOVE THAT HANDICAPPED SPACE AND REPLACE IT WITH INVENTORY PARKING? IF I HAD TO? YEAH.
WE'LL MAKE IT WORK. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS AN APPROVAL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CONDITIONS ARE CLEAR. RIGHT THEN MOVING ON TO NUMBER EIGHT, WAS THIS IS THERE ANY TESTIMONY OR ANY INFORMATION ON HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT CARS ARE ONLY GOING TO BE PARKED IN STRIPED SPACES AND NOT IN DRIVE AISLES, OR WHAT I MENTIONED IN MY MEMO WAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING G IN THAT AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDING LINE ITSELF AND THE PARKING SPACES. IS THERE ANYTHING IN PLACE TO
[01:40:05]
PREVENT ADDITIONAL VEHICLES BEING STORED WHERE THEY'RE NOT STRICT, WHERE IT'S NOT A STRIPED SPACE? WE CAN PUT SOME RANDOM SIGNAGE IN NO PARKING. THAT WORKS. MY CONCERN IS THERE'S FIRE LANES, THERE'S DRIVE AISLES. I DON'T WANT THEM BLOCKED BY. I KNOW, AND WE'VE HAD THAT AT PRINCETON JEEP, ACTUALLY, CHARLIE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB, BRANDON BAKER WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER. WOULD STACK THEM TOO MUCH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT. IT'S POLICED BY THE ZONING AND POLICE BY THE FIRE PEOPLE THAT DO INSPECTIONS. BUT, I CAN PUT UP SIGNS TO HELP REGULATE IT, BUT IT'S REALLY UP TO THE FIRE OFFICIAL THAT DRIVES BY. IF HE SEES CARS PARKED IN THE AISLE, WAYS THAT HE HAS TO TICKET THEM, BUT I THINK CHARLIE HAS DONE A GREAT JOB WITH, WITH THE PRINCETON JEEP AND THE CIRCULATION THAT HE HAS MAINTAINED OVER THERE. SO I THINK HE WOULD MAINTAIN IT OVER HERE. HE HAS ROOM TO PARK CARS. SO, HE'S NOT PUSHING, THE SEAMS HERE WITH NEEDING MORE ROOM TO PARK CARS, HE'S BEEN RUNNING THIS OPERATION FOR ABOUT. IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS. ABOUT THREE YEARS. AND HE'S UTILIZING THIS SITE RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S SOME EMPTY SPOTS THAT HE CAN ADD MORE CARS, BUT HE'S NOT PARKING ON THE LAWNS AND PARKING IN AREAS WHERE HE. YOU THIS WORKS FOR HIM. THAT'S WHY HE'S MOVING FORWARD ON THIS PROJECT IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP HIM HELP TAKE THE RELIEF OFF OF THE EXISTING SITE THAT HE HAS AND GIVE HIM MORE INVENTORY SO HE CAN PARK CARS AS OPPOSED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE PARKING CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE. SO, I THINK I'LL PUT SOME ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO HELP, THE DEMONSTRATE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THEY CAN'T PARK THERE. AND IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR WHO DOES HIS DRIVE BYS AND IF HE SEES IT, THEN HE HAS THE TICKET, THAT'S ALL. I WOULD JUST THEN ASK IF YOU CAN AGREE AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THAT THAT INVENTORY WILL NOT BE STORED IN DRIVE IN THE DRIVE AISLES AND ONLY IN STRIPED PARKING SPACES. I WILL ADD IT AS A RESOLUTION NOTE TO THE SITE PLAN, AND I WOULD NOTE FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION, THE EXHIBIT THAT MR. MCDONOUGH PROVIDED THAT WAS TAKEN LESS THAN A MONTH AGO, SHOWS VEHICLES PARKED IN DRIVE AISLES SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, DAVE, BUT WE HAVE AERIAL PHOTOS FROM A MONTH AGO SHOWING THE CONTRARY, I BELIEVE NUMBER NINE WE SPOKE TO SPOKE ABOUT THAT WAS THE CAR CARRIER, NUMBER TEN WAS I BELIEVE HE AGREED. IF YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED IT ALREADY, THAT A GARBAGE TRUCK TURNING PLAN, WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE GARBAGE TRUCK IS HE DOES NOT HAVE A 10 OR 15 CUBIC YARD GARBAGE TRUCK, THEY'RE JUST USING 96 GALLON, DRUMS OR GARBAGE DISPOSAL. SO THEY'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE, AND YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE TRUCK PULL IN. THEY DON'T HAVE A NEED FOR THAT MUCH TRASH AT THE SITE. SO HE'S USING 296 GALLON TRASH BINS FOR THAT TRASH ENCLOSURE. YOU KNOW, THE SIZE OF THAT ENCLOSURE. THEN IT SHOULD BE 15 BY 20, SO WE'LL PROBABLY REDUCE IT. BUT IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, BUT IT'S GOING TO GET DIALED DOWN A LITTLE BIT. BUT WE, WE GENERALLY GO WITH THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP TYPICAL ONE, WHICH IS 15FT BY 20. AND THEN THE LAST COMMENT OF MINE NUMBER 11 WAS REGARDING THE FENCE, I BELIEVE IF CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT NOW THAT ENTIRE FENCED AREA WILL BE HANDLED WILL BE FOR VEHICLE INVENTORY ONLY. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THERE, WHICH I BELIEVE, SATISFIES MY CONCERN WITH THAT FENCE. I JUST DIDN'T WANT EMPLOYEES GETTING LOCKED. LOCKED IN. OKAY AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, WHICH ISN'T IN MY MEMO, IF YOU CAN JUST CLARIFY ON THE I GUESS THIS IS THE MAY SIXTH REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN. THERE'S A NOTE ON THE LOWER LEFT ON LOT 16 CALLING FOR FUTURE FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK. IS THAT PROPOSED AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION THAT PROPOSED SIDEWALK IS IN AN EASEMENT AND WE POSTED ESCROW, NOT CHARLIE, BUT BRANDON BAKER. THE MONEY HAS BEEN POSTED TO MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SO THEY CAN INSTALL THE SIDEWALK WHENEVER THEY WANT TO. OKAY, SO THAT IS NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS HANDLED VIA THAT WAS A CONDITION OF A PRIOR AND RIGHT, SOME SORT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT WITH THE RIGHT, IT WAS NOT NOT TO HAVE A SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE. SO WE PUT IT I BELIEVE IT'S IN AN[01:45:03]
EASEMENT. I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT I KNOW THE MONEY WAS POSTED. WE DID A COST ESTIMATE, AND WE POSTED THE MONEY TO GET THE APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW. WE'RE GOING WITH THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK AS OPPOSED TO A FOUR. I BELIEVE THAT'S EVERYTHING IN MY REVIEW MEMO. THANK YOU, MR. KISSINGER. OKAY WE HAVE RICHARD BARTOLOME'S MEMO DATED MAY 15TH, 2024. WE AGREED TO EVERYTHING THAT HE HAS IN THERE. WE ARE, REQUIRED TO HAVE 19 SHADE TREES, WE DON'T HAVE THE ROOM, SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT INTO A TREE BANK. SO WE AGREED TO IT. IT'S BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW EVERYTHING IN RICHARD BARTOLOME'S REVIEW MEMORANDUM ARE OKAY WITH. THANK YOU, THEN WE GET TO LAUREN ZELENSKY'S REVIEW MEMO OF DATED MAY 15TH, 2024. PAGE ONE IS INFORMATIONAL.PAGE TWO B IS OKAY. C TREE PLANTING, SHE SAYS TREE REMOVAL. IT APPEARS NO EXISTING TREES.
