##VIDEO ID:J_d2yBtRH2Y## put your mic chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the board of adjustment of Township Franklin has been provided board members applicant professionals members of the public please speak directly into microphone so our recording secretary can properly process minutes applicants and professionals please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony thank you and we'll proceed with a roll call please cherl Bia here Richard banic here Bim BOS here Alan Rich here Gary Rosenthal here Robert Shephard here Faraz Khan and uh Canal Leia ask to be excused Michael Dary here and chairman Thomas here uh next we have minutes of the regular meeting September 19 2024 do we have a motion I'm wolf I'll second hold on let me let me just make sure those yes let me tell you who's eligible um this is for the 95 meeting it's uh those eligible to vote of vasim Allan Gary um and chairman Thomas so we need a motion I'll move second all in favor I I any posts motion carried then regular meeting SE uh September 5th 2024 uh is there motion okay so this is for the the 919 um those eligible to vote Richard Panic vasim uh Allen Gary and chairman Thomas I'll move second okay all in favor I any opposed okay motion carried we have a resolution J on G zba 249 uh is there a motion well let me let me just so Allan those eligible to vote let me do it that way Cheryl Richard uh vasim Gary Bob Shepard Bob Thomas I'll move second second all in favor any opposed motion carried uh again no discussion on our agenda in the hearings section today of the agenda we're going to make a switch uh andas Caterers will be after the milstone Valley Fire Department which is up now zba 2419 applicants seeking a D1 use variance preliminary final major site plan and a c variance to construct a 2884 ft pole building 2365 am Road Somerset you have a second one up there try one for the wrong one just [Music] environmental engineering May the engineer we'll share it good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the milstone Valley Fire Department uh we're here this evening to seek a D2 two use variants for the expansion of a non-conforming use uh to construct an addition or a new section to the fire company there are a couple C variances that are uh associated with this application uh unfortunately Franklin Township uh does not allow in any Zone Volunteer Fire companies or firehouses so anything that is done with respect to a firehouse requires a devarian and since the building is not a municipal building uh it would not it is not exempt from uh uh zoning approval so that's why we're here this evening uh I'm going to call Mr ardman uh to present the application both in his capacity as an engineer and in his capacity as a planner uh to justify the variances can we have Mr armman sworn sir if you can raise your right hand you swear the testimony you're about to give before for board is truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do if you can just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record please certainly first initial F Mitchell ardman aard MN thank you Mr armman you are a both a licensed engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey that's correct and you've testified before this board and have been qualified as such uh on prior occasions yes I have Mr chairman do I need to accept his qualifications all licenses are current thank you okay um Mr armman you were retained by the fire company to prepare the site plan in conjunction with this application uh first of all can you describe the existing property what's there today certainly uh and I have up on the screen here uh the exhibit this is our Dimension plan sheet three revision 2 41524 mark this is A1 Mr lanord or this very good so this is the same sheet that's in the set but it's been a color rendered for the purposes of the uh application just hold it closer sure okay um so what we have here uh existing condition the rendered part of the site is lot 5.04 block 512 it's a 2 acre property um with the outline again the rendered portion of the site North is up on this plan we have Amwell Road to the bottom or to the south of the plan um existing conditions is basically the existing Firehouse is this one and a half story building so it's just over 10,000 square ft it's uh rendered in the tan the driveway uh out to Amwell Road you can see uh here as I'm I'm pointing on the screen uh the other features on the site are another existing parking lot there's a separate curb cut for that parking lot uh that serves the parking area with a secondary driveway around the back some more parking and access to the the firhouse uh from the back of the building uh surrounding the property we have Somerset County open space on both the North and the east side of the property on the Westerly side of the property it is a developed um more industrial type use there's actually a good aerial picture of that Mr Hy's report that you can see I'm sure the the board is fairly aware of that property and uh to the west of us is is the canal and and the river just past that um the uh we are in the the a Zone the agricultural Zone again hence as you heard Mr Lanford say we'll be needing a a use variance uh across the street across amwal road is the East Millstone historic neighborhood District um and um we uh we are not in the historic Zone but uh again we're across the street from it we did go to the historic committee because we are within 1,000 ft of the canal and as a matter of fact we had more than one meeting with the historic commission that's correct and they uh approved the plan and and passed it on to this board is that correct yeah they had asked for and I I'll go over in the process of the testimony a few upgrades and the uh the fire company um did provide those upgrades to the building okay now when the fire company approached you and and indicated to you they were going to construct this pole barn or wanted to construct it did they indicate to you the purpose of of the pole barn yes basically it's for additional equipment um as you're well aware um you know the uh Fire Equipment the needs of Fire Company have expanded over the years you have a a population uh and housing that is expanded you have many buildings that have expanded over the years and there's more needs for that some of them are kind of toe behind vehicles that they use say there's smoke in the building and they have to get that smoke out so some are towed behind another piece of equipment that is very critical is a water rescue vehicle they got a grant for that it is imminently coming and they need a place to store it uh fires go on as you know floods unfortunately more frequently and we've all seen that in town and so there's been an increase in their uh needs for response uh for flooding for uh victims of that and this uh new fire rescue boat is is part of that uh rescue mission that they have okay now you cited the building and and it's on the exhibit as the uh Brown uh structure to the right of the existing firehouse that's correct I'll zoom in a little bit on it so you can see a little better okay and why did you site it at that location so we looked at the property uh in a couple of ways uh access out to the street is critical again in in a fire situation or in a rescue situation the vehicles that that come in out of the building need to get out so again the Brown building here is offset from the easterly property line uh and it connects to the existing driveway uh we looked at the rear of the property again not good access there um we wouldn't didn't want to put any more forward on the property and to the back you know there was uh after some discussions even with the historic committee could have possibly sit in the back but again the vehicles uh would not be able to have good access uh quickly to the front of the site so that is a critical location on the property okay now there are some C variances that are being proposed in conjunction with this application can you briefly review the variances sure and just to give you a few more facts on this building just real quickly there 2884 Square ft um is is the size of the building and as I said it's it's connected to the existing drive we did not widen the curb cut out on M all road so that we can um we can the part of the driveway that sort of looks like a blue hash that exists now no that's new the the T the tan is the existing that I'm showing here and the hatched will be new into the into to service the new addition and that's it's hatched like that cuz it's it's going to be porous pavers that's going to be that and I'll talk about the storm water okay in a minute thank you um so certainly so the variances that we were seeking on this application are uh impervious coverage uh 20% is permitted in the zone existing is 47.1% uh our additional bring us up to 54.2% uh lot coverage uh 10% is the Max permitted existing 11.5% and with this addition uh new building we'll be up to 14.9% uh for the front yard uh setback 100 ft is required uh we're request uh the existing is 76.4 and that's for the existing building and we'll just be about that same line at 76.8 slightly set back uh the sidey yard 50 fet is required at the closest Pinch point which I'm showing you on the map it's 9.9 ft and for and that's for an accessory building which this is these two buildings are not connected I'll talk about that in a minute uh the rear yard again for accessory is 150 ft required we have 78.3 ft and as you can see that's similar to the the corner of the existing building on that angled line so it's it's a similar setb in that location um for this building as I as I gave you the size they're actually going to be separated this is a basically a pre-fabricated building um uh it's the most economical way to get a building you know on the property and it's uh there were some modifications but fairly standard for this it's going to be separated by about 8 ft from the existing building with a walkway in between so there can be connections between the buildings uh this building does not really need new uh Services uh utilities as water or um sanitary those will be in the existing building um electric potentially there's they're going to try and Bridge from the existing building if it needs a new panel it may need a new service but uh that would be the only new utility that would be required okay Mr armman can you indicate as to whether we're providing any uh storm water management with respect to this application to deal with this new building certainly and that was a main component uh in in reviews as I stated this front will be porous pavers and uh that'll take up that'll provide storm water management for that driveway itself in the rear you can see dashed underneath here in red those are going to be underground pipe storage and that's going to take the uh the roof run off from the building and uh in regards to storm water uh um since this is a a smaller project um smaller development falls under the classification as a minor storm water project and basically what that means and it was confirmed in your engineer Mr mazy's report is that it it has kind of less criteria that you need to meet than a lot of the uh things you hear me you say a lot of times for the development but not nonetheless storm water management is critical uh and with this site we recognize that we are well above that 20% Max impervious and um our requirement for this uh addition of a building the 6200 Square ft plus the uh the driveway would mean we'd need just over 1,500 1546 cubic feet of storage that's how much this Stone under the pavers need and that's how combined with the underground pipe we're actually providing over 7200 cubic feet of storage that's that that's an acknowledgement of the variances we are seeking so that's over four times the required storage and we're providing on the site okay is there any new outdoor exterior lighting being proposed with this project none with this project okay uh are we providing any new Landscaping uh just one tree there's one tree uh an old Spruce that was in this driveway area that's coming down and we'll be putting a new replacement tree up in in the back of uh the existing parking lot as I'm showing on the site okay and now I I have a a question that gets back to the water storage that you're you're you're doing can you go over that again for me I was yep certainly so the uh we have the the pores pavers so that's kind of a green infrastructure and under that there'll be Stone there'll be storage in the stone as well so that'll have some uh volume storage in in the back where the roof gets piped that's Underground pipes that'll hold it so again, 1546 cubic feet is what we're required to store and we're we're storing over 7200 cubic feet yeah that was the number is how big is the pipe how big is what's that the pipe uh there Arch pipes that are um there's uh there're actually four four rows of the pipe and they're like 29 inch they're these Arch pipes with an open bottom oh okay all right thanks yep we've covered all of the site improvements that we are proposing Mr armman you mentioned