in accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the board of adjustment the township of Franklin has been provided board members applicant professionals members of the public please speak directly in the microphon so our recording secretary can properly process minutes applicants and professionals please fill out the sheet on the table when you completed your testimony thank you and please call okay uh Joel ree Faraz Khan and Michael Dy all ask to be excused this evening Cheryl Bea here Richard pranic here Alan Rich Gary Rosenthal here Robert Shephard here bassim veras here chairman Thomas here uh minutes of the regular meeting September 7 2023 is our MO motion to approve I'll move second Sher beia yes alen Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Bim BOS yes chairman Thomas yes uh resolutions praise Presbyterian Church zba 17 o28 extension of time do we hear a motion to approve there's only three people who can vote on that that would be Alan Rich Gary rosenal oh sorry for Vine vas and yourself well move that I'll second okay Allan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Bim veros yes chairman Thomas yes Parker at Somerset zba 2315 need a motion same group I'll make the motion second yes second sh yes Alan Rich yes Gary rosenthall yes V vas yes and chairman Thomas yes uh no discussion moving to the hearings section and does caterer zba 2313 use variants and parking variants stop by the applicant for a banquet facility 3059 Route 27 Franklin Park block 3401 Lots 32 02 and 34.049000 the only lot that uh is or that's the only property that's the subject of this application we um did amend our application to uh reduce the relief we're seeking we are not seeking a use variance we are only seeking a parking variance tonight um we have no plans to operate as a banquet hall this is an application for a restaurant to expand its seating and obviously for the uh requisite parking variants associated with that expanded seating but my witnesses will explain that in more detail so that you understand exactly what's being proposed and how uh operations would proceed under an approval um so my client leases property in October of 22 as I stated they plan to ex uh expand the restaurant they already have approved 54 seats they'd like to add 50 seats and um it's a high-end Indian Cuisine uh as I mentioned we're seeking the parking variants associated with those extra 50 seats you're going to hear from two witnesses you'll hear from one fact witness and you'll hear from uh a traffic engineer who will testify to the parking variants and uh how how uh traffic on the property in and out uh will work so uh without further Ado if I could bring up my first witness uh just a quick question so I'm sure I understand it for sure we're we're dealing with the expansion as it pertains to a parking variance we're not involved in how the building might change or any of the construction issues or other site plan that is correct there's no site plan associated with this there's no construction uh associated with this it's just operations um the the floor plans uh that that are part of this application that that you see um the the the interior walls the Ingress and egress all those are already in place the only thing that we're uh requesting approval for is to be able to seat a certain number of people in the existing space so and in order to do that we need a parking variance okay fine thank you okay not the parking not say that again not the parking right not the park what do you what do you mean not the park no you talking are you goingon to be talking about parking we will be talking about parking that that's the only that's the only variance we are seeking is parking we're not going to be talking about use we're not going to be talking about um site plan okay thank you yeah let me just sorry we keep interrupting I know but you originally applied for a for a use variance for banquet facility correct are is somebody going to testify to why you're calling it why it's all why it's a restaurant now this fact witness we'll testify okay because you just said we're not going to talk about use but you are going to talk about well yeah we will talk about oper I'm I'm okay fair enough Mr I just want to make sure we're going to explain to the board because again your original application was for use faing now it's not yeah you need to explain to the board why why that is okay a absolutely so if you could introduce yourself to the board hello everyone I'm the CEO at the andas Caterers and the reason I'm here today is why don't you say state your name for the record just state your name for the record and then we'll just swear you in my name is mad sanana spell your last name again for the record s ax n you swear or affirm any testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the yes I do okay so why don't you go into what you were going to say introduce yourself to the board your involvement in this operation so basically we are asking for 50 seats as an overflow for the restaurant if not everyday restaurant going to be needing 100 seats but on the weekends when the restaurant is busy so we can move from a restaurant to the B restaurant that's called overflow back in the time as you said we were asking for the banquet facility which is which was causing more traffic and more uh in and out and asking for a different uh parking site which was not making sense so I was like instead of creating a banquet I'm going to create a restaurant and it's going to be overflow for the restaurant from A to B so when you originally applied for this application is it correct that uh the site that has an address of 3081 Route 27 was going to be involved in the operations that is correct and how is it going to be involved just for the parking over the weekends that we were asking for cuz most of the time if you look in any Indian restaurant cuz I've been in the industry for the last 20 years that weekdays not every restaurant is busy it's only for the weekends when Friday Saturday Sunday uh we need extra seating and extra parking so that was the reason to satisfy the board that hey I'm okay to rent a parking lot next door and I'll pay the rent just to make sure everyone is safe even I was trying to do valet at service but it didn't the owner for that backed out okay so that so now that the owner backed out and you don't have that parking available is is is it are you still planning to have these banquet events where you have valet parking and such no it's just going to be a restaurant it's just going to be a restaurant okay ke please tell me about that restaurant it's going to be high Indian uh fine dining restaurants uh elevating the Indian Cuisine okay and do you have um what will your hours of operation be it's going to be from 11: to 11: okay and uh how many employees will you have I would have like about 15 15 yep okay now when we were out in the hallway you were telling me some something about the chefs that you have lined up could you share that with the board oh yeah we have uh chefs that are renowned chefs from India and they have came on us they came here what it's called for the opening and stuff they're going to be working here making this restaurant to a different level so the reason I was opening this restaurant I already have uh restaurant Paran and different cities uh so as a indian-american why do go to the New York City all the time spend money for uh what it's called toll spend money for parking so I was like I'mma bring New York City to Somerset County which is in the center and everyone want to have celebration to a nice decent restaurant and upscale Indian dining so Somerset has wide variety of uh indian-american living here so I'm like I'm going open a restaurant here with a high-end Indian restaurant basically okay so can you tell me what other uses uh exist on the same property that that you uh are attended on it's going to be a a medical dispensary and the other is empty the other unit is empty okay so and is it correct that you rent the the the the space that uh the restaurant will operate in are are two units side by side yes exactly so you currently rent these two units side by side yes I do are they already connected interior yes they are they all right so they're already connected cuz if you take a look at the plan it shows right there the entire 54 seats with the kitchen with the bathroom is already approved we are just looking for the 50 people that's next door uh let me see how much square footage it's about like, 1500 square foot that we asking for okay so God forbid that this application were were not approved what would happen to that space it's going to be a dead space' be dead space unused okay um and just just to reiterate one more time um initially with this application you were involved in another site where people would park and potentially walk over or utilize a valet M and now you're not proposing that yep it's just going to be a restaurant yep no no big style banquet events no it's not no confetti cannons no okay maybe in the opening we're going to have that outside for the restaurant all right but you'll clean it up if you do yes I do okay otherwise I'm going to get a big letter all right I have no uh further questions for my fact witness unless the board does any questions I have a a question I just want to clarify so it's just going to be one restaurant yes exactly it's going to be one restaurant part the restaurant b or the the other section is just overflow seating so there's the kitchen would still be the same yeah ex be the same everything would be the same it's just additional seating yeah if you take a look at the plan I don't know if you have that on with you or not oh I'm s sorry if you look in the plan uh the previous seating back bathrooms and the kitchen is already approved it's just I'm adding extra space to it so can I come up there and show you or no I me okay so if you take a look right here am might use your pen real quick so this entire thing is the only one that's not approved everything over here kitchen this bathrooms everything office everything is approved so I'm just asking for this space if I'm really busy out here I can take my customers right here okay that's the only thing I'm asking for okay thank you thank you any other questions yes um exactly where on Route 27 is this going to be located can you give me some kind of landmarks yeah it's right next to spice rack I and the and the IHOP if you know the the ey over there oh over there building okay so so you're going to be behind the IHOP no next to the IHOP there's a empty vacant land and next to it there is a new strip mall just to the north of the IHOP it's a brand new building I mean IHOP and there's a wend land in the middle so it's divide the IHOP and the stuff so it's not the same uh parking lot and stuff it's totally different okay thanks any other questions I I do have one um will this witness or your traffic engineer talk about where that overflow parking is and how a pedestrian would get from point A to point B oh the the Overflow parking is no longer proposed the Reas stra variant right the re the reason we we spoke about the Overflow is to indicate what changed about the application sorry I'm said thank you no no problem at all and I'm a little confused too um you said there were going to be more businesses in that building or is this just going to