YOU WANT A TESTIMONY? SO I'M BRINGING UP C ITEM ONE TREE REMOVAL. WE ARE PROPOSING NO TREES TO BE REMOVED. THE REST OF THE PAGE ITEMS TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE ARE ALL OKAY, ITEM SIX IS THE GUARANTEE, WHICH IS FINE. ITEM SEVEN IS THE DEER PROTECTION, WHICH IS FINE. AND THEN WE'RE GETTING INTO THE CRITICAL AREA TESTIMONY. SHE HAS IN HER MEMO, AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE, THE, FLOOD HAZARD LINE. AND WE WENT OVER THIS EARLIER IS THE TOWNSHIP GIS PLANS USE THE FEMA MAP AND THEY TAKE THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BASED ON THE FEMA MAP, AND THEN THEY ADD THE STREAM CORRIDOR. IT'S TYPICAL. IT'S OKAY TO DO IT THAT WAY, BUT THIS STREAM THAT'S LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY IS A DELINEATED STREAM. WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT UP, IS I HAVE CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE PROPERTY. THIS WAS CROSS SECTION ZERO RIGHT HERE. IT GOES THROUGH IT AND THEN WE HAVE THE CROSS SECTION LINE. IT GIVES YOU AN ELEVATION. SO THERE ARE A COUPLE CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY THAT'S UP TO DATE.
AND WE PLOT THE FLOODPLAIN ONTO THE PROPERTY. AND THE FLOODPLAIN RESIDES CLEARLY ON LOT 16. AND THEN I ADD THE 100 YEAR STREAM COURT DOOR FROM THE FLOODPLAIN. SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL FLOOD LINE PER THE GIS. IT'S UP HERE IN THE AREA, WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE THAT'S JUST BASED ON A NON ELEVATION INFORMATION. AND IT'S DEP ACCEPTED. AND IT'S I BELIEVE RAKESH CAN JOIN IN ON ME THAT THIS METHOD THAT I DID IS A MORE ACCURATE WAY OF ESTABLISHING THE 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE, WHICH IS ALSO AN ACCURATE WAY OF SHOWING THE 100 FOOT STREAM CORRIDOR. I SPOKE TO LAUREN ZELENSKY. SHE UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT SHE WANTED TO POINT IT OUT FOR THE RECORD. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT IS AS OF MONTGOMERY RESIDENTS, I'VE BEEN AND AS THE ENGINEER FOR PRINCETON JEEP FOR 15 YEARS, THE PROPERTY DOES FLOW FLOOD DURING A 100 YEAR STORM EVENT. THERE'S NO SUCH 100 YEAR STORM OR FLOOD 30 OR HIGHER OR LOWER. BUT THE BOTTOM PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY FLOW FLOODS. BUT NOWHERE NEAR WHERE WHERE I'M ACTUALLY SHOWING WHERE THE FLOOD LINE IS. SO IT'S THIS IS A WORST CASE SCENARIO, AND I BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE IS ACCURATE BECAUSE I AGREE. VERY CONCISE. SO IT IS THE WAY IT IS ACCURATE. AND OUR, OUR THREE QUARTER REALLY IS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE VEGETATION ADJACENT TO STREAMS, AND TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY AND PROVIDE, PROTECTION FROM DEGRADING THE VEGETATION. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE CORRIDOR IS 100% DEVELOPED AND PAVED, BECAUSE THE FLOODING PORTION IS ON AN EXISTING IMPROVED PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
OKAY ITEM TWO, THE OFFICE ENCOURAGES THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE LOT COVERAGE FROM EXISTING. 888 .89 OR PROVIDE SOME ON SITE STORMWATER MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH AS RAIN GARDENS, POROUS PAVEMENT, UNDERGROUND DETENTION, ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING, ETC.
MONTGOMERY INCREASE ALLEY FACES FLOODING DURING THESE STORM EVENTS, AND THE APPLICANT'S LOT COVERAGE IS 88.89 IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, THOUGH I AGREE WITH THAT, IT IS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, I'M ALSO IN THE BELIEF THAT MONTGOMERY IS ALSO EXPERIENCING HIGH INTENSITY STORMS AND VERY FREQUENT INTENSITY STORMS, AND THEN THE STORMS THAT WE'VE HAVE BEEN HAVING LAST YEAR INCLUDED IS A STORM EVENT, SAY, ON MONDAY, A
[01:50:06]
STORM EVENT ON THURSDAY, A FIVE INCH STORM EVENT ON ON FRIDAY. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THESE INCREDIBLE DELUGES AND WHY THE STREAMS ARE OVER, NOT ABLE TO HANDLE THE CAPACITY. AND THE REASON WHY IS THE GROUND IS SATURATED AND THE STREAM IS ALREADY AT ITS PEAK, AND NOW WE GET MORE RAIN. AND THEN AFTER THAT HAPPENS, GUESS WHAT? WE GOT ANOTHER RAIN. SO SOMETIMES YOU HAVE THESE RAINY AUGUST. THE STREAM IS ALREADY AT THE TOP OF BANK, I MEAN, I AGREE THAT THE STORMWATER MEASURES THAT THE DEP HAS NOW IMPOSED, ARE A LOT BETTER THAN THE DESIGNS THAT I DID BACK IN THE DAY. BUT REMOVING A 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT AREA TO GET THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE DOWN IS NOT EVEN A DROP IN THE BUCKET. IT'S NOTHING. IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING, WHAT REALLY IS GOING TO DO IS THE NEW STORMWATER REGS. AND THEN HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, NEW JERSEY RAINFALL DOESN'T HAVE THESE CONSISTENT RAINFALLS IN A ROW. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE NOTICED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHERE WE JUST WERE TWO OF SIX FLOODED IN AREAS WHERE I'VE NEVER SEEN IT FLOOD BEFORE. WHERE THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE, ON MONTGOMERY AVE WAS JUST FLOODED OUT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT, AND THAT WAS BECAUSE, THE STREAM WAS ALREADY AT ITS CREST. WE ALREADY HAD FIVE INCHES OF RAINFALL. IF YOU HAVE FIVE INCHES OF RAIN AND THEN ANOTHER FIVE INCHES OF RAIN AND THAT GRASS IS SATURATED, IT'S LIKE IT'S LIKE IMPERVIOUS. I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY IT'S WOOD OR WHATEVER. IT'S GOING TO HAVE SOME ABSORPTION OR ABSORPTION VALUE. BUT REALLY IT'S NOT GOING TO ABSORB WHAT IT SHOULD DO. AND THAT AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE HAS BEEN HAPPENING. AND I HAVE A LOT OF HYDROLOGISTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD SUPPORT WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT I DO HAVE TO SAY THE NJDEP NEW STORMWATER REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING WITH DETENTION BASINS FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE TWO, THE REDUCTION IN THE TEN AND THE REDUCTION IN THE 100 IS A MUCH BETTER WAY OF DEALING WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THAN WHAT I DID 20 YEARS AGO. SO, I DON'T AGREE THAT REMOVING ANY PAVEMENT IS GOING TO MAKE A DENT TO REDUCE THE INCREASE IN FLOODING THAT MONTGOMERY HAS FACED, THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT, AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING GO, JOHN MCDONOUGH WENT THROUGH THAT, AND HIS ITEM NUMBER FOUR OF HER LETTER, I AGREE, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE LIGHTING IS DIRECTED DOWNWARD. SO THAT WAS LAUREN'S LETTER. AKASH, DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH YOURS? FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THEY SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB NOW, SO. BUT, OUR MEMO DATED MARCH 21ST, 2020, FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE, WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE BELIEF, MR. MCDONOUGH AND DAVE WENT THROUGH THE RELIEF THAT, SKIPPED THROUGH THAT, OUR GENERAL COMMENTS, WE START ON PAGE FOUR, A LOT OF THAT IS TESTIMONY THAT WE REQUESTED, WHICH WAS PROVIDED LAST, AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THIS MEETING, AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT IN MY, IN MY MEMO THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP ME, I JUST WAS TRYING NOT TO, BORE YOU WITH EVERY SINGLE COMMENT, THE OPERATIONAL TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED, TRUCK TEMPLATES, WHICH IS COMMENT 14, HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND REVIEWED BY, WE SPOKE QUITE IN DETAIL ABOUT THE DELIVERIES, THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT, I THINK WE GOT AS GOOD TESTIMONY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN GET. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING WITH ALL THE EASEMENTS, I THINK THE BEST WE CAN DO, WHICH IS WHAT WE AGREED TO LAST, IS THAT DAVE AND I WILL WILL SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT THE EASEMENTS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, SOME CLARITY, WE DO WANT SOME, SOME, SOME DIFFERENTIATION OF THE EASEMENTS THROUGH EITHER SHADING OR HATCHING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT I THINK THAT'S STUFF THAT WE CAN WORK OUT. THAT'S MORE GRAPHICAL KIND OF THING.BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WIND UP GETTING FIRMED UP ON, AT THE END WHEN, THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER AND I STARTED LOOKING AT THIS STUFF. SO WE'LL MAKE SURE WE, WE WORK THAT OUT BETWEEN, DAVE AND I BEFORE IT GETS, TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S THE PLANS ARE SIGNED. AGAIN, THE PARKING, WHICH IS COME IN NUMBER 17, HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THERE WAS TESTIMONY A LITTLE BIT OF DOCUMENTING SERVICE AND VEHICLES ON THE ON THE SITE. IS THAT RIGHT? EXCUSE ME. IS THERE ANY NEW SERVICE OF VEHICLES ON THE SITE? OH THAT WAS NOT. THAT WAS REQUEST. ITEM NUMBER 18.
