##VIDEO ID:HleDGFPM2Jc## at all time pleas Mrs Kelly pres Mrs ster Mrs ml here Mrs Kelly here mayor May and Mr I'd like to say that Mr at this time we'll hear any comments from the public to speak on matters that are not on the agenda seeing no one we'll close that portion of the meeting we have approval of minutes um November 12th 2024 the minutes are the transcripts do we have a motion to approve move second I'll second all in favor opposed abstain now we have the minutes of the November 18th 2024 again transcript are the minutes could we have a motion to approve second all in favor I opposed okay great uh committee report minor side plan committee I have puras oh sorry we go topond and bills I'm sorry um okay we have our our bills I have purchase order number 202 42247 Michelle quick for transcrip proceedings $133 have purchase order number 202 42263 for Michelle quick transcript proceedings for $49 at purchase order number 20242 2175 Philips pricey rival for finding in general $2,715 purchase order number 202 42279 maraziti Falone LLP legal services for December 1,610 if there no questions I recommend the purchase orders be approved you have a second yes Kelly yes Mr Kelly yes Mr yes do we have any correspond no okay uh committee reports minor land commit report master plan riew committee new business anybody have new bus or old business we move right along then to TV 3-25 24 1625 yes I'm going to excuse myself of well yeah I I think you better you want to put a statement on the record or do you want Andy to do it I think he's just to recuse himself um from this application he'll step out of the first I'll call I'll come back and get you when done okay yeah good evening for the record Tom M on behalf of the applicant we here tonight for completeness only we have Mr ry's memo of November the 6 26 rather where identifies the waivers that we need I think he's asking to give me a brief statement about those wa and why we Mr to my left we do that for you no sorry Mr Keller is here be happy to do that for you for for the record Eric kellerer pH Consulting Group uh we have uh seven site plan w one variance waiver which is a duplicate of a s plan waiver so um and and I will note that all of these waivers were granted for our prior application which was approved uh last March last March this March I don't know whenever time flies uh plan scale because of the size of the project we're asking for 40 scale Asos to 30 um for water courses Bridges uh we have shown all of that except for Bridges because there are not to show uh Loi we had submitted under the original application for the overall development a letter from Dave Krueger of ETI uh a noted Wetlands expert saying that there were no Wetlands on the property waste in recycling we will or I will repeat my testimony prior application soil disturbance uh I'm sorry topography item 57 uh within 100 ft of the site 50 FTS provided same as our prior approval soil disturbance when we were here for the preliminary for the entire site we got so oil disturbance for the entire project same with tree removal and we had submitted an Eis for the original application this parcel for Phase 2 has no existing buildings on it there are no environmental constraints so we're asking for a waiver of what we already submitted and that is all I have Mone yes yes I'm recommending that the application be deed complete I just want to concur with Phil I agree that the application is complete have any questions or comments bless you you have a second all in favor ex we will see you at our next meeting have a great holid appc can you hear me now no no problem thank you very much uh the next application we have is PB 4-24 our Coler construction is there anyone here on behalf of this application is there any attorney here no okay excuse we have to wait until we see he refused himself there's nobody here there's nobody here for that application that's the point we she just called it and no was responding here I did that did that well we will statement incomplete okay so in this one right that's is the one okay okay yeah yeah so um Bill do you want to go over your report for this please yes CH I submitted my report dated November 27th on this application this is a two minor subdivision with bu variant for building okay referring to my November 27th 2024 letter to the board uh this is subdivision application with a B variance for building coverage in that report I de this application to be administratively inom complete there are there are 12 items of information that have not provided at all and 10 requests waivers I don't believe we need to act on any waer request at this point till we get all the rest of the information so recommending that the board deem this application incomplete again just for brevity's sake I concur with uh Mr Ry okay and how about any uh comments from the board could we have a mo and we have a second second all in favor opposed okay the application has been deemed incomplete thank you that's working soon the same exact yeah next on the agenda we have McDonald's USA LLC that okay yep you're about number three um I just want to get a few cleanup items and address some of the issues that have come up since the last meeting um one there's obviously there's there's a lot of public interest interest in participation um several of the members of the public and who are very interested in this have sent email and other correspondents directly to some of the members and some of the elected officials um they said they can't respond to that i' advise them they can't because that would taint any action that they take what they their decision here has to be made solely on what happens at this hearing under testimony so you sent it in and that's public participation for this application that has to be in here that's why you haven't that's why there can't be any responses outside of the context of this the mayor the elected officials members of this body everybody can so I just want to make that one clear that's why there's no responses um the letters are they're you know those emails are part of the the records that are maintained by Morris PLS but there can't be part of this application your testimony your statements can number two I believe that um M Kumer is going to introduce herself but there's an attorney that represents some of the members of the public um and as as a general rule people that are represented by Council your Council speaks you don't so the limitation on whoever she represents that group um that'll carry forward only she will be questioning um me the members that she represents won't be um she can introduce herself um and then the last one you know we have um we've had some special meetings we have a special meeting on the 16th that's scheduled special meeting on the 18th and as you know that's because of the the the interest the public interest and the length of time um and as you see there's two other applications that are also going to be pushing for time so I went and looked you know there there are several ways to deal with matters in which there's extensive testimony extensive interest I just want to read the applicable Rule and it's all as I said before it's on a reasonable standard what's reason so um the new J the the municipal Vu school off 40 call1 55 d-1 and everything that follows gives the rules for running meetings section 10 uh subd and I'll just read it the testimony of all Witnesses relating to an application for development shall be taken under oath or affirmation by the presiding officer and the right of cross-examination shall be permitted to all interested parties through their attorneys if represented or directly if not represented subject to the discretion of the presiding officer and to reasonable limitations as to time and number of witnesses and there's that word reasonable again so and I don't know you know there's there's several ways to deal with things one more meetings which is which is what you've done um and you can limit the scope the time and and the the ability you know the the length of time for Boss examination but for presentation I don't know if the board is interested in that or will where the presiding officer which is the chair and in trying to come up with what the word reasonable is I went and look at a few cases um that deal with this it's all individual individual based they've had Cas the courts have upheld three minutes five minutes 10 minutes that I can see I and I again I'm not recommending anything other than the tools that the board has uh should it wish to uh deal with the very significant public interest in this case anyway that being said I think if we could have the if if U Mr P would just bear with me for a minute the attorney who represents several of the members at least to introduce herself to the to the board um so we know who she represents speak very quickly thank you mam chair hi my name is Heather Kumer I'm from wed Legal Group and I'm representing U Morris Plains a Citizens group for Public Safety uh I'm not going to give the members right now but they're here um and my background by the way I just want to let you know I both worked in the private and public sector 10 years working for the city of Jersey City before going private so been on both sides of this and my intention is compl to me amicable with everything and make sure you know my cousin Leslie somewhere over here that's how I found out about this contacted me and we're concerned and how I got involved with this case um so I wait that's pretty much just my introduction and I take it you'll self-limit the members of the LLC you'll represent you'll do the questioning for that correct yes I will be representing we are going to be they did bring in an expert um a planning expert uh Peter St so we're looking forward to presenting his testimony as well and thank you so much for this time Mr good evening good evening good evening board it's nice to see everybody again uh I do have one housekeeping matter that I'd like to address before we start we did receive a email from Chris Shay who is the fire marshal for Morris Plains he said that he's been getting a lot of communications from residents and he said that would be would we be willing to label the curb in front of our building fire lane uh and it's the curb that's parallel to speedwall Avenue and we have no problem doing that so our plans will reflect that we will label uh the front portion of our parking lot um as a fire lane along the curb and he did did mention and I think this is relevant for I think one of our experts said this that he said if a fire breaks out in this building the fire department will be taking over the entire parking lot along with Speedwell and D Dayton Road so as we suggested they would take care take uh jurisdiction over this site anyway but we will agree to make that label on the port I think you were reading from something if at some point if that could make it into the record as it may have I'm not sure but it would be good if that made it into the record and so forth sure okay this is our Final witness this evening um we have Mr Nicholas Riano he is a professional planner and I would ask that he be sworn in oh that's right call Mr graviano that you're