your your taking the one tree out in front of the what would be in front of the building right correct but you don't have any need or intentions of getting into the tree line right that's correct your engineer brought up the one tree that we're close to on the corner and we'll we'll provide uh like root pruning we'll provide the notes to make sure that happens and some pruning on that tree but the rest of those are very mature 24 to 30in Oaks same at the back of the property and again in in Mark's report you can see on that aerial um they really provide you know good cover uh for the building and again this is the county that's not an active that's like a passive use uh property back there so there's not real impact to that adjoining property okay now you mentioned Mark's report we also received reports from the engineering department uh from the police uh from Mr house uh you've had an opportunity to review all of those reports yes I have and can we address all of the comments contained in those reports yes so uh fire and police were fine no no issues with them uh Mark's report um well let me skip to engineering then we'll come back to mark in uh Darren's engineering report the short is uh we'll comply with all the items there are just two that I should get just a quick quick testimony on the record under B4 just it's standard copies of easements or exceptions on the property for our survey there are none on this site and then on C1 delineate all proposed utilities to the building and I think I just explain potentially only Electric no other utilities required so that's the only testimony I think I had to provide out of engineering report and again we'll comply with the rest on uh on Mark's report um the review comment on page two deals with the historic commission review and I can uh I'll flip to that exhibit see what it's going to look like so uh this exhibit and and you do not have this one this is a composite from the architectural plans that were submitted those plans again were for the uh pre manufactured uh Building Company can we have this marked as A2 please thank you and this is uh title this is front building elevation uh plan sheet E1 with a date of 9 2024 so this elevation shows the existing Fire Company building as you're looking at it from Amwell Road uh straight ahead and to the right this uh on excuse me and to the left that left portion is is set back uh so as you can see here we have the proposed new building with that approximately 8ot separation between the two the upgrades that the historic committee asked us to do were were brick on the front face the original was just um standard siding all around it was was a cost increase but um the fire company acknowledged that you know even though we're not in a historic Zone we're facing one it matches the existing building better so we agreed to that as well as an upgrade on the doors that were more blank so that they match the doors and windows on the existing building so that was the critical components uh then just the coloration on the buildings were uh per some recommendations of the historic committee as well so those have all been agreed to and they're shown on this plan as well on as on the uh architectural plans okay Mr armman finally can you give the board your planning testimony to justify the variances that we are seeking certainly so I'm going to start with the c variances and we listed those before so these will basically uh be applied C2 criteria for the site and the variances are are specific to this property and the purposes of the ml will be Advanced by uh the deviations we're proposing and the benefits of the deviations will outweigh the detriments so first for the property again this is very specific obviously uh the property contains a long-standing and functioning existing firehouse that's critical to the community so it's a good place to uh instead of having another site is to add on to this property uh the purposes of the mlu all that Advance are purposes a B and G uh a being uh to encourage Municipal action and promote the public health and safety which clearly this building is made to do B is to secure safety from fire flood panic and other natural and man-made disasters obviously the fire rescue squad does that and G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for variety of uses once again this is a good location as there's an existing Fire Company on this property so I believe those purposes are Advanced as far as um the specific uh uh variances the coverage variance I address with the storm water management that we've gone uh over and above the requirement so that enhanced storm water management We Believe compensates for that request for the variance uh for the setback again for the uh side yard and rear yard it's County open space uh with no neighbors over there um so we don't do not see a a detrimental impact to those areas and for the front yard again we're uh designing it consistent with the existing building so I think the visual impact for the historic commission uh was addressed so um those are the positive for the negative criteria I think they um faen could be granted without substantial impairment to the public good and again for the reasons noted uh I I believe they can be substantiated uh and again this project will not substantially impair the intent or purpose of the Zone plan or ordinance um the purposes of the ml as I noted are uh are Advanced with this project and as long-standing uh Fire Company we do not believe there sub stantial impact to the uh or impairment to the Zone plan either so I think the C variances based on all that can be granted by the board okay and uh I think we can just basically say that the D variant that the fire companies an inherently beneficial use yeah I think we can agree to that yes okay I'm not even going to spend any more time on that issue okay uh he's already talked more than Mr O'Brien does in giving planning testimony um so is inherently so that satisfies the positive criteria for any negative criteria again I'm it's inherent uh after inherently beneficial use um uh I just want to add regarding the master plan also I took a at a look at the master plan and in the uh reexamination report of March of 2016 uh section I but section I Community facility plan and utility plan on page 62 um there's the there's a bullet item for an issue the 2006 master plan recommended the maintenance of existing first aid facilities and planning for the future improvements or replacement of facilities and under status it says maintaining adequate emergency service parenthesis police fire and first aid remains a critical Township objective so uh with that noted in the master plan we believe this meets the goals of the master plan there's no substantial impairment or intent or purpose of the master plan once again I think the the D or use variance for this site uh can be approved by the board thank you very much Mr armman I have no further questions of Mr armman any further Witnesses I have no further Witnesses any board questions for the witness just U one question Mr chairman um did you get a review from drcc and County Planning did they have any cont ments um drcc we are uh technically complete and ready to go to the board pending ready to go to their board pending this board's action so their review was to prong it was on the storm water which we went over for a while with them as well and they had visual impact they mostly were concerned with the canal Corridor and we showed especially with that kind of industrial type development next to us that it would provide no uh impact to the view shed of the canal so they didn't require any changes to the plan they did not okay and what about the county uh the county no um I don't have that one with me um but since we had no new carb cut I'm going to have to check that to be honest but there um I think they were basically had no comment on it okay y all right thank you thank you and and obviously the resolution would be con contain language that would be contingent upon receipt of all approvals of outside agencies okay yeah I just wanted to make sure that if the if the if they did have it whether they were incorporated into the plan so thank you okay uh we'll open to the public for any questions or comments since there are none we'll close anything you want to add uh I don't think so Mr chairman I would just respectfully request that the board approve the site plan approve the D1 uh D2 variance and all of the C related C variances thank you okay and the D2 variance was that and it was because there's an addition to a ready non-conforming use that's correct the the firehouse is a non-conforming use in the a Zone and we're expanding it m okay did I mishar or did you say that the firehouse is a non-conforming use in all zones that that is correct I don't think unless I don't see where it's permitted anywhere in town yeah I mean I think it's just one of those uses that's so so specific I I don't think Franklin's unique that something like that's not specifically spelled out um I mean you would have been here anyway for the C variances but yeah that is yeah I believe that's I don't believe it's Incorporated and addressed in our ordinance as a use at all okay any other comments or motion uh I move that we Grant the millstone Valley Fire Department uh the necessary D variant and related uh C variances to allow them to construct a 2,884 squ ft pole building at 2365 Amwell Road that approval is subject to the County's approval of this same uh application we have a second second there's no comments Paul the board please Richard anic yes Bim verdos yes Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Robert Shepard yes and chairman Thomas yes and good luck with the project thank you very much oh did I oh I'm sorry I did I I I lost count sorry that's right Cheryl Bia yes thank you I knew I knew I skipped something and I couldn't quite figure it out thank you she'll get you for that okay andas cat Caterers zba 2416 applicants seeking a D1 use variants to use the previously approved 50 seat overflow restaurant space as a 94 seat banquet facility at 3887 Route 27 Somerset block 34.010659 02 in the NB Zone good evening Mr chairman Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant um I'm going to go back because this application this property and this restaurant was before this board in date in 200000 uh actually the hearing was in December of of 2 three the site is a 15,000 squ ft shopping center strip center uh there are three uses in the center there is an existing operating um cannabis dispensary facility there is an under construction uh Mexican restaurant that will be the first store that will be uh you'll see as you come on to the site uh that was not there when we were here last time and then there is the site that my client now operates uh when we were here the last time uh they were operating a restaurant with 59 seats which is a permitted use restaurants are permitted uses in this Zone when they came before the board in 2023 uh they requested to put an additional 50 seats and again the use is permitted but there was a parking situation that we needed a parking variance which the board granted in 2023 for the 50 the 50 Foot Edition 50 seed Edition 50 seed Edition I'm sorry thereafter my client leased the remain uh vacant space within the center so that now they are leasing a grant total of 8138 square F feet and they are coming in to the board this evening and again this is almost a a technical situation to seek approval to use the 50 seats that were previously approved plus a new seating for for a banquet facility we will meet the parking requirement with the variance that was granted and I will go over that with you um the dispensary I got to just find My Notes the the dispensary has 4167 Square ft and requires 21 spaces the the restaurant the Mexican restaurant that is under construction the floor plans that were submitted there are 32 seats pursuing to your ordinance you need one seat for every one space for every three seats so they would need 11 spaces uh our site uh again is going to be based on seating we're going to have 96 proposed seating in the banquet plus the existing 59 which means that we have 155 seat and need then 51 spaces the grant total of parking spaces that would then be required and as contained in Mr Healey's report is 81 there are 75 physical parking spaces on site plus the eight that were granted the variance were granted which brings us to the 83 parking spaces so parking is not an issue uh I do have a question on how does that go how does that work you're you're changing the use but the the old variants where we said you didn't have to have as many parking spaces that still carries over it was for an eating establishment yes and and here's the problem with your ordinance if if this was a restaurant we wouldn't be here if the entire 8100 Square ft was a restaurant we would not need to appear before this board the only reason we are here is because part of it is being used as a banquet facility and based on the interpretation of of your zoning officer Mr Healey