be the restaurant no it's restaurant dispensary and the last unit is empty we don't know what's going to be there I'm assuming that the traffic engineer is going to speak to that because they um as part of their application they calculated the the parking requirements for the building as a whole and um that adds up to a certain amount they're short of that so that's the parking variance so I'm sure their their traffic uh engineer is going to explain the calculations and then provide testimony for you to consider as part you know as part of the parking variants okay any others your existing restaurant is 54 uh seating for 54 that correct and the new one will be for an additional 50 that is correct and when you were proposing the banquet hall it was an additional 100 right yes so so this is going to be only 50 just because of the way the seating is going to be arranged or no the seating at the same time what it's called with the parking also I can fit 200 people in the parking for 50 right so I proposed that hey I'm going to fit less people in the space and give them more space I'm going to make the interior the way hey I have more space for my own storage so I can just fit 50 people in there okay here's but here's the question go ahead you've already shown a plan okay where in that exact same square footage you can fit a 100 seats now you've just taken out 50 of those seats left a lot of open space on that same square footage how is that possibly going to get enforced so I'm I mean what it's called the way we're going to do the interior and stuff I'm going to have empty speeds seats and I mean empty spaces you but you've already in a way you've already proven on the record through your floor plan prepared by your your architect that you can fit a 100 100 spaces 100 seats in that space But that's no longer The Proposal Mr Healey but you've but and but all you've done is just taking tables out and now in that same exact square footage now you're just saying okay now it's 50 that's correct because we're not allowed to have those tables based on the parking requirements and how is that possibly going to be enforced long term well the same way that it would be enforced long term if you were to deny this application we started seating people in there without approval we the the that how's that an answer I'll I'll explain allow me to explain the the legality of my my client seating an extra hundred people in that space is no different today than it would be under an approval so you're you're asking how would it be enforced if we approve this application the same way you're enforcing it now so zoning staff will have to go there and count seats to make sure that there's no no violation of this board's approval if they the board end ends up approving it essent essentially yes and and I I also submit that that that's that if you're you're concerned about a potential violation of your approval really wouldn't be a grounds for a denial in this case because as I've stated that that onus on the township to enforce its ordinance is is there today just like it'll be there under an approval let's take it to an extreme now let's say you've done I mean you've already all in the exact same space you've just taken half the seats out and got and and are basically saying okay now we're good well take it to the extreme you would say the same thing if you took 80 of those seats out and only propos 20 seats you'd go oh well you can just enforce it I mean you've shown 50 seats in a muchar in an area that could accommodate and you've proven it can accommodate far more seats and why not provide the square footage that can provide 50 Mr Healey the space already exists my client is already in the space because your client because your client leasts that space before getting an approval my my client does have an approval for 54 seats and now is seeking approval for an additional 50 rather than additional 100 and you're asking in the same square footage that you could fit 100 correct right now the approval is for 54 and we're seeking an approval for 104 as opposed to 154 so right now in the space that fits 54 hypothetically we could violate the existing approval and fit 154 people and the Township's responsibility to enforce the existing appr approval is the same as it would be to enforce an approval of 104 okay I mean I I'll leave it to the I don't it's not my intention to confuse the board but M Mr Healey is concerned that my client will get an approval and then commit a violation is not is not any ground to to turn down this parking variance because my client is already under a requirement to operate within the Township's ordinance and he's already under an requirement to operate within the existing approval just like he'll be under a requirement to operate under any approval you might Grant tonight is there is there any reason why the floor plan couldn't be modified so that that dining area with the 50 seats is sized so that it could only accommodate 50 seats well it wouldn't be very nice for the patrons who have a lot of walking room in Elbow Room right now well your client had proposed to put twice that amount in the same square footage and is not doing that because it's not possible without a a valet parking plan and people walking across parking lots so he doesn't want to do that yeah okay so you're unwilling to consider modifying the site plan so that it actually accommodates the so it's size to fit 50 people well it would be an interior floor plan it wouldn't even be a site plan floor plan if I said site plan meant floor plan yeah yeah that's an arbitrary burden that is an arbitrary burden my my client is not willing to are unnecessarily reduced the size of its floor plan in in order to in order to prevent a hypothetical violation okay all right I'll leave it to the board so um on the site plan you're saying it's not a restaurant I mean it's not a catering facility or Banquet Hall but you have a buffet counter and a juice counter in my personal experience that's what you see in a banquet facility can somebody explain that I have a restaurant right now and it's been there for last 45 years it's called Chan Palace and we have buffets every single day and that's the restaurant known for Buffet so I'm not sure where you getting this thing just because there's a buffet and a juice counter it cannot be a restaurant does it s does it show somewhere in the ordinance or is show let's let's why is it not in your regular restaurant your testimony was this is just for overflow so why wouldn't you have the juice counter and the buffet counter in your restaurant space that you're going to be using all the time and not in the area that you're only going to use in the event of overflow okay so let me ask you no no no I asked you a question what's your answer that's the way this works but Mr hey I I gotta be honest I I'm not I'm not objecting to your questions because I think it's it's valuable for the board to hear your position but you're not a board member you you you advise the board and provide your expert opinion and I think your expert opinion is I leave it to the board to ask does the board want to hear an answer to that question yes okay so answer the question okay so the reason we have the what is called the buffet tables and Juice table because we might have two different things going on maybe I want to do this only for the Allard and I want to do this for the buffet style that doesn't mean I'm doing a catering or that doesn't mean I'm doing a what's called uh sit down dinner and none of that none of that violates the ordinance either exactly I can have two types of things that going in the same time where you go to hiachi and sushi so hiachi is different types of what is called stuff and Sushi is same thing so it doesn't mean that I'm doing a party in there if I can add just because of my knowledge of Indian restaurants I probably good to many of them having buffets at an Indian restaurant is very common a lot of Indian restaurants have that and and we don't live in ifs if this is going to happen sorry if that will happen if this XYZ if you were living in ifs you and me would not be here I understand I understand that and you have to give me a chance to prove myself you can't just accuse me hey I'm going to do this and this is going to happen if I do something wrong of course I'm going to be penalized for that but if I'm not doing anything wrong again it's if I I I have a question for you mark So seating in general how do you how would you determine for a particular space or or property the capacity the seating capacity well yeah that's a good question I I the seating capacity is is uh ultimately determined by um I believe it' be the fire code or construction code and that's based on the Square the use and the square footage um so you know I can't answer if they had an architect here I'm sure the architect could answer what um you know that per code how many people would be allowed so when you go to any use whether it be a a store or restaurant and there's that thing that says occupancy of no more than x that comes from the construction Department okay um so getting to the issue of you know again I understand I've we've all been in restaurants we've all seen you know situations where I mean I've been in Indian restaurants and I've seen exactly that where where there's a buffet it's not the question isn't why are do you have it at all but the question that I had was why is it only in the Overflow and not in the portion of the restaurant that you know you that they said is part of their usual kind of seven days a week use why is it only in this overflow and it also comes in the context of their original proposal for a banquet facility so when and when you have you know a a a buffet counter and Juice counter again we've all been to banquet halls you normally associate those with with that type of use again raes an obvious question I have a I have another fact witness who can explain these things but again we are not proposing a banquet hall so if this board were I I just I just want to put this out there if this board is going to deny us because we might operate as a banquet hall when I am explicitly saying my client has explicitly said we are not proposing to operate as a banquet hall that that that's not fair to my client so I I do have another fact witness who can answer those questions why is there a juice bar why why is there a buffet counter um so if you'll allow me to call that next witness unless you have more questions for this witness I think in order to answer those questions in in the context of the question was asked why those uh uses are part of the Overflow and not part of the main everyday restaurant that's what seems to make the you know point out a possibility of a of a different kind of Separation it's a question that I am also interested in uh I would think that the part you're going to use seven days a week should have all the facilities contained within it and my my next witness can answer those questions if there are no other questions I probably a little bit silly um but what's the difference between a banquet hall and a restaurant I'm H you asked that so in uh Franklin Township uh Municipal Code article one a banquet facility is designed uh as this is in the uh the land use uh portion of of the code uh a banquet facility is an establishment that provides food prepared