31 and act of this meeting has been provided by notice S as for press the two of her times and posted here in the municipal lobby as well as the municipal website roll call please mayor Hortman here Greg Fitzgerald absent Thomas Welsh absent Christina bonus here D Mano here Lou Deo absent um Barbara boas here Megan Messi here wison B Hernandez here frerick Stone here Brian here great we're going to hold the administrative matters until the end of the night unless anyone's here for the resolution for 176 reper side is anyone here for that we'll help cover all of that um after the main part of the hearing public hearing first up we have 54 North Bridge Avenue block two lot 18 that's a continuation on Two River green LLC in the br1 zone for conditional use and site plan approval Mr welcome back thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman uh good evening um uh for those of you who don't know me I'm Kevin Kennedy and real life the zon board attorney filling in for Mike Lexing tonight uh Mr chairman I have a couple preliminary procedural things to do if that's okay with you to Mark into the record so this is a continuation of a hearing uh Mr chair as you announced commenced on April 15 2024 so we have a couple of important procedural issues um first up recall Mr minity is the applicants Council uh secondly we are supposed to have uh a new face in the crowd tonight is Michael conary here okay Michael conver is an attorney who uh sent a letter today saying that he's representing Sylvia Constantino uh Esquire and um as an objector and he's gonna sent a letter of uh representation so uh we'll mark that letter in as o constantino1 and I'm sure he'll be here momentarily uh next up as indic as indicated this is a continuation and I understand that there are some board members who were absent last month that listened to the tapes or reviewed the transcripts or uh reviewed the videos so we're going to Mark uh a certification from Barbara Bois that she reviewed the tapes and transcripts and her video of the April 15 2024 hearing or combination thereof Mark that as B1 and we'll also Mark a certification of board member Brian peregian that he also reviewed the transcripts or tapes Andor uh uh documents refle reflecting that April 15 2024 meeting so we'll mark that as B2 and just Mr chairman a short shout out to Barbara and Brian for for listening to those tapes to review the transcripts it's not always the easiest thing to do and sometimes it's not the most fun thing to do but it is very important particularly with continued hearings and um I think uh when I was speaking with with Barbara and Brian they both sort of said that all those times that we say speak into the microphone that is very important because sometimes it's hard to hear people sometimes people are two people are talking at once so um all the time where Shauna or you or lenie say speaking to the mic it's uh with good reason to get a giant Le up board yes fact that I just press a button and it says speak into the microphone that would make me very happy and and and it is important because if there is ever litigation the J will rely on what the transcripts say and inevitably whoever is you know wants to win or wants to lose thinks that the most important thing was said when two people were talking and it wasn't in the tape so anyway and if there's anyone else on the board tonight who was not here at April 15th uh meeting they can still participate ask questions make comments make statements but if there is a vote tonight they'll not be able to vote um and let's see Shauna or lenie for recordkeeping purposes uh do we have members to vote tonight or okay perfect and so uh what we'll do if it's okay let's swear in Shaun Ebanks professional planner and our director of Community Development and Jacqueline dur our board engineer uh Shauna and Jacqueline do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide I will be the truth the best of knowledge to help you gu I do all right let the record reflect that both Witnesses have been sworn and Mr chairman you'll recall at the last meeting there were some items requested by the board or the public or combination my you know 10-second cheat sheet was we were looking for some HVAC details uh looking for some dryer vents in the rear uh that looked aesthetically compromised uh you had a much better way of putting it we're looking that for to get cleaned up we're looking for some odor elimination details uh there we were looking for some reports that were mentioned in reference to uh pabis uh retail facilities and its impact on crime and impact on housing uh prices or vice versa we're also looking up for looking for some information on backup battery system details and uh reinforced glass details and there is a section that our uh engineer wanted clarification on from the it uh we were looking I think for an updated traffic count some updated traffic memos uh some employee parking details and um some uh we I think we had asked that they review some of their traffic proposals and see if there was other uh uh options and again some other things but that was a gist of it in response we received a number of items that I'd like to just officially Mark into the record as evidence and uh A7 will be the revised tnm Associates review memorandum and that's dated excuse me May 7th 2024 and it has some bold print to highlight some of the new information a18 is a response letter receiv received from Dynamic engineering and that was dated April 4th 2024 a19 is communication from Dynamic engineering to the Red Bank land use board dated April 26 2024 and these are all in our our packets a20 will Mark is a trip and parking generation letter prepared by uh Bowman Consulting Group and that's dated April 2nd 2024 a21 is the appalachin State University Department of Economic work paper it was dated October of 2021 and the title of that report was smoke and fears the effect of marijuana prohibition on crime and for the record the authors were Scott Callahan David Bruner and Chris jagiri uh a22 is going to be another report we received excuse me was the article on econom from economic inquiry and the title of it was the effect of legalizing retail marijuana on housing values and it was evidence from Colorado volume 56 number three July of 2018 and the Articles Chang Chang Walter Meyer and yangling Meyer uh a23 is going to be a report from a Ruckers it was a study called the determin determinance and impact of allowing cannabis businesses um evidence from New Jersey municipalities it was dated September of 2020 2 authors Michael S Hayes and prish Kendell a24 is I think the final report and that is an article in the Journal of drug issues May of 2020 the headline or the title of the article was to spillover effect of recreational marijuana legalization of on crimes evidence from neighboring states of Colorado and Washington State authors gangen wo Francis bang and Yu Lang and then that's the end of the reports a24 there was an odor mitigation uh practice pamplet was undated consisting of two pages and a25 is a supplemental discussion on the uh it parking demands and Supply rates prepared by Bowman Consulting Group dated April 25th 2024 a26 is the carbon filter spec and detail sheet undated consisting of two sheets a27 I think it was a26 Theo The Bowman memo was a25 all right I I I'll work with you and then a26 is the that carbon filter spec sheets a27 is the supplemental traffic evaluation Bowman Consulting Group uh April 26 2024 and last but not least is a28 um armor coat solar guard uh 14 mil clear Safety and Security files spec sheet so one more note Mr chairman uh um I did speak today uh with uh Mr minardi and I just wanted just about the process it was before we knew Mr conver was uh going to be uh entering an appearance um but I just wanted to make sure that my understanding and Mr minardi had a similar understanding that if this board ultimately approved the application the applicant would still need a license from the bur of Red Bank Sean is that correct okay and and further just for the record I understand that the buau has a limit on three such licenses and to my knowledge all three licenses are issued um and I think a fourth uh cannabis uh application was approved and this one would be presumably the fifth if it got approved um but there's I don't know what is the the process with the license uh but tra that that's sort of my understanding is relatively correct okay so anyway Mr chairman the question was well what does that mean and uh I just want to make sure that the applicants attorney uh knew that and um we spoke this morning on that issue and just for the record I think Mr minardi gave me one of the best legal answers I've I've ever received on any question he said hey I'm just a land use guy um I'm just trying to get the approval uh from the planning board and then there's somebody else who will take care of Licensing so I thought okay that's perfect and then just to match that answer uh I'm just the temporary planning board guy and so that if this application is approved again we have a long way to go before we get to that point but if it is approved um obviously uh you're going to have to your your team is going to have to work out with the bur and the bur attorney or the burough special Counsel on that licensing so Shauna again I keep going to you that that's sort of an okay process right okay and uh one final note any professional Witnesses or lay Witnesses or public Witnesses who are sworn in at the last meeting they're still under oath and um and if you're a member of the public and I already swear you in last week and I tried to swear you again you can just sort of say no no we already did that so um Mr chairman I'm sorry for that very prolonged introduction but uh couple reasons one this board is a very very detail oriented board and and I think and I say this respectfully you run the most efficient and most proficient and most thorough meeting I've ever seen so I congratulate you so we'd like to do that secondly there's a lot writing on this application we have the applicants team they've flown in Witnesses from California and it's important to them and they're heavily invested in this obviously Sylvia Constantino is a member of the public uh next door property owner she's heavily invested in this she's retained councel and witnesses as well and there's a number of other members of the public who are heavily invested so sometimes it's hard when you have to be in a situation where someone has to leave after the vote and they might not be happy but at least we want everyone to know that we did everything by the books and and we played by the rules and if there's ever any litigation and hopefully there's not but if there is not only will a court look at the board's substantive determination uh but the board the court would also look at the procedural operations and that would be subject to judicial review and criticism and if things are unorganized or sloppy or choppy or unclear that that doesn't help anybody so against that very long backdrop and with all those moving Parts I just wanted to in one small way help ensure that the procedural elements were all in order and Mr chairman I'm exhausted now so but that's and I guess Mr chairman if you want uh we can uh Mike I already asked you but you weren't here yet so this is Mike conver if you wanted to just enter introduce yourself and enter your appearance no problem don't sweat it sit right there that and speak directly into the microphone and just for everyone from the public I just want you to know Mr Kennedy is not paid by the hour he's paid a flat fee for the meeting so don't worry that that went on so long on your tax dollars don't sweat that good evening Mr chairman my name is Michael con it real close Rockstar close yeah my name is Michael conry I'm an attorney in shrewbury I represent the applicant I'm sorry the objector syvia Constantino this evening U I wanted to uh raise one procedural issue now that I've been retained and I understand that there was testimony at the April 15th meeting but irrespective of that I'd like to raise one procedural argument and then have Mr Kennedy and Mr chairman Ru on that notice issue and if you would let me proceed on that point and then we can move forward that's okay you know I got in this case late as you know Miss was here she had considered at certain points of representing herself and then she asked me to to join on board she does have two professionals tonight that will testify I did look at the notice issue and I looked at the recent uh letter from tnm Associates which recognizes on uh the fourth page in the variance section that there is an open space variance that's required this evening and I want to raise an objection in re form of the notice that was published and and sent to the land owners because that notice which I have here does not reference that specific variant and I know that the notice Provisions pursuant to 18.1 raised the issue as to the effectiveness of the content of the notice this applicant submitted the first plan that was reviewed by tnm which was a Mr con we need you into the microphone please I I know you want to stand up but how somay get lava or you can lift it up you know when we get into a new century I get some updated have to remember to keep doing this Mr chair oh oh that's my part-time job so there were two plans submitted for review and on both plans in the zoning table there was reference to the to the SE variants that's required for open space now if you look to the application of the applicant and if you look to the notice itself uh the applicant knew the the of the uh requirement of the variance and incident to the notice of intent to proceed that was submitted by the applicant on page two it references that there is no variance relief being sought so we do have an inconsistency between what the applicant says in The Narrative of intent what the applicant says in the notice and the content of the notice itself this notice which I believe to be form says specifically that seeking minor site plan condition add use approval and any and all other Varian is required to permit the operation of a class 5 retail cannabis establishment now when you read it specifically and I rais this objection tonight for the purpose of where we go from here because whatever the ultimate result of the board is there may be litigation and I'm going to litigate the notice issue if that happens simply because the way I read this is that the variances that are referenced in Mr Minard's notice are Varian is required to operate a class 5 retail establishment the variance we're talking about is what it takes to conform to the zoning in the town so I believe the notice is essentially defective I believe that the applicant in the last hearing should not have had jurisdiction to proceed I understand why it happened because I didn't review this until I was retained and my position is is that the notice is essentially defective and the applicant should Ren notice call out the variances that they know of change the narrative intent that they said no variances are required to the fact that there are variances required for the sole purpose of making the notice effective and I defer to the chairman and Mr Kennedy to discuss anything or have any other questions regard you think what I what I would like to do is is uh turn it over to Mr minardi first and let's see what he has say to say thank you evening and gentlemen microphone they're really close Mr conre is M Constantino your only client tonight she okay um our response is quite simple these uh variants CED on page four of the tnm letter are all preexisting non-conformities on the property the law in New Jersey is clear we're not changing anything on this site the building is staying exactly the same we're adding some striping here and there making a lot of cosmetic improvements equipment changes and things like that but the site itself is not changing these conditions are there therefore they're permitted to to remain without further variance action by this Bo you you have a comment on that I'm not sure that addresses my point my point is strictly related to the variance required under 18.1 we don't need a variant well then why does tnm say in their letter this Thurman says that you need a variant and you said in in the notice that you don't need a variant so I think we need to determine whether these variance would requireed or not I believe that there's variance relief required because based upon the final review letter that we received today that was dated May 7th page four in the boy bance section specifically 1.2 dat it says ordinance 49-1 1469 requires a minimum unoc by open space of 15% whereas 1.23% is provided