still in roow yes okay Mr gravano yeah goad I did not provide my qualifications I was simply sworn in if the board would like that yeah sure Mr graviano please give the the board the benefit of your qualifications yes I have a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University a master's degree in city and Regional planning from Ruckers University a law degree from the Temple University School of Law where I received a distinguished class performance in state and local government law I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I also hold an aicp certification I've testified before boards and governing bodies in over 100 municipalities in 18 different counties including Rocksberry Rockway Morris Township East T over to name a few here in moris County any on the board AC qualifications thank you for having me board okay Mr gravano um you prepared a analysis of the variance and waivers that we're seeking in this case sir that is correct could you please uh take the board through your justifications for why we believe these uh relief should be granted sir certainly uh just a quick summary the applic applicant is requesting preliminary and final site plan of Ru with lot merger and bulk variants for a specific piece of property known as block 23 Lots four and five that is located in the B2 business District zone uh the lot is roughly 6 7 Acres 976 acres in area the property features 170 ft of Frontage along Speedwell ab and 245 ft of Frontage along Dayton Road uh both properties are presently improved both with uh former friendlies restaurant as well as a office building the applicant is proposing to demolish all structures to construct a roughly 3,000 ft McDonald's restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru 39 seats with 32 on-site parking spaces Landscaping lighting Paving curving grading drainage and other related improvements are proposed as well the project is located in the B2 zoning District uh the B2 zoning District stretches from Speedwell Avenue on Speedwell Avenue from Dayton Road to hover Avenue uh this is a district that permits wide range of commercial uses including the drivethru restaurant which is Clos before you this evening in terms of setbacks the applicant is exceeding all required yard setbacks uh a front yard setback of 33 ft is required on speed well Avenue the applicant has 52 ft uh the front yard on Dayton 25 ft is required the applicant has a little over 58 ft in terms of the side yard 10 ft is required 80 ft is proposed and from the residential Zone setback 35 ft is required 96.7 Fus proposed with this application the B2 District was amended to permit the drive-thru uses in ordinance 14-223 titled an ordinance to provide for the partial Amendment supplementation and revision of chapter 13 2000 borrow mors Plains Land Development ordinance section 13- 2.1 definition of terms section 13- 5.1 c Schedule C permitted uses it goes on to say whereas the master plan re-exam examination report for the borrow moris Plains adopted 2018 of October recognized that increased competition with online shopping has adversely impacted brick and mor retail sales establishment in the Burrow's non-res residential zones to combat vacancies in the downtown areas the re exam report recommended that borrow examine all the permitted uses of the non-residential zones in order to per with the experimental type of retail experimental type of retail seeks to attract customers to experience something in person at a commercial space or showroom that would not be possible online it goes on the state in the summer of 2021 the mass R Review Committee undertook an examination of the permitted uses and the master plan uh examination Review Committee submitted a report to borrow Council on May 10th 2023 that recommend drive-through restaurants be a permitted perinal use in the B2 and B3 zones so the borrow recognized that the use that the applicants before the board with this evening is a response to the changing economy and and this such use advances the goals and purposes of the master plan we've had numerous hearings on this application we've heard numerous hearings of testimony from licensed professionals on behalf of the applicant we've also heard a lot of questions from the concerned public and the Cornerstone of any Community is public participation and we applaud everyone who's been at these hearings shown a commitment to their neighborhood and Community Based on this dialogue the applicant has made numerous concessions of plan modifications the first being that the applicant has reduced the proposed operational hours at the request of the board the applicant is performing pedestrian and crosswalk improvements along Speedwell Avenue the driveway exit onto Dayton Avenue has been designed to prohibit right turns steering Vehicles towards the Speedwell intersection an extensive Landscaping package in birming has been added to the yard adjacent to the residential neighbor on Dayton the number of building Mountain mounted signs has been reduced uh there will only be three wall mounted signs that are modest on the building facades and additionally as you'll see uh in a future exhibit the applicate will be willing to work with the municipality and the board on a fa design that is more traditional in nature in lie of the more modern design that was not in favor by the board and some of the residents so from a planning perspective this is a very simple application we've heard hundreds of questions and comments and everything but this is a simple planning application this is a permitted use before the board the applicant does not need to justify this use before the board this isn't the zoning board or demonstration of particular suitability and an enhanced burden of the proof is not necessary the borrow has done that already by making this a permitted use via the master plan and the zoning ordinance so when you really dig deeper and examine the relief being requested by the applicant there is nothing that constitute a substantial detriment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance the first variance that the applicant is requesting is the loading variance uh section 13- 5.7 B1 where a loading space is required and zero loading spaces are proposed as you heard in previous testimony the applicants Engineers testified that there will be two 45 minute deliveries a week in non peak hour restaurant hours testimony and Exhibits were given showing that the safe unloading of goods can occur in the drive aisle this is the customary delivery method for the majority of the 13,000 McDonald's restaurants Nationwide I did a little research no Standalone McDonald's restaurant in Mars county has a dedicated loading area no Standalone Wendy's restaurant in Mars county has a dedicated loading area and no Standalone Burger King in Mars county has a designated loading area so utilizing the drive aisle for loading is a very customary situation additionally it reduces unnecessary pavement and impervious coverage for infrequent activity on of deliveries on very modest building the applicant is also requesting a parking variance uh pursuant to section 13- 5.7 a Schedule E off street parking space requirements the ordinance of the municipality actually has two different parking standards uh the first being that one parking space shall be provided for every 2.5 seats within the building or one parking space for every 75 squ ft of blow floor area whatever is greater so if you look at the parking requirement by the number of seats that would be 16 however the parking requirement through the gross floor area is 41 which is a little bit of an oddity this is a very modest sized restaurant only 3,000 square ft for a good portion of the Interior Space is the kitchen area you heard the traffic engineer give some data on this situation as per the it calculations a restaurant of this size would only require 14 off street parking spaces uh Additionally you heard data of a survey of 31 McDonald's in New Jersey the average is 18 off street parking spaces uh the busiest McDonald's which was on Route one9 in rway utilize at peak hour 30 off street parking spaces that restaurant however is 2,000 square ft larger than the one proposed today and on a highway with an average daily traffic of 60,000 Vehicles three times the amount of the 20,000 which uh the speed well on this site uh in J so the data shows that the ordinance required parking is not needed to adequately serve the restaurant creating additional off street parking um that would actually meet the ordinance standards would create unnecessary payment and add additional unneeded impervious coverage to the site uh the applicant is also requesting a fencing variance a Max of 6 ft is permitted and 8 ft is proposed in the rear yard adjacent to the landscape BM this obviously Pro provides increased screening for the Neighbors the benefit of the increased ven height outweigh any detriment that the extra extra 2 feet will will create now to discuss the signage variances I will uh put forth exhibit A10 which is a revised architectural elevation of the building which does indicate the signage locations uh on the building uh the building mounted signage this this exhibit will show additionally this will show a res a revised facade elevation obviously the applicant would be uh willing to work on these elevations based on the board comments and the board professionals comments so this elevation certainly is not uh St set in stone so in the front elevation you have the speed well Avenue facade on this facade you have uh the only signage is uh the McDonald's arches uh that side that sign needs relief for the letter height whereas 3.5 ft is proposed where 2 feet in height is permitted uh the rear elevation uh at the previous hearing the applicant removed the sign uh on the south facing elevation the non- drive-through side elevation the applicant additionally only has uh the the golden arches U that size will that sign will also need relief for uh the sign height as well as a square footage lastly uh the applicant also agreed to remove signage on the date Avenue Frontage where on the Dayton Avenue Frontage uh you only have the McDonald's letter signing um that sign meets the permitted square footage however the applicant is requesting a variance uh for the letter height so the relief being requested in relation to signage is from 13- 5.8 C uh the maximum letter or logo height for well mounted signage um shall be 2 ft the applicant is proposing 3 1/2 ft uh this is done to promote visibility for motorists um you'll see similar s Heights uh with the Chase Bank and the Citizens Bank along speedwall Avenue uh the applicant is also requesting relief from 13- 5.8 C1 uh as in the lighting of sign shall be limited to indirect lighting spot lighting or back lighting the applicant is proposing in ly lit signage for safety and visibility reasons um similarly uh you'll see it Citizens Bank and um Chase Bank they have internally lit signs this is certainly in keeping with the established sign pattern uh on speedwall Avenue so the applicant is requesting that relief now the applicant is also requesting relief for the number of free standing signs and this is really a