that would require a use variance uh the only place in town that banquet facilities are permitted are in the bi Zone which is the industrial zone so because if we call this a restaurant you wouldn't see me here and you'd be happy not to see me here but since it's we're using it for events we technically need a a variance for this as a banquet facility excuse me I have a question on the seating um you mentioned the number of seating can you repeat that for all of the for our site yes there there there is there will be a total of 155 seats there's 59 with the original restaurant which will remain and then we came in and received an approval for an additional 50 those 50 will be part of the banquet facility so that the total banquet facility will be 96 seats okay my my question is so the seating are those permanent seating they're table and chairs uh and I think there's a floor plan that was part of the submission with respect to this application and should be either on well you don't have paper anymore it's on your comp we can put it up okay I guess the reason I asked the question is so the parking if it's based on seating and you don't necessarily use all those seating if it's just chairs I'm saying you're doing it based on chairs as opposed to area that's right it's based on CH your your ordinance requires four restaurants one parking space for every three seats and this is the Mr O'Brien has put up which is part of our submission the portion which is the proposed uh banet facility which shows the 96 seating and again those tables can be reconfigured it's it's basically the number of seats having said all of that uh I would like to call as my first witness uh Miss meta Miss meta if you can raise your right hand please do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do if you can just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record sure charu uh last name meta M eh H ta it's actually hyphenated San s a x n a thank you Charro you are one of the owners of the restaurant yes okay and before we get into operations can you give the board the benefit of your experience in hospitality and restaurant management sure uh hi everybody nice to see everyone again um so we have been in the restaurant my husband and I have been in the restaurant industry for about 10 12 years um we have another restaurant up north in Paran um we also he's been in the catering industry for the past 15 or so years I used to also be a wedding planner um so we have a lot of experience we also have our new restaurant on now which has been open for since April um so I've been in this industry for quite a while okay and you are along with your husband responsible for the day-to-day operations of the existing restaurant and you and your husband will operate the uh banquet facility should it be approved by the board is that correct correct yes and is it fair to say that you're at the property almost every day yes okay and and we as I indicated that the Mexican restaurant is not open is that correct correct uh have you had an opportunity to speak with the owner of that Mexican restaurant uh he did come to dine with us at one point so I did speak with him okay and can you basically describe what his operations will be sure so uh when I spoke with him his whole concept for his restaurant is going to be more like a fast food like a Chipotle like a Mexican Indian style hybrid Chipotle so more of like a fast food dining so when I indicated that there were 32 seats in there is when you spoke to him as the primary focus of his restaurant uh sit down dining or or take out I think it's going to be more take out based on what he explained to us okay and the dispensary has been up and running for a while yeah they've been open before us I think they've been open for like over a year okay and do you have occasion to make observ as to the number of cars that you see uh in front of the dispensary using the dispensary yeah so I I'm there pretty much every day and I think I've maximum seen about five cars total at any one point for the dispensary and I think that includes that pretty much includes two of the um employee cars as well okay now with respect to the restaurant that you currently run uh what are the hours of operation so weekdays Monday through uh Sunday through Thursday we're open from 11:30 to 10:30 and then Friday and Saturday 11:30 to 11: okay and is that restaurant at least in the evening which is your busy time I assume it's primarily reservations correct yes okay and do you turn over the tables uh during the evening in other words are the tables used more than once yeah so on a good night um typically the tables are flipped twice so we'll usually have maybe like one round the early the Early goers around 5:36 and then we have a second round usually around 7:38 is okay now with respect to the banquet facility when most of us think about a banquet facility we think about a large large building or a large space to uh host a large Gathering obviously this is not that is that correct that's correct all right can you indicate to the board what your vision is for these this facility sure so we currently get a lot of uh individuals that do come in asking for private rooms private party um reservations a lot of them want to rent out the whole restaurant sometimes so they have a little bit more privacy um so the the main reason that we want to do this is to have those Gatherings um we envisioned this to be more not not so much like you know large scale weddings or anything like that um more like baby showers first birthdays uh 50th birthdays like birthday parties things like that so we really envisioned this to be more of a more of a gathering space where people want that more privacy okay and you indicated uh you have experience in this type of business the hospitality uh business what is the normal peak times during the week that a facility like this would be used so for these types of parties we see Friday evenings a lot of times then Saturday it's pretty much I guess it could be all day um and then we also see Sunday afternoon parties a lot of idal showers baby showers first birthdays things like that and on Sunday afternoons that's not a peak time for your restaurant is it no our restaurant really is um peak times are really uh dinner times okay and based on your observations and your experience in this uh business uh do you envision any potential even though we don't think we need a parking variance but in granting this do you feel that this would have any impact on parking in your Center no I don't only because well one of the main reasons is a lot of people do travel together um especially if there are a lot of family gatherings um also in my experience we haven't seen like I said I haven't seen since we've been open I have not seen our parking lot full at any point even if we have a fully full restaurant on a Saturday night our parking lot still has plenty of seating sorry plenty of spaces available okay thank you I have no further questions of this witness can I just make one clarification the address on here is actually incorrect on the minutes or on the agenda it's 3059 okay any board questions I I have a couple what were the hours of operation so a 11:30 to 10:30 uh Sunday through Thursday and Friday and Saturday we're open from 11:30 to 11:00 so the site plan that was submitted to the hours are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and then 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. on the weekends I mean is there something that gives you permission to be open beyond those hours the Franklin Township does not have any regulations as far as what the hours of operation would be for any uh retail establishment uh so it it's really up to the uh owner of the property as to how late or how early they want to open or close I'll just defer a mark on that I mean the approved site plan that was provided has the hours of operations I I I don't remember I'd have to look I don't remember if there were sometimes the board based on the nature of the application imposes ours uh I don't know if that was something I don't know where that no comes from it's been a few years it's note 35 on the provided site plan I mean and the site plan looked like it was part of the initial application and does your original site plan yeah but so I guess my other question is in terms of parking is there a parking calculation that demonstrates compliancy with the zoning ordinance I I think my statement in my calculations concerning the uses uh demonstrates that uh if if you want I will review it or actually I'll have Mr O'Brien review it when he presents his planning testimony I mean because some of the testimony provided was based on the The applicant's Experience the parking lot hasn't been full but that's not typically how the municipal land use law works you need to demonstrate compliancy with the ordinance and all right let me let me go back over I did the the dispensary is 4,167 square ft the dispensary parking is based on the square footage because it's not a restaurant restaurants have their own calculations based on the 4,167 square feet there is a need or a requirement of 21 parking spaces the Mexican restaurant has 32 seats the zoning ordinance requirement is one space per three seats therefore there's a need for 11 spaces so that brings us to 32 spaces and then our site has 155 seats divided by three is 51 spaces so that brings us up to uh 83 84 uh I'm sorry 83 uh spaces that are required I'm sorry 81 that are required the total parking on site physical spaces are 75 and this board did Grant when we got the approval for the expansion a year ago of the restaurant uh granted a variance for eight parking spaces so between the 75 existing and the and the previous uh granted variance there's an 83 parking spaces that are accounted for so the that Mexican restaurant is that approved I mean is it operational it it is under construction they have a building permit it is not open today it should be opening shortly but what the the seating count you provided is consistent with their approval it's consistent yeah and again they didn't have to come to a board for an approval because they're permitted use but it's consistent with their plans and and I guess a question for our Council because this is a change of use does that parking variance from a restaurant still apply to to a banquet hall cuz are you still doing like dinner and operate as a restaurant the the the restaurant portion of the facil of the 8,000 square ft there is the 59 seat restaurant that currently exists that's currently operating and will continue to currently operate okay so and then the backet facility is the additional 96 seats so the variance still stays with the restaurant piece but the banquet hall the variance was for the 50 seats that were going to be added to the restaurant but they are now going to be added to the banquet hall and I will let ask you to wait until Mr O'Brien testifies to justify and explain to you why I think uh those spaces should still count and I guess I just deferred our Council on the legality of that so I yeah I I think we probably should listen to the planing testimony relative to that issue um but it's a good question uh and uh you know I'd like to hear the playing testimony first and then we'll any other questions yeah I'm just uh Curious this extra space that you have for the banquet hall will it sometimes be used as a restaurant like if your restaurant is full and you don't have a bankford going on you could use that just for additional seating for the restaurant uh so we don't have any plans right now to do anything like that um we are planning and the banquet space is not going to like you said it's not going to be in use all the time people don't have parties you know on a Monday afternoon um but we don't have any plans as of now to use that as extra restaurant space any other questions yeah just one question on just trying to get consistent uh information so um in the TRC report and and I'm assuming this is based on information that was provided um we had a total count with the existing restaurant plus the revised banquet facility of 148 seats and that was based on um the 54 seat existing restaurant and that the the uh the previously approved 50 seat overflow restaurant would then would now be a 94 seat banquet facility so it's 54 + 9448 not one but now we're hearing 155 my recollection and give me a moment make sure I have my information correct I thought we had a 59 seat restaurant do you remember Mr Hy you are correct it's not a 59 seats it's 54 seats I apologize and actually the record from the previous Hearing in 2023 in uh this matter when uh uh Chu's husband testified he indicated that it was a 54 seat restaurant okay all right thank you any other questions okay next Witness Mr O'Brien Mr Bryan uh do you swear the testimony about to give before this board is truth the whole truth I know nothing about the truth I do just repeat your name please and spell for record Kevin O'Brien o r i n thank you Mr O'Brien you're a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I am my LIC he's