continuing comment open space area of 4.28 is now proposed your variance required on the application or not Mr chairman may I briefly ask uh Jack Glen just to explain what what the variant situation is if you know if you don't mind and then we can give a legal discussion on that sure sure it's in terms of the open space they're making the open space better than what it is so what is the requirement 15% so our ordinance says that a site in this Zone has to have a minimum of 15% open space and they have what exists now 1.23 1.23 and what are what are they proposing 4.28 so your position is they still need a variance although they're making it better right okay and Mr conver your position is that that was not disclosed in the noice iations contradicts it because the notice of the notice that was provided says there's no variance for and their own plan on the zoning table says that they're in were you gon to say something Mr minority I don't believe the variant is required to improve res nonperforming situation number one number two if it requires a variance then we we'll keep the paving the way it is amend the application to eliminate that variance I don't think the town wants that I don't think the applicant wants that I'm making a notice argum so Mr chairman whetherly noticed on 18.1 I understand what you're saying okay so couple of things so we always hate notice arguments because what the Lang excuse me what the main motto is is from the law is that notice is jurisdictional meaning if the notice is not correct the board does not even have jurisdiction to act so it is always important uh and just for the record the notice requirement is among other things that they advertise in the official newspaper 10 days in advance and they send it to the individuals or entities who or which own properties within 200 feet of the development site so now uh as Mr well Mr conver doesn't necessarily say this but at the beginning of the last meeting we did ask if there was anyone who had any questions or comments or concerns about the notice obviously you weren't here um and your point I think is saying well if it's wrong it's wrong uh but uh so the good thing is well why do we have this notice requirement we have the notice requirements so the world is put on notice when they get that certified mail or they read it on the agenda or on the website or they uh they read it in the newspaper they can say oh I'm really concerned about this I really like it or I have questions about this they can figure out if they want to come down and look at the plans they can figure out if they want to uh come down and support it object it if they want to get their neighbors out and watch so that's the whole purpose of it good reasons for that and um obviously the notice was somewhat functional because we have a big crowd here and we have Sylvia uh Constantino Esquire came to the last meeting and uh comes back today with an attorney and there were other members of the public here um so the good thing is no one was missed uh because that's the worst when we sort of said oh we should have given person X notice and person X didn't come so the good thing is everyone was was here uh that wanted to be here presumably now what I'm going to ask Mr uh minardi just for the record um I'm not saying that Mr conver is right I'm not saying he's wrong uh ultimately we're going to have to determine this but what I would ask you uh is and I say this respectfully is there any part of you which wants to say I don't think he's correct but I just don't want to have this hanging over us and for that out of abundance of caution I'm going to Ren notice you don't have to do that but I'm just asking that so we put that out there and I know that's a tough question look at the history of this application as originally proposed as originally noticed origin filed with the borrow we we proposed remain at 1.23% lot coverage and if it argument is correct which I don't agree as agree but even if he were right our original notice fit the application as we made it at that time in response to comments by veral engineer the site plan as is typical was changed if and I don't agree for a minute that it did but if that necessitated a variance the Casual language in your notice form and that's in every Town's notice that says and any other variances that might be required is made to capture exactly this situation the board wants something that necessitates a variance can go ahead and do it without generating the need to re notice so either way I think we're on Solid Ground and and I I don't disagree with you to a large extent but I'm just saying and again this is a is a tough question to ask but you're the applicant's attorney and this is one we need to direct you is there any school of thought which says even though you don't think he's right you just don't want this carrying over and you would rather Ren notice my concern is if I Ren notice I have to start my application all over again because anybody getting that notice now oh there's a variance involved I wasn't aware of before I want to hear the testimony from the engineer I want to hear the initial testimony from the from the traffic uh expert and we're really not inclined to do that now okay so then uh Mr chairman so then we going to have to make a a legal determination so um what's the notice the notice says by law the notice has to say four things the day the date the time um for the application uh the uh block and lot and the street address if there is one and thirdly it's got to have the nature of the application what is this application about and fourth it's got to say that uh when and where things are on file and can be viewed by the public so um um and one of thing we also have one other uh crazy piece of uh law that we have to deal with under New Jersey Law there is a statutory time frame for with in which applications have to be approved and that's why at the last application when we left we made sure that Mr Minard granted and consented to the extent to extend the time frame within which the board had to act the reason we do that is because after a certain while if the board doesn't act there could be a potential aut atic improval which is the worst thing that we ever deal with so technically if we dismissed today and the the applicant did not further consent to extend the time frame depending on what the time frames are and I'm not familiar with how long it's been in burall we could have an automatic approval so that's something but anyway let's read the notice the notice says please take notice that on uh March 4th 2024 at 7:00 p.m. the Red Bank Municipal Building 90 M Street Redbank New Jersey uh the Red Bank planning board will hold a hearing on the application of the undersigned at which time and place all interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard the premise in question is located in the br1 zoning District block 2 lot 18 and more commonly known as 54 at Northbridge Avenue the applicant is seeking monor site plan and conditional use approval and any all other variance is required to permit the operation of a class five retail cannabis establishment a copy of the set application and related documents are on file with and may be inspected by all interested parties in the department of Planning and Zoning 90 Mama Street third floor Redbank New Jersey during normal business hours so I would respectfully submit uh not unless the board has yeah I'm sorry un unless the board has specific questions or comments I would respectfully submit that the notice is sufficient to get us all here um obviously uh we like we don't like to have these conversations uh and we don't like to have these issues and in a perfect world everything would be issued whether or not uh the situation is it's not changing and it's being improved and or is Mr monardi said I'll eliminate the need for the variance if that's what we want um so I would respectfully suggest that we accept uh Mr con's objection but unless the board has other uh concerns or other feelings I would respectfully note the objection for the record and I do think the notice is sufficient I see both your points I really do I I do think though and this is just my non-legal opinion that anyone in that 200 ft that got that notice knows the property knows that it is near 100% covered already and that the the failure of this to be noted in the notice I don't think that was kept anyone away that's my personal opinion so uh unless someone on the board has any serious thoughts about this or or something they want to say we'll move forward unless someone's got a question so your objection is noted I get it I understand where you're coming from but we're going to move forward thank you if I may the board at the end of the last meeting mic board at the end of the last meeting any us I I counted of a checklist of some 14 items that board wanted us to address returns SE let me tell you I I can dispense with some of those very quickly some of those are going to require testimony for for the applicant to address uh number one and I'll take them in the same order that Mr Kennedy shoted them down Bo requested an inter inter intersectional traffic study that was done and placed onto the record Mr n is back to see can testify to that number two the board requested um hbac details in particular BB unfortunately he's not here tonight remember uh making some sharp comments about the existing HVAC situation and the applicant um will agree to remove all of the ground and wallmounted HVAC equipment install a rooftop unit properly screen protect as required by lating things like that that will be designed by a mechanical engineer to the satisfaction of your Professionals in town um I'm sorry what was that what would be designed the H system got it was a lot of talk about charcoal filters and hea filters you need a mechanical engineer to make that all go thank you together well um number three the board wanted dryer vents indicated that the dryer vents were on sightly at the rear and the roof um we agreed to remove those number four the board requested odor mitigation plan details we put into evidence a copy of the uh narrative on odor mitigation that was submitted into support the state license and Miss deltor is back here receiving to discuss that further number five and number six Mr tarito a member of the public um raised questions with my client like C's representative as to the effect of marijuana on crime rates and property values she responded that Studies have shown that uh peers are are not well founded the board requested copy of those St obious of those studies we have submitted them Mr Kennedy I missed out my numbering I am going to just ask is delator to to lay a foundation for those documents were they uh exhibits a21 to three and four number right I'm sorry uh let's see the uh Appalachian State was a21 I'm sorry and uh the uh economic 22 was 22 and R Ruckers was 23 and drugs was 24 so I'm just going to ask her very briefly know what where she got those and whether or not the copies that were submitted are two copies of the Articles as published she'll give her answers thank you but I would say to the board that in my opinion the questions of of the effect of pabis retail on property values and crime are not something within the perview of board now I understand last time I I didn't object board was gracious enough to Grant latitude to the questioning by the witness I I'm gonna ask the board this evening not to hear evidence on those issues because I don't think they're gerain as to the approval of the site plan and the board rule as it will rule and we'll see how that goes um number five board asked questions about battery backup the security system m delor is prepared to address that this evening number eight the board requested details on on window glass protection she will address that and we have an exhibit with the glass cating that's proposed that is already in the record number nine um borrow engineer Miss durman raised questions as to the 55% Factor has applied to the it Peak hourly rate the chairman requested a memo on that the memo has been provided and Mr an will testify to that this evening the board number 10 count requested traffic counsil both driveways great effort that was done in the short and we have that have testimony on that tonight 11 the U board ask uh for on unemployeed parking we've already agreed at the last meeting that the three parallel spaces at the front of the property will be designated for employee parment only and M delator can further address employee parment in this meeting number 12 the the board asked us to investigate the possibility of reversing the on-site traffic flow to to go from director to Bridge Avenue as opposed to the way the Bal engineer had recommended and we're prepared to address that tonight and we're not proposing any change on number 13 the board asked us to submit exhibits 10 days in advance which we did and 14 the board asked us to look at possibly uh in and out left turn restrictions and Mr an will address that um there's an issue raised by the Carl engineer about a substitution of a plant with a native species um a record the specified Rocky Mountain junipers will be replaced with New Jersey native juniperus virginiana Emerald Sentinel junipers to meet comment 61 of the engineers report and finally Miss Constantino had uh expressed concern about a security camera that was proposed to be mounted at the rear of the property this was to be in the center of the building facing her property a 180 de camera to capture an emotion back there uh security camera you know recorded surveillance system what we've done is we're prepared to do is to agree to relocate that camera instead of having it in the center for facing out put two cameras at either corner of the rear Crossing back and forth across the rear excuse me the rear of the building with as little exposure of her property as is practic that should address her concern on that so that's that is what we're going to put forward this evening and trying to keep it as brief as thank you that I'd like to continue with Mr an's uh teson Mr call your you're under from the last meeting yes and as ridiculous as it sounds the two of you need to think like your little Steve and Bruce sharing a microphone on stage and that's the way this has to work and every time we have to remind you you have to pay a dollar oh so please just get close someday when we're all growing up we'll have real technological advancements to this Century yeah don't turn the Look Away in this building and just for the record state your name again traffic all would you give the board the benefit of the additional study I'm sorry our would you give the board the benefit of the additional your dollar Mr chair that you've conducted since the last meeting please sure um at the request of the board and uh some of the residents we conducted additional traffic analysis that included uh traffic counts at the 16 driveways the two driveways one on Beach Avenue and the other one on Rector did counts at the5 brid Avenue intersection B counts at West front and Rector place was the traffic counts at brid Avenue and uh and West front so that quadrant triangular space problem so a total of five intersections were counted also analyze to find out what the existing level of service no build conditions will be and also what the build condition will be with the proposed cannabis dispensary so what we found out uh just to to be brief overall um contrary to what was said here there was traffic that the existing long generate current generates considerable number uh in the reportal report that I sent you will see that the 16 now has now generate 24 trips in the morning 36 in the p.m the afternoon when you say the morning what hours are you covering in that counted from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. 