technicality because the ordinance does not provide uh for menu wordss in this uh zoning District so the applicant is requesting a variance for the quantity of freestanding signs one freestanding sign is permitted and five are proposed however there is only one freestanding side which meets the ordinance size limits on speedwall Avenue uh the other four freestanding signs are menu boards for the drive-thru uh the mixed use commercial overlay Zone which is on Route 10 does provide parameters for the menu boards uh that zoning District does allow uh one pre-order and one menu board permitted for the drive-through Lane uh the applicant is providing one of each per each drive-thru Lane additionally in that zone the maximum sign area of an ordering menu shall not exceed 30 square ft the applicant is at 19.7 Square ft per each menu board sign additionally the maximum sign area for a pre-ordering menu board sign shall not exceed 20 Square ft the applicant is at 9.8 Square ft for the pre-ordering sign so it's certainly uh within the established limits of ordinance standards for uh drive-through facilities and other zones that does trigger a variance for maximum freestanding sign area where a maximum freestanding sign area of 20 square F feet is required and the cumulative square feet of those five signs is 75.4 square ft as I stated before the freestanding sign is sare ft 20 square ft is permitted by ordinance so that's certainly within keeping of the ordinance regulations the B2 District allows for freestanding signs in the front yard only and the menu board and the pre-or board are in the sidey yard um so variances required for the freestanding sign locations uh certainly do uh to the construction of the ordinance uh standards which are not set forth for the B2 Zone the applicant is also requesting freestanding sign material variants sign shall be constructed of painted wood wood likee material wood appearing material uh the applicant is proposing aluminum materials for the sign uh the applicant is also requesting a variance for freestanding sign lighting whereas indirect lighting is required and the applicant proposes LED and internal lighting uh I'm going to introduce exhibit A1 where look at the signage of Citizens Bank and Chase Bank the freestanding sign as well as the wall mounted signs are internally illuminated that's certainly in keep in with the signage patterns along speed well Avenue for Corner lots and drive-through type uses I would also like to note as you see uh in the aerial photography uh you you will not will not see any loading areas on these sites the loading area for these sites are all done uh through the drive uh Drive AIS within the off street parking areas I would like to note that based on my examp examination of all the commercial uses along Speedwell Avenue there's only one uh user which had a loading dock and that makes sense that's the former acne site so not having a loading area on a commercial use on speedwall Avenue is is the norm and it's certainly uh been able to accommodate uh the business uses without the use of loading Ang lastly the applicant is requesting some design waivers related to the parking stall syst size 10x 20 ft is required 9 by8 ft is proposed you've heard in previous testimony that that's the standard parking spot size uh there's also a waiver being requested for the striping 18inch hair pin striping is required and single line striping is proposed and lastly there's a design waiver for the screening uh an 8ft fence is proposed where a maximum of 6 feet is permitted now all those variances that I just mentioned uh can be granted under the C2 criteria where in an application related to a specific piece of property here you have block 23 Lots four and five a vacant former friendlies restaurant and office building located in the B2 zoning District the purposes of the municipal land use law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements looking at the purposes of zoning that this proposal advances it certainly advances purpose a to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare you have a elimination of a vacant and underutilized structure the use as per the goals and objectives of the master plan promotes a use resilient to the current economy furthering the goals of the master plan and zoning ordinance additionally when you look at the part working variants as well as the loading variants uh the reduction in in impervious coverage on the site certainly promotes the public health safety morals and general welfare Additionally the internally lit signing helps minimize any Halo impacts from U indirect signage so uh that creates a safer environments for motorist recognition of the site additionally this promotes purpose cheat to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for variety of commercial uses according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens um obviously you know this is a permitted use and it's appropriate location for the proposed use uh in terms of a sufficient space the applicant is exceeding all the required building setbacks of the district lastly this helps promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangements there's an extensive Landscaping package which is not exist today adjacent to the residential neighbor Additionally the increased uh landscape buffer adjacent to Dayton Road will be provided for within this application um so certainly The increased Landscaping package and a new building which is not uh abandoned or or not being used certainly promotes a desirable visual environment looking at the negative criteria the benefits of any deviation would substantially outlay any detri as I stated in my testimony all the variances do not create a substantial detriment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance nor the public good and there are solid reasons for the granting of such variances so in conclusion all the applicants relief is minimal in nature and certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria advancing purposes Ag and I of the municipal Landing Mr gravana could you just pull up the um elevation that you showed initially please what's the difference between this and the one we showed originally the previous uh design was very modern in nature with with material materials that were modern appearing uh the applicant strove here to use a a siding like material here you'll see um it's it's fiber cement board which people will come we know is as as Hardy plank um it's a material used to look like sing that's a little bit more durable it's a little bit more aesthetically pleasing in nature um so that was done to create a building that's a little bit more ining with the uh visual environment on Speedwell Avenue and and the prior rendering was what dark gray it was a dark gray uh vertical boards and this this was seeking to create a more traditional appearance okay Josh do we have that rendering no okay um we don't have any other further direct questions um for this witness thank you m chair um first question I have actually has to do with the can you hear me okay it has to do with the architecture yes um and you know specifically September we had talked about brick and that brick was sort of a Prevail you know prominent material particularly in the larger buildings on Speedwell Avenue is there any opportunity uh to put brick or brick siding in this location yes the applicant is certainly willing to work with the board on providing additional brick on the facades I've got a um a rendering that we can show you okay yeah let me just I'm sending it to him now just take one second apologize for the delay don't you can take some more questions while we're getting this slow all right thank you y um the next question has to do with the loading space so is it your testimony that even if you had let's say a site twice as large there would still be no loading space um as you heard in the Traffic Engineers testimony none of the current prototypes are being designed with loading spaces so even if the site was larger uh the applicant would not be providing a loading space so a related question is if there are not not you know it's not their practice McDonald's practice to provide a loading space is there any opportunity to not have deliveries by tractor trailer uh that would be a question I'd have to discuss with the applicant but I think you heard in testimony that the two the very modest two deliveries at 45 minutes a week are done through tractor trailer um now I know you're providing a landscaping buffer along the Eastern Edge and you're providing some additional Landscaping along Dayton there is since you've moved the driveway North it can is uh you provide additional Landscaping sort of in the um northeast corner of the site that's across from a residence so that in doing that it would potentially help block any headlight glare that would be coming from uh cars circulating through the site the applicant would certainly be willing to provide additional Landscaping okay um my next question has to do with the um there was information in the application about signs on ballards is that still being proposed and if so what are they those are directional signs uh for the drive-thru Lanes they they say any Lane any time they guide the motorist in the drive-through Lanes I would certainly classify them as directional signs okay and and do you for the record do you have the proposed square footage of that I'm like they're less than two square feet okay all right Madam chair those are my only questions at the moment thank you and um we're going to pull this image up for you um in a minute okay do we have any any questions and comments from the board Mr Mr G um I think you would mention in what you just uh provided information on was it McDonald's on Route One is that where you talking about traffic 60,000 cars is that you I provided reference to the McDonald's andway on Route 109 okay and then you said about a third of that or 20,000 would be on speed up the amount of traffic running on no what what my testimony was the traffic engineer provided the most busy McDonald's that he had thata on okay was a restaurant that was 2,000 square ft larger than what we're proposing on a highway with three times the traffic their max parking demand was 30 off street parking spaces whereas we're providing 32 with this application right so three times the traffic and you said about 6 three times the traffic in a restaurant was two with that is 2,000 ft larger didn't even need the parking that we're providing with this application right but again three times the traffic and I think you said 60,000 so here your ideal in your planning here is telling me that you're assuming 20,000 cars on Speedway no that's that's the do TR that there's 20,000 vehicles in either direction okay okay okay so so that's not 60,000 at the other no no we're showing that in a location that has three times the traffic that's 2,000 ft bigger requires 30 off street parking spaces we're providing 32 in a restaurant that's 2,000 ft smaller in a location that has far less traffic so what we're highlighting is that the off street parking while requiring a variance from the municipality zoning code is adequate to meet