REGARDING, EV PARKING, PROVISION FOR EV PARKING, TECHNICALLY BASED ON THE TYPE OF APPLICATION
[01:55:04]
AND THE CHANGE IN PARKING ON SITE, THERE ISN'T REALLY A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY SALT, BUT WE TYPICALLY ASK APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE EV. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WAS WILLING TO PROVIDE. I THINK HE'S WILLING TO INSTALL AN EV, AS LONG AS HE GETS THE ELECTRIC. I HEAR WE'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH GETTING ELECTRIC TO THE PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? ELECTRICITY WE HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING OUT THERE? YEAH, WE'RE STILL WAITING. SO WE'LL DO IT. WE'LL. WE'LL PUT AN EV STATION IN. I MEAN, ALL THE CARS ARE GOING ELECTRIC AT LEAST ONE.YES. YEAH. EV IS SUPPOSED TO BE PRETTY EV AS OPPOSED TO AS OPPOSED AS OPPOSED TO ME.
GOTCHA. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. 1920 SIDEWALK, I HAVE SOME DETAILS MENTIONING WHICH AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER FOR, FOR 85, WITH REGARD TO THE CONDITION OF, OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS BASED OFF OF THE, THE, ILLUSTRATIONS AND LOOKING AT SOME GOOGLE SHOTS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN PRETTY GOOD CONDITION. DAVE, CAN YOU CAN YOU TESTIFY TO THE CONDITION OF THE GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING, SIDEWALK, ETC. I THOUGHT IT WAS IN FAIR CONDITION, BUT I HAVE NO QUESTION OF HAVING THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER, MARK HERMAN GO OUT THERE. IS THAT WHO YOU WANT, OR IS THAT YOU? DO YOU WANT EITHER? OKAY. I MEAN, I CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. MARK HERMAN I MEAN, THAT'S A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL, BUT I'LL HAVE I'LL WALK THE SITE WITH MARK HERMAN AND IT SHOULDN'T TAKE LONG. AND I THINK THE SITE IS, IS PRETTY MUCH INTACT AND IN DECENT CONDITION. BUT I'LL WALK WITH MARK HERMAN AND IF HE SEES AREAS THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED, WE'LL WE'LL FIX THEM. THANK YOU. WHICH ITEM IS THIS IN YOUR REPORT? ITEM 20. AND ITEM 21 AND 22 HAVE TO DO WITH TRASH ENCLOSURE. I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT ALREADY.
AS FAR AS THE TESTIMONIAL, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH TRASH ENCLOSURES, ITEM 23 WE DIDN'T DISCUSS AND I GUESS I JUST WANT SOME SOME CLARITY, THIS IS THE AREA THAT IN BETWEEN. YEAH IN THAT BACK AREA, IN BETWEEN THOSE SPACES THAT ARE MARKED AS ARE MARKED AS POSSIBLE PARKING RESTRIPING AND THE FENCE. SO IF YOU LOOK IN THERE, YOU SORT OF SEE AT THE HEAD OF THOSE SPACES IN BETWEEN THEM AND THE FENCE, THERE'S AN AREA THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE VEGETATED, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SORT OF A NO MAN'S LAND THAT THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO DO. OR IS THAT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO THAT? NO, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO DO THAT BECAUSE THIS, THIS, THIS AREA RIGHT HERE IS FOR TRUCK MOVEMENTS FOR RIGHT. AND WITH THE AGREEMENT WHICH WE HAVE, WHICH WILL WHICH WILL ALSO DISCUSS WILL THE EASEMENT LANGUAGE THAT WE CAME UP WITH IS I DON'T THINK THESE PARKING SPOTS ARE EVEN GOING TO BE HERE.
I THINK IT'S ALL FOR TRUCK MOVEMENTS. OKAY. SO YEAH, OUR OUR COMMENT WAS REALLY PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT POSSIBLE PARKING AND THEN YOU ACTUALLY HAD THAT SPACE IN BETWEEN THE HEAD ON PARKING SPACE. RIGHT. AND AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST A YOU'RE RIGHT. WE COULD PUT SOMETHING HERE BECAUSE IT'S THE, THE, THE, THE SHAPE OF THE ODD SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND PERPENDICULAR LINES. SO I COULDN'T YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE BUILDING FACING ONE WAY AND THE LINES THE OTHER WAY. SO I THOUGHT MAYBE WE'D RESTRIPE IT. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE LANGUAGE OF, OF THIS EASEMENT THAT'S BEING ACQUIRED BY SANS, THIS AREA IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEDICATED FOR JUST TRUCK MOVEMENTS AND TRASH ENCLOSURE. SO THEY HAVE A TRUCK, W WB 50 TRUCK ALSO COMING IN HERE THAT UTILIZES. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE INGRESS EGRESS. HE COMES IN AND THEN BACKS IN TO THE SITE HERE. SO THEY NEED THIS WHOLE AREA FOR TRUCK MOVEMENTS. OKAY.