7 to 9 and evening evening from 4: to 6 thank you then on Saturday we did 11:00 a.m. to 2: p.m. which is your traditional midday peek on on Saturdays uh on Saturdays the Lund M currently generates 49 trips I'm sorry how many 49 49 now if you compare it to what the CH generation will provided in the initial report propos dis generate 23 in the am so that's one three less what the currently the the proposed dispense will generate 42 trips which is six trips more than the current L generate and in the on the Saturday midday to generate 64 which is about 15 Tri more than what the current L rates so then we we did the analyses using the total trips that are assigned to generate we didn't take credit for the existing LR we assume that the LR has no trth at all so giving doing the analysis based on the worst scenario so we didn't take traded for that um and the results of the analysis today uh also we didn't take credit for pass by trips which we know that uh dispens Ries retail facilities like this will typically uh uh generate fast by trips that's pass by trips I think I testified to that before these are trips that are not primary some some a trip that is not primary destination is not the the dispensary but it's on it's going to somewhere else but then on its way it branches into the dispensary and goes back part so we didn't take uh credit for that we did not take credit for the UR nature of the area that a lot of the trips are going to be some of the tri are going to be pedestrian people are going to be walking to that place we did not take credit for that so uh the analysis we did shows that at the R 35 and excuse me5 Andor intersection the overall intersection will experience an increase of 0.3 seconds in the morning the afternoon 0.8 seconds 0.9 seconds overall we do note that uh the only the the eastbound the the reor place eastbound approach uh which will be the approach going towards the Bri going going towards intersection itself the there'll be a 48 seconds increase for just that approach but overall intersection theay will increased by 0.3 in the a 0.8 in the p.m 0.9 Saturday midday if you go to the recor place uh Rector PL and place on West Front will actually have a reduction in the over and that is because uh when the when the uh laund M goes away those STS that are coming in from there will be moved from those intersections so we actually have a reduction uh in the delays those intersections what what what will go away what will go away when the closes all the traffic that are currently coming to the LA they no longer be going there but they'll be replaced by the the dispensary traffic when it opens right but you remember our our configuration has an entrance from bridge so traffic is not coming in from Rec place so that removes traffic from Rector towards bridge to enter the site so it makes that intersection work better than the existing okay that's what the results show something very marginal changes at the intersection of West Front also looked at the driveways the existing driveways now from to what uh the proposed would be interesting finding was that and that goes to um um the neut about reversing the flow of traffic the existing driveway at recor place will actually have more delay now than the proposed with the proposed we're going to have a reduction in the delay of the left T and right T out of uh the S the we going to have a reduction of about 3.6 seconds PM have a ruction about 3.8 seconds and start about 1.8 again that's because we're eliminating some of the conflict movement that exist there now don't have a full full movement SE anymore only have one way from left right that's right what are the current delays now at Rector left and right morning afternoon and Saturdays the morning you have 16.6 I'm sorry what was that number 16.6 16.6 seconds yes with in the Bild condition with the proposed dispensary it's going to drop to 13 13 13.0 seconds 15.0 133 13 thank you the PM is currently 18.1 no condition I'm sorry 18.1 8 18 18 18.1 thank you and that's going to drop to 14 1.3 Saturday it's no 15.8 that's going to drop to 14 you see there a reduction all across the big hours and which intersection was that again this is reor place okay on the driveway Mr pull that mic over please I asked him what intersection that was those times and can you go over um Bridge Avenue I assuming you're going to get some increases there because of the the closure of the other driveway for entrances or if not let me know there are some increases but they marinal um the will have major increases are in the not bound left arms West Front are you talking about the driveway itself or I'm talking about the driveway um coming in coming into the property right you're coming in on Bridge Avenue what what are the change did you make those counts yes we did okay I'd like to know what those changes are we not bound left arms uh into the side right now PR pretty pretty good uh 0.3 seconds uh with de s side it's going to go up to 0.4 if the project goes forward yes 0.4 yeah with our proposed uh configuration get an increase of 0.1 uh the afternoon it's currently at 0.2 it's going to go up to 0.3 the Saturday midday it's 0.2 it's going to go up to 0.7 0.5 these are very minimal I'm sorry was that 0.7 or 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 from 0.2 to 0.5 that's seven and then my last question you and you might cover this what are the the levels of service now at those two intersections uh the dri both if you have it yeah just if if you're going to cover it further and testimony wait till then director pleas director play driveway is currently level C 16.6 seconds with the proposed dispensary is going to be service B which is an improvement I'm sorry level B B scenario in the PM it's going to be level of service C the no big condition to 18.1 seconds the proposed it's going to be a level of service speed 14.3 seconds uh sat s level of service C 15.8 seconds we propos the level of service Fe again overall there Improvement level of service and those D thank you for brid Avenue level of service Remains the Same level of service a no in the future it's going to be the same throughout no changes specify to the intersections intersection of Riverside and Rector place already talked about increases in the overall delay in the am there will be 0.3 in the PM there going to be a 0.8 and Saturday it's going to be a 0.9 increase you are all inter reor Place Bridge avenue5 Place West Front the am there have no change in delay overall intersection we have no change uh the PM there going to be a reduction of 1.4 seconds and Saturday midday it's going to be a reduction of 0.2 these are all very minimal because of the the amount of traffic that the site is generating is very many so the changes are very very insignificant this is what we have testified to before that's what the analysis is coming the section of bridge and West Front have 0.1 seconds increase in am 1 second 0.2 seconds inre they very very due to the amount of traffic s is here so that covers everything with regards to the traffic counts the volumes level of service and the delays um also analysis also showed what the Q length are and based on these numbers of increasing delays the fs are very very significant the highest T was on the place not bound and it's just a work additional 20 22 fet typically Q length is about depends on what guidel that's what the analysis shows um with regards to circulation the results of the Capacity Analysis that I just discussed confirm that the recor place driveway will operate a level of service B against the level of service C that is currently existing so that uh is acceptable that confirms that the culation will be efficient talked about side distances there are so let me talk about the parking uh some of my testimony my address comments that got from the last based on the townships based on the borrows requirements n spaces are required this side the borrow does not specify how many spaces are dedicated to employes just says the S to provide this amount of spaces so based on that is nine spaces doesn't say how many for is um we also looked at the it just to be think there has been um some level of interpretation with regards to the it rat and the IT guidelines if you in my memo that I sent uh the it is only a guideline it's not a standard most municipalities adopt it guidelines to develop their home rates I believe the borrow has considered the nature of Red Bank uh Red Bank cannot be categorized as your typical Subban it has a flare of cityan nature that it has so uh those conditions are also part of the reasons municipalities develop their own grads no no no municipality adopt the it rat as standing because every condition different so the borrows requirement have complied with requires nine spaces we are providing 11 spaces but just to uh look at what the it paring demand gives uh it has several rates that you can use the average rate we asked to consider what the rate will be the average rate gives a packing demand of 12 spaces with perent it gives 26 spaces with the it fed if you take equation he also gives you 14 spaces said fed curve cve fed curve 14% 14 so there are three numbers here uh the average rate gives you 12 Cent gives you 26 the F gives you 14 I'm sorry what was the 14 14 spaces for and what was that what standard was that equation fitted curve thank you now that's 14 box VAR is that per hour yes so this these three numbers um which one is the right one you know there's no right there's no wrong it's just a guideline so it also provides additional data for this land use it's not typical for every land use if you look at the office land use or um retail land use the 8% out they don't give you additional data with regards to occupancy so there is a reason why it included that for this data for this land use that the stud sign they studied 11 sites to develop this rates some of them in Colorado a few in New Jersey they noted in their report or in their study that the big occupancy that they observe was 55% so that tells us that those sites were overed if the occupancy was only 55% so in interpreting this we have to or at least it makes sense to consider what the pi occupancy is with regards to the site if you apply to this numbers you will find that 12 spaces 14 spaces uh will align more closely what they borrow are determined as their rate which is nine spaces for a dispensary of this sit that is uh all in the report that I sent uh you will hear testimony later on that three of the parallel spaces were dedicating to employees so uh that will give you a net of eight spaces for customers um also project that the transaction time at the the dispens range from 5 to 10 minutes matter of fact should be less that that's equivalent of uh 6 to 12 times Tel so the remaining eight customer parking spaces uh can service 48 between 48 and 96 d that is 8 * 6 and 8 * 12 the number of turn number of times they can turn over spaces a p one case scenario is on Saturday and that's only 32 Vehicles so the S can service between 48 the eight spaces can service between 48 and 96 spaces 96 vehicles in an hour we generating only 32 which ism is a r less I should also note that uh the typical take hour for not align with power of 4 to six typical B hour in the PM for the spens are usually between 1 and two meet and the traffic volumes most people are work there's enough paring also took the initiative in need same does is they study locations similar locations that's how they come up with their rates that's how they come up with the observations so I took the initiative to the nearby uh dispensary to bread um on S side they only have four parking spaces and Ive that intermittently I was going between that they have an they have an off s location the parking lot I just sent to almost a long Mor place behind some restaurant off browser brow brow Street they have 11 spaces there outsite marked with their sign so I was going between there onsite offside the big hour 43 5:30 p.m. THS on the Thursday the the onsite had one car P there you remain there [Music] until couple of times the car was no longer there so for the considerable length of time was vacant the offsite location had about four or five spaces vacant they remain like that throughout my observation I also noticed that people several couple of well several maybe four five times uh customers would park the street running and I watch it was less than 3 minutes uh couple of customers who were walk who walked to the site uh so again this site is very similar and identical to this uh there was a former ding service there the real estate information I got say the building was in 2 foot building square foot less than the proposed site that we discussing today so they're very identical in size uh they're identical in location very close to each other uh the condition identical this side has a total ofes that I could see it's only four spaces because the 11 spaces the back there is no signing to direct anybody to that place so you have to park to get into the side into the building for you to be directed that place so that defeats the part the purpose of working so practically and I didn't see any overflow I didn't see any conflict I didn't see uh cars looking for places to par was seamless again first to confirm that that's more than enough market for a dispensary of this size as you will hear Alex will testify also that this is a very controlled uh operation that people can be uh told when to come and pick up and control traffic and control the number of people that have come to the site at any time so tring overflow is not anticipated we don't expect that to happen and believe that there's enough parking for the number of customers expected s thank you did you have an opportunity microphone please sorry did you have an opportunity Mr to study the possibility of left turn restrictions at the Ingress and egress l yes uh left left ons out of uh Rector if you restrict left on at of Rector then you going to have exiting traffic every customer everybody who is coming from the south east and west to this side we have to go on Rector May that acute right on on bridge to find their way back that's an unsafe situation that's going to add more traffic to Rector Place Rector and Bridge intersection and I would think that operation it's not uh it's not better than what what we're proposing also look like having the entrance from Rector as against coming in from bridge again similar thing everybody coming from Southeast and West will have to find their way onto reor to get into the site we already having issues with limited number of traffic on Rector that scenario will have everybody going from Rector I we think that's not a better operation than what we are proposing I think the township engineer recognizer recomended that we do it this other way there's also uh other issues operational issues that I saw I have videos uh that I have look that from the count um the ice cream the ice cream shop has his driveway one way from bridge to Rector so if you make ourside one way from Rector to bridge now you're having two conflicting movement and I noticed a lot of people coming out making UT using it as a c that's an unsafe operation it's happening now so we make it one way like the township engineer suggested which we agree uh that's a better safer operation than having traffic coming from RE Point thank you I don't have anything else for Mr an than you you anything you want to add not at this time Mr Cony I'm going to defer any close examination of this witness at this time uh you're going to present Mr Lee kin traffic expert I just reserve on any this witness that he comments for the board have any questions for Mr aniki and regarding his testimony tonight anyone from the public have any questions for the applicant regarding the testimony tonight on traffic question please come up use the microphone make it a question and you were here last time when you were previously sworn and still under up so the attorney for the applicant no just even bring the mic closer attorney for the applicant made representations earlier about about the nonconformity not requiring variances I have questions about that was wasn't okay go ahead chairman Mr Kennedy maybe you can help me here so is it true that is it true that um there is a pre-existing non-conformity yes that yes the the engineering plans show the existing conditions and those fors sited issues raised by tnm are all reflected on the present state of prop so so there's a not we using you're proposing a new use correct no it's not a use issue this is these are site conditions driveway width coverage Green Space things like that not use is not an issue that requires surveillance and security perimet issues that's a good use is it not no it's not conditionally permitted use in the zone the dispensary umed use yep so if if it requires cameras and Lighting isn't it an expansion of the existing circumstance no those are requirements by the state for cannabis dispensary which is a permitted use they don't they don't have anything to do with the use which is permitted not required for water Nets correct but the use of a dispensary is conditionally permitted in the zone anything that goes along with that is part of that conditional use but doesn't make the new use a a a change that isn't permitted do I have that right thank you anyone else from the public sure sir come on up I don't recall you were here last time weren't you so you're still under oath just tell us your name and address speak well into the mic and make sure it's a question 41 recor place just a question