the needs of the facility right and my focus was more on the traffic even though your focus was on paring was more on what you said about traffic so three three times the amount is what I heard at that location yes all right and then the only other question I have that L to you so do any of these requested variances that the applicant is asking about they set a new PR precedent for our it almost as I said at almost every hearing that right each case Rises and falls on on the its own merits and so um there really is no precedent setting every case where they're seeking a VAR they're going to have to make their case and the board whether it be you or the zoning board can approve or not approve um based on the particular characteristics of the site its location its context Etc okay I just want to be clear thank you Mr bezel my question or comment since the property is so big and in your way within your setbacks was there any thought about making the parking lot bigger to accommodate the tractor trailer coming in and and and for the trucks that's going to come in for the disposal and to empty the grease trap like it just seems like there could be a lot of trucks coming in there at any given time and to me the parking lot just seems too small for all that you've heard nights of testimony on how this parking lot works it's my position that the applicant's relief being requested is not a substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance um you've heard uh two licensed Engineers describe how this site works and and why it works so I'm comfortable that these variances being requested uh do not create a substantial detriment to the Zone plan zoning ordinance or the public good hi thank you very much my question is about the illuminated signs and I don't know Liz maybe this might go to you as well so on the illumination of the signs are do they the ones on the side of the building I'm not talking about the um the the board signage do they dim after it's closed for the evening or they remain constantly on yeah K would be willing to shut them off okay and then secondarily maybe this is where Liz with what you're recommending is that similar in um brightness to what's already at Chase Andor citizens is it comp is it the same is it brighter where does it fall in that Spectrum I don't have the data on the illumination for those signs but you know the reason I show those other signs is to show that there are internally illuminated signs on speedwall Avenue they certainly haven't created Havoc you know on the public and you know they're aesthetically pleasing uh but the the applicant certainly would be will to work with the board professionals on elimination levels that's acceptable okay um and then just a confirmation that you did say that the um menu boards do dim after hour they would be turned off or they dim after hours or how does that I I didn't speak to that effect but in previous uh hearings the applicant will be shutting those Bo okay it doesn't make sense to run them when the store's not operation that's it for me okay go ahead with the requirements for granting a Varian um you don't meet the requirement for hardship I believe both of the existing sites are actually viable operable sites is that true uh we didn't set forth a C1 argument for this application uh we set forth the C C2 standard whereas hardship need not be demonstrated what must be demonstrated that it relates to a specific piece of property here you have an underutilized site where the applicants before the board would have permitted use so there's certainly Advan of the purposes of zoning of the municipal land use law as I went through it purposes a g and I um and I certainly feel that there's no substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinances with the request of these variances but technically both of those sites actually could be operable it's just a question about how much can you charge for the friendly site and what can you charge as far as the rent so really what you're talking about the motivation on this is that you can possibly make more money by combining the two sides and put in McDonald's is that fair or except no that's not fair whatsoever you heard nothing about financial considerations in my testimony I gave the proofs why uh the variances can be granted uh in this scenario but you didn't answer my question technically both of those sites could stand alone and be operable can they not anything's possible so technically you don't me the hardship I didn't ask for a hardship now with regard to the detriment or benefit to the town the overwhelming testimony of all of the residents here and and what what I understand is 1,200 people on Facebook and have signed a petition and stuff that it does represent a detriment to the community um some of your information with regard to the traffic study seems to be biased and you seem to ignore some of the questions as I've read the testimony over the last two meetings you're not addressing it directly how much additional property would you need in order to comply with all of our requirements and need no variances before you answer that the the Facebook post is not admissible in this hearing I just want to make that clear for the record none of that information that is all hearsay and unless those people here testifying that means nothing so go ahead I retract that everybody I only add that I think you you were the one that made the comment that Mars F seems to think they're too good for McDonald's I kind of take offense of that as I never said that never said that you can make this application about me and making an adom attack against me all you want but if you want to talk about the merits we can talk about the merits your attorney will advise you that Facebook posts are not admissible okay so unless you have law to show me sir that's the that's the law I retract that I'm not arguing with you why are you why are you trying to argue with me because you mischaracterized what I said about this community I never said that yes you did I never said this community thinks it's too good for you want I'm going to call call a 3 second pause here let's see we can go back to questioning the WIS I'll give it a shot how much additional property would you need to comply with all of our requirements we're we're providing testimony on the application before the provided the variance justifications for the site that the applicant has been able to uh assemble would it be fair to say you probably would need the uh Duncan donut site in order to comply with all of our requirements I'm not going to answer questions on hypothetical scenario well again I don't think you meet the requirements as far as detriment or benefit to the Town based on the testimony of the residents I don't think their questions have been adequately answered I think there safety issues with regard to traffic I think the potential for forcing traffic along Mountain Way and all of the side streets is only enhanced by your proposed application that is technically is undersized you don't have the adequate property to meet the what you're trying to propose is that the question sir where is the question the question is do you agree what I said no and this is not public comment or deliberations you're asking questions not making speeches that's not what this time is for I think I'm allowed to represent the town I'm just making I'm making a record can you say the uh the actual square footage of the dining area for this restaurant you know I'd have to get that I know the whole building is 2000 change with the uh the lighting on the menu signs uh which way do they face obviously they face the cars as they're coming in but will there be any other illumination off to the side or not no they they face the cars in the drivethru lane that's the only method of elimination of the sign can you give us a size comparison uh like Chase size I think it was answer before to what you're proposed uh for the standing sign on the speed well and and again for the ones on the on the facade just out the letter Heights the letter height on the free standing sign the facade is consistent Chase I was able to get a tape measure up there they were consistent uh with respect to the freestanding sign the applicant's not requesting relief for the size of that sign that's within ordinance limits it's actually Four Square F feet smaller than it could be I just comparon just as a comparison driving up in the yeah I've had a chance to be on well Avenue probably about 10 different occasions now I certainly think that the proposed freestanding sign is in keeping with the established development pattern not only that the size is in keeping with the ordinance I know it's brought up about diming the menu board but will the signage on the faade also be during offs the applicant has agreed to turn to signage draw that's it for right now you have the answer to that question there are still researching thank you uh freestanding sign is that going to be the similar to the one that friendley has the freestanding sign is going to be similar yet smaller than what but it's going to be it's going to be raised up right no it's a monument sign it's on the ground it has a base okay uh and so this leads me to my next question U on that side you have a full McDonald's there and I think I would you just put an M there and not the mdon put an M there and not the McDonald's since you have already uh the free-standing sign you don't need double well I hope I don't I hope it don't catch heck forness afterwards but the appin would be willing to just provide the M sign on the side of the building just yeah can we is there a way we could lower the light just so everyone it's important to see the side of this because this is the brick facade uh that comes up the side like 3/4 up we just can't really see it yeah that's actually the best view you could get the brick is on both sides and you can see it's about 3/4 up the side of the building and then the wood in the front on the corners that's what we were uh talking about m m thank you appreciate it that would be 82 are you finished Frank and it appeared to be I have a question okay it it appeared to be like ball I'm talking about the one in a dark yes according to the McDonald's people that has gone undergone a couple different Renovations and so it's not really their um okay yeah chairwoman I would like to note that I know the McDonald's you're referring to CU I dump deep on some of these yeah that's actually stuck up oh it's stuck up yeah the top is stuck of the Bas is Brick the base of the brick is only like probably like this tall here you would have like 75% of the facade being brick and this is actually nicer than that one thank you and and when when you say brick it's really brick it's not the stucco that's that's made to look like brick well whatever it's it's going to look like bri it'll look like brick yes okay okay um did you have a question question I was a to come up with this see four menu signs two for menu and two for orders can we make a menu sign singular and have it shared by both lanes no it just that's not the way it works um there is the pre-order menu and then there's the Met menu board for both lanes the