and served in a formal setting for corporate events conferences or for special occasions such as weddings Bar Mitzvah family reunions charitable benefits and other special events that's right from the fr Franklin Township municipal code restaurants are not defined only banquet facilities are defined no I I I I understand the the ordinance definition um I guess what I'm kind of getting at is with the new footprint that you provided and you're stating that it's very clearly a restaurant with no intention to be a banquet hall what would be the the internal programming difference um aside from some tables I mean because you're saying corporate events I'm what's a corporate event me and four colleagues can go to lunch that's a corporate event if we someone throws down the corporate card well I I I would have to turn that question right back to the board it's the board's jurisdiction to enforce its own interpret and enforce its own ordinance well I also believe there is a profession called professional planning in which a more detailed and commonly accepted definition could be provided other than reading one definition from our ordinance maybe I can maybe I can help um and again this is just going from my own experience as somebody like we've all gone to restaurants and I think we've all gone to banquet facilities I mean I a restaurant is when a small group a family or a small group of people go together sit down at a at a at a table order food or provided food they pay and they go and the and the and the the different tables in those restaurants are not necessarily there for one particular thing collectively all of the different tables are occupied in a way separately whereas my in my opinion I think a banquet facility like that somebody's renting the space for their you know for their exclusive use whether it be corporate or a party or something like that and then the facilities providing the food whether it's a buffet or maybe there's a smaller menu that that that people choose from they all kind of get there at the same time they all kind of leave and they're there again if there's 50 50 seats those 50 seats are in a way set aside for that particular group of people to use that room and I'm assuming there's a charge for you know the the leasing of that space for that amount of time so it's more about the and the drink space as opposed to a large reservation I think that's a practical way to differentiate it in my opinion so let me ask you one thing well before you start asking questions in my experience it's it's typical that a banquet facility doesn't have a separate restaurant where I can just go and have have a meal a banquet facility if you're not having an event is is basically closed it's not the case sorry can you say that one more sure a banquet facility doesn't provide for a family or a couple to go in and say I just want to have dinner for two people isn't it typically the the case where if you don't have an event going on in a banquet facility you're not operating you're closed for that day that is correct okay I mean that's basically the difference between a banquet facility and a restaurant I can just go down the street and go into the restaurant and say I want to have dinner but if it's a banquet facility they're not going to have the doors open it's going to be closed if there's not an event yeah but if you go to like me and Gio's the Italian restaurant Woodbridge I mean you can rent a space but you can also still go in on date night and have but but typically I think that's the the general difference between a banquet facility and and a restaurant I guess I guess what I'm trying to maybe I'm not doing a good job of getting out my my point is what would be stopping you other than your word saying that we're not going to rent the space because it may still have all the characteristics of that use because it would be a violation of this approval because we don't have even let me ask you in the bankr there's a dance floor do we have a dance floor you can move tables I'm I'm trying to almost I mean that's again you alleviate my concerns that Mark is bringing up that's all I mean as just as an example we just had a holiday party right so I rented the restaurant that didn't make it a banquet it's a restaurant the difference if renting a restaurant versus renting a banquet hall because there's like not features there's like features that's that's what I'm getting at cuz I mean I if it's a restaurant I mean I'm all for small businesses let go the banquet you're going to have a large amount of people show up at the exact same time parking is an issue but if if you're saying rent you you can rent a restaurant out but that doesn't mean it's a banquet hall then what is a Banquet Hall banquet hall is a place where hundreds of people get together and do what is called whatever like weddings and stuff well a wedding could be less than hundreds of people I mean again if it's if not an Indian we can uh talk about the difference between between the two all you want to but the issue that we started out with is that that this application is looking for a parking variance which is based on the occupied space and since you have space for 150 people it isn't illogical to assume that over time you might actually grow into that space a little bit and as Mr Healey pointed out enforcement could be a real problem and by growing into that space you exacerbate the parking problem which could be overwhelming since we're talking about going from 100 to 150 that's that's the to me that's issue here why the reluctance to conf reconfigure the the space to where it accommodates the 100 people and not the 150 and then we're giving you a variance if we approve it uh for parking based on 100 people with a reasonable chance of enforcing it if the space isn't there for the other 50 people to occupy M Mr chairman we my my client did reconfigure the space there in in the in Mr heer's report you'll see two floor of plans side by side showing roundtables fitting at least 50 more people and that now we're showing rectangular tables fitting significantly less people taking up the exact same space and I do think it is possible for this town trip easily by looking at the site seeing how many people are parking there seeing if people are showing up at the same time going into the restaurant if necessary to see they do have round taes they do they do have 154 people in here right now this is a zoning violation that that that would be how that would would operate that is how the enforcement would go if you if you saw car fulls of people or a Bus full of people showing up at this site all at once that would be his zoning violation I I have a question and uh you know it's not about the use of the restaurant and versus the banquet hall because I think been to lots of Indian restaurants that kind of function both like there are restaurants but you could have 25 people and show up and I think you could that at an American restaurant or at an Indian restaurant at Indian restaurants I think it tends to be more common maybe people you know like more um you know more family events and stuff but my question is really about uh if it were a banquet hall with 50 people not the 100 that you po then would the parking requirements be different than if it was just a restaurant what if the or I'm I'm just curious yeah no well they're and I'm sure again their next um experts I mean their traffic expert I'm sure is going to speak to this their original application for the parking variants at first was higher because for both the restaurant and the banquet facility the parking requirement is one parking space for every three seats that's for so so I'm sure what you're going to hear is that it's now it's been lower because the the the additional seats has been lowered from 100 down to 50 but but if the banket hall originally just had 50 extra people and that kept the banquet hall but made it 50 to change the floor plan or change their mind would the parking requirements for a banquet hall be different than for a restaurant for the same number of people well again I'm not going to I'm not going to speak in a way as an expert I'll just speak from my own personal experience going to restaurants versus catering halls and I think we could ALS you know again restaurants there's T turnover um that you know one you know one table goes next new people come in and there's more turnover on a on a on a regular basis where a banquet facility you know usually you know the event starts at 7:00 8:00 usually people are coming kind of all at once the event ends at 10 or 11 everybody leaves so I think there's I think the timing perhaps whether there's a difference in terms of banquet facility has more people car pooling versus you know that I couldn't answer but I just know again my own personal experience I think we all know from a prac that's only the timing thing I can see being what happens just curious zoning Viewpoint is from a zoning from a zoning perspective per our ordinance the parking requirement is exactly the same it's one one space for every three seats other questions and chairman let me just speak real quick I mean I'm sorry but it seems like every question we have it gets turned back on the board and me they are asking for a variance they're asking for a parking variance anytime an applicant is asking for a variance the board can consider appropriate mitigation and I think a lot of these questions are go going towards possible mitigation measures the applicant needs to be open to the possibility of some mitigation meas measures rather than challenging the board of why you while you're questioning them he next witness I I I would just briefly like to respond I'm not trying to turn anything back on to the board however when we amended our application and sent in a new revised plan eliminating the involvement of a second site a valet parking scheme the possibility of patrons walking across multiple lots to get to our then planned blanquet facility we removed that proposal and then we received Mr healer's report talking about that we're still going to do that despite our amended proposal that that that's not true that's not true that comment three says your original subm said you were going to do that your resubmittal was silent on whether you're going to do that you've since now testified that you're not but your resubmittal did not speak to that so we're not going to take the comment first of all it's not my report it's a report of the technical Review Committee my apologies your your new submitt did not say we are no longer going to use that offsite site it was silent so we said your original submitt said this you didn't respond what's the answer you've s answered that question okay next witness just get your name hi Char s same last name raise your right hand do you swear or affirm any testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth yes Mr xan you uh you came up here uh wanting to testify about the question about the juice counter and the buffet counter what what can you tell us about those yes so Mr hey raised concerns about why the floor plan changed so drastically we were informed that we could not do the banquet space because we do not have the parking requirements the parking lot that we um originally were hoping for no longer exists so we had to change our plan we own a restaurant right now it's been around