for the traffic you testified that you felt there was enough site yes yes just P repeat the question please pull the mic real close sure uh you testified that you felt there was enough arking available on site that we think maybe that microphone is now off since you moved it so try and plug it in again or plug it a little tighter that's good thank you you testified that you felt parking lot site parking lot yes for how many employees there three species that get into how many three okay I heard five or six last time on April 15 well again like I said hang on a second do you mean number of spaces for employees or number of employees because I have employees could be four to six but his testimony was three dedicated spaces for employees so which which four are you saying 46 spaces or 46 employees asking how many employes okay or which is what I have down here in my notes that's correct that's excuse me m m delor is gonna address these issues okay in terms of the operational yeah I've got a follow question so if it's five or six employees whatever it is how many employees park now currently at the laat I believe it's zero because The Wunder B the owner is probably not there I think I've seen once so it's it's a different situation now you have no employees parking there maybe one occasionally you're going to have half the Lot F with employees well we'll get some testimony about that question so I think it's five to six employees yeah again you you are making an assumption here that five and us would drive five cars employes would drive to take a bik I don't know I heard five or six employees last but my point is that's basically half a lot now there's no employees well I can't testify to how many employees they W but if you know how many employees they have they tell us I can tell you it's I don't see comes and collects money all right just let's move on from the laat now let's readdress that when we have testimony from from operations okay thank you anyone else in the public have any questions okay let's keep going Mr fabricant you're back not to be dead um the new use is permitted or allowed but in performing structures right the use is permitted if the existing structure requires any variances or design waivers that's what we're here to talk about if the use was not permitted they'd be at the zoning board but the use is permitted for perform structures but if if something is not conforming Parker parking anything associated with the property or the building that's this board's perview is to Grant or not Grant variances design waivers and things of that sort those do not have to do with the use itself because the use is permitted they're separate things is the use permitted or not and if it is or not what variances are associated with it for all of the things that you would get a variance for height square footage parking unoccupied open space uh shrub and trees all of that and those are the things we're discussing not the use if I have an objection to the um to the change of um um not being possible in a structure that's on the propy line respect to security concerns um how would I how would I approach that right up until the point where you said security cameras you would approach that here because that's part of the variance that's being requested security camera part in my opinion and if I'm wrong say so is not something the planning board can or can't deny an application on because they're security cameras it's an ancillary thing that a building has in this case required by the state to have so so the new used requires cameras he's saying I'm the corners not the center so I'm not going to cover that property behind me on five inches away from it so I won't light the area around the building I won't surveil with cameras in the area around the building as state law requires and if someone wants to um um Bur what are they going to do they're going to go to the dark area without camera coverage through the neighbor's property uh so it's it's like you're trying to uh make a new use in a structure that was grandfathered when the new use can't Poss bu by state law and have your life my understanding of the testimony was not that it wasn't going to be surveilled it was going to be surveilled in a different way from the corners and do and they were going to do their best to mitigate any surveillance of the adjoining property right and that there are no windows or doors on the back right so if they so if so if they're going to mitigate that and you know the members of the planning board they can't properly provide security and keep state law would for that reason I don't think so and we can hear from the we're going to hear more testimony from the um applicants with Witnesses on that issue it's a practical matter where you're not able toine with State requirement for security at the back of the building well sorry it's interest for the I think when the applicant witness comes forward and uh chairman manusa recognizes you can ask that question to her saying how are you going to comply with the State security requirements given the geographical location of the existing building and I think that applicants team will hopefully have an answer for you thank you anyone else ahead Mr manard what's next Miss back to all right good evening and welcome back uh you're still in grth but just state your name for the record Alexandra delator thank you and uh just in case uh there was someone uh not here last week or last month would you just uh State your official affiliation with this just to get everyone's on the same page again um so I at the time of the application was um a part of puzzle group and puzzle group is a vendor contractor associated with two River greens thank you just um excuse me Nally miss delator you heard Mr Kenny's description of exhibits a21 a22 a23 and a24 four Journal articles can you tell the the board where they came from so I received the study from rers University directly from the rers University website um and the other three studies I obtained from a legal database and the copies that were submitted to the board are eight true and complete copies documents as you obtain them that is correct and those are the studies that you referred to in your testimony last week last month I'm sorry that is correct thank you um for the board board's raising questions about numbers of employees can you address that issue please sure so after hearing the comments from the board and from the public made the previous meeting um we've made a couple of adjustments to our operational plan we still intend on having four to six employees during hours of operation um the however um and actually sorry not to contradict the last time there will always be of the four to six employees there will always be one employee uh designated within the lobby um within the lobby we will permit up to a maximum of five customers at one time and within the retail area there will be a ratio of one employee manned at the POS for four customers so at any given time if there was four employees this would equate to five a maximum of five people on the lob in within the lobby and a maximum of um 12 customers on the retail floor all right this might not be the official record but I took notes last time and my notes say two in the queue room and five to six customers at a time so are you essentially doubling what it was last meeting correct so we made adjustments we we we used um Victor's traffic report to come up with numbers that would make sense as far as operations go and I'm sorry just so that my notes are clear just give me those those numbers one more time clarify this would be a Max maum at one time and so we're anticipating 8 to 10 customers per hour and so if there are four employees there would be one employee in the lobby with a maximum of five customers in the lobby with three customers on the re or sorry three employees on the retail floor which would mean a maximum of 12 customers on the retail floor and so just so I know maximum number of employees at any one time is that means that they would be Manning a POS system so there would be three people three employees Manning a POS system on the retail floor on in the building maximum maximum number of employees at any one time in the building including security that's what we want to know that would be four four all right and then the maximum number of customers uh in the facility at any one time would be that would be 17 17 okay so maximum of four employees at any one time and maximum of 17 customers at any one time thank you how are you how are you gonna handle microphone I'm sorry how are you gonna handle how do you propos to handle um employee AR since through three dedicated employee spaces someone hiring TRG intends on hiring from the local community so as to utilize public transport or other means of trans Transportation other than always utilizing a vehicle you know can I just I'm sorry Mr chair could just ask one question what if with those limits that you just talked about the maximum what if more people came what do you do do you wait them outside do you say you can't come in or is it scheduled by a computer so if at any given time there's more a six let say that a six customer walks into the lobby at that point or the 18th customer in the building correct or the 18 customer in the building at that point the employee would notify them um that they would have to leave the premises and provide them either a QR code or notify them to access our online wait list um and they would be able to sign up and they would immediately be requested to leave the premises and once there was room at the retail facility for them to return they would receive an electronic notification um permitting them to return at the same time the the online weight list is actually going to be connected to our online ordering system which would incentivize any customers to actually Place their order ahead of time online may I ask a question what is what do you anticipate average L of visit to your Spanish room from your customers will be so that would depend it would if a customer was a walk-in customer and they're parking and they're ordering there with a employee demand at a POS the average ticket time ranges anytime between 5 and 10 minutes if it's an online order it would be much quicker um the process would entail just checking in the customer so that way they would have access to the retail floor verifying that they are of age um and then once inside they would be able to immediately go up to a POS system and obtain their product once ID is verified so that ticket time would be around two to five minutes thank you so there was an own mitigation plan that was submitted to there was mitigation plan submitted to the board I don't owe your a dollar for that I don't know 50 cents you can make a donation by the way to the Boys and Girls Club I don't want your money uh would you tell the board what that OD mitigation plan is sure so I did go over it the last time um however the OD mitigation plan is going to be the exact same odor mitigation plan that was submitted and approved by the state um it's going to consist of five main aspects number one um there will be although and I'm sorry although retail establishments don't typically emanate owner just due to the nature of the product um being delivered to the facility and also being sold at the fac facility um there will be multiple carbon filters installed at um areas of intake uh throughout the The Establishment there will also be um carbon filters placed strategically near intake points and points of air exhaust to filter any odor that may come from Cannabis uh number two there will not be any on-site consumption I know that was in question there will be just to reiterate the no on-site consumption whatsoever will be permitted um at The Establishment number three all of Two River green stores will remain locked um so as to mitigate any odor that could potentially Escape um additionally all of the product will be enclosed um in two two places it will either be um behind the retail sales FL where only employees are permitted and it will also be locked within a case on the center of the retail sales floor um and then the fifth um part of our odor mitigation plan would entail just regular cleaning um occurring during the morning and evening employee shifts on order mitigation there was a question from the board last time as well highlighting would the motion activated or on timer do do you know the answer to that so just given the comments from um the previous meeting from the public and the board we did adjust the lighting for the back of the building on the South Side um the lighting on the south side of the building would entail of in we would put infrared cameras that would have um the ability to be able to see through so light would not be needed and that's just so that way we wouldn't be a nuisance to the neighbors to the South of the building the lighting on the front of the building to the north the west and the east side will all uh remain on and in compliance with the burrow code and last last but not least the board asked some further information about the battery backup for the security system so you um previously I had mentioned that UPS batteries would equip all um posos systems and security systems in case of a power failure the UPS backup system will help prevent data loss or damage by providing temporary power to the unit until the main source would be restored or shut down safely um multiple battery packs can be added to each one of the devices industry standard is anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes um however if the power were to fail there um there is a backup attached to the alarm system that would immediately activate that would send an electronic notification to local um to our personnel and state or local police agencies that there was an unauthorized breach of security at that time all doors leading to the outside of the building would be fail safe and fail secure uh meaning all access doors would remain locked and secure in the event and of interrupted power supply um at that time Personnel would then instruct all any customers to leave the premises and guide them to that area um Personnel would then instruct the contracted guard service to guard the premises until the power would be restored that's all I have that's all I anything for me I just wanted to ask maybe um the the numbers that you're giving in terms of the number of employees and the number of customers the 21 with the 11 parking spaces how does that kind of coincide with each other so you have a maxim of 21 people you have only 11 spaces how does that just how does that balance out I believe I was just asked what the max would be this is just accounting for parking not anyone else who would walk up to the facility or use other means of transportation Mr con do you have any questions even Mr I reviewed the April uh 15 meeting online and I saw your former testimony so I just wanted to revisit some of the questions uh that established your foundation for your appearance here today Mr chairman I'm going to object to any question microphone please I'm sorry I'll object questions about last week's testimony Mr con's client did cross-examine uh Miss deltor at length she's an attorney not on no you can pull it closer pull it closer how about that I have to sit for this I'm sorry no one's gonna hold that against Miss constant Miss Miss Constantino cross-examined Miss delator at length on on the issues of testimony last time I would ask that the cost examination today be limit to the scope of today's testimony I don't see anything be gained by that and we really spent quite a bit of time at it last month we did spend a lot of time last month um Mr Cony I'll give you a couple of minutes couple of questions Mr chairman I I was just basically foundationally asking uh why uh this witness is qualified to testify to a number of issues tonight so that's the basis of my question M delor are you an attorney I am an attorney okay are you a qualified insecurity Consulting I am not are you an H contractor I am not are you qualified in any respect to testify as to odor mitigation practices or the report that's been presented to the board Mr conre just just to to let me give you my opinion here she's testifying on behalf of the operations of the use she's as far as I can tell from what she testified about odor mitigation and the battery backups was providing information from a third party like ruter and the other things that are in this report so as I would give her the same leeway I would give anyone operating a business to tell me about their plans for odor mitigation and in this case they provided specs of devices and procedures