fine unless something from last night changed aren any good standing no nothing transpired between last night and today just uh lost my voice a little bit okay that may be a positive Mr O'Brien uh can you indicate to the board and this is sort of a a a unique application as to why we are here to seek the variance that we are seeking I think Mr lanord characterized this very well as a technical kind of variance uh this use banquet use quote unquote requires a use variance because it's only allowed in the bi Zone the area that is being proposed for the banquet use is currently a 50 seat overflow restaurant currently being used uh as according in accordance with their prior approval but what intending to do is to take that 5050 seat restaurant and using this space that's up on the board uh turning that into a 96 seat banquet area raising it from 50 wait a minute that's not exactly right what they're doing is they're taking the 54 seat overflow restaurant and then they're adding additional space to it either that are people going to be standing on each other's shoulders in that space there's an existing 54 seat restaurant right there's a 50 seat overflow right and the 50 seat overflow is going to become 96 I don't think that's going to work so good it's 94 there's got to be some additional property that that they're renting that that's what I indicated in my opening we rented addition there was one additional space that was available able in the fac in the shopping center which we are renting so that we have the ability to expand the 50 seats that were previously approved to the 96 9 okay good that's I thought that he was talking about something different though no so can I clarify so the overall square footage is now would be increased if you purchased additional correct okay my the all of the units and the way shopping centers are laid out they little sections and you lease sections with the entire uh use of this property we we would be leasing out units 101 102 and 103 which gives us a total of 8,138 spaces uh square feet uh there's there is rough my eyesight isn't that great but it's roughly about 30 30 some hundred square feet that we would be adding on to what it was part of the original approval last year okay so additional Space Mr Shephard right okay thank you no physical change to the site is proposed nothing on the exterior will be changed the interior will be changed in order to accommodate the proposed banquet use but that will not be visible from the outside uh the existing restaurant as you've heard from the owner is a huge success and the owner wishes to use the Overflow area I'm sorry this additional area for banquets Banquets are listed in the ordinance as a separate use only allowed in B1 along with hotels so both hotels and banquet uses are permitted principal uses in the b bi Zone um a banquet facility is defined in the ordinance as quote an establishment that provides food prepared and served in a formal setting for corporate events or conferences Andor for special occasions such as weddings barbat Mitzvah family reunions charitable benefits and other special events and only allowed in that one zone they're not allowed anywhere else restaurants and eating and drinking establishments are not defined in the ordinance and yet all of them prepare and serve food all provide entertainment not necessarily but they can and many do they all celebrate special occasions any of us can go to a restaurant with eight or 10 people and celebrate an 's birthday or some child's birthday or an anniversary so I'm trying to Grapple with this very technical level of a banquet facility having this distinct definition which I think is I've heard this from lawyers many times the phrase a difference without a distinction and that they do the same thing it's just that this particular room is going to be purposed for Gatherings of people up to 96 96 could be smaller and I wonder if the ordinance When It Was Written in 2020 it was adopted uh in December of 2020 I wonder if they were thinking of and Mr Healey perhaps can shed some light on it something like the Imperium that's a monster industrial strength banquet facility or the banquet facilities associated with the hotels those are industrial strength this is a mom and pop neighborhood it's much akin to a VFW American Legion Knights of Columbus where they've got a banquet hall and other facilities but they blend in with neighborhoods because of their scale so I think that um in looking at this I think one of the considerations could be that this does what an allowed eating and drinking establishment does in addition to that there is a superior court case in Middle sex County does not apply here but I thought I would cite it because it's it's on point uh middlex County Appel division citing a law division decision in a published case it was called in Ria cranberry Hotel versus cranberry Zoning Board of adjustment and that which was decided 1 of February 2013 uh and can be provided if you wish quote the law division found that the board correctly concluded that the banquet facility is a permitted accessory use to the restaurant and They too had a distinct definition but the court said there's no difference between these two uses and therefore it's a permitted accessory use so I think that we all agree a variance excuse me as required but I think that the argument here is that this is so very very technical that it can be easily granted by the board upon a meeting of the proofs uh we were citing the parking requirements before and that is the uh Mexican restaurant will have 11 spaces the dispensary has 21 the restaurant and banquet facility will have 51 there are 81 required on the property 75 exist so we are short six spaces a variance for eight spaces in the previous application which was for the restaurant was granted for eight spaces now I'm not suggesting that this carries over to the banquet facility because it is defined separately but in terms of use in terms of function this is essentially the same thing you've heard testimony that on a daily basis no more than five cars have been seen at the dispensary and I that certainly agrees with my observations over the last couple of years uh if we remember when dispensaries were first allowed lines were out the door police were called in order to make sure that there was an orderly admission hundreds of cars would show up because there were so few in the state now there are so many and so many different Comm communities that they are not the um the gala grand opening of the movie like it used to be instead it's just run-of-the-mill oh it's a dispensary and people go there as part of their daily routine should they be clients of that facility so I think that in terms of parking we provide more than adequate parking uh this is a excuse me an economic Endeavor on the part of the applicant and if for some reason they don't have enough parking people are not going to go to their restaurant they're going to keep going I can't park here I'm gone I'll go somewhere else so I think it's self-regulating in that respect but we are quite sure that we do not need anywhere near the parking that is uh provided on site already the master plan does address this application by talking about concentrating commercial development into districts and areas where residential densities can support commercial activities I believe the municipal land use law does support this application item a encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare a high quality catering establishment serving Fine Foods certainly promotes the public health and general welfare C to provide adequate light air in open space g provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses I promote a desirable visual environment you've seen this shopping center uh it's very nice it's very nicely kept and it provides I believe a desirable visual environment and item M encouraged the coordination of the various public and private procedures shaping land development to the more efficient use of the land and this application is consistent with those passages by providing a banquet space u in an area that already has a restaurant and will in fact have two will there be a negative impact as a result of this application I can't identify any uh it's particularly suited in this location having one restaurant already and another one on the way and there's not going to be any physical change to the exterior of the building or the site I think that when you look at the technical aspects of this a banquet facility versus a restaurant I think perhaps the ordinance may have had in mind questions of scale such as an Imperium such as a hotel with a banquet hall and interestingly in the bi Zone both banquet facilities and hotels are allowed so for this neighborhood 94 seat Gathering Place for anniversaries birthdays christenings barbot Mitzvahs Etc uh does that scale apply here is it an imperior is it a hotel and it's not so I think that the technical aspect of banquet facility versus restaurant is a distinction a difference without a distinction we meet the negative criteria we have shown special reasons through the municipal land use law we've shown that we meet the goals of the master plan and I believe that the benefits of granting the variants outweigh any detriments in conclusion this application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the Zone plan and the zoning ordinates I welcome your questions any questions I have one about um you'd said that there's no going to be no exchange no change to the exterior of the building um it are the uh are the people coming for a um a catering event going to be entering uh the facility through the same door as the the restaurant currently uses no there is a separate entrance I'm showing that with my uh pointer now and a Lobby that allows access to the a catering facility then why did you say there's no change to the outside of the building I believe that door exists that door is already there three separate there's three separate units all of those units have their own door okay so so then the the 50 uh seat over the thing that's a 50 seed overflow now that's going to be part of this catering thing the door that door already exists correct okay I have a follow on question so if there's no changes to the outside are there walls I'm just trying to visualize this it I understand you have units but then to use that as one contiguous space how how's that going to work yeah so there's no wall that's currently breaking up the two units and the that that were at least um so there's no wall there so it's pretty much like two rectangles think of like one big rectangle and in the front of the building there are doors but right now we just don't use the door it just it's just going to be we're going to just black it off well not black it off but we have like a nice um transparent foil that's over it okay and just as a point of clarification the existing 59 seat restaurant has its own entrance it has its own entrance and its own Lobby okay and then there will be a wall separating the 59 seat restaurant from the banquet part that wall already exists that's already there okay and that wall will remain that wall that that's going to remain we're not touching that whole unit we're not touching that we're using the other two units okay and however the kitchen that is preparing the food for both the restaurant and this other facil will be the same kitchen correct so if you just scroll down a little bit you can actually see that so that whole uh slashed off area that's our current kitchen and then we are expanding the kitchen as well so that's going to be that's the bottom right side that you're looking at so the top half is going to be the uh seating for the guest and then the uh right side that's going to be the expansion of the kitchen any other question questions yeah a few questions so again I'll just start with clarification Mr lford you were saying 59 seat but it's 54 and Mr O'Brien you were saying 96 seats in the banquet it's 94 correct so it's 54 and 94 for a total of 148 just to make sure we're all on the same page saw that I saw that few times you said 96 what's 94 okay okay okay so thank you for clarifying so I'll just say a few things um as far as your your your your comments about it being um a distinction without a difference um I don't fully disagree um you know to the extent that a restaurant and a banquet facility I would say use the same parking requirement I think to that degree they are similar in use it's it's a use where people are coming in and sitting and eating and drinking so obviously they're similar um the one thing I would caution the board is you cited a case we don't know any of the specifics of that case we have no idea of the scale of that we have no idea of the scale of the banquet facility in that use relative to that restaurant in that use so I'll use an example like the Stage House Stage House may have 300 seats it's probably about that they might have a room here or there that you could rent out for events and maybe that's a kind of a banquet event you know is that a