menu boards need to be angled at Delan so for viewability yes but as I noted the app size for both the menu ordering board and the pre-order board or 10 ft 10 s ft under what you have in the overlay Zone on Route 10 do have question want me to go the please thank you so much for your testimony so I just want to go over a couple things and have ask you a couple questions here uh so you mentioned the master plan of being if this is in conformance to the master plan which are you referring to the 2018 one that's correct and when you're talking about the retail with the online shopping and things like that um because I have it in front of me and I've just seen that they're referring to departure of large corporations and Regal trends of the office Market is that what you're referring to I'm referring to the master plan's goal to provide provide commercial land uses which are online shopping resilient as well as the verbage in uh ordinance 14-223 which highlights the master PL committee efforts to develop land uses that are consistent and recommended in the 2018 master plan reexamination whereas that recommendation therefore amended the B2 District to provide drive-thru restaurants um along this section of speed roll Avenue okay um in your opinion I mean as we know I I'm practicing the landing St for 13 years not as much as you right but uh just because something is allowed in a zoning District doesn't mean I mean if it was you would need all these sort of variant you wouldn't need all these variances and the fact so you could still just because it's allow doesn't mean that it's the best place for it now going forward with that because I heard all the comments is like what would you do could you expand with the parking or things like that if you didn't want to mention but I want to go focus on you know what you refer to as a criteria for the purposes of the ml regarding a& G here um and specifically also the master plan as well because one of the things that they bring up on the master plan I'm sure you read it a bunch and I only know this I look I came in because my cous was there is there a question here I make there is a question there is a question how come it so one of the biggest things that they say here is about pedestrians pedestrians and they want to make sure and I'll refer to you to the page right now that they're going to have adequate parking spaces for all the different uses and as well as they kept on meeting pedest safety school safety walking to schools and one of the great Parts about horse planes is that I mean I've never seen them PL where you would have kids walking home from school so how are you meeting those uh those guidelines for the master plan providing proficient spaces of parking and loading zones special appropriate areas and also faring as far as pedestrian safety how are you meeting those the the applicant has set forth numerous nights of testimony regarding The Pedestrian safety and The Pedestrian safety improvements that will be accomplished on on speed Avenue and you know as I mean I'm asking you right now I understand let me let me bring little order okay um one person at time if she's ask a question let finish if he's providing testimony please let him finish second pause because we have a transcri thank you yeah I would just like to add the applicant is providing pedestrian safety improvements on speed well Avenue furthermore I'd like to note that there's numerous case law including the seminal Dunkin Donuts first North Brunswick where the board certainly does not have the authority to prohibit or liberate uses generating traffic um it's that's an exercise of zoning power invested in the municipal governing body this Municipal governing body has permitted this use on site via an extension of an exhaustive review of of the master plan and zoning ordinance where two separate actions were taken to permit this use on site so while the the public has safety concerns this applic professional certainly has provided testimony to alleviate those concerns and it's certainly not within the board's purview to deny an application of on those concerns okay the other question I have for you because I'm going back to the parking spaces as well for the parking um length as well here so you're asking for thir to permit 32 parking spaces that's incl um including of two electrical Vehicles Ada spaces where 41's required as well as 9 by8 space so how many employees I think they said what 10 to 15 employees there so you're getting to what about 14 parking spots that are under size is that correct testimony was set forth that the quantity and design of the parking area was adequate to meet the functionality of the restaurant so based on the determination of two separate Professional Engineers who have extensive uh experience designing McDonald's um data was set forth that the parking Supply as well as the design of the parking is adequate to meet the needs of this restaurant okay um as far as the appropriate one too in your view because we're cross the street from middle school right and not only that you're going to have cars there but also boss is kids walking and I'm sure a lot of people drive minivans in your opinion does minivans fit into a 9 by8 spot yes they do will there be enough space for someone to come to go out and say put in their car seat things like that the applicants Engineers have testified that the 9 by8 space is adequate to meet the needs of this restaurant in your opinion though uh from what you've seen have you ever done one of these drivers across from school there are numerous McDonald within the vicinities of schools yes but across the street this is a permitted use we do not have to justify Lo of this use the applicant is not before you have to justify let me let me finish this is a permitted use the governing body has deemed the site appropriate for such use the applicate is not before the zoning board having to demonstrate particular suitability nor the enhanced burden approved this is a permitted use this application is not only reviewed by this board and the board's professionals but also the do there's numerous layers of review so yes this is a safe uh situation for the surrounding Community okay so when you're referring to that this is saved and they've gone through all these sort of things and you're saying that well it's allowed for this use to be here right and that therefore you it doesn't matter the bulk variance is so in your op even if say uh you know if their V variances don't matter why are you asking for them if the site is deemed to be appropriate here there's plenty of places in the B2 things of that sort well first of all there aren't plenty of spaces in the B2 there's seven Lots in the B2 to be exact I've analyzed that issue uh furthermore it's certainly within the applicant's right under the municipal land use law to request C variances in conjunction with preliminary and final site plan approval uh the applicants professionals have provided the justifications for the granting of those variances and I'm in agreement that there's no substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance with the granting of such variances so but we're talking about that you have to prove right now that there's no substantial detriment correct yes right so when you're talking about that and you're saying that this because this area was zon for this particular use does um then any sort of drive-thru because let's be h honest McDonald's is not the only drive-thru company you could have Starbucks I mean it would be a great location for Shake Shack I'm just biased because I like their burgers but you know when we're talking about this and you're talking about substantial detriment here what I'm trying to ask you is that how you're you're still repeating this and you're referring to the different experts here but I feel like you still haven't answered the question because you're referring to it how is this going to towards the kids with pedestrian safety when you're talking about and even going back to the design standards for this you're mentioning about the chase bank can you put that Chase Bank picture up there please put it is that a bigger lot than the McDonald's one with a ton of parking I'm not going to answer questions that are subjective well I'm we're all looking at right now it's obviously a much bigger lot than what you're referring to actually L lot has less parking than McDonald's is proposing I mean it's a huge lot and also Banks require less we referring to also the loading zone I mean from what I understand for banks they just have armored trucks is that correct don't really have 18 wheelers objection relevance to I mean I'm asking about your you guys made the comparison that this is like a bank and that's why you don't need loading zone because everywhere else has no loading zone because there's a bank the banks don't have it you don't need it but the banks don't have 18 wheelers coming actually while during the same time you're going to have buses there for school buses I'm talking about that you're showing me this as proof and that's why this is relevant but I'm going to defer to uh Council Brewer on this if is for the relevance here because if you mentioned the chase thing there's a question here there's if there's a question to answer firstly I I utilize the Chase Bank to uh compare the signage as well as the fact that this ordinance requires a loaning zone for every use uh in the district as well as the other districts on speed well Avenue the only building with a loading zone is is the former AC site which is rational to have on a building of that square footage and a supermarket you know loading zones are not existent on speed Avenue for buildings of this size additionally all of the uses du to loading through the drive a within the parking so this this use is no exception to that scenario okay uh so I'm looking again at this Chase lot and I'm also looking at the side here right now too um do you think that these are muted colar I mean the blue is kind of big like that but I see the rest of it white and you know you're talking about I know this sounds silly but I was looking at great pictures of the Tucson I think it was in Arizona where they had blue signage one of the things that are particular and if you read the 2018 master plan again they say particularly youed colors are you guys open to creating to obeying by the muted colors the applicants requesting the signage provided with the application with the modifications granted to the board to eliminate numerous facade mounted signs on the building um you have the the very modest uh yellow arches which I would say are muted and you have the red freestanding arches sign on the on the corner which is in keeping with the freestanding signages of the bank that are on speed can I see a picture of the freestanding sign please for sorry to the touch screen but that's the freestanding sign okay so how big is that sign the the sign is the sign is 4x4 4 feet by 4T yes for on the front you're saying for the same as the chase bag no I'm not saying it's the same as the Chase Bank I said that it was the same in terms of the method of Illumination for the illumination but the colors are much