I wouldn't expect any operator or someone testifying on the operations of a business to be an expert in those things so you're welcome to ask your question and they can answer it but that's my opinion excellent Mr chairman I'm just trying to find out if she's the person qualified to testify to the board's requests at the last year there's an odor mitigation plan that she's testifying I want to ask specifics about the plan if she's she's to that tonight you can ask those questions thank you m elor did this report was it for purposes of the 54 Bridge application yes it was submitted to the state and I'm s Mike you're referring to the odor mitigation plan okay thank you so on paragraph two referenc hope Township can you tell me why hell Township is referenced in mitigation plan in paragraph two that was an error so it's this would be a a cookie cutter mitigation plan that you submit in any application that you have testified on behalf of correct this is the odor mitigation plan that was submitted to the state so is is it specific to this Red Bank location in all respects correct except for the error okay so when you look at the odor mitigation plan and it speaks to carbon filters explain to me what the carbon filters are going to do to mitigate the odors at the 54 Bridge location how they're going so the carbon filters will utilize a dense granular carbon packed bed structure to offer Superior filtration capabilities the filters will have a 2.5 inch thick carbon bed that ensures minimal pressure drops the an the granular carbon bed acts as a large sponge efficiently absorbing volatile organic compounds and accommodating high levels and contaminant that they were G to use the existing hbac system at the location that is correct so how is the existing HVAC system going to have all these integrating issues with carbon filtering with hea filters and HVAC are you GNA use the same system no so we have made adjustments and all of those will be removed in place so you're you're now going to remove existing that's correct they testified to that earlier and is there going to be uh any exterior components to that system the hbac will be located on the roof and that is it and there's nothing outside is there a generator outside generator can I ask you um does the system that you're talking about with respect to odor mitigation it only it only remediates interior of potential cannabis odors right so if somebody's smoken outside the property there's no mitigation whatsoever there would be no smoking permitted on the premisis and how is that smoking going to be the nonsmoking through the security plan if there is an employee that sees someone smoking on the premisis they will be asked to immediately leave and not be permitted back to the premisis czen the security plan that you have that you retain the services of sapphire risk Advisory Group Security consultant in designing this plan is there any reason why they're not here tonight no and you're testifying on behalf of them with respect to this security report she already said she's testifying behalf of the ACT microphone please she already testified she's Tes be Happ of the app she testified the content I don't even understand the question is she to the security report that's submitted to the red the the security report needs to be approved by the police department in the state of New Jersey we're not going to get into security details uh Beyond like uh somebody want an electrified fence once okay we didn't like that but it's and we were about to approve it and they opened up about the electric P what did you just say so we're not going to get into the details of of the security plan and as far as odor mitigation goes and this is my opinion they've testified as has every other cannabis application that all of the product shows up on the property sealed in advance in containers is not to be consumed or opened on the property and people are supposed to leave they were kind enough to do the the odor mitigation part for us but it's not a grow facility it's not a place for people to smoke and anything so the the the odor mitigation in my opinion is negligible from from my standpoint so if you've got something else about odor mitigation please make it very specific and short I my comments Mr chairman basically on the issue of whether she's qualified testify to the divisions that the board have questions on the board questioned numerous times the hbac system and how it was going to be developed there's certainly requirements under the code for cannabis facilities that deal with all of this and I just don't think that the testimony that's been put forth by this witness is qualified I don't think she's qualified to speak to security measures I don't think she's qualified to speak to odor mitigation or AG track system she's basically conveying what information's been provided without testifying to it she's she's not testifying well that is what we asked them to do was to provide us with information let me ask you with respect to the reports that were submitted regarding crimes and impact what dates were all I'm going to object any questioning on those issues the reason I stated initially that they're far a field of any listen we all know Canabis use is somewhat controversial that's why the public is here okay but those decisions are made by the legislature by sorry your mic's your hands over the mic got it just this week president of United States President Biden V for reform of federal marijuana these are public initiatives I don't know why anybody would want to bring them to this board I only produce those boards because the board specifically requested them I think the test of credibility of my client's witness but I don't think they have anything to do with anything that concerns this cyle I think the reports are dated the one I'm looking at right here is dated and they stand on their own um so if you've got questions about the dates of the reports if there's one that's not dated let's find out when it is but the ones I'm looking at are isn't it true that the reports that you submitted are years old as they relate to in relation to cannabis businesses my objection continues you can that's correct isn't it true that they really with the exception of the Ruckers report don't reference anything relative to this that is corrector does does this site how many how many candidat sites have you testified on behalf of New Jersey testified in front of the board yes three in New Jersey in New Jersey how many across the United States a total of four and do you find each application to be the same in all respects or are they all different every application I'm sorry just speaking to the mic again every application is different and the sites are all different right correct did you ever testify to any sites where there was no rear yard or no side yard in this case the Northerly log line of Miss Constantino's house I'm GNA check you're on Mr chairman there was no testimony undirect as to Sidelines or anything like that he's trying to revisit last last month and I'm gonna ask the board exclude that kind of question I'm okay with that I think it's a unique site that there's such a short rear yard setback I'm I'm interested in the answer isnn southern side I the record Mr CH that's correct have you ever had a site that essentially had five to seven inches the building to the adjoining lot one did I testify to no and is it true that you could walk behind this building which is the subjected 54 Bridge and you walk behind it no why not because of the lot line and when you take that distance between the concrete building in Miss Constantino's lot line do you feel that a police officer could run behind the building if there was a security issue no he could go over to Mrs Constantino's property and get there that way right correct but there's no way for a security officer or any police person to go behind this building to access the rear which we now refer to as the southerly lot line which is adjacent to miss Constantino's law practice correct and is there any way that when you look at that distance difficulty that somebody could come that way to do repairs on the building there relatively no access correct correct and is it your U is it your intention uh to to testify that the security plan that's been submitted is effectively it's efficient based upon the use that you're applying for correct irrespective of the fact that only three areas of the building can be accessed corre you have no intentions to operating you're just testifying as to what the operations will be at the location I'm not sure you're not the operator of the location I am not the operator no so you testified previously tonight that the employees that you're going to have have have changed based upon the traffic report that was revised correct and why why was that why did you reduce down the number of employees because you felt that the site was not suitable for parking or what was your reason for changing the number of the employees in the location I kept the number of employees the same four to six so what did you change based upon the traffic we just suggested I I didn't have concise answers for the Bo for customers the last time so this time around I we made adjustments and had concise answers so that way we could adequately run the operation you know if the Red Bank Polie approved your plan at this point we submitted and have not received comment that there's going to be a lighting change and the cameras are going to be infrared or a lighting explain that new re finishing for the back of the building so we took into account the neighbors to the south of the building and uh removed the camera that was in 180 degree angle directly on the south in the middle of the south side of the building um we placed two cameras one on the southwest side of the building Facing East and one on the Southeast side of the building facing west so as to not intrude on the neighbors to the South Side so how how much is going to be seen by those cameras is Miss Constantino's backyard going to be in view no we can adjust the view and the angle to make it as minimal as possible and just ensure that we only cover the portion of the building that we're intending to how I don't understand how that's going to operate your camera is going to be placed where on the building on the North excuse me on the southwest side fac Facing East and then on the Southeast side facing west but the camera's going to be positioned to only show the back of the building is that how it's going to be nothing else what's what's the spill over of the of the view of the camera well that was two questions so I'm just trying to understand how you've corrected the Privacy concern that M constan well you can adjust a camera so that way it only faces one area and we'll try to prevent any um videoing of Miss Constantino's property but you did testify that there's not going to be Lighting on the back of the building now there's that is correct at the request of Miss pontina who didn't want um any form of lights shining into her property well how do you think least let me strike that question how how can you illuminate three sides of a building and not illuminate want to say that you're handling it from a security perspective Mr chair we put a lighting plan into evidence and it was testified to it lent last week and I don't think this is the proper question for this witness if the police engineer here address those if the police has to have a problem with the security plan they're going to have to deal with that now as as a a lover of cameras watching the animals that come through my property all night long from Chipmunks to Deer in Red Bank which always blows my mind I have an infrared setting on my blank camera that I don't need a light to see the fox that runs through every night at 2:33 in the morning like clockwork and I can restrict where my camera records so that I don't get all the cars driving by the street triggering my camera so that's just me in my simple Amazon blink cameras so I'm going to assume that they're using better cameras than I am and that blocking out portions of the view in a camera is incredibly easy to do if I can do it so that's not expert testimony I'm just saying that's how I do it but they've got to satisfy the police at the state of New Jersey that's why I wanted to question the witness on the security issues Mr chairman because it would seem that she may have solved Miss Constantino's problems on privacy and lighting and exacerbated other problems with security well this board doesn't drill into with the security we took into account Mrs con Miss Constantino's questions about lighting and cameras on her property because we were able to but and I'm satisfied based on what I know about cameras and they've testified that there's not going to be any lights and they're going to restrict the cameras if they're not able to do that or that's not acceptable to the state of New Jersey or the chief of police and Red Bank that's going to be a problem they're going to have to solve or come back here if if required question go ahead theoretically and I said this with all due respect but theoretically if you're objecting and I know you're an attorney but you're supposed to guide your questions through your attorney is that possible that you could do that I know first on my list turn this off some there's a push here I turn it off or make it fall apart Anything Could Happen go for it you have something else Mr okay ladies and gentlemen we're gonna take a f minute break which I expect should not under any circumstances take more than 10 minutes and then will take public questions so uh we are adjourned for 5 minutes there's wait for Megan okay ladies and gentlemen we're back let the record state that it is 9:05 well done let's do a Qui roll call please mayor Portman here Christina bis here D Mano here here Megan Messi here Hernandez here frerick Stone here Brian caran here ladies and gentlemen we'll take a very short detail detour as you recall at the beginning of the meeting I asked if there was anyone here for the resolution that we were going to read and I said oh there's no one here we'll wait till the end of the meeting well guess what they've been waiting here for over two hours politely and shame for not saying anything when I offered before so we have a resolution of extension for application uh P1 13263 176 Riverside Avenue block 3 lot 2011 4016 and 9 one anyone from the board or anyone else have any questions or comments regarding this resolution seeing none uh does anyone have a motion to approve the resolution I'll make that motion would anyone like to Second it waited for thank you so the love thank you we'll do a a roll call vote on that please call cha bis D yes baras I don't know whether I was here I'm sorry I'll up stain Meg yes Hernandez yes Stone yes obain okay back to the main event um Mr conary did you have any more well Mr minority's got two more questions then I'll come back to youe are you had two more statements or questions for your witness right we want to talk how about qualifications request I don't think they know they can leave or not you can leave you're out but you can stay if you want yes you can stay I know how riveting this is go ahead so in terms of your testimony on the security plan have you testify tonight as a security expert and and if not exactly what what were you saying I did not testify on behalf as a security expert I was just uh testifying to how the operation would work based on information from a security expert and do you have do you have information from the board as to what the um New Jersey Law requires in terms of security surveillance and lighting I do New Jersey administrative code 1730-1830 facilitate surveillance there must be reasonable efforts to not disturb surrounding businesses or neighbors um and video surveillance must be supported by adequate lighting I have a question related to that I thought about the the security and lighting but does the the CRC of the state also uh require any um of loitering related to that yes no loitering is permitted on the premises whatsoever and I mean just I I asked because the location is next to a popular ice cream shop it's a place people congregate like what is your general approach to uh lessening lering on the premises um there will be no lering permitted so we we have a security guard on the premises and anyone uh leaving the property and seen to be hanging around will be asked to immediately will the security guard be um dressed in a uniform or have some um ability for the people to know that he is a he or she is a security guard yes the security guard will be a contracted security Mr con do you have any more questions for