for 30 years like we mentioned the restaurant runs solely on Buffet we have a full Buffet counter we have a full juice counter and that's how our business runs Mother's Day is our busiest day of the year we have to use the banquet facility actually next door that also operates on their own because we have so much we have so like such a rush where where is this this is in Paran the restaurant's Chan Palace it's very well known and there's actually one in Piscataway as well so the reason for this the buffet and Juice counter if I want to do that on Mother's day then I would like to have the option to do that and because I have so much more space now as Mr Healey keeps saying I need to account for that space and another thing I'd like to add is spacing everyone has been in a banquet hall has been to a uh what do you call a wedding people are sitting very close together in roundtables at a restaurant I like to go and I like to sit and have a little bit of space I don't want to be on top of the person next to me I want a little bit of space so we accounted for that and different style seating on the other side and do you believe that help for small private parties having private conversations as well having more space between tables yes like uh Richard okay like he mentioned if he's going for date night and I want to sit on the side in the corner and not have the person right next to me like John's sitting right here listening to my conversation then yes I would like to be maybe asked to be seated on the other side our restaurant in Paran perfect example we have a little room it's actually connected to the restaurant exactly the same like this and people ask to be be seated there all the time because one Co people don't want to be too close to other people people like to sit a little bit further apart people don't want to be on top of the next person next to them so we have these situations and we've accounted for that in this new floor plan we we've been living through this for the past whatever 10 15 years in our current restaurant so we're making changes and we're going through that in our new floor plan and this is based on past experience I'm not just you know this is all things that we've experienced being restaurant owners I have no further questions for Miss Sean unless the board does anything from the board uh the new floor plan is that going to uh are the are the seats going to be maintained in that floor plan without without moving them around at all they're going to stay where they are I think that the the way the tables are currently set up they're all square tables that are set like this I may change some of them to like rectangle tables or something along those lines but we're not going if you're asking if we're going to have like a round tables or something like that that would accommodate a banquet then no actually what I'm asking a question about is whether or not if we were to approve this request that we could include the revised floor plan in there to say this is where all the seats are going to be located this is the number of seats that are in there I think that would make it easier for enforcement if they could go in with the floor plan and say this is not the seats are no longer in the places that they were when this was approved you've got a violation sure so I have two responses to that one this the way these tables are set up I do not want to promise to the board that this is exactly how my table is going to be set up if I'm running the restaurant and I need to change things around a little bit if I need to turn the tables from vertical to horizontal I don't want this to be the footprint that the board is looking at and them come and be like okay no the tables are not set up the way they should be so I don't think that that's realistic especially having say for example larger parties that come if I have 12 people come instead of two people the arrangements are going to be different so I don't think that that is realistic yeah um that's one you two let me answer that real quick I think ultimately if the board does approve I think if alt together if the the seating between the two spaces was no more than 104 because ultimately again that's what's going to dictate the parking requirement whether they're circular rectangular or whatever right and my other my second point was going to be that we were looking we're looking at occupancy not necessarily the shape of the tables which Mr hilly just also clarified okay any other questions next do you swear or affirm any testimony you're about to give is the truth nothing but the truth yes I do introduce yourself for the record Elizabeth Dolan D Lan Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers 181 West High Street and Somerville New Jersey and does the board accept my expert witness as an she's been here too many times for us not to accept it my license is still in good standing what do you have to share with us tonight M Doan uh well I've got parking calculations based on what is the current proposal which is4 fine dining restaurant seats I had issued a report on the original application as we've been talking about for the past half hour or so but I'm going to focus tonight on my October 23 2 23 um letter that summarizes the parking calculations and the building um before I get into the parking I just want to note because there was some um commentary about it at the onset of this application tonight the building is a newer building on Route 27 it had been approved a few years ago um and we actually were not the traffic engineer on that application but the property owner who I believe has tried to put a liquor store into this building hired us because the liquor store triggered the need for a new access permit from NJ do so our office obtained a shopping center uh access permit from do whereas the original DOT permit was for fewer trips associated with a specialty retail Center the permit that our office obtained a year and a half or two years ago allows any tenants in this bu building so whether it's restaurant banquet dispensary liquor store um arts and craft store whatever the different tenant mix that may end up in this building will not require us to go back to NJ doot we've permitted rep permitted the driveway to account for higher generating uses um and if the board requires any of that in writing I I have it in my in my file from the uh the other applicant that I worked for I believe he went under KV liquor so with that we are exempt from dot permitting the driveway is built the building is built and we have 75 parking spaces on site the building is just under uh just over 15,000 square fet um and we've talked about the three tenant spaces the applicant before you tonight with about 5,500 Square ft for restaurant space the dispensary um is the other use um and then the vacant space is where the liquor store was intended to go and I know that that has a zoning implication I'm not familiar with where that is but it's currently vacant so 15,39 ft is the total building the restaurant space that's before you tonight is 5525 Square ft leaving 9,000 and change 9,514 Square ft of generic retail space so per your ordinance as we discussed a little bit a few minutes ago the restaurant um requires 83 parking um I'm sorry the restaurant is proposing 104 spaces that requires 35 parking spaces 104 seats divided by three spaces per seat 35 restaurant spaces the balance of the building would be classified as retail and your ordinance requires one space for every 200 Square ft so that's 48 therefore the total requirement when we when we take out the restaurant space is 83 there are 75 spaces on site so we've got an eight space variance if you were to look at the 75 spaces that are on the site and then you take away the 408 that are required for retail that would leave 27 available for the restaurant which would equate to 81 seats so 81 seats would be permitted no parking variants we're at 104 so the Surplus is what we're looking to defend before the board and to do that I went to The Institute of Transportation Engineers latest publication of the parking generation manual sixth edition was recently um issued uh and that has uh parking demand ratios and also time of day parking demands for different land uses um as I said your ordinance requires uh about five spaces per thousand one per 200 square feet which is pretty high because um now that we've got all of this Ecommerce and people are getting you know deliveries via Amazon and so forth the retail parking demands have come down from 5 per th000 to more like 3 per th000 so there's a little bit of play uh in the variance request because the parking demands for generic retail aren't as high as they used to be um if you were to look at um the dispensary uh based on and and now it's Colorado and New Jersey are the sources for the it uh dispensary data um we'll be looking at about 20 to 24 spaces but the dispensary has Peak parking demands earlier in the day midday into the 4 and 5:00 hour fine dining is peing at 6: to 900 p.m. so there's an offset uh when the restaurant is busiest you're going to have a lower parking demand for the dispensary if you were to look at the liquor store in the in the uh vacant space that too would have a different peaking characteristic midday to later in the afternoon so there's a slight offset which is why the Institute of Transportation engineers says you don't necessarily take each tenant and look at their individual parking needs because they don't all have Peak parking demands at the same time so if you look at those two um uh two different points one that the retail demand overall has has gone down over time and two the three tenant spaces aren't likely to be demanding 100% of their parking at the same time I think that the um eight space variants can can be granted that would be for 23 or 24 the additional seats that we're looking for um so I think that that's a lot of numbers and a lot of math but again based on the latest uh it data and and you know we go out and we study some of these sites too definitely retail parking is down um this um report that I'm talking about the letter report from October 2023 from our office uh was an update to the original study that looked the banquet um demand and at that 154 spaces there's no question uh we would have more of a variance so we would have to look at off-site parking um as you heard from the witness uh before me the witnesses before me um the off-site parking is no longer available that meant they had to uh modify their development application I can't speak to table layouts but I can speak to the parking and I think that the parking variance is modest and for the use sets before you tonight I believe that uh approval can be granted without any negative consequences any questions oh I got a couple number one I now know what building they're in oh good and the and the the dispensary that you keep talking about I thought it was like a medical dispensary but it's not it's a marijuana dispensary isn't it it it is I believe it was a approved uh as medical and they're waiting for their recreational license okay now I've driven by that building a billion times and I always wonder where the parking is it is in back of the building that's correct yeah okay so they've got a re they've got I've sort of been out of circulation here they've got a regular parking lot behind the