banquet facility no the stage house is a restaurant here not saying for better for worse I don't think this is accessory to the restaurant I mean the restaurant's 54 seats this is almost twice the restaurant so in my opinion it is this is a separate use you can't say a 94 seat use is accessory to a 54 seat use um and it's physically separated as well so to some degree I think that that it shares a kitchen but it is physically separate so I just want to caution I I don't my opinion I don't think this is accessory to the restaurant in any way it is a separate and distinct use but I agree with you to in a large degree it is similar to a restaurant use and I'll just leave it at that and and to respond to your question about the cranberry case which went to the appell division uh I I presented the application before the board and actually we argued it before the appella division and again it is slightly different to the extent that the ordinance in Cranberry defined restaurants uh and also said certain things are not restaurants like fast food restaurants are excluded and things of that nature but the the Appel division said that a eating establishment and I if I can quote uh the the the board at that time said that a banquet facility is a use permitted in the zone even though the word banquet was nowhere in the ordinance anywhere but it say if it's a if it's a restaurant and people are coming there to eat it makes no difference whether it's a banquet facility or a restaurant it's the same people coming in to eat food park in the same parking lots so the court in that case said there's no difference or distinction and it is an Appel at division reported case any other questions yeah I'm still uh just a little curious about I guess the banquet hall versus the restaurant and the difference you know without a distinction thing so I know like at the restaurant it's pretty popular been there and it's kind of hard to get a reservation sometimes at least in the beginning it was on a Saturday night so if you have the space and there was no banquet going on why wouldn't you I mean like use that space as an additional restaurant I mean does it have to be like a bangfit or a restaurant or could it be both like either or it's not really Our intention to expand the restaurant more because because of the space like you don't want to walk into a restaurant and see that many empty seats I don't want to see maybe one table and then have the rest of the tables empty it doesn't look good to then it almost loses a little bit of the appeal like you just said it's a little bit difficult to get a reservation if I open this up to everybody then people can constantly get reservations so I think it's also a little bit strategy um but the other portion of it is it's also going to look different we have a very we have a brand we have an image the restaurant looks a certain way we have a lot of logo branding a lot of thought that went behind the restaurant and the design this is going to be a little bit different and we want to keep everything cohesive anything else okay we'll open the public anyone I just want to make a comment so go ahead yes so I'm I was just looking at the old um approval so I mean the conclusion was that yes we approve it but it wouldn't be used as a banquet so now we're saying now this application is saying well but we want to use it as a and that was one of the stipulations for the approval yeah and and this is different because this additional space was not part of that application and when we it would have been a 96 seat I want to get the number 94 seat restaurant then when we acquired the additional space and then CH uh the owner decided to change the business model and that's why we're here again now to ask for the banquet facility because it's again different from what we presented in 202 R okay so your your point is that the stipulation for not using it as a banquet was because of this of space uh cuz because it says it says neither space shall be used for a banquet that's that that was that was what was agreed to uh and was part of the res resolution in 2023 that's correct and again this is a different application uh the original approval was that the the 50 and the 54 the 94 would be all part of one one one common restaurant okay and now as she indicated we took the additional space there's a demising wall these are two separate facilities so in essence the 54 seats that were or the 50 seats that were granted the variance last year are now part of the our request this evening and the restaurant remains as it originally was so then as far as this application there you're it's a use and that's what can you just yeah and and that's what Mr O'Brien testified to sort of Mr Healey commented on and your ordinance permits restaurant if if we took this additional space that we just rented and made it all restaurant we wouldn't be here because restaurants are permitted the minute we decided and to be honest with you if you know and people do sometimes do this I mean people make the space get it approved for a restaurant and then rent it out they they rent out they part partion rooms and rent it out uh my client is trying to be completely transparent as to what is going on there what she's been doing as uh she indicated she has established a fine fine dining restaurant it's become very popular uh and we don't want to be put in a situation where if she took this space and the additional space and then started running it out somebody says hey you're not allowed to do that we we didn't want to be in that POS position so we want to be completely transparent that we want the right to rent this space out for groups or for Gatherings and again I think that appell division case that I cited uh sort of makes it clear that that a restaurant is a restaurant and and and it could be a banquet facility I mean M Mr O'Brien referred to the uh Imperia which is originally started as a restaurant many many years ago and then turned into a 100% banquet facility and that is not in the bi Zone that's in a commercial Zone just like this site uh this board and it was ironic approved the maragold which is on uh Hamilton Street as a banquet facility uh which was in a residential Zone uh I'm sorry an industrial Zone uh without part of a hotel all of the other banquet facilities as contemplated by the ordinance uh were all basically on Davidson Avenue uh you had you had the Double Tree that had a banquet facility you had the original Marriott which had a banquet facility and uh the palace which is a banquet facility but again th those are all different than what we are proposing and I think uh Mr O'Brien's analogy is that you know this is similar to uh a VFW or in Knights of Columbus where they rent out their facility for parties or events on Fridays and Saturdays uh but their primary function and again her primary function is a restaurant I mean again size is is as Mr Haley pointed out uh the banet part of it is larger because it has to be but her primary operation is a restaurant and this room is there to uh provide services and to provide an opportunity for people to come and use that in a different setting than the restaurant but the restaurant is what the driving factor of this site to so to some degree you can argue that the uh banquet facility is accessory to the restaurant she wouldn't have that facility there if it wasn't for the restaurant to be there in the first place and again it's only even though it can be open seven days a week as you were well aware these types of facilities are only used usually on Friday nights Saturdays and Sundays uh during the the rest of the week week is probably going to be remain empty so again the parking issue if it is a concern uh is really only a limited concern okay anything else can I add one one comment um to me I think uh you know I agree with you when you say that um you know a restaurant is restaurant right people come there they sit down they eat make food is made in the kitchen and it's brought out and it's prepared um but to me the distinction between a banquet hall and a restaurant is that in a restaurant I don't think you're going to have 94 people coming at the same time whereas a banquet hall you're going to have whatever that is 30 40 cars coming at the same time and then leaving at the same time just a comment yeah you're absolutely correct with that but again if if the parking Can ad accommodate it uh it it it really is a non-issue in addition to she and IND at earlier I mean even with her restaurant there's a a crowd that comes in basically at the 5:30 on a Friday evening to have dinner they fill all the tables they leave and usually there's a second seating W who come at the se you know 7:30 or 8:00 so and and if you do look at the restaurant business it that also works that way where people although it is somewhat staggered but there are usually people coming in early for dinner or late for dinner and and they're all generally arriving at the same time and so it it's not that different it is different I don't I'm not arguing with you but it's not that different agree to disagree any other questions yeah um what's the stage for so that's if like you're if we're having a bridal shower the bride is going to want to sit in the front um it's just going to be like a small Riser if we if we want to do that um but it's basically just supposed to be an open space in case for whoever is hosting the party okay and the the label of party hall what does that what does that mean as opposed to a banquet facility I personally I I view this more as a party hall I know that there's a lot of you know discussion about the word banquet versus restaurant versus party hall I don't all of the other places that Mr Lanford mentioned you know marold Imperia Hilton whatever Double Tree those are very different I think from what we're trying to do I kind of I envision this more as a party hall okay well I guess let me get to the why I'm asking is there ever going to be a situation where this this space is rented out just for use of the space and not for the use of the seats meaning all the seats will be put aside and it's for a party and people are not sitting at those 94 seats that you depict on the that's depicted on the plants I don't think that the seating the way that the tables look should necessarily be hooked on to too um I think that only because you know if we do do it for like a drug rep dinner or something like that we've had inquiries for that where they'll have a presentation they'll want Stadium style seating um I guess my my my question is this sorry my my question wasn't clear and I'll give a little bit of background why I'm asking and and and again it gets a bit to Mr O'Brien's testimony and one of the reasons why we do treat banquet facilities different from restaurants even in situations like this is we have had issues with banquet facilities and shopping centers um where the parking there's there's more parking than you would expect in that amount of space I suspect that that's happening because they are clearing out the tables and you're using it to hold parties and they're having more people in that space than the 94 people that you can accommodate with these tables and chairs so then I guess my question is are you going to have those type of events no I don't think so because the the capacity is the capacity like if I can only fit this many I I'm not going to host I'm not going to rent a hall to anybody where I don't have enough seating for them okay so but the but the but but the but the capacity that you could fit in that space if all the tables were taken out the code would probably say you can have I'm making up a number here but you could probably have 300 people in that space Standing Room room only whereas you could squeeze a lot more people if you take the tables and chairs out so I'm I'm asking are you ever going to take the tables and chairs out and rent it for parties without those tables and chairs whether it's in that exact Arrangement or in stadium type seating are you ever going to have an event where there's not any seats in that space no because we're going to tell the client that our capacity is 94 people okay so that's going to be the maximum though with that's the that's what we're allowed that's what we're going to do okay she says all right that's my that's that's my question thank yous any other questions okay we'll try again now to open to the public anyone have a comment or a question then we'll close anything you want to add just very briefly uh sometimes we all start getting lost in the Weeds on this thing and I I think what I stated earlier uh my client opened a restaurant here a short while ago uh it is one of probably the nicest restaurants in town uh it's become very popular and and you know she has a vision to uh have this room as an evental party room whatever you want to call it but it it's separate and apart from the restaurant but the reason people come would come and rent this is because of the restaurant uh that's what's made her business successful uh it fits in there as I said earlier we could have just called