different I mean white colors are different than the red and yellow is that correct that is correct and white would be considered me CH correct which are in Alliance with the master plan yes I would say so okay would they be would McDonald's be open to changing the sign to make it a white sign is that to make it muted colors and to work with no we're not doing that it's McDonald's McDonald's has a universal sign that's red and yellow why would we make a white sign you're asking for a variance okay yeah and we'll stick by it we want the variance so what is the benefit like what's the benefit for the community for you having a red and yellow sign CU everyone recognizes it that's why you know it's McDonald's the the the benefit to the community you're not allow to the benefit to the community is the visibility of the fact that there's a McDonald's on the site so that sign promotes visibility which enhances uh motorist and pedestrian safety I would um it seems like that would Advance only nearly Advance the purposes of the owner to see that no I think there's a strong which you're not allowed to have you have to prove that you are not merely advancing the applicant what is the benefit for the residents here and what is the benefit for the residential people that have to stare at this red and yellow sign as I stated previously you know when it comes to a C2 variance yes The Advocate needs to demonstrate that there purposes other than its own's purposes being Advanced I certainly think that motorist and pedestrian safety with clear recognition of the site does provide a public purpose sure but there's a white sign for Chase Bank and they're IM muted cols why is McDonald's requesting the red and yellow for aarian then if you can change the colors the white and blue is part of the Chase Bank branding color scheme sure but yes okay but you're aware that there's different McDonald's all over the place that make austoms and adjustments to the places that they are in notably like the one in Long Islands for example that there can be concessions here the applicant has made numerous concessions on the site in terms of signage including eliminating the McDonald's identification sign on Dayton Avenue that was 32 square ft now has been reduced to a 14 square foot uh golden arches and that sign is permitted by ordinance the applicant is permitted on that Frontage to have 50 square feet of signage the applicant was actually only proposing 32 square feet of signage now the applicant is proposing 14 square foot of signage the applicant has also red eliminated other signs on the building so the applicant has made numerous concessions to this board and Community with the reduction of signage on site sure but concessions to the community do not equal benefits to community when you create your own hardship isn't that correct the applicant's not creating its own hardship the applicant is using a color scheme which is part of its nationally recognized branding program Additionally the applicant's removal of byright signage which is permitted by the zoning ordinance to appease the board that that's certainly going a long way towards serving the community I'm sure there's concerns about the signage on Dayton Avenue the opca has eliminate those signage to a very modest yellow golden arches of 14 ft but we're going over right now the Varian that you're requesting for signage I'm looking at right now for 75.4 Ft where the maximum is low 20 square speed I'm also looking the fact that you're asking for to print free s sign for aluminum material red or yellow in color where they have to be constructed with painted wood wood like or wood peering material and Shelby dull and matte and finished colors with contrasting colors for lettering and other message elements I'm also looking at the other variances that you're asking for signage so you just told me that you guys are compliant with the signs ordinance but you're asking for all these variances so I'm going to ask you qu again for the internal lighting and different elements for that because I drove through it and I don't recall seeing Chase AB buding so many Residential Properties here so I'm going to ask you again with the signage here uh for all these different ordinances which you that you guys are complying to and you're making revisions on the benefit of the community for something that you created yourself so again with this what is the benefit for all these signs has been answered a couple times now it has been answer answer sir certainly I I would like to add that we listed Point by point the variances being requested with this application for signage at no point did I say we were fully compliant with the signage I said that we were removing permitted signs at Great square footage to accommodate request okay the other question is during your testimony you mentioned about the menu signs for free scaning you said it was allowed in another Zone what was the zoning district for that that was a mixed use commercial use overlay Zone overlay zone is this in the mixed use overlay Zone no however this Zone did not provide requirements for the menu boards for a permitted use I utilize that as comparison to show that the applicant's request is in keeping with other zoning districts which permit menu board and the ACT applicant is actually far less in square footage than what those zones permit but again this is not the mixed use zone for overlay so I'm going to go on to the next one because you're asking again for these menus and as well as the relief from the parking so I'm now going to ask you more about the parking here uh so when you're at in your opinion do you see any other step back variances that are required here do we need any other variances here especially for things of fencing for why can't the McD why can't the applicant put some more buffering to fencing around for dat na that's required what is the reason for that the applicant's not requesting a variance for fencing on Dat nothing the fencing I'm sorry I'm going to go on here it says uh you want to permit or limit uh the screening for off street parking along the front yard facing for data now where this is why um where you're supposed to have either fencing wall landscaping and facing premises and situated in the residential Zones near any residential zones as you could see when I was driving right next to it you see that the Dunkin Donuts adjacent to it does comply with that from my understanding so you're asking for the variance here why can't that be met I'm not familiar with the variance that the objecting attorneys referring to the applicant submitted to the board a very extensive and very comprehensive Landscaping crackage that provides screening not only to the residential neighbor but also a long date and Avenue I'm referring to section 13-14 I sorry d44 c2f it says that you're supposed to screen for situated that are near residential zones for any the variance in that context is to provide an actual a fence that's larger than what's required by ordinance to provide additional screening to the neighbor sure but you there's two since this is corner lot there's two front yards correct there's the one on Deon and there's one on seed well I'm not aware of any relief being required for the Landscaping being proposed on but I'm reading the very reading it right now what's required here so maybe this is a question for the planner for thep planner I think that the municipal planners look at if you have you do have a planner that's I believe that they did mention that to I that would be the more appropriate time sure that please let me I'm sorry if if they're if the applicants um Witnesses do not believe and given their opinion by the long that it is required as a board if if you're have testimony from an expert that's probably time that is sure I believe that they put that on their notice as well for that variant so I'm just confused myself you know we I don't feel that this variance is necessary however given the extensive Landscaping package that the applican has provided i c you think any potential relief could be granted under the C2 criteria for purposes a g and I without substantial impairment to the Zone planner zoning or says with the other variances would be appliable for data now yes there's a very extensive Landscaping package on can I see it please can I see where you're going to put the Landscaping please for that for landscaping for the details for the date and AD and then also the front correct that's correct that's all we wanted to see with that and so are you still asking for the variance for that because it's put on here with it is that also going to be enough screening for people across the street on Dat na that have residential homes yes I feel that that is a comprehensive screening package okay uh that they wouldn't a lot of times I'm sure you're aware too is that the buffers especially are always for being adjacent to residential areas especially with the Giant M on there and a red and yellow sign would be distracting for any sort of residential so I'm very you're going to shut the sign off at appropriate time but can you just remind me what are the hours for McDonald's and when so we can know when that sign's going to be shut off please hours are 6 to 11 hours 6 to 11 so and then when does it start up again when does it open for so 6:00 a.m. to 11: and then it starts again at 6 yes when does the sign will get turned on only at 6 to 11 and that's it yes okay and for the internal lighting of it because it produces such a delay for that do you find that that buffer and that Landscaping is going to be sufficient enough to block that light from the Residential Properties yes it answer he said it he said he believed it was a sufficient package so it was sufficient that's his answer okay the one other thing I'm saying that is one of the intentions and the reason why they limit the internal signage is because of these glare issues it's because of that light that's going into the residential property as opposed to Goose net lighting that people do would you be open to doing goose neck lighting instead of having internally lit signs no the applicants requesting the internal illumination Goose Le lighting actually provides the glare that you're referring to internal illumination does not yeah so when the go I'm sure you understand when the fose deck lighting is there it goes directly to it that's why they allow it in historic districts and not internalize lighting so my opinion that's incorrect for you but what for that so in your opinion you're saying that goose neck lighting and something that is not internally lit that's off the table yes so what is the benefit again for having that interally blit sign because one of the issues I'm sure you're aware again of these cases is is that while it does provide you know showing where that sign is for pedestrians and for people for traffic it also has to alleviate the hazards of the traffic hazards for seeing those signs all across Mr bre how many times I answer the same question the internally L sign these are different sir I've answered the question about the internally L sign I gave it the answer it's a safer situation for site identification for motorists