building and they have they have they they have a shortfall in the in the parking but at least initially it won't be a problem because there's nobody in that other that other unit that's true too okay now the next question is how did they fig how did they figure out what is the peak use of parking for the the dispensary where'd that number come from you're talking about the it numbers that I'm talking about it what does that mean I'm sorry The Institute of Transportation right so since it's a a relatively new land use starting in uh Colorado Traffic Engineers out in Colorado were monitoring the driveway activity and parking demands submitted that to the it the sixth edition of the parking generation manual was just released and that includes some New Jersey sites as well I didn't study any of those we've done a couple our office has um mostly for trip generation but the numbers that talk to how many spaces and at what time of day those come from the parking generation manual by The Institute of Transportation Engineers okay those are all good answers to my series of questions that I had when the light went on thank you you're welcome just to provide the board a little bit of background so that site was approved um as a retail facility um it's the 75 spaces was based on the square footage of the building divided by the parking requirement for retail um you know a restaurant is a is a permitted use but when you put a retail I mean a restaurant in that space and divide it by you know one space for every three seats the parking requirement goes up compared to the same amount of square footage for retail so that that's why they're here so they're they're under I'm sorry oh they're under eight spaces in other words yes based on the seating we're talking about tonight correct other questions hours sorry go ahead no I just want to clarify so but based on the different peak times of the different types of businesses that shortfall is you're thinking that's not a big impact because they're at different times is that that's correct you know if this were a um uh more of like a diner Deli something that was driving a lunchtime business as opposed to a higher dinner weekend demand might be a different type of analysis but based on uh the known tenant that we have the dispensary and the type of restaurant that's proposed eight spaces to me is is not going to be a problem um because of the demand ratios and the different peaking characteristics of the different uses at the center thank you welcome yeah my question was kind of related uh so the are there hours for the dispensary that it's going to be open uh I don't know that would be just really up to the retail to the retailer I mean it was it's a a permitted use so they were they didn't have to go before any board they were received necessary permits to occupy the space so there wouldn't be any conditions on the hours of operation any other questions yeah I have two quick questions um you had mentioned that the dispensary was Med uh medical and it got lure to be recreational I think they're waiting on that license sure just for my own edification um does that change the the parking if it's recreational no um and and the numbers that I've been speaking to from The Institute of Transportation Engineers are based on recreational okay yeah so it's a bit more conservative to begin with okay right and then secondly you were comparing um it's always hard to talk traffic um comparing the the Peak parking rates for the various uses um in your opinion like how like what percentage of occupancy would you expect the parking lot to be at its worst um so so if the if the restaurant were doing Gang Busters for a Christmas or holiday party and um it was a Friday night if if uh if everything was you know that that might be you know when it's busiest but because of the type of restaurant being more of a fine dining I think you're probably going to see somewhere in the um I would say up to 80% maybe occupancy at a uh worst case just the reason I ask is there's no additional consideration for offsite parking anymore which which is fine um so if someone does go there and there is no parking then they're kind of you know in trouble so I just kind of wonder what your opinion was in terms of the the occupancy rate of the park right I I I think that that again the ordinance is somewhat conservative because that was always the number 5 per th000 then it was four per thousand now it's closer to three per thousand so I think that in and of itself um and if it were um you know I think that the parking demands for a liquor store which was as my understanding was the initial tenant that was hopeful to be in there that I I calculated to be at about 12 on a busiest hour so that parking demand isn't quite as high as you might see for the dispensary and and that probably has to do with the newness of the dispensary business particularly in New Jersey yeah thank you you're welcome any others did you look at the handicap situation FY I didn't I think that was part of the original approval so I think there there must be two or three spaces out there but I don't I don't know I didn't look at that any others two questions so you talked about the um the do permit being um modified the restaurant's not a hight trffic generator or I should ask it in the form of a question is the restaurant considered a high trffic generator by do no um and and what happened was um the original permit was issued for specialty retail which um is defined as um lower generating uses Dot and the access code specifies the different uses that are excluded from the specialty retail and when we went back and got the generic shopping center approval that in that incorporates um anything except for like a morning generator if if you were to throw a Duncan or a Starbucks in there that we would have to look at the numbers but otherwise this type of restaurant is completely permitted by do and the access code as the shopping center classification okay well I guess my question is the original approval where we supposed to be specialty retail would the restaurant as proposed fall under that category you know the the fine dining category might because it's a lower generator than say you know um fast food or pizza or Deli um and and I and in fact I think Delhi is one of the exclusions in specialty retail so um I don't know if fine dining would be excluded but I know that now that we've rep permitted any restaurant is allowed okay so I mean you hear before this board for this restaurant so I think that point becomes moot as far as this restaurant but the original approval before the board there was testimony about this whole issue and and about how the site was specifically limited to Specialty retail so the board the planning board's approval of the site planning approval for this site piggybacks on that um again again the the the testimony that was provided by that traffic engineer that that site was only this site was only going to be specialty retail so even though you may have gotten the okay from the do you may have an issue with zoning because our approval is still for specialty retail okay I that I wasn't aware of um I I got involved with the liquor store in particular trying to get a letter of no interest from DRT stating that the approval granted by do covered liquor store because that's not specified in the access code and do came back and said if you want a liquor store in there you need to rep permit this as a shopping center the testimony was essentially kind of you know this parking lot works it's specialty retail it's not going to be a Dunkin Donuts it's not going to be this we're already limited by our do approval so everything's going to be okay board you can approve the site plan so that's why the resolution of the planning board approval again so if you're you might want to let your client know that if they do get some other higher traffic whatever falls under that new category they may still need to go back to the planning board to amend their approval understood um and just with respect to you did mention the parking the parking Supply um is based on the ordinance requirement for the building area the 1 per 200 so um I understand the dot aspect of it but the parking was based on the the ordinance requirement okay and then one question so You' mentioned the the the difference in um you know the retail and particularly the Cannabis is going to have a higher Peak during the day this is fine dining so it' be more likely during the evening that's during the weekday what about on the weekend oh yeah on the weekend I I looked at those numbers too uh cannabis dispensary is peing wait I think I wrote it down here um uh 12 to 2 on Saturday uh whereas the um um fine dining is 7 to 10 on Saturday and that's like 90 to 100% of each of the uses so they are offset you're welcome any others he what's next we have no further Witnesses okay we'll open to the public if there's anyone who wants to make a comment or ask a question Now's the Time to do it like there are no take so we'll close and I'll I'll just you know I I think this was a very thorough uh presentation and questioning by by the board and its professionals um obviously we're here for uh the proposed expansion of the restaurant by 50 occupants and we're seeking a parking variance the only relief we're seeking is for those that variance of eight parking spaces you heard the testimony of our traffic engineer indicating that this will work uh with the other uses on the site you heard the testimony of The Operators of the restaurant um how they're going to operate the restaurant that's going to be a high-end Indian restaurant uh why they want the this space in there uh you know for for privacy for for their patrons and then also you heard the testimony about their intention not to use this as a bankwood facility not to have that valet parking scheme not to have patrons walking across multiple lots to get to their site um it's just going to be a a typical Indian restaurant or not typical it's going to be high-end very spectacular Indian restaurant that everybody should uh enjoy when it when it is open and operating and um that that concludes the presentation thank you okay any board discussion I'm all discussed out all right anyone want to make a motion I move that we Grant uh Andis Caterers um [Music] a this is the part uh an application to increase the occupancy of their restaurant from 50 people to 104 people and Grant them the Vari to operate with less than with seven parking spaces less than are required uh by the ordinance eight eight that are required by the ordinance can I ask you know the applicant has made has testified to certain things I mean they've said they're not a regular restaurant that may for example have a high amount of lunchtime traffic um they're a high-end restaurant do you want to specify ify that um do you want to um have some language in there that basically says that addresses the fact that is again addressing their own testimony to you this is a restaurant and not a banquet facility and I know we talked a you rich had some questions about that um so do you want to put some things in the resolution that addresses what how this is going to be a restaurant and not a banquet facility um I feel comfortable with the with the resolution I've proposed but I would be happy to accept any amendments offered by my fellow board