it a restaurant we could have put chairs in there and tables expanded the kitchen and got a building permit and we wouldn't have to come here but I think what we're trying to indicate to the board because we don't want to have any issues is that we want to have small events small Gatherings for people uh and and this in her opinion and and I believe it's accurate uh is a perfect fit as although in size it's not accessory to the restaurant in function is accessory to the restaurant because people are attracted to her because of her restaurant and and therefore the restaurant is in fact the driving Factor uh and I think as Mr O'Brien said in reviewing the ordinance and reviewing the mlu well and again having been personally involved with the appell division case uh the courts have said that if people are coming there to eat it doesn't matter whether 90 of them show up at the same time or whe they stagger in there they're all coming in to eat and sit in those chairs and there is it's a difference without a distinction again technically with the ordinance it is a difference but practically it's a difference without a dis a distinction so I would respectfully request that the board Grant the permission uh to this applicant to use that part of the property that she is leasing for 94 seats for Gatherings party halls whatever the board may want to call it or entitle it I think uh Mr Healey asked that question about the if are you ever going to remove the tables and chairs that's a really valid good thing that we need to consider the thing about the thing in I'm going uh beyond that uh you have testified that you've established a certain brand with the restaurant and it's gotten a a certain positive reputation and I have to think that your and your Banquet Hall would be operating Fridays Saturdays and so on which is kind of in tune with the prime time of the restaurant uh I have to think that if you put 300 people in there in the banquet hall without tables and chairs for an air over a couple of hours next to the restaurant that it would start to negatively impact the restaurant and I don't I want to believe that you don't want to do that yeah I I also think again we we while we feel and as TFI I she was about to talk there okay could let her say something right I just think there'd be too much noise in those units well and too much activity with that number of people in that open space that there would have to be some negative feedback going into the restaurant that you don't see I think it also drives the parking issue you there's no place for 300 people to park wouldn't be the intent and and again we're asking for approval for a 94 seat restaurant and the board can condition the occupancy H party Hall banquet hall whatever it is uh but the board can condition the approval on the number of seats and occupants the board has that power you know Mr chairman I I was going to say that um it seems like everybody's concerned about that issue that Mr Healey raised and perhaps the board wants to consider it as a condition of approval that they have only 94 uh occupy of only 94 people can I just you had you were going to have a comment go go ahead so there's no reason for us to rent out the space if I can't provide tables and chairs to for these people to eat and have a meal so a lot of this like like uh Mr lford saying our restaurant is what's bringing people and they want our food so we're only going to provide enough we're going to provide seating for people to eat our food our restaurant's doing thank God it's doing very well and that's the whole reason that we're we even expanded and took the next space you know we're applying for James Beard we're applying for Michelin so we're really our focus our driving focus is the restaurant so we're not going to do anything that's going to ever harm that that is like our main you know that's our main business um and this is just an expansion we're we're looking at the demand we've had people that have come to us and asked us do you guys have any private space I really want to throw my kid birthday here I really want to do XYZ so that's really like we're listening to what the crowd is looking for we're listening to you know what the demand is and if I can't provide them a meal to eat there's no reason for me to just provide standing space that doesn't make any sense to us cuz our whole package however we're going to package this is going to come with the food so nobody's going to pay hundred plus dollars a person if they're not going to get us sit down me all okay is it reasonable to make a condition that the the seating always be available in the banket hall I can do that I think sorry guys no I was just going to say I think it's reasonable mainly because what we're talking about is function that's why I asked the question about fixed seating if the parking is based on the seating and we're talking about the use of that space is based on seating and the parking is based on seating then I think I think we have to yeah I think it's reasonable I trying to get to the heart of whether it's something we can legally do I I certainly think you can make that as a condition of approval yeah we could make maybe just the capacity has a condition right and like the seating can be we've already done that right I mean I think in respons is is a condition yeah but I think in response to the to the board's comments that Mr Lanford and the applicant have I I think have clarified the intent of their use and you know and I can tell you just from like having Indian parties it is not easy to find a place um that will seat 100 people in in the area so it you know it I'm sure once they start it it will be you know quite popular and it's like I guess Indian parties tend to be generational it's not like I guess we're thinking will it be like a club with you know just standing 300 people and you know nobody's really eating their dancing and you know and I think like she said that's not the intention but you know to prevent that I mean I think the seats could be however but we could put a maximum capacity and that would make sense because uh I I think a banquet hall in this area would be nice to have frankly like I guess Indians just like a lot of parties and they are generational and you have a first birthday party and there's grandparents and great grandparents that are invited so I have no problem with what the intentions are and I'm sure it'll be very successful because there is a lack of that in there well that would be fine with me then my suggestion is the capacity shouldn't be more than 94 which is all that could be there if everyone was sitting yeah so if that's something we can legally uphold I would be for that yeah I I I definitely think you can that's uh you can legally uphold that a 94 uh capacity limit and then also I think maybe Mark was you might have a concern that is this something we're imposing that's not enforceable no I I would say this is this is enforcable because this is something where you know we could go in there and count seats you know I've I've I won't get into again that we talked about this at the planning board last last night about having certain conditions that aren't enforcable this is something that I would feel comfortable we can enforce okay I agree any any other comments from anybody or resolution and not we have have we open to the public I don't think we haven't open to the public have we yes open to the public we did did oh okay missed that so we're if no one has anything else to add then we're open to a motion I move that we Grant the andas caters LLC zba 2416 uh a uh D1 use variance to allow it to use uh space uh located at um 3887 Runk 27 Somerset block 341 block 342 3202 uh to uh uh create and operate a catering uh Hall uh at that address uh with a limited seating of only 94 people and um uh that facility uh shall always contain uh the tables and chairs uh necessary to suit uh uh to hold uh 994 people and no seating greater can we this is technical but everybody's been technical all night can we change catering to banquet y sure I accept that no it also Tech also technical the address is 3059 that was a typo on the agenda oh yeah if you'll accept that I'll accept that do we have a second I have second Cheryl Bia yes vasim verdos yes Alan Rich yes yes Gary Rosenthal yes Robert Shephard yes Rich did I call Rich banic did I call you you did not yes I skipped I skipped him this time chose my words terrible you guys should fire me in this position you know I I really misson at this point I'm doing my best Thomas yes and again good luck with it thank you very much before we adjourn one quick announcement the meeting next the meet next meeting of the board is next week November 14th here and it's sort of been mistakenly published as November 21st that's not correct yeah the website's incorrect but we'll be corrected but your your resolution when you AC accepted your calendar had the 14th which is next Thursday as the date okay so it's been properly noticed I will entertain a mo motion to adjourn now we have one more application oh we do yeah that's what I'm saying I thought oh we switched Turn Turn the Page May trying to get rid of you was like I'd love to leave but I can't uh can I take a fem minute break me uh I have to sign back in again that was the space Lu we taking a break counselor early birthday yeah me too me too e e e e e e e e e missing okay we can we can uh start with the praries getting back uh the business next application prin Princeton Route 27 zba 2415 Route 27 block 5.02 lot 53 good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant this application tonight again is a little bit of a technical application with some nuances that I think I need to explain uh property in question is the market was commonly known as the marketplace it was a shopping center on uh Route 27 uh which was built in approximately the 1970s uh when the shopping center was originally built it consisted of one building which is shown on the uh map that you see above we'll have that marked evidence Slater uh which was the main building uh when it was originally built uh there was a use variance that was granted for that shopping center that shopping center it was in the rr3 residential Zone it is still in the rr3 residential Zone uh 50 some years later it has never been put into a commercial Zone when it was originally built there was no water or public water or public sewer servicing that shopping center um when it was originally approved there was a restriction on that shopping center that there not be any eating or drinking establishments because of the lack of public water or public sewer yeah but there was a there was a there was a uh a sushi joint that was in there not originally let me tell a little more quickly quickly okay and there have been numerous applications involving this project eventually they came back and they did get approval for a restaurant in there as Mr Shepard mentioned and that restaurant was limited to 80 seats because of lack of water and sewer okay uh that condition still exists today that has never changed then some years later there was an application for a use variance to build a Walgreens which is the building that is on that drawing that is uh pink and orange in color and interestingly enough the board granted a variance for specifically a Walgreens so that is the only permitted use on that pad site uh as you are all aware if you travel that road Walgreens has been gone for quite a while it's no longer there but the only thing that can go into that space is a Walgreens so now also since time has elapsed this whole site is now serviced by public water and public sewer we have uh connected to the Frankland Township sew uh and we are getting water from South Brunswick Township so this is a full commercial site with all utilities so the two things that we are here for well there's three things we are here for a relief of the condition that we only provide a restaurant with 80 seats because the condition uh was based or or the restaurant was approved when there was no water and sewer available since that no longer exists that condition should no longer apply so that we can have one or two or multiple restaurants users number two we are seeking an approval for the Walgreens pad site to be allowed for commercial uses similar to the rest of the shopping center we now have a user for the orange colored portion of that as a daycare center uh we do not have a user yet for the front portion of that Walgreens building uh however if somebody came along and wanted to put in the a fitness store or uh I want to open up a shop selling uh roller blades I can't do it because it's not allowed so we want the ability to be able to lease that front portion for General business uses that are consistent with a shopping center what's going in the yellow part of the Walgreens building that's a child care center okay and Child Care Centers by law are permitted in all nonresidential zones and and since we are going to put a Child Care Center in uh there will be a play area so the site plan the only portion of the S of this building