I THINK I THINK JUST IN TERMS YES. THAT'S THERE IS AN I, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER HAS A MINOR APPLICATION TO TOWN FOR A LOADING DOCK THAT REQUIRES APPROVAL OF THOSE SPACES. SO THEY WILL NOT UNLESS THAT APPLICATION FALLS THROUGH THOSE THOSE SPACES WILL NOT BE USED. SO GIVEN THAT I WOULD WITHDRAW THAT THAT COMMENT, ITEM NUMBER 24 IS, THIS IT GOES TO WHAT HE WAS ASKING EARLIER AS FAR AS WHERE THE RAINWATER GOES, THE SITE WAS OBVIOUSLY 100% APPROVED OR NEARLY 100% APPROVED, THERE'S THIS THING EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, ON SITE COLLECTION, INLETS AND COLLECTION, PIPING OR CONVEYANCE
[02:00:05]
PIPING, AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT THE EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BE CLEANED AND TELEVISED AND INSPECTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN, GOOD WORKING CONDITION. IS THAT SEPARATE TO THAT? YES YES IT IS. AND, NUMBER 25, WE JUST DEFERRED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL FOR AND FOR HIS FINAL.OKAY. ON THE CIRCULATION FOR FIRE TRUCKS. THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S MY MEMO. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE TO CONFIRM. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ADDRESS ITEMS 18, 20, 24 AND 25 OF YOUR REPORT, THAT I MISS ANY. NO. THAT'S IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE DOWN TO THE LAST ONE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REVIEW MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 17TH, 2024. THERE'S MINE AS WELL, TOO. SO YOU DID YOUR BEST. YEAH OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT YOU SAID, WE ALL HAVE TO DO MINE AS WELL. I THOUGHT, I THINK JOHN'S GOING TO DO GOTCHA, I THINK. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW WE, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T GO AND TESTIFY ABOUT THE VARIANCES. SO I THINK IT'S BETTER SERVED THAT HE DOES. I WAS JUST GETTING PUMPED UP TO ASK QUESTIONS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T DOING THAT FOR NO REASON. YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN FAVOR. SHE HAS YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE, SHE CITES THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR. THIS IS A VARIANCE ONE. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF USING PREVIOUS DEVELOPED LANDS FOR NEW USES, RATHER THAN DEVELOPING FARMLAND OR FOREST LAND. HOWEVER, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF WALL STREET OFFICE COMPLEX OF CONVERTING TWO OF ITS BUILDINGS TO CAR DEALERSHIP. IS THE COMPLEX RESTRICTED TO OFFICE USE WHICH IS NOT OR COULD IT BE REDEVELOPED? OR COULD ALL OF IT BE REDEVELOPED FOR CAR DEALERSHIPS? AND THE QUESTION IS, IF IT'S IN THE HC ZONE, THAT WHOLE SHOPPING OR RETAIL OR OFFICE CENTER THAT'S OWNED BY JEFFREY SANDS, TECHNICALLY, YOU KNOW, COULD BE USED WHATEVER THE HC REQUIREMENTS ARE. SO IT COULD BE ALL CAR DEALERSHIPS OR IT COULD BE WHATEVER IS PERMITTED IN THAT ZONE. SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY RELIEF FROM THE PERMITTED USE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. IS THE LOT EXCEPTIONAL IN ANY WAY TO JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE? I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY JOHN MCDONOUGH, AS FAR AS, ENERGY MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY, I MEAN, THIS IS A CAR DEALERSHIP THAT THE LED STANDARDS WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR, FOR, FOR CHARLIE TO HANDLE TO, TO MAKE THIS COMPLY TO AN LED STANDARDS, THE APPLICANT SHOULD USE WATER AND ENERGY SAVING FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES. WE AGREE TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE A YES, B3 WE RECOMMEND SOLAR PANELS ON ROOFS OR GEOTHERMAL HEAT EXCHANGE HVAC SYSTEM, THAT'S JUST TOO COSTLY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE. AND RALPH CAN TESTIFY THAT THE SOLAR PANELS, THE ROOF PROBABLY DOES NOT HAVE THE STRUCTURAL INTENT, INTEGRITY TO HOLD, NEW SOLAR PANELS. SO THAT WOULD BE NO, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT C. ONE. DO THE STATE OR MUNICIPAL STORMWATER REGULATION APPLIES TO THE APPLICATION? THE ANSWER IS NO. WE DO NOT BREACH THOSE THRESHOLDS OF REQUIRING NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SURELY SOME STORMWATER MITIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED, SUCH AS BIORETENTION BASIN, PERVIOUS PAVEMENT OR GREEN ROOF. AGAIN, THE WE'RE NOT AGREEING TO THAT. THAT'S TOO COSTLY AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR ANY BIORETENTION BASIN FOR THIS PROPERTY. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A SMALL SITE AND I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF IT, HOW DO THE DOWNSPOUT PLANTERS WITH NATIVE FLOWERS OR SHRUBS. I'M NOT SURE, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING. WE DO HAVE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND, RALPH, YOU WANT TO JUMP IN ABOUT THE DOWNSPOUTS? I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY ARE. YES, THAT WAS A QUESTION SOMEBODY HAD ASKED BEFORE. YEAH, I ASKED THAT, DO YOU NEED A MICROPHONE FOR THE VIDEO? SO IF YOU RECALL EARLY ON IN EXPLAINING THE BUILDING, THAT GRID WORK THAT WE'RE PUTTING AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING IS ALIGNED WITH THE GUTTER AND THOSE COLUMNS THAT WERE COMING DOWN TO THE GROUND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND, SO THE GUTTER WILL HIDE IN THAT HORIZONTAL BAND, AND THE EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS WILL BE ROUTED TO COME DOWN THOSE COLUMN COVERS. SO IF THERE ARE EXISTING GUTTERS AND EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS, THE WATER WILL END UP WHERE IT ENDS UP TODAY, WHICH IS UNDERGROUND. IN THE GROUND. UNDERGROUND? YEAH. ON THE GROUND. ON THE GROUND, ON THE GROUND. OKAY. SPLASH BLOCK I AM NOW SPLASH BLOCK BECAUSE YOU HAVE PAVEMENT AND THEN WE HAVE ENDLESS REFLECTIVE WATER AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS WAS THERE A FLOODING OR EXCESS RUNOFF AT THE SITE DURING HURRICANE IDA? NO,
[02:05:08]