members I think we should add um that the use is not uh for a banquet since that the original application said so so we should say that um and you mentioned about the occupancy I think that's important because that's the key yeah yes um and the the fact that it's a high-end restaurant I think that impacts the uh the parking or the uh what the rates are um so I think that's important to to mention that description of the uh use of that space I I think it's also important that we that now that I think about it that we indicate that the not only is the total uh occupancy limited to 104 but the the second room of the restaurant is limited to 50 seats because that's where we want to do the counting and I'm sorry that we did this in a kind of a peace Mill way but uh everybody understand where then we're looking for a second yeah I'll second it no further discussion board Cheryl beia yes Richard pranic yes Alan Rich no I don't feel they they have proven their case so Gary Rosenthal I'll void yes with the understanding that they've heard all of our conditions about the 104 about the highend and as long as that is understood I will vote Yes Robert Shephard yes vasim veras yes good luck with the restaurant chairman Thomas yes thank you very much okay thank you good luck next is Muslim Foundation zba 2317 preliminary f final site plan with D1 use variants in which the applicant seeks to make certain modifications to the area recently added to the site plan at 45 at 47 Cedar Grove Lane Somerset block 46809 Lot 37.0 2 in the R40 Zone con carried from November 2nd with no further notification good evening chairman and board members my name is John DeLuca you're stuck with uh I'm here tonight again representing Muslim Foundation Incorporated uh we are here uh seeking a preliminary and final site plan approval with a a it's actually a D3 variants we are seeking um this property uh was uh allowed to operate under a conditional use in the in the zone and I'm sorry anyway it it's a it's allowed to operate I believe it's in the r10 zone if I'm not mistaken R40 my apologies it's in the R40 Zone and uh it is it is under a um a conditional use and uh we are seeking to deviate from some of those conditions and for that reason uh that's why this is a a D3 variance we are seeking uh essentially The Proposal is to clear out some newly acquired space uh on a lot that's been Consolidated with our lot for recreational purposes and the conditions that we're seeking to deviate from are some buffering requirements and uh my one witness my engineer and planner Mr William chapen will uh describe the exact proposal and why we feel those deviations are appropriate and necessary for this Recreation Area well let me uh just give him a uh moment to set up and uh I actually have an exhibit that I want to pass out to the board uh so we can uh probably help with his testim a little bit I I believe it was the uh a tree removal plant is that exhibit additional to what was already submitted yes so if we could uh mark this exhibit as A1 uh this is a a tree removal plan uh prepared by by uh van CLE engineering there a date on it uh it's dated November 11th 2023 excuse me thanks thank you thank you for some glasses just so just so the board understands the overall context so TRC and the environmental commission had a number of comments on the original submitt and this is basically your response to that and you're providing that going to explain that to the board so well the answer wasn't picked up but the answer was yes that's the intent okay was he sworn no no he was not sworn raise your right hand do you swear or affirm any testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth okay and again just for the record if you can give your name spell your last name in your company William chapen c h a p i n will the board accept Mr chapen in the field of engineering and professional planning did company qualifications anything would you give the board the benefit of your credentials let's see I'm currently work currently employed by Van Clea engineering where I've been for two years I've got about what is it over 40 years of experience in practice of civil engineering company that's all okay and your license is currently active correct Mr japen what can you um tell us about uh our proposal and uh the deviations from that uh conditional use okay the um I guess we originally had submitted plans without any uh buffer and there was um very little information regarding what was on the site and it was obviously some com well the TRC was saying like hey this could be anything in so many words so in the meantime we had sent our field crews out to locate the trees that are out there our landscape architect identify them comp this plan which you can see what you're looking at is the O overall total trees that are on the site the ones in Gray are those that were determined to be either dead or diseased and large those are ash trees that have all been you know basically killed off by the emerald bore can you hear me okay it is working I just okay uh so anyway the plan is showing what is being removed if it's not BL if it's not grayed out that's to be re retained we have a another drawing that follows this one up which shows the retained trees along with what we're proposing for buffer and that buffer is on the I guess it's kind of like the Northeast side there that buffer is going to be supplemented by the uh trees that are there there's a lot of seeder there so we're not so instead of just running down that side with just a you know 20 foot wide buffer or so we're we're breaking it up a little because of the trees that are already there change to that so okay and this is the plan showing the trees that are to remain and the trees that are proposed around the buffer around the two sides on the East got there like 56 um conifers planted from the list of three three three trees out of the list of the five that the township recommends or also the exact number 40 some 46 or so uh shrubs that are going being intermixed around there in some cases it's to fill spaces below you know existing trees where you can see below the lower branches and part of the ideas too is that some of those B shrubs will be provide some food and whatnot for the uh wildlife and let's see I guess the if if you could just uh describe to the board um what buffer is required and how are we deviating from it okay the buffer well ordinance says that you're asking for a buffer either 15 feet or 25 ft wide and with a fence and they do say well remember I think it says that you can take advantage of you know trees that are already there which is what we're doing but in this case we're we're providing a 15ot buffer and the fence that's going in is not a solid fence so that's I guess one of the things we're going to need a variance for and that that is tied into the fence that is being funded by the federal government for safety security okay and what are the surround excuse me can you indicate that on the computer as you speak about it so we can follow easier okay thank you walk talk so so where where would the fence uh be located using your cursor just yeah the fence would be running along I guess the Northwest Northeast Southeast sides of the of this portion of the property and uh on the E on the Southeast side we're pretty much pack filling that with trees Without Really relying that much on the few trees that are there and whereas on the upper side we've got these areas that are fairly dense with uh cedar trees so we're providing a little less offering and that there's already an effective buffer there and um what are the what are the surrounding uses to this site okay on the northwest side over here it's uh it is um all office and that kind of thing on the north northwest that's where the multif family residential is currently under construction and to the southeast over here that is basically the the wooded back portion of the H house that's out on uh Cedar Grove Lane from which this property had been acquired and what uses exist on our site oh we've got the uh the mosque the school and the daycare and do we propose any uh construction on this area that we're looking at no we are not okay what and can you tell us a little bit about what the what use is proposed in this area it's pretty much supposed to be used for um General Recreation nothing formal no Fields laid out no um goal post or any of that kind of thing put in there it'll be pretty much wide open it will be mowed so if they wanted to have you know something like where you go out you have the four bases and you throw them down in an approximate diamond and you decide to play kickball or you know softball or something they might do something like that but that's not a permanent thing you'd pick up the bases and go home uh do you imagine this use impacting any of the surrounding uses no no I mean it's it's pretty much an open most of the time it will be an open field maybe at certain times there'll be children and their you know teachers perhaps out there but for you know but no formal kind of competitions or organized groups of people it just be you know the local school children okay and um would this fall under uh because it is you intended to be used for school children uh is that considered inherently beneficial use I would say so yes thank you um and and just just to clarify so we're seeking preliminary and final site plan approval and the variance um only as to the buffer is that correct yes yes okay okay thank you um I I have no further questions uh for Mr chapen unless the board has any further questions I don't know if they you can answer this but is there any projected use once the site is functioning as you mentioned it's going to of using Amplified sound or playing loud music or outdoor Affairs I I I can that's not the intention I do have a a fact witness if the board would like to hear a little bit more about uh how the how exactly this space will be used I'm interested in the sound because it is next to 60 town [Applause] houses good evening please introduce yourself off for the board yeah my name is Dr afab Hussein and I'm one of the director of Muslim Foundation you swear or affirm any testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth yes so Mr Hussein how how exactly will this space be used and please address uh chairman Thomas's question regarding Amplified sound yes so it will be used by the children to play and also to teach them about gardening you know we're not doing anything else at this time there's no plan to use uh use this area for um like parties or summer camps no no okay and you don't you don't imagine uh that uh children playing and gardening would require maybe a microphone and an amplifier with a big speaker nothing like that no okay thank you Mr chairman it I think it might help if I give the board just a little bit of the context of how again why they're here here um and a little bit of the history so the area that you're seeing there that that square um that was not originally part of their site um they went to the planning board a year or two ago uh for subdivision approval um they basically acquired the rear portion of their neighbor's property um at that point they did not have any plans for the use of that site and the condition of the board's approval was basically well before you do anything to that area you need to get necessary approvals um so