and it reduces the glare that you often fined with externally illuminated lights so your position is again you're staying with this is somehow this is a substantial benefit that there's not going to be any detriment regarding the sign and there would not be a difference in this if you were to just have the sign be a compliant is that correct he has answer okay I just want to get that straight here and I also want to ask as well regarding variances because we're going to have this respective I just want to confirm here there's no other variances that you identified is that correct that is correct I would like the uh the uh the public to have a a chance to also ask questions as well as I can be with our own expert so that there's enough time so right now I'm going to conclude for my questioning so that way we have enough time for Peter spec to be able to present optim person what pretty optimistic person we're trying to get everything in one of the questions the reason why I'm asking about the Varian is because we identified a bunch of different variances that are not in there so but he's going to elaborate that I'm not the planner so on this note I just want to make sure that everybody else has enough time so I'm going to know we'll get to that in a minute pardon me yes 9 o' we'll take a break but Andy you want to mention what we talked about before as well I yeah people that and I think there's only a few that M Boomer represents they can't ask questions I think we made that be other members of public who are not represented by her are read to ask questions on on the planning testimony that I am I hate to throw a little complication into the mix but you know that's my job um I believe there was a a significant fundraising campaign that occurred here through GoFundMe maybe some other ways so it's our position that anyone who gave money to fund this attorney's work also should not be allowed to testify because they are funding this attorney's case that's my position and so I would appreciate if anyone who has contributed when they get up to the microphone that they should identify themselves as a contributor and we will object to them providing test that's fine I only know the people that hired me with this I just want to make sure that everybody has the opportunities that are not represented by me and I have no idea who this go on me to be honest with you I have no idea that that's would pay me I would just retain today okay will ask that question then of each would do that gets up but U speaking of that um as Mr explained before um he has looked up the regulations and we are we are allowed to limit uh the amount of time that each witness is going to ask a question so it's going to be five minutes and we are going to give you a 30 minute warning 30 seconds I mean 30 second yeah yes absolutely can I can I add something to that I think that the idea of that is to make sure all the questions that are reasonably necessary come out if five people come up and that's it it's probably going to be people can re askk questions if 18 people come up and need to take 5 minutes you're going to get to the end of the night or 26 people come up and ask 5 minutes you're going to get to the end of the night that then that's what it is it's just making sure that everybody gets a chance and it this doesn't go into six more meetings that's not that's as long as all the issues we come up that's that's please please there's one person up at a time you really can't ask about the procedure what regulation is that can we ask question if we or ask we're going to ask if you've donated and if you have correct go ahead Michelle get comfortable okay thank you okay state your name and address please for the record and that you have not contributed to uh any fund that uh uh respectfully I don't think it's fair whether I have hired I'm not asking you whether it's fair or not I'm these are the parameters that we that here what if it was Anonymous how are you ever going to know well then we're not but we're asking for you to to give us I have not okay I have and I respectfully disagree that five minutes is enough time that's fine that on the record I think that's okay okay that's fine you referenc uh the master plan and the detriment to the community uh do drive-throughs enhance or deter from walkability intact the dri through has no impact on the walkability of town how do you how can you say that it doesn't create any pedestrian problems offside does it increase walking traffic to the restaurant it could potentially yes does it encourage people to driveth through instead of walking it provides for drive-through facilities are you aware of any studies that exist about how drivethru negatively impact the walkability of the downtown this is a permitted use sir the applicant is before the board with a permitted use that allows for drive-through facilities if you would are you aware of any studies that exist I'm sure there's studies on the subject they're not relevant in this case though this a permitted use as I stated previously the applicat is not justifying the use variants before the zoning board the zoning ordinance and master plan has deemed the site appropriate for this use in the master plan and this is a question hopefully you can educate me uh when it comes to this particular varant about a drive-thru and a drive up is there any distinguishment between the two there's no variance for the driveth through in the master plan it specifically States Retail Pharmacy drive-throughs and drive up restaurants is there a difference I just want to find the exact terminology because I know what you're referring to St I would like my time back I me take time to answer please I think it's page 17 16 17 it's under item 13 P 18 of the master plan post it on the website now I'm looking at the um the the ordinance refers to driveth through so I can read it from here if you don't mind question uh ordinance number 8- 20104 is now chain prohibited uses to permit Retail Pharmacy uses with drive-thru facilities and drive up restaurants there are two distinct terms next to each other your ref ref ing the wrong ordinance the ordinance governing the ordinance governing this use is ordinance 14-223 this is what's posted on our websites to the town sir you have the wrong ordance fine I'm telling you that this is what's posted in I'm telling you no question no question do dyrs at or idling Vehicles create positive impact to the environment in a town or are they negative it's not a relevant question it's a drivethru for 70% of their vehicles are sitting in line for up to 5 minutes each on average about 8 to a thou 800 to a th000 vehicles per day is that a positive environmental impact or negative one it's not the applicant's duty to justify pered use you're asking for variances whether they apply to our town and whether it creates a positive impact the variance has nothing to do with the presence of a drive-thru I'm sorry say that again the variances have nothing to do with the actual presence of a drive-thru with your reference to idoling De this the variances you are requesting related to the master plan require you to prove that they are a positive impact to the town correct now the applicant is required to show that there's no substantial impairment in the zone plan or zoning ordinance which you've heard nights of testimony that there is not you mentioned earlier there's no other other than at the AC site that there's no other location that has a loading I believe General Plumbing Supply does which is probably the most active of all the properties on speed well is that correct are you aware of that I'm not aware of that but I went through many you know the majority of all the uses on speed Avenue I I did not personally see a loading zone about 30 seconds do any of the other sites on speed well Avenue that you reference generate roughly a thousand transactions a day you're aware I'm sorry I'm not aware of the traffic data of the various uses but the code requires loading zones for any use and this area has demonstrated that commercial businesses can exist without substantial detriment to the public good without loading zones is McDonald's an experiential uh location do they provide an experience when going to McDonald's yes that's that's what is the experience I'd like to finish the question the master plan reest what was the experience that's the question the master plan committee indicated that this use was a use that creates an experience and as you know how many kids have a birthday party at McDonald's you know there's an experience to be had at McDonald's thank you for your time I just want to stress I want to stress again to the public if there's the the idea is to have a reasonable way to get all the issues and for all the public together out not to arbitrarily limit so if there's legitimate time and sufficient time there'll be time for questions but if this goes on for 3 hours and all the issues get addressed that's what this is about not trying to limit all the questions coming out it's giving everybody a chance to speak your name and address please Jamie PES 31 Grove Avenue and you have not contributed to the fund for you not contrib to hiring okay thank you p o t k a l e s k y were any other sites in within Morris plans considered for the McDonald's is that something we last couple the the applicant's uh duty to provide testimony for variances does not require uh proof that there other suitable sites for this proposed use are there other zones in town that would require less variances than what you're asking for the applicant's application is for this site Jill C here 11 Dayton Road um and my husband may have have contributed to the GoFundMe but it was for signs it was not for a specific lawyer use so I'm not sure why anybody that donated to a general fund is now not allowed to speak and ask questions was your husband and not you please ask questions my name might be listed I don't know how it is okay so you said you have read the master plan numerous times yes okay um did you read the community's vision statement yes you could you reference any of it I don't recall it off the time okay I can read it for you the community vision statement it was an Outreach process communicated a vision statement for the buau which is as follows Mars Plains is safe healthy and vibrant small town and welcomes a diverse cross-section of residen visitors and businesses with a focus on accessibility sustainability affordability cultural enhancement and educational Excellence the bureau seeks Innovative and Sustainable Solutions to mitigate the impacts of future development on its roadways and infrastructure and most importantly maintain the small town character of Mars cevs which has made it a desirable place to live do you think the world's largest fast food corporation double driveth through fits to that plan to maintain a small town character of a town yes I do okay that question I do believe that but I don't have to believe that because the municipality believes that it's in the zoning ordinance and the master plan that this is an appropriate use so it's certainly in keeping with the established land use goals set forth by the municipality I certainly