the applicant's witness at this time I just wanted to state that the uh an objection for the record that I do believe that with the revisions that were made to the security plan that we should be able to question the witness on the entirety of the security I think that the fact that I was not here at the April 15th meeting should have changed that there were certain things that were done to modify the plan and I think that I would have the right to question the witness on the security plan that was submitted there were things that I was going to question the witness on that I would like to have question but I want to State the objection for the record if the chair and feels that it's it's not you know I I I believe that she's testifying to how the security of the building is going to be implemented and there are certain things that are concerning to my client and without her ability to testify to those questions I don't think we're getting the answer so I just wanted to say any opinion on that no I mean so first up a couple of things and I uh obviously I say this with all due respect so I know Mr um conver one of your concerns was is the witness uh expert in some of these fields so just like if we had they were proposing a restaurant the uh the restaurant owner would talk about what Odor Control mechanisms are placed what rod and control mechanisms are placed how where the grease traps are located and and HVAC even though those people are not necessarily uh um experts well now they do have an engineer and they have been some professional testimony and the downside is or the upside depending on how you're looking at it what uh M elator has testified to if the application is approved and again I don't know if we're going there but if it's approved the box that she created and the operation that they're going to the operational parameters that she has established are presuma going to be conditions of the approval so that's all what that happens so now um with regard to the uh the question of the um going back on the security your objection is noted and go back on the uh additional testimony so obviously you're allowed to ask about any questions about the new changes um the ship has sort of sailed but Mr chairman it's a question of the board if the board wants to uh reopen it they can I don't think they're obligated to but if they want to they certainly can does anyone from the board have any feelings about this you'd like to share about this issue of reopening and and so that I'm clear Mr conver are you talking about reopening regarding your previous testimony of security or do you want the person that created the report or a security expert to testify not that they are required to do that that's where I was going with the chairman because like for instance there was testimony this witness just now on Administrative Code section 910 17390 she's studying Administrative Code that deals with security at that location and our position is is if you have three sides of it light it up and you have one side that's not how is that a secure location apparently she is not qualified to testify to whether it's secure and I understand the Chairman's position it has to be acceptable to the Red Bank Police Department from a security perspective but our testimony tonight uh from both withness well from from our planner is going to go to the heart of those issues being towards this application so you know I was at this point going to ask the witness certain questions related to the security but I don't believe she's qualified because they hired somebody to to handle the report from the security perspective and she's not a security cons so she's conveying the information that's in the it's no different than she spoke about the articles that were provided there was no testimony on the content of the Articles tonight she testified that she provided which is what we asked them which is what we asked them to do which I understand and that's why you know I mean frankly Mr minardi is objecting because he says it's his position legally that they have nothing to do with tonight's proceeding which is is a legal position and I think he's making a conclusion and I think that our testimony tonight's going to explain why but you know at this point in time I'm going to defer to Kevin's decision on on how he wants to proceed I recognize I was not here at the last meeting but I do believe when revisions are requested it kind of opens up the door to going back to the initial plans with the changes that have been made to and you know I just wanted to say the objection of this and I understand that in nothing's preventing you from bringing a security expert to counter that report I understand okay Mr chairman I would furthermore add Mike that after your planner and if you have a security consultant testifies Mr Mardi May cross-examine them and then he may choose to bring someone else back so uh objections noted for the record I understand thank thanks because news flash now we're not going to finish this tonight we have another applicant it's 9:15 so um I do want to ask anyone from the board if they have any more questions about Miss for Miss delator while she's here um or regarding her testimony tonight I have a question my microphone doesn't seem to be working um just with regards to the HVAC um I I think a little more clarity would be helpful um it's been stated that they're planning to locate it on the roof but uh I don't think unless you tell me otherwise that there's any sort of system plan in place what are the size of the the units um are there noise impacts and what are the visual impacts how do you plan to mitigate visual impacts particularly being that it's such a unique lot situation with such close proximity to the neighbors um I don't know is there a second story bedroom directly next door to the building would it make sense to consider relocating them somewhere different on the site I know right now there's a heat pump located at grade on the west side of the building and there's two uh wall mount exterior AC units on the front face so I'm just looking for a little more clarity so you know we could consider that so our our proposal is to put an R rooftop unit rtu it'll be subject to review by the municipality appr by the engineer if necessary the building inspector it will be screened according to the local ordinance it will have whatever sound installation is required by by by code it'll be designed by a mechanical engineer and it'll comply in every respect and that truly is about all we can do mhm okay um anyone else from the board have any questions does anyone from the public have any questions for Miss delator regarding her testimony tonight you first sir I forgot your name come on say I I know why I forgot your name Sam because I wrote mister fix that now from last time I think this is from M delor I think you testified you provided studies with regards to property values is that you yes so the one from recers are you aware who wrote that I'm gonna object again for the reason I stated in the beginning is a cesy that the request of the board have nothing to do with this application I just don't see the point Mr chairman if I could obviously we as a board asked for those reports and uh I do think given the new and as you've said the controversial nature of some of the dispensaries I I think that there's we can allow some limited discussion on it now if if the applicant by her own admission is not able to answer that because she's not the author that that's a fully accept uh response so within reason we can ask but I don't know sure and the only reason they were provided the only reason we asked for them is because they were referenced by the applicant at the last meeting that there were studies about these things and so we said great send them over so brief you know who wrote those for records yes Michael S Hayes and Pros Kendo cor it was a student Pap and do you know over what period of time this U study was done wait a second do you know whether that was a student payment but it says it says in the document I read it written by student with the help of his Professor I assume to look for spelling mistakes or whatever it wasn't the University of rers commission to study was a student it does say that right on the cover something to that effect do you know what Peri of Time study was done it was done in 2022 it was actually done uh was published in 2022 was done in 2021 over a period of nine months uh it doesn't attribute the increase in prices to anything other than Cannabis shops which on his space I think you would agree there ulous right there's a lot of things that go into uh the parts of the house the other study was the Colorado study which is much older and I believe that has no bearing uh in New Jersey um would you agree also that that study is of limited relevance to cannabis operation in New Jersey correct would you agree that these two studies were char No no they they they provided what we asked they said they had studies that referenced these things we asked them for them that's all okay fair enough one other question not study a little while ago you talked about security you said people will not be allowed to waer so if somebody is in the parking lot doing whatever you're saying that the guard will come out from inside and tell him to leave the that's correct they're gonna leave the and tell him to leave the that is correct okay so if this person is sitting in their car smoking marijuana knock on the window and force them to leave yes they are what Authority they would ask them to leave immediately and if they didn't then the police would be called it's private property I I understand I just don't believe that things being what they are that anybody's going to come out and ask anybody to leave thank you okay Mr fabricant you have a question testimony tonight about wait wait till you're in front of the microphone please soor um you said there wouldn't be at the back of the building is that right that's correct then you told us about the New Jersey statute that says that there has to be sufficient lighting enough to deter criminal activity right correct so no lighting is sufficient to criminal activity there's infrared lighting attached to the cameras now that's that's a different issueing CRI activities is L perhaps Mr chairman if I might a way to to to skin this cat since we're not security I like cats by the way that um is is you know we'll agree to reduce the lighting to the extent consistent with state law or applied forward if if you know whoever's in charge of these things allows it then they'll be strictly infrared if they say no no you have to have minimal lighting and all these minimal they allow it's the best we can do do you have any other questions a new use that they can't allow both it has to misory reasonable effort has to be made not to disturb surrounding businesses correct that's correct and exterior lighting must be sufficient to deter criminal activity is that correct that's correct if you have a property that's only inches from the line can you achieve the yes IE Mr am iow ask question most certainly um the property to the South are there existing is it an existing residence no there's two properties to the south of the building um on the south west side is a law firm and on the Southeast side is a security firm so I'm just wondering is the lighting question move because this is more so for lighting goes on at night and I would assume let's go on at night and so I would assume no one unless it's a 247 legal firm that no one's in that property so I don't think anyone's going to be interrupted with a light going off well since the neighbor is here um Miss Constantino is is the property that you own to the south of the subject property or residence in any way it's not to say I wanted speaking to the m speaking to the mic I'm I'm no ifs or future cases it just I we want to get some clarification now is it a residence it's a it's an office but it's zone for br1 so I don't think there's any prohibition to a family member spending the night there me spending the night there there are bathroom located on both floors and also the clients that come to see me deserve privacy and from what I can see from the camer is that that being five inches from the property line means that my property as much or as little as they say what we surveil is going to be surveil and to me that is an invasion of privacy the lights are a nuisance as well and if they cut the lights when I leave in the dark I am not assured of the fact that someone's not going to jump me thank you for answering my question anything else I I guess I'm just a little confused because she asked to not have the lights in the back of the property but now she's saying the lights would serve safety all right I will not add to this no I did not ask for there to be no lights I said the lights as required by the ordance would constitute a nuisance that's what I said and it's going to light up my property like a baseball field when that's nuisance to me I'm not looking for that but I'm also not looking for a cannabis marijuana shop surveiling on three sides and not the back side I understand what you're saying Jackie what is the the the foot candle projection into the South property um you don't know that off the top of your head I actually just haded up it's zero so there's a requirement in in in our ordinance that you a property cannot shed more than a half foot candle is that it I believe so onto a neighbor it's a half a foot candle right and you're saying that that this is the lighting plan shows zero cor onto Miss Constantino's property okay does anyone else have any questions I just had one further sentence to I'd really love it if you did it through Mr convery thank you you um Mr conre what do you have left you have two professionals and actually um Mr Minard are are you finished with your Witnesses I am you're resing I am subject to subject to got it I'm sorry thank you who here for both applications tonight so that has any reference to I don't know what the other I see Mr Anderson and Mr Simpson here but I don't know what that other application entails but Mr P is the traffic professional for that application as well even if we kept even if we kept going with this application tonight I don't think we're going to finish it we have another applicant here um so I think this is probably a clean break for us now on this application if um everyone can do June 12th we would carry this application to June 12th if everyone is okay with that date do only have one meeting in June you're so lucky into the microphone please I now whatever donation I have to make boys and girls Mr the planner I gu he's our planner Mr Minard do you have any conflicts on June 12th I my engineer might not make it but he's not offering engineering testimony I can't believe we need any so have to be a subsequent meeting how how about July 10th that's our the following meeting I can't we do in June their expert isn't going to be here I would I would afford you the same accommodation then could be a grandfather then um I'll make a motion that we carry this application with no further notice to the public to July 10th or 2nd second second all all in favor I any objections so ladies and gentlemen just so that we're clear we're going to carry this application to July 10th with no further notice to the public this is your notice if you'd like to come you're welcome to come back then and Mr chairman just one last thing for the record Mr minardi do you on behalf of your client consent to extend the time frame within which the board has to actt EXT through July 12 Mr chair or July 10th or or the next regular meeting after that should there be some type of power outage or something that that that happens but pretty big part please understand I know but and we appreciate that but do we have your consent to extend thank you I ask that report from these two witnesses fil 10 days before July 10 July 10th meeting yes Mr conre can you make that happen was that two weeks 10 days 10 days and if you wouldn't mind Mike uh when you submit it to uh the board secretary or Shauna uh you can copy me and copy Mr minardi on it that would be appreciated absolutely so I just want to be clear you're rep Mr is requiring a written report because he was going to test just the mic Mike the experts haven't pred reports are you requiring written reports no no I'm sorry I mean if they have reports we're not we're not requiring you're welcome to was mr's request so I'm not requiring them it would be helpful so I would know if I I'm going tole or um because you know something surprising comes up and I don't have my expert here then it's going to be off to who knows we have we