THIS IS FAR AWAY FROM THE STREAM, SO THERE WAS NO FLOODING IN HURRICANE IDA AS I SAID, I THINK THE STORM THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO WAS MORE GREATER, EFFECT THAN IDA. AND AGAIN, AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I DON'T SEE ANY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD HELP ANY OF THE STREAMS. COULD YOU USE THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? SORRY, SORRY . THERE WE GO, WE'RE ON D TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING ONE. OKAY TWO. OKAY. THREE. OKAY, FOUR IS OKAY AND FIVE IS OKAY, IN THE SENSE OF WHERE WE AGREE, WE AGREE THE CONTRIBUTION WE'RE NOT PUTTING. RIGHT. MORE TREES ON SITE. RIGHT. SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE LAUREN MASLANSKY, YOU HAVE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND THEN YOU HAVE RICHARD BAR ALONE. I GATHER THEM ALL TOGETHER. RICHARD ACTUALLY IS THE FINAL SAY ON IT, BUT I AGREED TO ALL THESE COMMENTS AND IT GETS THE BLESSING OF RICHARD BEFORE IT GETS ONTO INK, AS FAR AS LIGHTING GOES, WE HAD JOHN MCDONOUGH GIVE THE TESTIMONY ON THAT, PEDESTRE AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS IS ITEM F, WE ARE PROVIDING, SIDEWALK ALONG ROUTE TO A SIX THE FRONTAGE. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. WE ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY ALONG WALL STREET BECAUSE IT HAS WALL STREETS RIGHT AWAY, AND THERE'S NO REAL AREA THAT I CAN PUT A SIDEWALK MORE THAN 50 OR 60FT AND THEN STOP. SO THERE'S NO CONTINUOUS CHAIN THAT, THAT THIS WOULD BENEFIT. SO WE ARE NOT PUTTING ANY SIDEWALK ON WALL STREET, CROSSWALK SHOULD BE MARKED, THIS IS ITEM TWO. A CROSSWALK SHOULD BE MARKED ACROSS THE APPLICANT'S ENTRANCE DRIVE FOR SAFETY AND PEDESTRIANS. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PUTTING A CROSSWALK AT THE AT OUR ENTRANCE AREA. AND ACTUALLY AT ROUTE 206, THERE ARE CROSSWALKS SO WE CAN PUT A CROSSWALK, FOR THEM AS WELL. THE SITE SHOULD BE BICYCLE FRIENDLY IF THE APPLICANT IS FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP WITH A REPAIR DEPARTMENT, THAT SOME CUSTOMER MAY RIDE A BICYCLE WITH THEIR AUTOMOBILE, WE HAVE NO, NO PROBLEM PUTTING A BIKE RACK, AND WE HAVE ITEM G SITE AMENITY, SITE AMENITIES, WE ARE PUTTING IN EV CHARGING STATION, AND WE WILL HAVE A PICNIC BENCH. OKAY.CAN YOU JUST, REPEAT. I'M SORRY. JUST REPEAT THE ITEM NUMBERS THAT YOU AGREED TO THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE OTHER AGREEMENTS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CROSSWALK THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT SO WE CAN GET IT DOCUMENTED. OKAY WHAT I HAVE FROM THAT REPORT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS. ITEM ONE. YES. SIDEWALK ALONG 206. NO AGAINST WALL STREET, TWO CROSSWALKS. YES THREE, BICYCLE RACK. YES. AND G COMMENTS ONE AND TWO. YES GREAT. THANK YOU, THE LIGHTING WAS COVERED AND, THE TREE PLANTING WAS COVERED THAT WERE DONATED TO THE BANK. AND SO I JUST AM TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND EVERYTHING AND SOME OTHER AND THE OTHER ITEMS IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. YOU SAID NO. RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT, I DID FORGET I HAVE ONE MORE REVIEW MEMORANDUM FROM THE SHADE TREE COMMISSION. SO THERE'S FOUR ENTITIES. THEY HAVE A MEMO DATED MARCH 5TH, 2024, SHADE TREE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THREE PIN OAKS BE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER OAK SPECIES THAT IS LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO BACTERIA. LEAF SCORCH DISEASE, SUCH AS THE WILLOW OAK AND OVERCUP OAK. I DID CHANGE THE SPECIES, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BY RICHARD BARTOLONE, BUT WE AGREE TO THAT.
COMMENTS, THAT WAS MARCH 5TH, 2024. SHADE TREE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. SO NOW WE'RE DOWN TO CLARK KENT AND HENCE I WENT THROUGH IT SPECIFICALLY WITH, AT THE BEGINNING. BUT SINCE THE TESTIMONY IS THEN FOLLOWED UP WITH JOHN MCDONOUGH, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF JOHN TOOK OVER FROM HERE, WITH FINISHING UP MARTIN CLARK PEYTON. AND HENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? JOHN.
AND I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF TAKE US THROUGH IT SO I CAN SKIP OVER WHATEVER IS KIND OF MORE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I WORK WITH JAMES A LOT. I'LL CERTAINLY YIELD TO HIM AND I'LL PLAY IT ANY WAY YOU WANT. OKAY, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE FOR MR. TAURIELLO THAN ANYTHING, AND I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SPOKEN TO, MR. DRILL ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE WAS I HAD QUESTIONS WITH THE INITIAL ITERATION OF THE REVIEW RELATING TO, THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SOLVED AND AGREED TO LAST TIME. SO EVERYTHING'S OKAY. SO THOSE
[02:10:01]
COMMENTS, I'M JUST GOING TO FOLLOW YOU. WHATEVER PAGE YOU'RE ON, I'M GOING TO TAKE MY NOTES RIGHT OFF OF YOUR I'M LOOKING AT YOUR MAY 21ST REPORT. NONE OF THE PRIOR ITERATIONS. OKAY SO START ON PAGE FIVE, SECTION THREE. ALL RIGHT. SO SECTION 3.1. AND THIS MIGHT BE PRETTY BREAD AND BUTTER. THE ACCESS EASEMENTS JUST HAD TO BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD ENGINEER AND THE BOARD ATTORNEY OKAY. 3.2, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT THEY HAVE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED PARKING AND CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE AND CUSTOMER PARKING TO BE ADJUSTED PER MR. FISHER'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE BARRIER FREE SPACES. THEY STILL REQUIRE THAT VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE, THE STREET LINES ON WALL STREET. AND. 206 SO THAT THERE IS A THEY REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR THAT. THAT'S THE IT'S A LONG COMMENT. IT'S THE LATTER HALF OF THAT COMMENT, SO JUST PUT THAT THERE. 3.3 PLANTING AREA REQUIREMENT. THEY STILL REQUIRE THE A VARIANCE FOR THAT. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION AS TO FROM A STORMWATER PERSPECTIVE, WHY THEY ARE NOT REMOVING PAVEMENT, AND THE WAY THAT THE SITE IS ALREADY IMPROVED AND UTILIZED, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT OR WOULD LIKE TO BRING ANYTHING UP, PLEASE LET US KNOW.YOU KNOW, LET ME KNOW. BUT THAT IS THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED SO FAR. OKAY 3.4 INFORMATIONAL. WE CAN SKIP 3.5. THEY THEY REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR, PARKING AND LOADING AREAS, DRIVEWAY AND OTHER STRUCTURE DISTANCE. SO AND MR. SLOW ME DOWN IF YOU NEED ME TO KNOW. AND THIS IS ALL ON PAGE 26 OF YOUR REPORT AS WELL, IN TERMS OF YOU HAVE AN ITEMIZED LIST OF THE RELIEF THAT IS NEEDED. CORRECT? YES. SO THAT BEING SAID, I'LL TAKE YOUR NOTE ON THAT AND I'LL ONLY GO TO WHAT, YEAH. I'M I'M LOOKING I MEAN, I'M HAPPY JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS PAGE 26 LISTS ALL THE RELIEF THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS. AND THEN I'M PUTTING SEES NEXT TO EVERYTHING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PERFECT. OKAY. AND FOR THE RECORD COUNCIL, MY JUSTIFICATIONS FOLLOWED. JAMES, I KNOW IT DID. YEP IT DID. I AGREED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL FIGURE. SO WHAT I, WHAT I HAVE FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS 3.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 5.4, 5.6. I'M SORRY, 5.3. YEAH. SO 5.3. ARE SO THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE ONE ONE EV SPACE AND THREE MAKE READY SPACES AND ONE OF ONE OF THE MAKE READY SPACES HAS TO BE A BARRIER FREE SPACE. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. AND BECAUSE THIS IS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL AT THE SAME TIME THAT THAT JIVES WITH THE STATUTE IN YOUR VIEW. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, I OKAY, SO 5.7, WE DISCUSSED THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS, WE'RE GETTING IT ON 206, BUT THAT'S A DESIGN WAIVER. THAT'S NOT, A CONDITION. RIGHT IT'S THEY THEY PUT THE 206 SIDEWALK.