or site that will change is that we are eliminating the drive-thru which was the Walgreens drive-thru and putting a play area in for the child care center so number one we want a a relief from the limitation of the seats for the for a restaurant we want to be able to use that front building for commercial purposes and number three a site plan approval for the play area for the Childcare Center I am going to call Mr lwig I have my site engineer here Mr lwig who's the architect and I have Mr O'Brien uh to give some brief planning testimony but I just want to take the board through the shopping center and the good news is that since my clients purchased the shopping center in 2022 they've cleaned it up uh they are getting tenants it it's uh it looks like it's going to come back and uh be what it was intended to be 50 some years ago so that's a good sign for that site and for the township so um with having said that Mr lewig uh since we have this on the board can we mark this as a one to sure okay Mr lwig uh can you raise your right hand yes do you swear the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do just uh State restate your name and spell your last name Kurt lwig L wi thank you thank you and what is your first name kurtt K RT oh Mr lewig you're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey correct and have you appeared before the planning board and or zoning boards of Franklin Township prior yes and you've been qualified as such yes uh A1 which has already been marked is is a coloriz colorized rendering of the existing Center correct okay and that was prepared by you yes okay uh and what was the intent and purpose of preparing this exhibit so I wanted to show the um proposed closer to your face I wanted to show the proposed separation of the former Walgreens space into the two spaces that you mentioned and then in the back L-shaped space uh building I am indicating the existing tenant separation spaces okay now uh with respect to the all of the structures that are shown on there currently exist the only thing that's not there today is what's in brown which is the play area for the child care that's correct okay and the commercial space that is in the original building you have it in various colors why is that uh can I go through the different uses each color is is a a different uh tenant space different uh type of use all the way to the left we have a green area that is going to be a mediteran medit medit Mediterranean it's been a long day wow Dunkin Donuts now um restaurant uh that space behind the restaurant in the light blue and in the dark blue will be a stock area for the uh Market all the way to the right of the building in the light blue the uh space to the right of the stock area is um currently called 30 minute hit it's a women's uh gym type space that is in operation now to the right of that is going to be a dog groomer to the right of that in the green is uh looking to be a physical therapy space um and then to the right of that we have a dessert store the uh tan spaces are space that we're dedicating to a fast science which is currently in operation then we have our Market again to the right okay and when you say Market that's a retail Supermarket correct correct and that has applied for building permits yes okay and and that will hopefully be operational for fairly soon correct okay and then we take us to the Walgreens building that shows as I indicated a Child Care Center in the orange correct that's the proposed daycare center and as you mentioned the proposed playground is is in the rear of that how how big is the child care center approximately 8,377 Square ft okay and then the front portion which is in pink is how big 6,231 and that basically consumes the entire footprint of what was the Walgreens correct that's correct and we are not changing the footprint of that building correct okay um and at this time the the play area uh is going to be fenced correct okay and uh I has the owner yet uh or operator have have they picked out their play equipment for the child care center or for the play area yet I am not aware of that okay and any any equipment in there will have to be approvals would have to be obtained uh through the building department for that correct correct okay and there are no other site changes being made correct that is correct okay no further questions of this witness thank you only question I have is is how have you been able to defy the odds when we get testimony after testimony from applicants that retail centers are dead and you've got one now you're filling up at 100% uh if it my clients are here it's it's been an ordeal uh if you want to hear about what they've done and how they've done it I'd be glad to put them on and or you can have an off the Record after the hearing uh but but believe me it's not that they put up a sign for rent and I know it's been a long time I drive by there a lot and it's been empty for a lot of years and you had big shoes to fill because that used to have a a Calico Corner a Pottery Barn a furniture store mhm a big shoe store the sushi whole thing so it did have it does have a history as certainly this is certainly in my mind more positive than being vacant and and it's uh it's a long time coming I I've been living in this town when that was first built and actually that was one of the nicest retail spaces in the township when it was built and it was an attraction and it it went from there to hell and hopefully it's coming back okay so I just Mr lanord I just want to clarify again I know you so Mr Ludwig is going over the uses that are currently in there now and contemplated to go in in the near future correct but your use variance isn't that you're asking for is not this exact mixture of uses no you're looking for a use variance to allow the use of this shopping Cent for the day for for the daycare and for the rest of the shopping center for uses that are commonly um in shopping centers retail uses that are currently yeah common shopping centers and the daycare center does technically does not need a use variance because by State Statute child care centers are permitted uses in all non-residential zones this is not a non-residential Zone oh you're right oh can can we edit the tape uh yes I need a use refence for the child care center okay technically so and the reason I'm pointing this out is that again Mr lwig is showing the this is the contemplated mixture but if the the use variance that's being requested is granted just like any other Shopping Center in year five fast science may become a pizza place the storage fac you know that that the market may become a shoe store you know it it's so things may change over time and you're not asking for this exact mixture of uses we are asking to be permitted to allow retail uses within that Center that are generally and you can come up with the language they're generally seen in centers of this type and I I think you define certain retail uses in the GB Zone and I think if you uh want to list those that would be fine too okay and and and then there is some limitation on the sewage the sewer capacity right is somebody going to speak to that and explain that I I will have Mr Ward speak to it but I don't believe I we have to apply when there is a new o you I'll let Mr Ward deal with that okay I just want I just want to make it clear because I because I'm I'm not technical with the sewer stuff so I know that there's some there may be some cap on like for example it can't be a thousand seat restaurant maybe a thousand seats because that would exceed the the this so if there is so some clarity on that I I will have the engineer provide that information all right thank you anything else okay Mr Ward Mr Ward if you can raise your right hand yes do you swear the testimony you're about to give before this boort is truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes you can just repeat your name spell your last name James Ward w r d thank Mr Ward you're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey correct and you have appeared I think it's before the planning board in this town just recently and were qualified yes proceed that's fine uh and you prepared the site plan that is the subject of this application yes I did now can we bring it up on the screen I do not believe we have to mark this since this is part of the plan set that was submitted in conjunction with the application uh Mr Ward can you very briefly just describe the subject property entrances and exits and uh just give the board a general outline of what's there yeah sure um the site is uh 5.6 acres in Sid uh we're in the uh rr3 rural residential Zone uh fronting on Route 27 and uh Georgetown Franklin Turnpike that's a County Route uh 518 uh there's two access points at each one of those there's there's no improvements uh proposed for that or required um the um access to D T um is is uh not required uh for the full build down of the site um there's no change in building square footage or impervious cover uh proposed for the site um and the uh the site like I said is in the rural residential Zone we're bordered by uh single family residences to the South uh the west and the North and Commercial is across the street on uh Route 27 so now can you indicate to the board the site changes that we are making sure uh we're proposing a 4,000 square foot uh daycare play area um that will be within the uh existing drive-thru Lanes of the Walgreens um it'll be enclosed by a a 5 foot high solid PVC fence uh that's surrounded with ballards for protection okay and we are not adding any impervious coverage to this site the the play area is going to be constructed upon what is already existing corious coverage correct so there is no need for storm water manage new new storm water management or anything else with respect to this project correct the uh I just want to point out that that surface would be covered over with a a rubber play surface right but but it's still impervious correct not change are we changing any of the lighting on the site no there's no lighting proposed okay uh now I indicated in my opening statement that there is sewer available uh to this property through Franklin Township uh surge Authority and then Mr Healey raised the question of uh are we limited in sewer or what is the deal with the SE the the limitation would be the uh the on-site Pump Station so um the sewage goes to an on-site Pump Station and goes uh down Route 27 and discharges into a manhole uh so the only limiting capacity would would be the design of that pump station so uh we did an evaluation of that it was reviewed and and approved uh by the Franklin Township sewage Authority and basically um the pump station has a pumping capacity of 24 gallons per minute and we're just a little over 18 gallons per minute so there's actually more capacity uh based on the uh the areas that we're proposing okay and and should there be uses that are proposed that would be permitted under zoning that would require greater sewer capacity would you have that then request uh approval of the sewage Authority for those or to expand the pump station yes correct so there there would be no expansion in the pump station but the actual uh gallons per day will increase primarily for the uh the expanded restaurant uh usage and and for the proposed uses that were indicated by Mr blood Wick all of those have been submitted to the sewage Authority and they've reviewed them and approved them so there's nothing that needs to be done to the pump station at this time correct okay I have no further questions any board questions next wit us well they but they didn't complain complain you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do have you lost your license in the last 20 minutes on whether Mr Healey took action on that old Thro of f no I have not okay we'll just say you can keep going okay thank you chairman and and to move this along quickly uh Mr O'Brien can you indicate why we are here uh and uh what why we need variances and present a justification for them yes we require variances for use for the pad site where the child care center is going to go uh this is the rr3 rural residential neighborhood and as such Child Care is not an allowed use in the zone we also need a variance to expand the seating of the previously approved restaurant in light of the testimony that you've heard excuse me in addition there are bulk variances that are pre-existing that will not change as a result of this application and that is for front yard impervious cover and off street parking so do do we have to give them new variances for those things they were all previously granted I think he's just pointing them out you don't have to all right regant them I think okay well then we don't need to talk about them anymore I would agree since Mr O'Brien's fading fast we will happen the other the other thing real quick the variants you're asking for the restaurant the 80 seats or whatever it is isn't it simple enough to just say it it can be eliminated because the Restriction that was that caused that to be placed at 80s been removed I I think yeah I don't