have a traffic expert Le line and we have a planning expert who's prepared to put forth planning testimony that's I think indication as to where we're going so I think the the question is if you your team is submitting reports submit them 10 days in advance absolutely I mean all we can ask thank you thank you can I add a comment too yes although it's yes I just want to remind the public too that um the mayor and Council has no current plans to be increasing the number of licenses that we're awarding in the borrow right now we've already given out three and there are no plans to um to give out another one so hope that hope that helps clear things up okay next up Mr Anderson wel welcome we have 1719 Broad Street block 25 10.02 applicant 1719 Broad Street realy LLC in the ccd2 zone here for site plan approval the applicant is seeking approval to change the use of the first floor of the existing building from an existing retail commercial use to a retail commercial use and primary food establishment both of which are permitted in the zone so Mr chairman is there anyone here who had any questions or comments regarding the sufficiency of the notice they received just don't see any do I no I do not the board secretary and I reviewed the notice and found everything to be in order so it be my opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight and real briefly we'll mark into the record A1 is the architectural plan prepared by some Architects dated February 8th 2024 last Revis March 26 2024 Three Sheets A2 is the survey prepared by Lakeland surveying June 27th 2023 8 three is the Red Bank Green uh development checklist A4 is the project narrative and request for site plan waiver uh it's undated A5 is the disclosure of ownership form A6 is the application A7 is the uh denial letter from our zoning officer dated January 30th 2024 A8 is the email communication from John Anderson the applicants attorney dated March 8 2024 A9 is a transmitter letter prepared by John Anderson a 10 is a trip generation calculation prepared by Klein traffic Consultants dated April 26 Sean is there any environmental commission or shade Tre memo that we have to submit no and we're last but not least A1 is the tnm associates review memorandum dated April 19 2024 speaking of tnm Jackie uh durman you're the board engineer and Shauna Ebanks you are planner and the Burrow's director of Community Development um I always want to Mary I always want to give her more and more titles but Jackie and Shauna do you both swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth best your knowledge to help you God yes thank you I just want to add that there were uh recommendations from the historic preservation commission HPC memo uh we'll mark that a12 is is it is it written form or no yes yes the application got it all right good evening Mr Anderson and just Mr chairman for the record the disclosure of ownership form indicated that the 1719 Broad Street reality LLC the owners on John Deo uh Robert Deo Family Trust Anthony delay Zachary Z Browski and Deborah Deo and Browski to those names bring any questions or comments or problems or issues about conflicts or potential conflicts okay good evening Mr Anderson thank you for waiting evening um thank you for staying and I will try to be as brief as I possibly can um it's a fairly straightforward application it involves 17th Broad Street an existing building that's probably over 100 years old it's a mixed use building you might know it as the former home of Coco perie that first floor unit has been vacant for a number of years with the closure of Coco perie uh the proposal is simply to change the use of the first floor they're going to maintain a retail component which ironically is proposed to be high-end shoes kind of similar to what was there that would be 460 square feet they are going to change the use of the remainder of the first floor to a primary food use of approximately 2, 46 square feet both those uses are permitted in the zone we're not expanding the building in any way the majority of the renovations are interior to the site there are some proposed renovations to the fac faade specifically the first floor facade as Miss eings noted the HPC has reviewed uh the proposed renovations to the exterior facade and uh form says they conditionally approved it my understanding under your new ordinances They Don't Really approve or deny or condition but that they make recommendations to you all so I guess their recommendation is to approve it perhaps subject to some of the conditions they talked about involving things like historic paint col specific material for the the entry foyer couple other little things that we'll get to on the record but but nothing need here probably side uh the primary form of relief other change of use committed uses parking variants there are zero parking spaces on the site as it presently exists uh there is no ability to get any parking spaces on site remain Zer out we previously needed 12 parking spaces for retail use the combination of the retail and primary food requires 26 spaces so it's a 14 space deficiency uh in addition to our existing deficiency um I have Mr Norman Rola seated to my right he's going to testify very rapidly to operations and answer any of the board's questions about both uses I have Mr with me seated behind me he's an architect and professional planner and he will w L tell you about what's proposed and give the justification for the variance relief we do have Mr Lee Klein in attendance with us to the extent you need to hear from him but he did submit a report suffice it to say that his conclusion is that any increase in traffic would be um the Minimus he's got trip projection numbers for AM and PM Peak for weekday and week as well if you need him to speak to it he's going to tell you would not change any level of service on thanks Mr Kennedy for premarketing exhibits let's have Mr ra warn all right uh Mr ra you just uh say your name and business address and spell your last name Norman riola R and business address 17 broad right all right and um do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the best of your knowledge to help you God right and just for the record in what capacity are you testifying as a manager manager of the LLC or the restaurant yes of the restaurant got it Restaurant Group I'm sorry Restaurant Group So you you're not the manager of the proposed restaurant you're a manager for the owner or the group of owners so not actually running the the the retail or um food operations or are you testifying to that yeah sometime I will be charge of operations okay he also manages another restaurant in town for the same roomp so he's both restaurant got it Mr Rolo would you quickly tell the board about your experience in the restaurant industry I've been in the restaurant uh business 25 years I graduated from The Culinary Institute of America most recently uh worked for landri uh restaurant group based out of Houston 650 restaurants I worked for Frisco Capital Grill um in my years you're good your in yourh capacity as a manager for the restaurant group that intends to open this primary food use are you familiar with the proposed use opal details yes yeah we're looking to do a cafe style restaurant um in 17 broad um are you likewise familiar with the uh General parameters of the B retail shoe store in the 460t space yes it's it's going to be highend women shoes okay would you quickly tell us what the hours of operation for the retailer are proposed to be he's going to be generally of 10 10 to eight I believe about how many employes would be on site at any one time for the retail shootings himself maybe one of do you anticipate that there would be frequent deliveries or much refu generated by a retail shoe store not by the retail store would they um be able to ize a shared refu facility with the primary food yes absolutely um seeing is how this is already retail and was last a high-end women's work in retail store I think the board probably wants to hear a little bit more about the change to the restaurant would you tell the board about the proposed restur we're going to have um two sections of the restaurant we have a front bar and the back bar the front bar will be the cafe um we'll be serving the same food through out we're going to be light Fair paninis ominous meat and cheese olive things of that nature where we're not putting a hood in or anything like that simple food delicious in the back we're going to have a a a bar with the same food a little more intimate atmosphere uh sit down only no standing uh just a very quaint um calm Serene uh atmosphere okay um are you going to have the same um point of salale system for these two areas that you're talking about yes it is we we use toast systems that that it's going to be the same one one integrated operation I'll be at two different Vibes in the two yes absolutely one one for sure same employees same vendors same vendors everything um I'm sorry what was that John same employees as what same employees and same vendors as between the front of the house and the back of the house could you briefly tell us about the proposed hours of operation for what you described as the cafe up front the cafe up front is we're going to be uh open Sunday through Thursday 11 to 10: and then Friday and Saturday probably 11 to 12 about how many employees do you plan to have at the cafe at any one time great um what about the hours of operation for the proposed back end of the building the the the back end of the building will be Thursday Friday and Saturday Saturday probably 7 to around 12 1:00 okay I'm sorry 12 or 1 that what you said how many and just just Thursday Friday and Saturday yes how many employees do you propose to have at the back end of the house you mentioned that um this is not going to be a standing room type thing sit down on so Food Service the alcohol service to the extent you have alcohol will all to seated at tables or seated at chairs correct okay um the uh the board Engineers review memorandum raised an issue about whether you be primary food or primary alcohol service is your testimony that your primary use and the majority of your square footage will be devoted to Food Service yes yes devoted to food alcohol will be a secondary correct um let's see will all of the refu from the ca and the back area be uh removed privately by paring service yes at the restaurant's expense correct um The Proposal is to have a shared refu area with what was formerly catch 19 next door correct are you likewise going to oversee any renewed operations of the catch 19 restaurant yes I will I will in charge operations there also you're comfortable that uh the site can handle the refu generated by what was catch 19 in addition to this Cafe use you're describing and the retailer yes it'll be suspicious you're going to utilize the same refuse company that's presently servicing Mr Anderson real quick are you sharing a liquor license or you have a new liquor license for this site to that we will be sharing with the the catch 19 space okay I think that probably calls into question another aspect of the engineers review memo there's a door between the two SP cases is it your testimony that that door is going to be for employees only and not general public just employees yes that may that may be an ABC requirement I'm not sure I'm style myself as a liquor license attorney okay um I do not have any further questions this witness but I would invite the board to ask and if the board have any questions for the applicant so far anyone from the public have any questions Jackie is there anything you you want to go over at this point that we wouldn't use uh the architect for no I think my questions are mainly mainly related to the renovations the door the stairway the easements okay thank you he'll remains warn if anything short comes up you can certainly speak to it thank you Mr Rola Mr rol I I do have a question live music do you plan any live music on site down the road but not right now okay do we have specific regulations on live music or or do we just make them up as we go I looked at your ordinance it's a little bit big I I know that you don't uh allow or tolerate uh dancing uh over certain Foot Loose I mean sound like Kevin Bon that's the definitions in your ordinance so I think it's it's pretty tight and pretty limited on when it comes to dancing there may be a specific percentage like not to exceed 5% of the space or something if I'm not mistaken go ahead sh very important a  section 4901 noise disturbances um B any place of accommodation that plays music uh pre- reported or liary entertainment of his guests or invitees shall close all windows doors exterior openings shall SE cease all exterior transm or broadcast of such music at 1100 PM Sunday through Thursday and at 12 midnight on Friday Saturdays in days proceeding recognized federal holidays so Mr RA are you're okay complying with that than we only have a front door and we' agree that it would remain closed when great thank you okay what do you got next got Mr Simpson both as an architect and a planner Mr Simpson all right good evening just state your name and business address please certainly Michael Simpson some Architects PC 65 mom Street Redbank good evening and good to see you do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the best of knowledge to help you guide and for the record you're testifying tonight in Your Capacity as architect and planner thank you we are more than happy to accept Mr Simpson is an expert in architecture and planning as he has testified before this board for decades thank you much appreciated Mr Simpson If you familiar with the Yes master plan yes okay um you prepare the pl marked into evidence this evening as a one I believe uh I don't know what exhibit the number it was but yes I did prepare the archal plans that have been submitted have do you have an updated plan you'd like to Mark into evidence or that you'll refer to this evening um I have two pieces of evidence that we have circulated and brought with us for this uh meeting one we can use and the other one if we need it what is it all right so the first is a13 and what is that is a board that uh represents two renderings of the exterior of the building prepared by your office uh prepared by our office it's noted as sheet number a201 dated yesterday 5724 thank you thank you Mr Simpson all right would you uh would you rather quickly just Orient the board to the site second sure uh the property is east west oriented very narrow site um just south of U uh Front Street and it continues from uh again front BR Street back to uh the there's a little Alleyway behind the building uh that Services most of the other properties from this building out to the street it also go I get combes out it also goes out to all the way out Mechanic Street um thank you uh I described the building earlier as a three-story mixed use building constructed over 100 years ago is that pretty accurate uh yeah definitely on the money it's uh late uh late 19th century early 20th century when the building was constructed was modified for a one-story addition at the rear of the building uh originally built as a three-story building and there were actually two different modifications to the building at one point or another it was expanded I don't know the dates of it but uh it was expanded once uh and that's a twostory section and then the last small section about 15 feet at the rear of the building it's just a single one story section um would you review from an architectural perspective how the applicant proposing to improve the building yes it's really kind of cut and dried um it's being gutted on the first floor from the previous too K retailer uh they're eliminating the staircase which uh has raised question I guess from tm's point of view uh the stair that was in the building was servicing primarily only the retail use which at the time was going on two floors actually from the basement to the second floor uh these uses are going to be on the first floor only with limited storage uh really being used in the basement there'll be some cold storage in the basement um but there's no functional space in the basement anymore and then uh the second has been permitted separately under separate development permit uh as a uh personal service establishment at the second floor so there's no communication and no connection between what's happening on the second floor and what's going on on the first floor either the retail or the uh primary food a question arose as to how the second floor will be accessed in the future can you review that briefly yeah it's actually the way it's been accessed right now uh years ago under somebody not me an approval was granted for