that's part of why the reason why they're here um now that site or that now that square area is part of the I'm going to call it a campus of the place of worship and the school the conditional use standards um that apply to those uses require these buffers that we're talking about so the use as has been testified is that it's going to be essentially informal play formal play area that does technically need this either 15 or 20 foot wide buffer with Evergreens and fencing it has to go and it's it's where to where the site AB buts Residential Properties so um I'm assuming nor North is let's assume North is plan left uh so on the southernly side they have the buffer on the East they have I guess a combination of proposed trees and existing trees to remain plan North they're not proposing a buffer but that joins the bi zone so there's no buffer required per the ordinance they're required along those two property lines so that's why they're before you for an you know site plan approval because they are modifying the site to the degree that they're changing this area um to make it into informal play and they don't technically fully comply with the uh conditional use standards for the buffering and you know part of that when they when an applicant is applying for um a a um a conditional use variance they basically need to prove to you that the that the what they're proposing is is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and I would think I would suggest that part of that is what's the intended use of that space you know if if it was going to be a building with a parking lot and other activity you may look at as far as the need for buffering to one level versus an area that's going to be for informal play um so anyway I I think hopefully that helped give a little bit of context to why they're here um I'm a little now just a few questions I'm a little unclear of where the fence is proposed and also what we we've heard it's not solid what is it and how tall is it so what what is is it around the entirety of that area yes it's in around the three sides of this portion and then the rest of the property where out on the front side there's going to be a couple Gates Set you know significantly back from the the road but and a fence going across there so that it will be you know kind of a compound it'll so the whole the whole site is going to be enclosed and that's for security purposes that's my yes okay and what is the so if it's the ordinance requires a solid fence you're this is not going to be a solid fence what is it going to be supposed to be an iron fence you know with 4 inch spacing for the vertical kind of thing and how tall is it six feet six okay and then you have this plan that's projected what was handed out is actually slightly different um so I guess my question is I I can see on this that usual way that plans are drawn the darker um trees if you will those circles Les and you know the circles are probably deciduous trees and the things that look like stars are probably evergreen trees um and the thing the the the ones that are darker are proposed the ones that are lighter presumably are are are existing so I guess I ask for you to confirm that since it's your plan you've got it right okay and then to the degree that you this plan is showing existing trees is this showing all the trees that exist or all the and or all the trees that are going to stay the trees that exist that are going to stay the other plan shows all the trees that exist okay so when you look at this I do see the trees that are grayed out so that they're not on here because they're proposed to be removed because they're dead or dying correct okay thank you a question um just full of questions tonight I'm sorry um is there any proposed grading on the site no are you there's no ground there's no you know removal of you know grass or Surface condition they're talking about putting seeding the the property but they will not be clearing it they will not be you know raking it off or you know no dirt exposure so you there's no storm water management here because you're not changing the ground cover that is correct okay thank you Mr chairman I think it may help just to um uh well I'm going to do is I'm going to go through so the TRC reviewed the prior plans so the TRC didn't have a did not review this so what I'm going to suggest is I'm going to go through the TRC report I think some of a lot of these comments have now been addressed at least verbally in their testimony but just to make sure kind of everything gets covered I'm going to kind of as quickly as possible go through the TRC report and at least I'll offer you my opinion whether the applicant has addressed them or not so going out to page three where really the bulk of the comments start that first bullet um again I think you've answered it you know at that point we didn't know what the applicant's intentions for that area was um the applicant has now um provided that clarification they've indicated there's no formal Playing Fields Etc um second bullet um the applicant has clarified the originally basically they were proposing to remove all of the trees on the site now they're essentially going to keep the majority except those that are dead or dying as indicated on these plans the third bullet uh talks about buffering again the original plan didn't propose any buffering um now actually this leads to a question then so since again since we didn't get a chance to review this the ordinance talks about the size of I think it says six to8 feet Evergreens I guess my question is the ordinance require a certain size these comply with the ordinance is that correct or or if not you will yeah if not they will comply to my knowledge that they they do comply but I bottom line we haven't heard anything saying that you're asking for relief from that that that's correct okay um the last bullet um we mentioned that a buffers required along the southernly property line and again you can see through the testimony and on that plan they're proposing um the double double staggered row uh of of of trees um okay uh so this hasn't been addressed the on the original plan there was another um there's another area where you had um area lights um can you address that because part of it part of the question was from the TRC was why are you proposing area lights um essentially what look like kind of parking lot lights 15 foot high lights why are you proposing that on kind of a grass area and there was also some um ordinances you can have any um lighting go over the property line and because the light poles are basically on the property line you exceed the ordinance um so can you address that um my understanding is that it's a matter of safety what happens is it's been mentioned that especially this time of year today we notice that it gets dark really early so they have students that will be leaving the building in the dark that's a grass area that we're talking about and the idea is that it's going to remain grass it will not be parking it will not be overflow but it is to have supposed to be well lit to keep an eye on the children so effectively a safety issue and so just to point the board um so we know so you know the area that we're talking about on page six of the TRC report is the original plan so you'll see in the lower leftand corner um of the site there it says proposed pole mount lighting fixture uh one two three four right in here five or it looks like there's maybe five or six lights yeah yeah six lights right there's one that's currently a grass area is that correct yeah yes you know there's that by by the school there's a parking lot there and then between that in the in that corner there's a plate okay okay so I'm just informed that there's actually a playground there so okay is that that is that that rectangle behind the building I think this is above and beyond that yeah okay it is it is above and beyond the one at the end of the building I'm not sure I'm not sure I'm sorry I'm not sure what above and beyond means what what does that mean in addition to so the lighting is addition so it lights more of an area than just a playground is that what you're saying I'm sorry I'm not I just don't understand the answer well how about um what was the question again the question is you know again on that on that um on that original site plan and that lower leftand corner the site plan is proposing six essentially again I'm calling them parking lights cuz when you see a light attached to a on a 15t high pole um and it's just it's unusual to have lights like that in an area that's not a parking lot and and because of their location essentially on the property line it's it's actually a variance so so then the question is why you proposing it so I I think that Mr Hussein might be able to specify exactly where that playground uh exists um Mr Hussein you're you're right now you're looking at page six of uh the TRC report that Mr Healey directed the board to look at um uh is it correct that that the playground is in is located somewhere here be so so beyond beyond the parking lot Ju Just to the the the northwest of of the parking lot it's not it's not on there it's it's yeah I'm so so if it if you're looking at if you're looking at page six of the TRC report the the the part the playground is located in the bottom left corner of that map okay okay then can somebody then and perhaps you can reference um aerial photographs on page five and six of the TRC report um again the the foot candles which is the level of lighting the plan shows 1.7 foot candles beyond the property line where the ordinance says you can't have more than zero can you provide some justification to the board and again I'm kind of you may want to reference the aerial photographs on page five and six because I've got on the the screen there that's showing the light lit area and I'm noticing there's one light in the corner and that's at an angle to everything else and that's causing the uh light spillage onto two adjacent properties so I'm thinking perhaps if that one was removed um we may be most of the way towards eliminating any problem with spillage okay I mean again Mr Duca I would suggest you look at the aerial photograph on page five and six and the the forested nature of the adjoining properties you might want to yeah so impacts to those adjoining properties what are the uses on those properties and and what are the conditions you're going to be lighting up okay so one of the the one side is the uh light and dust or you call them office spaces and on the other side it's the back end of looks like a piece of property that is combination perhaps residential and business and it's a wooded end of the property so there's no I mean that looks like it's a ve that's a very deep property yeah with actually I think is that I think it's a residential it's not a place of worship but nonetheless the the developed portion of the property is in the first front portion with the back being unused and forested correct would you Aline that therefore there's really no impact to that neighborhood because it's just that works for me yes lighting is spilling over into a forested portion of the rear right corner of their property yeah that seems to be that's the way I would see it yes okay so um I don't know if the board has any questions beyond that on that issue are there houseside shields on these fixtures I