I SEE IT'S DONE ALREADY. AND THEN. BUT ON WALL STREET, THEY REQUIRE THE. GOT IT? YES LIGHTING. SO I'VE. MR. MCDONOUGH. THANK YOU. YOU EXPLAINED THE NUMBERS. BUT THERE'S A FEW OTHER ITEMS WHERE I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO 6.1, WE DO WANT TO KNOW THE HEIGHT OF THE ON THE PLAN SO THAT AS A CONDITION, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT, 6.2 THIS WAS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EYES. SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO WORD THE CONDITION TO SAY THE LOWEST RECOMMENDED LIGHT LEVEL FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP BASED ON CURRENT EYES STANDARDS. AS OF THE DAY OF THE HEARING, IF THAT'S TOO LONG, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. BUT, IT JUST IN CASE THAT I SCREWED UP THAT 7.0FT CANDLE NUMBER, IT'S IN THAT REGION. I JUST WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE LOWEST THAT'S THERE, 6.3. GOOD WE NEED THE DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR 6.3, BECAUSE THE LIGHTING HEIGHT 6.4 REQUIRED LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS, I, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE LIGHTING DETAILS FOR THE EXISTING LIGHTING INCLUDED. SO I'M RECOMMENDING AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE DOWNWARD FOCUSED LIGHTING, AND TO ALSO UPDATE ANY OF THE BULBS TO BE 2700 KELVIN LIGHT BULBS IS THERE IF, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE EXISTING LIGHTS ARE, IF THAT'S AND I THINK THAT WAS ALSO IN ONE OF THE OTHER REPORTS AS WELL. AND I HEARD DAVE SAY, YEAH, GREAT STEP DOWNWARD FOCUSED LIGHTS. AND YOU GAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER. WHAT WAS THE NUMBER FOR I GUESS LUMENS. IT'S 2700 KELVIN. IT'S THE COLOR TEMPERATURE. OH THE COLOR 2700. GOT IT. THAT'S IT. OKAY. 6.5 AND
[02:15:04]
6.6. I'M JUST GOING TO SAVE EVERYONE TIME. THEY REQUIRE A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THIS.THERE'S A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO WHY THEY DON'T, BUT LET'S JUST MAKE IT EASY FOR EVERYONE. I THINK MAKES THE MOST SENSE, CIRCUIT TIMERS, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE INCLUDED. OR DO THE LIGHTS TURN OFF, OR DO THEY HAVE TO STAY ON AT NIGHT BECAUSE OF INVENTORY? AND STUFF. SO FOR SECURITY, THEY NEED TO BE ON ALL NIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT I BELIEVE MR. MCDONOUGH IS MAKING. SO THEN THEY WOULD REQUIRE A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THAT? YES. THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE. IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GRANT THAT. SO THAT'S FOR THE CIRCUIT TIMER. SO THERE WILL BE LIGHTS ON IN THE EVENING. BUT JAMES WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT. 6.6.7. 6.7. SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL RELIEF. THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND MY LIST. YEAH OKAY, SO FOR SEVEN WE'VE COVERED THE TREES QUANTITATIVELY, OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR 7.3 IS 3 TO 4 FOOT SHRUBS ALONG ROUTE 206 AS AS FURTHER MITIGATION OF LIGHTS ONTO 206 TO PROVIDE MORE PLANTING, MORE PLANTINGS, MORE GREENERY, IF THE BOARD THINKS THAT THAT IS REASONABLE, WE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE THAT AND THAT THOSE SPECIES BE APPROVED BY MR. BARTOLO AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE APPLICANT WOULD STIPULATE TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. EIGHT, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH ARCHITECTURE. SO, MR. TAURIELLO, DO YOU NEED ME TO REVIEW THESE NUMBERS PIECE BY PIECE TO SEE WHAT THE RELIEF IS OR. NO, I MEAN, MY NOTES. YOU HAVE, IT'S 8.3 IS A CONDITION, RIGHT? SO 8.3 IS THEY HAVE PROVIDED THIS. THEY HAVE THEY JUST HAVE TO INDICATE THAT THOSE LOUVERS ARE MADE OF ALUMINUM.
YEAH. SO THAT THAT'S FINE. OKAY ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO CONDITION THEN FOR APPROVAL.
THEY'RE JUST EITHER YEAH. THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE. RIGHT. NO, THERE'S NO CONDITIONS.
THERE'S JUST INDICATING WHAT RELIEF IS REQUIRED. YEP. AND, MR. ROSENTHAL, I BELIEVE YOU HAD SAID REGARDING THE WINDOW PLACEMENT AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THAT. SO I'M HAPPY TO SHARE MY VIEW ON THAT OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. YOU MEAN THE TWO OVER THREE? YEAH, TWO OVER THREE. SO BASICALLY I SAID THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS IT WHEN WE GOT TO IT. IF ANYONE HAD ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VIEW.
YES. SO I THINK WHAT MR. FINLEY INDICATED AS FAR AS YOU HAVE, THE LARGER WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SHOW THE VEHICLES WHICH ARE STORED UP THERE. THERE'S ALSO, I THINK THE I BELIEVE THIS WAS MENTIONED DURING THE FIRST HEARING, BUT IT CREATES THE KIND OF TRADITIONAL BASE MIDDLE TOP.
IT DIFFERENTIATES THOSE THREE LEVELS. I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT LOOKING AT IT. IT'S A MODERN BUILDING. IT'S A, FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I THINK IT'S ATTRACTIVE. AND I THINK SEEING IT ESPECIALLY IN THREE DIMENSIONS, IT MAKES SENSE RIGHT? TO ME, IT MAKES DESIGN SENSE. SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON IT. I ALSO AGREE THAT THE LOUVERS PROVIDE BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WITH THE WITH THE ARTICULATED CORNICE. RIGHT, IS FOR MORE DIMENSION IS FOR MORE VISUAL INTEREST. I THINK WE'RE GETTING THAT WITH THE LOUVERS. IT'S JUST A MORE MODERN STYLE THAT IT'S ANTICIPATED THAN BY THE HC ZONE, AND I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE LAST HEARING. THE HC ZONE'S VERY, VERY SPECIFIC, BUT THERE'S ALREADY A NUMBER OF EXISTING MODERN CAR DEALERSHIPS THERE. SO TO, SO I THINK THE WAY THAT THIS IS DESIGNED IS APPROPRIATE.
RIGHT? I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. AND I THINK THAT THE RELIEF BEING ASKED FOR MAKES SENSE, BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IF FOLKS HAVE THEM. ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR BEING SO THOROUGH. OH, YEAH. I HOPE YOU MEAN THAT. HONESTLY, I DO MEAN IT HONESTLY. AND IT'S 23 PAGES I SO BUT I BUT I TRY TO BE 100% HONESTLY THANK YOU. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE'VE WE CAN GET PAST THE, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT WAS LOOKING AT IT HOLISTICALLY, I THINK MADE THE MOST SENSE, SIGN DEVIATIONS WITH SIGNS WERE RELATIVELY MINOR, AS MR. MCDONOUGH INDICATED, UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH THEM BEING SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED, I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING DETRIMENTAL IN ANY WAY, AND IT'S IT GOES TOWARDS HIS ARGUMENT IS THE DESIRABLE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT, LOOKING AT THE RENDERINGS, I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THESE ARE, ARE, ARE INCLUDED ARE DESIRABLE VISUAL. CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION? IS IT REALLY GOING TO SAY AUTO HOME OR IS THAT JUST THAT'S JUST A PLACEHOLDER.