providing the access to the second and third floors of both this property as well as 19 Broad Street through a doorway and staircase that actually exists in 19 Broad Street so a stair goes up comes to the second floor there is a uh communicating door between the two buildings on this on both 17 and 19 it is fir rated and closed properly uh has been terminated and constructed accordingly to the Red Bank building Department specifications so that all fire ratings are handled between the two spaces it provides access for all three floors of both those 17 and 19 there was just some discussion about maybe the possibility or the need for an easement is your understanding that the same exact entity owns both 17 and 19 Broad Street that is correct so the extent that from a a planning perspective you really don't need it easement to use your own property that's correct there was some concern in fact there's a very odd thing in the building code that actually calls for somehow or another reporting and easement but in this case because it's the same owner on both properties the E kind of a mo uh the property owner has agreed to uh take care of that and we have provide a documentation building department to satisfy that I'll make up offer to the board that as part of a prior approval there's already an easement reported allowing one building to use a staircase on the other if it needed to be Revisited we would I just legally you probably really can't give yourself an easement uh you you own both you give the easement it merges in it's a nullity you can do the document you report it there's not much legal application maybe it makes more sense if you ever sever the comment that point okay I was gonna say they're on two separate Lots though they're owned by the same entity though correct so wouldn't it just be easier to give the easement now and if it transferred ownership there is one already we could do another one the easement exists now then give us a copy please okay we can submit that as a condition of approval if the board were some inclined to approve um all right Mr Simpson is the applicant proposing to increase lot coverage at all no all right are they um planning to alter change or amplify the utilities no all utilities exist gas electric public right um putting on your planner's hat would you discuss the uh whatever variance relief may be required to be app the primary variance Relief really is the parking there are others that are all existing non-conformities having to do with lot coverage building coverage um uh you know setbacks Etc all those are pre-existing conditions none of those are being changed the primary one is the change of parking um it's common up and down down Broad Street from actually without with within the entire ccd2 Zone that all the buildings that have been built over the course of the last two centuries uh really do not have uh their own parking uh we do have an illustration we can provide as an additional illustration for this which is showing where all the public parking fa are 750 uh it's really ample you've got you know all the Mechanic Street lava Street White Street English Plaza the proposed new parking at the uh tennis court site uh all these things are within 750 ft of the site so there is ample parking for this type of use and in fact it's the type of use that's been encouraged both in the River Center as well as in the master plan itself just from a planning perspective permitted uses right correct and then this is sort of the broadwalk area of town um some part of the broadwalk certainly involves the dining aspect you think it's an appropriate use to uh sort of complement the existing mix of uses on the broadwalk section of the CCD Zone uh not only is it complimentary I mean I think Mr R was being very modest as the conversations we've had about the use is really to try to create an atmosphere that was much more uh the phraseology I used was Left Bank okay we're in Red Bank but there's a very sort of missing quoti here the idea have to create something that a family can come to during the daytime and have light meals and appetizers almost topest like but using Banis Etc and a very very light dining experience that you might experience if you on the Left Bank in Paris um at the same time there is a desire to create nice quiet places my wife and I go crazy with the idea that many of the restaurants and facilities in town tend to be very loud um the goal here is to create something as not that create something that's very lowkey and more of a Paris Cafe kind of um would you review the legal standard really briefly the variance really briefly yes uh we have a C1 variance we're asking for um we can't do anything about the parking and because we can't really do anything about the parking uh we have to ask for this variant um there are ways in which uh this property is very peculiar and in fact exceptional practical diff difficulties would exist in trying to uh create parking on the site you'd have to do radical damage to an existing 19th century building um the other is as relates to a C2 variants uh which is there are actual benefits the building's been vacant for really covid to now uh it's really a shame that such a prominent building that pretty much everybody enjoyed up and down the street even if all you was you know window shopping um has become a vacancy along that strip we know that the River Center is really looking strongly to make that a much more viable and and active place with the retailer keeping hours that have already been presented we think that this is not only a good food use but also a good retail use and we really feel that it substantially outweighs any detriments to providing variant could it likewise qualify for a C2 variance yes uh under the same issues some of the things that sh involve Aesthetics that harmonize with the remainder of broad uh yes um we uh take with uh great seriousness the hpc's commentary I did provide to Shauna just casually uh we actually have done the color selections that HPC had asked for I gave Shauna a copy of the uh HPC U the color selection who come from the Williamsburg pette that they're looking for us to use um so we provided that and the renderings are based upon that color selection from the vment wedings work selected so you have Aesthetics the preservation of historic site which is recognized planning benefit and then the general welfare which you identified which was repurposing an existing vacant space now yes and additionally um as Mr R mentioned we are also taking into account the fact that um Conley is really kind of a messy place back there and or excuse me cones alley uh is really kind of a a messy place back there so by providing a clear understood area of refu uh control at the back of 19 we also clean up the space that's happening current 8 Behind 17 at the same time so you shove it off to the one side which is really to the South Side away from where the tightest part of cl's alley is we really think that that's a definite benefit um do you see any uh substantial detriment of the public good uh any impairment of Zone plan or zoning ordinance no I don't have further questions this witness but I'd ask the board certainly Mike the HPC recommended replacing the lower facade we are we are again in that rendering as well as our original a2002 everything from the existing Cornish line down is being redone okay uh as far as the is concerned we're still working out the glass um we just hired mechanical engineers this week so we're still working through exactly how the systems are going to work but the idea is to create the facade that you see in that rendering A1 and their comments um they were thoughtful they they really wanted some foyer detailing some molding details to continue into the foyer the historic colors and over the doors yeah so there's a little part that was confusing to HBC that we can clarify here but again we're welcome to come back to the other meeting and clarify that further there um there was uh in the way the building exists now uh and if I can point to uh a201 here um and the way the building exists now uh above the entry doorway which happens kind of off center on the building there is a transom panel above here but because you look at this as a flat elevation you can't actually see the glass transom panel that happens behind the S sign panel so that transome will exist above these doors you just can't see it in the way the renders uh renders are presented uh again we're looking at how this glass will be handled uh there were some existing mechanical systems and things up in this area we're trying to get those out of there if we can but again the HB uh hbac Engineers adjustment retain this week so I can't tell you exactly what's happen with that area right just yet Tey anything else for your letter of any concern yeah just um section 3.4 you complying with um with the requirements I'm sorry I don't have your letter immediately in front of me um thank you um oh yes so we're going to create a trash and recycling area and my apologies I do not have the detailing for that but we would make that a condition of approval is it we provide detailed documents of that trash enclosure we've been going back and forth on how to do that because it's such a tight space back there our thinking is that it's going to be a board on board type arrangement as has been done in other locations in red back we're dedicating an area 5T X 12T for uh no less than quarter um uh uh what do you call it um I guess four yard dumpsters we were looking at uh to be able to handle those inside of that enclosure and that would handle both 17 and 19 and the site's a little bit unique because when you have 17 and 19 together there is a little bit of open space behind them as I was looking all the other sites on that particular block going from front to mechanic we really are pretty much the only building with Frontage on Broad Street that has a little back area where you can get that refu enclosure everybody else I think is just doing open dumpsters within the public alley or bins or barrels within public alley so as far as our our peer Lots I mean you have what was the former red you have the sushi sushi place they're doing food and they don't have the type of facilities that we're going to be offering or that could submit as a appears on that will you be requesting a waiver from the Landscaping requirement the buffer requirement then it would be I have no yes short answer is yes well that's with waiver because there's virtually no way to handle Landscaping on the site currently there's a street tree directly in front of the building and there are two uh of the uh River Center benches directly in front of the building those are not going away those will stay uh the tree flourishes pretty well uh it's a reasonable uh fact similary to that in our renderings um but there's really no other place to get any kind of landscaping behind the building and I think putting any additional Street trees in that location is not an advantage with the street about the only thing you see with the the buildings on Broad Street sometimes they participate in the River Center program where you can purchase a pre-planted pot that one of the local Garden clubs tends throughout the spring and summer we certainly would encourage but we don't want to be able to create any problems as far as access in and out of the doors either so sure we wouldn't a waiver for the buer requirements because the site is very tight okay just one more thing sorry um to access the dumpster area you talked about the alley from mechanic and again easement you have the right to go through those properties so actually we touch directly upon col's alley which if I understand it correctly appears to be public it's it's shown and labeled and named on under tax map it looks like almost like a street for all intents and purposes yeah I could be mistaken but that was the impression it gave off Mr Simpson I think you had a key map including the tax map as it shown on them yeah if you look at the uh on our sheet A1 you'll note that uh our tax map number four indicates com's alley as running directly through our client's property uh So currently uh the buildings from one Broad Street all the way to 21 Broad Street get some level of access through cones alley for their servicing um I might as well introduce the other exhibit I don't really want to keep adding exhibits but it's probably helpful for the board to see this as A14 and what is A14 A14 is a sheet prepared by my office based upon a Google area photo of this section of Red Bank is labeled sheet number a002 it illustrates several things one as I noted before the parking uh that I talked about that is you know close approximate uh to the site and it also illustrates just what is going on behind the building here so you have com's alley that cuts through from East Front Street all the way over into mechanic I dare anybody to bring a vehicle through there although I've done it once uh I did it this week when I was reing the site pickup truck fortunately because there are these common ownership properties here they have the old klings building for example has an actual parking lot here but you can't access that parking lot without coming through our lot so there's a number of different sort of it's not unlike in fact what I think is referred to as the Great Swamp lot which happens further south of here which is happening kind of in between all the buildings on this Southern more southernly section of uh Broad Street in order to service any of these buildings you have these little allies um the vendor that currently does catch 19 site knows this site well and has brought their vehicles here and has been doing that for years they will continue to be the vendor that is doing the pick up and trash prod use uh as well as the recycling from that location they can come in here they can do their turns they can turn around and get back out front street there's really no functional alternative you've got broadwalk now codified for much of the Year where you couldn't do deliveries there even if you tried you'd have to double Park people in there's ballards that prevent you for much of the Year and much of Mechanic Street is is striped for the U hooking ladder there to to Broad takes out only amount of months of the year so the functionality of the business um can operate on Broad Street when broadw is closed of course but um the real intention is to make sure all the trash and refu being handled and servic being handled from the real building on comes alley as it has been serviced for a century sorry one last one last promise I'll be quick I just um adaa compliance for the second door that you're cutting do you have any issues with that I noticed that there's a there's an elevation change yeah and it's the samee it'll be the same elevation change it's less than a 7% rise so that's less of the one on 12 that would be required under the Ada so the front door is the Ada access um Ada access with parking spaces things like that is kind of a mov point we can't provide any parking so we certainly can't provide an ADA space um trying to provide at the rear of the building would be absolutely I think foreign to the Ada at this point so you have to work with parking that's available right now there are some Ada spaces on Brad street but obviously during the broadwalk it would not be there yeah I was referring just more to the building being yeah no no no we have to and the exact elevation between the street and the building itself will remain the same with the same level of pitch so it's about a 4 inch pitch and about 5 feet uh from the front door uh out to the change on the property anyone from the board have any questions for the applicant Mr Simpson anyone from the public have any questions or comments regarding this application as we're right about that time other than I like the I do like the into the microphone like it into the microphone I uh I just I do like the renderings of the facade it's a nice nice addition thank you thank you seeing no public comment i' like to make a motion to close the public portion of the meeting is there a second second all in favor I do you have anything else Mr Anderson in the interest of the board's time I would reserve on any kind ofm you get paid if you don't talk okay spoke sliced T it's even better shut up and take the money we brought him out of an abundance of caution um there was a request for the traffic report I will say um your ordinance doesn't seem to require traffic report seeking a change that only triggers a variant or last we so it was really provided as a anyone from the board have any interest in making a motion regarding this application e e e e e e e e e e for