believe they're supposed to be we'll have to i' have to check if we could just make that a condition and then you know toor point if there's a little bit of be a reasonable thing yep you do have buffer on your property on that side and I would assume that would kind of eliminate the actual trespass yes and I'm almost done C I think you've addressed because you've indicated that that area is not going to be um that rear area is not going to be for overflow parking so I think you've addressed c um I think the rest of these comments I would suggest if you haven't had the chance yet I I would think your response would be that you'll address these are mostly technical issues um that you'll have to address on the site plan um to to satisfaction of the TRC believe so I guess there was something about the speed hump but that's something it sounds like we could go in with an application for that yeah that that's something that they can handle uh your client can handle by administrative site plan approval with staff and then again the rest of this rest of the comments I think are I don't know if they're necessarily big picture issues that the Board needs to discuss Mr DeLuca um Mark I have a question the the playground area it's not built where it was proposed um does that require any relief or I mean while we're here if it does I I honestly don't have the answer for that because I I I've heard i't seen it with my own eyes um you know I I would think it may not because usually the that rear property line is to an industrial Zone as opposed to a residential zone so it probably for example doesn't violate a buffer requirement yeah I was just looking on Google Earth and it's looks like it's almost equidistance to the residential property line and that industrial property line let me look on Google Earth myself and I'll get back to you that unlabeled right guess Mr duuc is the answer for the rest of the comments that you'd comply or do you or is there any any one of any issues you want to bring to the board's attention Okay um so I guess the only thing I want to clarify is comment number five regarding the Mi this block shall be minimum uh 4 in by 3 in what can you say about that that's a that's a straight piece of CAD for Somerset County for their signature block okay and then um the unlabeled uh rectangle behind the building is that where a playground was previously proposed and was actually constructed uh in this corner more closer to the uh the I guess what the edge of the property line right yeah okay um and other otherwise otherwise yes I I believe we can testify that that we will comply okay and then there's and then lastly there is a report from the environmental commission it looks like again some of these comments um were in the TRC report uh again they were reviewing the original submitt um so they're asking for more information on the buffering to mitigate the uh you what the applicant is proposing again they've provided the the exhibit and the testimony tonight um they're asking for the tree removal and replacement plan which is chapter 222 which is an ordinance requirement which you'll have to do per the ordinance you know as a followup to if the board approves it um shade trees should be planted along the periphery of the proposed plan area so and the board can decide whether you feel the buffering is sufficient but at least they have addressed that issue um or I should say they've made a proposal to address that um recommend the use of native and pollinator plants that provide storm water management if you have some of those plant do address that yes uh they say a sord inversion sediment control plan should be submitted but you said there's no grading right and the most we would do is get a uh letter from the district just saying you know letter of non applicability okay the board want and then they say LED lighting should be used where feasible for all outdoor lighting is is the proposed lighting LED yes okay those are the reports that have been provided to the board any other Witnesses no other Witnesses or questions just a technical point was the last exhibit um illustrating where the buffer trees were was that submitted cuz I don't think I saw it in the packet we saw the ones where the propos removal was just the trees being removed correct but what's shown or what was shown up on the board was your actual uh plan for the location of the replacement yeah circulated that's we let's see that was submitted I don't know like a week or two ago the board that and that's the plan that shows what is being proposed for the buffer what was handed out this to today was the one showing the existing what what I handed out Was the removal plan and this buffer uh landscape plan was submitted that's the removal with the mark on both as exhibits we could mark this as A2 if it's not in the board's possession just to just to be safe let's do that yeah so this this is the uh buffer landscape uh plan and it's dated November 11th 2023 so again I'll a little bit of background the applicant did submit these plans but they did not submit them in time for environmental commission and staff to do new reports so we weren't going to give them to the board in advance because then you would have plans and you'd have comments on another set of plans so the understanding was that they were going to provide these as exhibits at the hearing so yeah I guess they should be marked as exhibits thank you that was my only Point okay anything else open to to speak so we'll close anything you want to add uh I think there's nothing I want to add other than just to highlight that this the purpose of this area is uh for children's Recreation and really to educate them in in gardening uh as part of uh the school operations thank you and it will only be used by the school right correct okay anything from any uh discussion from the board or motion chairman I'm sorry I'm doing a lot of speaking tonight but I do think I have to clarify now that we've heard testimony on what the variances are so you know what the motion would be um because again originally what was submitted they had no bu buffering now they are proposing buffering um I think let me read the language of actually rich you know just answer your question about let me get to there was that question about the playground let me see if I can get to that oh yeah so it is yeah I do see it it's basically it kind of in that lower leftand corner um it looks like it's closer to the um there is you may have it on your phone but when you look you can see that there is that double staggered row of of Evergreens um I don't know what this isn't telling me what the date is but um I guess a question for either I'm not sure the engineer or the or the applicant is that reflective of existing conditions does that double row of Evergreens go all the way to the back of that property yes it does okay so again so I think the answer to Richard's question is I don't think that that playground is is creating any issues because but was buffering that was on the approved site plan that was required and they've maintained that buffer there's no like required setbacks or anything for that no no the only thing I would say I wouldn't say there's there's I would I don't think there's any setback for the playground but the buffering can't have anything in it except for buffering so that's why when I see that that existing buffer that was required is still in place they're not if they had taken out that buffer and put the put the playground in the buffer then I would say they would need they would need a D3 conditional use variants because they're violating the buffer requirement but but now that I've seen the Google Earth I think they're fine right we can mark that as A3 so um I think I think that as far as the um the approvals again it is uh site plan approval um I think they do they do need the um um the D3 for uh they don't need it for the Overflow parking because again we've we've they've established that that area is not being used for overflow parking I think they do need it for the lighting um going over the you know extending over the property line but they've but we've discussed the fact that it's a forested area and they are going to put if it's not already on there they're going to put the um the houseside shields to min minimize that as much as possible uh I do think they probably still technically I haven't had a chance to review this in detail um I I think that the well they certainly need the variance sorry we're doing this on the Fly the buffer that's along this side what's the width of that that's 15 feet okay so what the ordance requires then is if it's 15 feet it has to be double staggered row and a fence but it has to be a solid fence so to the degree that's um not a solid fence I think um you still technically need the variant and on the on the the top side you know the bruis board has seen the ordinance technically requires that double staggered row with the solid fence but when there where when there is existing trees that can remain this board has commonly um you know I guess essentially not required the applicant to take down all the existing trees just to put in new trees um so you know I think that the so I think you know I think the real question there is if the board is satisfied that the combination of the fence even though it's not solid there's nonetheless a fence proposed the proposed trees um that they've added with the existing Landscaping do you feel that's um sufficient to screen the residential use which is the townhouse development to the um to the top of the plan I think make a condition that you know prior to the issuance of a CO or whatever finalizing document that someone from the township walk and verify the the buffer sure absolutely okay everyone clear now uh we will motion okay I'll attempt this I'll make a motion for uh Muslim Foundation uh zba 2317 for a final site plan with a d three so I think perhaps the motion May be it'd be preliminary final site plan with the conditional use variance conditional use variances as discussed subject to the plans presented on the exhibits before the board I think that I think that's essentially what is being proposed to you I don't recall there being any other conditions that have been verbalized other than what's explaining those a lot of times there's conditions like applicant agree to this these plans kind of speak to um what their proposal is so I think again preliminary and final site plan for the conditional use variances as discussed subject to compliance with the TRC report and revising the site plans to be consistent with these exhibits can I say what he said okay so uh and just just to be a little bit more specific those variances are pursuant to uh section 112 -37 K one and three of your uh ordinances fencing and want Adventure a second well well let's finish the first um it seems to me that the one thing that we talked about that wasn't in the details of the TRC report was the idea that we don't want them using amplification or um amplification outside Voice or music amplification out that's and then we can add that I'll second okay works for me Char witha yes Richard Panic yes Alan Rich yes Gary Rosen yes Robert Shepard yes Bim veros yes chairman Thomas yes okay we'll have entertain a motion to adjourn and move that we adjourn I second thank you I Clos everybody have a happy holiday