PLACEHOLDER OKAY. IT'S A PLACEHOLDER. WHAT IS IT GOING TO SAY? I WILL DEPEND ON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHRYSLER. OKAY. NARROW WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED CAR AND THE SHOWROOM IS COMING THROUGH THE WORKOUT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE OR HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BE PART OF IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, EXISTING FENCES, THE ONLY THING
[02:20:09]
I WILL ADD GENERALLY IS I'M SORRY. JAMES, 8.18 IS NOT AN ISSUE. EIGHT POINT IT 8.18.SO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LAST DISCUSSION REGARDING PAVEMENT IS THAT, MR. HERMAN IS GOING TO WALK, THE, THE PROPERTY , WITH THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEERS TO DETERMINE IF, IF THE PAVEMENT IS IN GOOD OR POOR CONDITION OR HAS TO BE REPLACED AS FAR AS WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT WITH PAVEMENT MATERIAL. THE NICE THING ABOUT THIS BEING A MODERN, MOSTLY GLASS BUILDING WITH BLACK ACCENTS IS THAT BLACKTOP ASPHALT IS GOING TO LOOK, IT'S GOING TO MATCH. RIGHT? SO THEN YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH THE PRIOR AGREED DISCUSSION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WALK THE SITE WITH THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER TO ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE THAT THAT'S INCORPORATED IN THAT IT'S A YES. SO THAT'S A SAFETY CONCERN. THIS IS AN ESTHETIC CONCERN. UNLESS THE BOARD THINKS THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN BLACKTOP IS APPROPRIATE, I YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD BE THIS IS A SAFETY FOCUSED ITEM. YES. SCORING IN THIS CASE WOULDN'T BE SUPER HELPFUL, WE'RE REMOVING THAT WOODEN FENCE THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT THAT SHOULD BE INDICATED ON THE PLAN. SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A NUMBER ON MY REPORT, IT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE ABOUT FENCING THAT'S RELEVANT. STILL, THERE REMOVING THE SPLIT RAIL FENCE. RIGHT. SEPARATES THE LOTS. SO THAT SHOULD JUST BE INDICATED ON THE PLAN, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS FROM EVERYBODY AS WE GO TO DO PERMITTING. YES. SO WE COVERED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED PRETTY THOROUGHLY, AND THEN IS THERE THE FENCES. SO I THINK MR. MCDONOUGH IS, PLANNING TESTIMONY. HE COVERED WHAT I THINK WAS IMPORTANT TO COVER AS FAR AS HIS REASONING FOR ASKING FOR THEM, FAR AS WHILE A VARIANCE IS HANDLED MORE LIKE A BULK VARIANCE, THERE IS A REDUCTION HERE. AND I THINK THE BIGGEST BENEFIT WHICH HAS BEEN NOTED BY MR. MCDONOUGH, BUT ALSO IN SOME OF THE REPORTS BY THE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS, IS THAT ADAPTIVE REUSE IS, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY ARE CONCERNED THAT ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY FOCUSED. ADAPTIVE REUSE IS ALWAYS THE BETTER, CHOICE OVER BUILDING SOMETHING NEW, DESTROYING AND BUILDING SOMETHING NEW. SO EVEN IF SOMETHING EXISTING HAS REQUIRE SOME DEVIATIONS, REQUIRE SOME EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES, FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE IT IS BETTER OVERALL TO REUSE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY THERE. AND I DO AGREE WITH THAT. SO THE REDUCTION IN FLOOR AREA IN THIS CASE, YES, YOU ARE REDUCING IT'S, IT'S, OVERALL, MORE I GUESS THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE THAT YOU'LL HAVE CUSTOMERS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND VEHICLES, AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE OFFICES AND DESKS UPSTAIRS. SO IN THAT SENSE, THERE'LL BE LOWER DENSITY, LOWER CONTINUOUS USE. SO, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER POINTS OR QUESTIONS, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY NUMBER OF THEM. IF YOU HAVE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNERS? I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. HOW DOES I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS IT ABIDED BY SORT OF WHAT'S EXISTING BECAUSE NOTHING NEW HAS TO BE HONEST. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND I'M HAVING SO OUR, OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH IS STRICTER THAN THE DEP, ORDINANCE. DEPEE RULES, I SHOULD SAY, STATES THAT ANYTHING THAT'S DISTURBS MORE THAN 20,000FT■!S AND CREATES MOE THAN, 5000FT■!S OF NEW IMPERVIOS SURFACE HAS TO MEET THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RULES, WHICH SAY YOU HAVE TO REDUCE THE SPACE OR WHAT DAVE WAS, WAS, TALKING ABOUT EARLIER THAT THE DEP RULES, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE APPLICANT, IS NOT PROPOSING A DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN ONE ACRE, AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING A NET INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS. THAT'S CLOSE TO 5000FT■!S. IN FACT, THE ONLY NET INCREASE REALLY IS THE, SIDEWALK. THAT WHICH WE ASK THEM TO PUT IN. AND THAT'S SORT OF DE MINIMIS. IT'S ABOUT 300 AND MAYBE 305FT■!S. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PUT IN ANY KIND OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. MITIGATION MEASURES.
GOT IT. BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY TRIGGER ANY OF THE THOSE THRESHOLDS. GOT IT. THANK YOU.
OKAY SO, ARE IS THERE ANY MORE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT? NO. THANK YOU. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND SEEING THAT THERE ARE STILL NO PUBLIC IN THE PUBLIC, WE WILL CLOSE
[02:25:02]
PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE CAN MOVE TO BOARD DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. SO, ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD OR. ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? NO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH, THE LIGHTING AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE PROPOSING THE LIGHTS HAVE TO BE ON 24 SEVEN BECAUSE OF, FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS. HOW WILL THE LUMENS OF THE LIGHT OF THIS BUILDING COMPARE TO THE OTHER DEALERSHIP THAT ARE LOCATED ON, 206, JUST. AGAIN, JOHN MCDONOUGH IS BACK, I HAVEN'T CALCULATED FOOTCANDLES FOR THE OTHERS, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER THAN SEVEN FOOT CANDLES, BUT THEY'RE THEY WEREN'T REGULATED LIKE THEY ARE NOW. AND THE OTHER DEALERSHIPS ALSO HAVE, THEIR LIGHTING ON 24 SEVEN AS WELL. SO I, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER OFFHAND. I'M GOING OFF THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT. I'VE NOT DRIVEN PAST THERE AT TWO IN THE MORNING, TO, TO VERIFY. I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME OWNER FOR THE DEALER, THE EXISTING DEALERSHIP. RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US IF THAT BUILDING NEXT TO THE BUILDING ON LOT 1516, HAS 24 HOUR LIGHTS ON? NO THANK YOU. I WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT INDUSTRY STANDARD AS A TYPICAL PRACTICE FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP THAT LEAVES VEHICLES OUTSIDE TO LEAVE THEIR LIGHTS ON OVERNIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY GREAT. ANYONE ELSE SEEING NO MORE, DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST IF ANYONE HAS A MOTION TO. I MEAN, FIRSTLY, CAN WE REVIEW SOME OF. I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONDITIONS. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. LET'S JUST REVIEW SOME OF THE CONDITIONS. SUNSET. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO YOU WANT YOU MEAN INTO DISCUSSING. DO YOU WANT ME TO VERBALIZE WHAT IS GOING TO, WE SOMETIMES ASK MR. DRILL TO VERBALIZE THE CONDITIONS, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A HECK OF A LOT OF THEM. THERE ARE. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY, I THINK IN THE SIMPLEST WAY, IS THAT THE RELIEF THAT IS THAT SOUGHT IS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 17.1 OF THE BOARD'S PLANNERS REPORT DATED MAY 21ST, 2024, AND I CAN READ THEM OR CITE TO IT, WHICHEVER IS PREFERRED. BUT I WOULD THINK IF WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT ALL OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS ENUMERATED, IF NOT DELETED ON PAGE 23 OF THE PLANNERS REPORT. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE THE RELIEF THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE SOUGHT. AND IF THERE'S A MOTION I HAVE AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FDC LOCATION, SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE FIRE CHIEF, THAT THE VEHICLES, LOADING AND UNLOADING SHALL NOT OCCUR ON ROUTE 206 AND MUST TAKE PLACE ON AIR PARK ROAD. THAT A6 WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE CIRCULATION PLAN TO MAKE SURE AND THAT THE FENCE THAT IS DEPICTED ON ANY OF THE PLANS WILL BE AMENDED TO REMOVE, YOU KNOW, TO REMOVE THE SHOWING OF THAT FENCE AND THAT THE CIRCULATION PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE CHIEF, A LETTER FROM THE STATE OF NO INTEREST REGARDING, I GUESS, AN ADDITIONAL, ACCESS, IS THAT RIGHT? NO, THAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON SATURDAYS. OH, THIS. YOU KNOW. OKAY, OKAY. SO DOT DOT APPROVAL OR A LETTER STATING THAT THE STATE IS NOT REQUIREMENT HAS NO, APPROVAL IS NOT FOR SATURDAY IS REFERRING TO THE LETTER OF KNOWINGNESS. OKAY OKAY, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BREAK OUT THE ADA PARKING SPACES ON THE IDENTIFY BY THE ADA PARKING SPACES ON THE PLANS, ADD ADDITIONAL NO PARKING SIGNAGE TO ENSURE CIRCULATION AND WILL NOT PARK INVENTORY IN THE CIRCULATION DRIVE AISLES, THE ENTIRE FENCED IN AREA WILL BE FOR INVENTORY ONLY. NO EMPLOYEES , ALL OF THE ITEMS ADDRESSED IN RICH BARTER LOANS. THREE 2124 ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT WITH RESPECT TO, LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THEM. I'M SORRY, WITH RESPECT TO LET'S DO IT. THIS WAY. THE BOARD'S ENGINEER. ITEMS OF APPROVAL ARE 18, 20, 24 AND 25 OF HIS, OF HIS IS MARCH 21ST, 2024 REPORT, THE REPORT OF,[02:30:14]
LAUREN WASLEWSKI DATED MARCH 13TH, 2024. ITEMS, C TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT. THE LIGHTING IS ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE, AS IS THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE. THE SHADE TREE COMMISSIONRCH 5TH, 2024 IS ACCEPTABLE AND THE TWO OVER THREE WINDOWS IS ACCEPTABLE. AND I THINK THAT LEAVES ALL OF THE ITEMS IN THE PLANNERS REPORT AS CONDITIONS WHICH JAMES SHOULD. I READ THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN SYNC, THE BOARD WOULD PREFER US TO BE THOROUGH AND TO GO THROUGH IT THEN. YES, I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO THAT. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT. YES. OKAY YES, SO THAT WOULD BE 3.1. YEP. 4.1.2. YEP I HAVE A QUESTION MARK NEXT TO 4.1.4. WELL SO I THINK THIS IS STANDARD IN MOST RESOLUTIONS. BUT IT'S A TWO YEAR GUARANTEE FOR ALL ALL LAND OKAY. SO THAT SO THEN THAT'S A YES. 5.3. YES. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. RIGHT.5.4, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED. BUT BUT THAT'S ONE, 5.6. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WHEEL STOPS AND BOLLARDS. I'M GOING TO ASK MR. FISHER TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION WHERE WE SAY THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES DO NOT HAVE WHEEL STOPS OR BOLLARDS TO PROTECT ADJACENT WALKWAYS, FENCES AND STRUCTURES. WE RECOMMEND THIS, BE REVISED TO PROVIDE CURB STOPS AND SPACES ADJACENT TO THESE AREAS. DO YOU THINK THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE? NOW GIVEN THAT MOST OF THESE SPACES ARE IN MID-JANUARY, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE RANDOM PEOPLE PULLING OUT FROM THEY'RE GOING TO BE EMPLOYEES, WENT ON TO WORK ON CARS DAMAGING THEIR OWN AT THAT POINT? I DON'T THINK SO.
OKAY SO NOT 5.6, 6.1 WE ADDRESSED ALREADY, RIGHT? WE DID. WE ADDRESSED THAT 1.1. YEP, 6.2. YEP. SO LOWEST LEVEL ALLOWED BY. YEP. RECOMMENDED BY IS AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE 6.4 DOWNWARD FOCUSED LIGHTING 2700 COLOR. YEP COLOR TEMPERATURE. SO 2700 K. YEAH. COLOR TEMPERATURE COLOR TEMP. AND 7.37.3. YES. 3 TO 4 FOOT SHRUBS. YEP OKAY. THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURE. AND I'M SORRY. WHAT ELSE I COULDN'T, CAN YOU, MIKE. OH THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURE. IT WAS JUST RECOGNITION OF THE REQUIRED, RELIEF. THANK YOU. IS 9.2 A CONDITION? TYUS JONES? YES. SO IT'S A IT'S A PLAN CORRECTION. SO IF THAT HAS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN DONE YET. SO YES THAT'S STILL A CONDITION OKAY. AND 10.1 WE ADDRESSED ALREADY ABOUT THE, REMOVAL OF THE SPLIT OF, OF THE FENCE THAT GOES ALONG THE, THE SPLIT IN THE PROPERTY, THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO ADJACENT DEALERSHIPS, THERE ARE NO OTHER, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED BOLLARDS AT GUARDRAIL, SO WE'RE NOT. WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE 10.6. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE, SOMETHING. RIGHT. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND 11.2 WELL, THERE'S NO I IF THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT FEE, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY STANDARD. BUT BUT 11.2 IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING I DON'T KNOW. RIGHT. WELL THAT'S THAT'S YEAH THAT'S. YES. OKAY THEN. YES I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. OKAY GIVEN ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS AND THE, AND THE LIST OF VARIANCES THAT ARE ON PAGE 23, OF, MR. CLEVERLEY'S REPORT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF ANYONE FROM THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO, POSE AS A, APPROVED OF THIS APPLICATION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS, I'LL SECOND VARIANCES. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. THANK YOU, SHERRY, CAN YOU TAKE THE ROLL? OR. SORRY. I'M PROBLEM. LOZOVSKY. YES ROSENTHAL. YES. WALMART YES.
[02:35:01]
WOOD. YES SHAW. YES. BRUHNS YES. URBANSKI. YES THANK YOU EVERYBODY. WE'VE APPROVED, WE'VE APPROVED YOUR APPLICATION. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HE SAVES THE EASY ONES FOR ME. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART OF OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS, JUST TO REVIEW THE FUTURE MEETINGS. SO WE HAVE MAY 28TH.WE HAVE A ZONING BOARD MEETING. IT'S BEEN CANCELED. THAT IS NEXT TUESDAY, JUNE 25TH. THE ZONING BOARD MEETING IS AT 7 P.M. AND THEN THE JUNE 27TH ZONING BOARD MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED, IN HONOR OF 4TH OF JULY. 27TH. JUNE 27TH HAS BEEN CANCELED. CORRECT. 28. SO, CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING TONIGHT? ADJOURN? I'LL SECOND AND SECOND.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.