think we're asking for variance for the restaurant I think what we're because restaurants are permitted Within These centers what we're asking for is the removal of the Restriction that was granted limiting restaurants to 80 seats which was placed on it because there was no sewer and water correct so it's moot you have to say that I can't say that I'll say it provided you vot the affirmative chairman all right keep going please okay I hear you I'll save your voice thank you thank you very much uh the other one of the other things that we are requesting is that the front pad building which used to house the Walgreens be allowed to permit the retail uses that are generally permitted in the GB General business Zone and we were thinking that uh something some wording along the lines of allow principal and accessory retail uses permitted in the GB General business Zone that way uh another retail of any type could go into that building uh without having to come back here for variance anybody who does not fit the existing variances on this site and Mr lanord cited the long and torturous history of granting variances for every single use that's in there because we're in the rural Zone um somehow this property has not been considered for rezoning uh somehow this shopping center has not been considered to be anything other than in the rural Zone um so we would like your permission so that we don't have to come back to the board every single time the applicant wishes to rent out a section of this building the but the this restriction only relates to this building on the pad the old Walgreens the rest of the shopping center is available right now for whatever kind of retail you want to do that was part of the original approval and and interestingly enough with the Walgreens although we are asking for approval for child care center If the child care center ever leaves we would like that whole building to be allowed to be retail right yes so we like to level the playing field with the other businesses in town and that the applicant would like the ability to rent this to whomever is a retail entity without having to come back to the board every time for a use variance uh we think that just makes an awful lot of sense as you know going through the process of getting a variance takes time drawing up plans coming to the board um expense on the part of the of the applicant and in the meantime in today's rental market the chairman made the quip about the dying commercial areas because of the modern economy and shopping centers like this are an exception uh because they are destination places where people have to come in order to get the goods and services they want but if an applicant I'm sorry if a tenant prospective tenant wishes to come in uh the applicant will have to come back to the board do the plans get the use variants and just the statutory criteria is going to take months the meantime they're gone nobody wants to sit around the wait uh particularly when there's such uh so many openings throughout retail all across the state I do believe that this application does meet the goals of the master plan in uh concentrating commercial development in areas that can support it I also believe that this application is supported by the municipal land use law and to make it very short goals a c g i and m and I'll be happy to spell them out for anybody in terms of negative criteria I don't believe there's any uh negative impact in any I'm sorry I'm talking about negative impact not negative criteria at this moment um it's a fully developed facility no exterior changes are being made with the exception of the playground which is going to bring some green area to the parking lot as opposed to what's there now the daycare center if you had to go through uh the negative criteria would meet the seek a balancing test because it's an inherently beneficial use that advances the goals of the municipal land use law and that it serves the general welfare of all people in the state and I would submit that without going through the actual criteria uh Force step uses uh the four step criteria rather that do those meet those I'll be happy to provide the um justifications if you like so the application for daycare is inherently beneficial but the application to make this site this building retail accessible to any retail use that's generally accepted as a principle or accessory use in the GB Zone I think is one that can be granted by the board there's no negative impact meets the master plan uh meets special reasons under the municipal land use land use law and I think that one of the essential parts of any planning Endeavor is not only hope for the future but an anticipated vision for the future and this is talking about the future what happens at this location and getting the board approval to proceed like any other shopping area in town this application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial parment of the Zone plan and the zoning ordinance I have no further questions welcome any questions from the board chair anything not on uh you you listed those um condition could you just for the record just list you said I was IG could you just list those of course the municipal land use law uh I believe that this is supported this application is supported by several goals of the municipal land use law I tried Mr Shephard and that is a alpha to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare this advances that by providing a much-needed daycare center as well as retail uses item C provide adequate light air and open space no physical changes are being made to the exterior of these buildings removing the drive-thru to put in the uh daycare parking area but you've seen the buildings uh they're very very nice uh significant changes have been made to the site over the last few years it is a major cleanup it looks so much better than it did and it's going to be an attractive Center for people in this area to shop G provides sufficient space in appropriate location for a variety of uses such as retail such as child care I promote the desirable visual environment and again it's a very attractive shopping center we're going to keep it that way and M encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land develop vment with a view towards the more efficient use of the land that okay yes thank you okay thank you anything else um just a few questions so when the Walgreens um was approved um that was and some of the members of this board may recall that was a series of several meetings over probably a year where we were basically imploring the applicant to show us renderings of what the Walgreens was going to look like showing that was going to how it was going to match the rest of the site and they finally did that and the board approved it pretty much on the spot once they actually saw what was proposed um I give you that background to basically say the board took a lot of attention to the Aesthetics of that building and the A and the and the look of that building and also required that the building in the back be you know made consistent with the Walgreens so the question is are there any architectural changes that would change that yes the one change is the entry to the daycare center uh will require could could we go back to the A1 please James so uh the daycare center and in the back of the former Walgreens building to the right there's a proposed entryway that entryway will be designed so that it conforms with the standards of the existing building but the doorway is going to be basically in like the glass retail or section like that's a brick area there okay but there'll be a door where there's brick but the overall overall architectural design of that building will remain the way it is it will okay um a few more questions I think we're all getting tired um Mr O'Brien so just again just to make clear again this is maybe a distinction with a difference you're not asking for all of the uses permitted in the GB zone so for example there are some uses like automobile service stations Auto Sales things like that you're not asking for that this is uses that normally you'd see in a shopping center retail personal service restaurants things of of that nature that anybody would normally associate to be in a shopping retail shopping center yes uh auto service is not allowed in this Zone I just but it's or in the GB auto service auto sales are allowed okay but again I'm just saying I'm just saying again so it this is you you basically the Restriction of of the sewer has gone away so you're basically saying let us be a shopping center right yes okay and then just clarification again on the sewer because again I don't speak sewer e um I think what uh the testimony was is if if down the line there is some issue let's say there's three restaurants and now uh Beyond I think right now there's a proposed 200 seat well let's say there's another one and now you go beyond whatever that 24 gallons per whatever you're basically asking the board I think don't place a restriction on us will deal with the sewage Authority and I guess that's a question for maybe the engineer and Mr L for it if that's what your application is well yes if we did exceed that we would deal with the sewage Authority there would be upgrades that we can make but that's not you're asking the board to basically not make that a a variance land use issue corre it's a utility issue that you would have to deal with with the with the ne with with the sewers Authority counter Mark uh because they come to see you to get a a construction permit and there's a thousand seat restaurant that triggers something in your head you may then at that point in time say can you get something from the Sewer Authority saying that the there's enough capacity to handle that we would handle that I'm sure you would flag it and we would handle it that way dealing with the Sor authority to make sure that there is enough capacity but I don't think the Board needs to see us again because of that yeah I mean I I we've been in communication with the sewers Authority with the applicant and and my department and the sewage Authority so it's on our Radars that if tenants change over time for this particular site we're going to want something in writing from the sewage Authority for anything other than just straight retail we're going to need something from the sewage Authority that's fine could we strengthen it by uh requiring a comment from The suage Authority when they get a tenant yeah that that's exactly what I'm saying that that before we approve a zoning permit that we're before it gets on your radar that's part of the application right well if I if I'm putting a shoe store in there that doesn't require any water usage that's why I was saying anything beyond straight retail okay because that's frankly that's been the situation with that site if if a retail replaces retail Sho store replaces a shirt store I we don't require any because it's it's aren't there weren't restrictions in the past right but when you talk about uh uh uh talk about you know I got a call about a cafe you know this week 200 seat restaurant the market you know those type uses have higher sewer demands so we're going to ask that the sewers authorities okay and that's fine we store Fast Signs we're not going to ask that question we're on the same page okay any other questions you are completed yeah I don't think I need to make a summation because you'll kill me we let the one member of the public have a chance or two they want to comment or are they with you they're they're the owners of the property okay they don't need to comment then you you've done that for them we close to the public any you don't need to make a summary you don't want me to make a summary Mr shepher would different question though you don't need to then we'll move on comments or a motion I move that we Grant a Princeton Route 27 LLC um variances um to allow um any type of retail uh establishment that would be found in other similar uh shopping centers either uh regular or what's the word um it called it it's either it's like Affiliated or customarily no no no retail goods and services customarily found in in I would call them strip centers of this type strip centers of the so we're going to have to use the language that he just said because I think that would work um in addition uh we're going to remove uh the Restriction uh regarding restaurants uh because uh regarding um uh the size of any restaurant that can be located there because the conditions which created the variants no longer exist and I think that's it and site plan approval for the child care center oh and site plan approval for the child care center yeah and the use variance includes the daycare that's right and the use variance approve required for daycare any second any comments votes okay Cheryl bethia yes Richard Panic yes yes vasim verdos I didn't forget you Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Robert Shephard yes yes chairman Thomas yes thank you very much now I'll entertain a motion to adjourn moved second and a second all in favor I meaning toj