think that this is a a use that contributes to the fabric of speed Aven and the small town character yes okay um secondly the substantial detriment what is your belief of what substantial detriment to the public good is my belief stems from the previous testimony of the professionals related to the parking and loading variances as well as the the rational uh justifications for the signage variances I do not think any of them cross the threshold for substantial detriment to the Zone plan zoning ordinance or the public good what about the affected nearby properties and character of the neighborhood this is a permitted use so having a double drive-thru directly next to a residential neighborhood with just a fence and a couple bushes there's man there's more than just a couple bushes um well we can jump to that that was like question number 15 but uh last I believe it was the last meeting they said there was usually only a two-year Bond on that so if all the plants die in two years the neighborhood and the bordering neighbors have nothing else to stand not let you stand yes there is Municipal oversight for a certain period of time over the Landscaping package however this applicant will be committed to ensuring that the Landscaping on site survives in any proper for two years that's what was testified testified at the last meeting the the applicant wants some aesthetically pleasing site as much as the community does and the Landscaping will certainly be maintained well you should talk to my neighbors um respectfully I met you in the hallway after the first meeting and I said to you I said I am willing to sit down with you because you are the most impacted person in this entire room by far you are the rear property owner and I said we are more than willing to help with the screening and you guys would not meet with me I just want that on the record we try I'm still willing to sit down if you want to sit down we're happy to look at ways to I'm not going to talk to you about trees and bushes and extra foot or two of okay because thought you were talking about I'm sorry that's my fault yeah no for sure you get extra minut okay um number three and Miss Le P I'm sorry um number five she had wrote in her letter um the applicant should provide testimony regarding potential impacts um given the proposed is immediate proximity to a single family residential use on Dayton Road the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed development can meet the performance standards including including smoke air pollution odors noises and glare yes it was testified for the building and some of the lighting about but but where is the testimony for the pollution the emissions radios headl glare the noises from not from your 70 to 70 to 75% of your clients 700 to 800 cars which was put on testimony saying that would be coming through daily where is the standards for that that the neighbors we have to sub we have to deal with the applicant put forth on record that they will conform to all applicable noise emissions other standards on the site there there was to that effect there was nothing about emissions um okay well I've got many more questions so cut off uh Joseph Amarosa m o r OA 20 Dayton Road and you have not contributed to uh any fund I have not contributed to any fund thank you you refer to no substantial impairment to public health safety and general welfare does that apply only to the variances you're applying for or the overall site plan and operation that's in relation to the variances being requested by the applicant this is a permitted use by your Zone code thank you Mirabel free cor9 Lane um I Mirabel m m i r a b e l l e three cor9 lane and you have noted any funing this application okay um several times you mentioned that the applicant would be willing to work with the planner or somebody mentioned on the board is that a guarantee that yes the applicant has committed to turn the signs off when not in operation the appin has agreed to the board's planner request for additional Landscaping in that corner of the site and the applicant will certainly be willing to work with the board on a facade that is Brick dominant similar to the photograph that we shared with the I'm going to pause minut just give you brief explanation so you understand what that means typically when there are things that will need to be Chang a little bit it's not uncommon for an applicant uh to agade to work with the board's planner or landscape consult and traffic to make to make final changes that would be acceptable to that individual so if I I don't vote I don't know what's going to happen if there was an approval one of the conditions would be every time they said they would work with a person that there would be a condition that would say you can't anything until you um work with the and get the written report and satisfaction of the Planner on Landscaping iFood or something else that's how that gets implemented so you understand what that means okay so it is basically a guarantee that they will it is a statement that they will satisfy because it to some extent the board doesn't do the Nitty Gritty of what the final things are going to be the color of the leaf whether it's going to be shaped like a triangle ranal some of those things get delegated to their professions that's the type of thing I'm not saying it's good or bad I just want to so you understand what that means thank no Mom of twins and a four-year-old I don't have money to spare for that um I have a few quick questions um I think this is about the Landscaping that we've talked about that's what's up on the screen okay no I'm asking you I can't read that oh yes that's the Landscaping um does that include who is is there somebody already hired to do the landscaping or this is just in theory what would be eventually hired to execute on this lot no this is simply the design of applicants any here is it a guarantee that all of this will be done once the company secured to do the landscaping or is there room for changes based on whoever's hired so the applicant when installing this Landscaping it's going to get inspected by the the municipality's engineer that will verify that there's a planted according plan okay um so there is oversight over that okay um and then I think you mentioned the exact Frontage on Dayton Road is 245 ft can you just clarify where the stop sign is along that Frontage because currently their one does not exist contradictory to what the traffic expert said last meeting I walk that street every day so can you just clarify where that stop sign's going to be it's not really a planning relevant question but we can get you I'm speaking for the 245 fee that you testified about the frontage on Dayton I want to know will there be a stop sign in that length of the property we could call out back up our witness Craig Craig do you want to will this take into my five minutes I gave a okay thank you you you want the answer all right yeah no I do I think a stop sign's important youy what stop sign is at the end the exit on to De is it on the McDonald's property to stop CS to go on Dayton yeah right now there's no stop sign on the Friendly's lot facing Dayton so I want to know because he told me there's going to be a stop sign there I just want to know where throughout that 245 ft it'll it'll be at the exit driveway on to dat and is there room for that not to happen based on wherever this application progress like or is that definite going to happen there will be a stop sign before this law is there will be a stop sign if that location okay um when you talk about I'm just sorry I thought you were referring to an alternate location no I'm specifically referring to the stop sign that's going to save a semi- Tru from running over anybody walking up and down the sidewalk that one stop okay cuz there is not one there and it was said last meeting that there is one so I just want to make that super clear one needs to get installed no matter what happens with this CL um when you talk about the public good I don't know exactly what you quoted I think you said it outweighs the detriment can you just Define what does public good mean and who that who is the public you know public you know that that terminology comes from unal man use law um you know public good refers to the overall Community including citizens on that street yes Does it include people working in McDonald's not the town includes everybody so how does one draw the line between what public what public that's good for I think you're digging a little bit deeper in this than than you need to this applicant has set forth planning justifications such as the elimination of a vacant and underutilized building to providing additional Landscaping to providing pedestrian walkway improvements um those are all activities that go towards you know the public good okay no I think it's so I'm digging into it because it's really close to home you don't live three houses down from this lot and it's important to me to understand what public good means if that's what we're basing this whole application on that the public good outweighs the detriment that's going to be caused so I don't think I'm digging too far into it I think it's appropriate for everyone to know that um the variance for the parking lot that you guys are asking for I believe you were calling a waiver um I think in the engineer's first testimony he mentioned that because your setback is so far back you have room for overhang on each of the parking spots is that true am I verbalizing this correctly which which variants you referring to specifically the one about the size of the parking spots um the testimony from the first meeting I believe said that there's enough room that larger cars can overhang into the grass if they don't fit in the parking spot I want to make sure I'm understand I I don't recall that specific testimony but yes they there is could be overhang okay I guess is there a way that the applicant can prevent that overhang from happening on the parking spots that are adjacent to sorry you won't be able to hear me if you're speaking I'm I'm sorry I'm try can this be paed too then we're just trying to get your answers I know time liit is he so nervous there's wheel stops pardon there's wheel stops okay about 30 seconds I wanted to my question would be would we triple make sure that there's not going to be overhang on the grass that then leads to a sidewalk on Dayton if big pickup trucks need to park and have overhead I'd rather that happen on this side of the lot where there isn't a sidewalk directly next to the parking spot so I've seeing if that's something that there there's no impact from the parking onto the sidewalk there wouldn't be overhang out much okay we're at five minutes I uh just for the public the um planning boards and Boards of adjustment are given Power by the state of New Jersey to bend the rules give variances and they say the um they give you a magic formula that you have to find one of the things is benefit to the public good no detriment to the public good those things they don't the find them so that's that that is why the people that can testify to that g fact what's going to happen and people Express their opinions but the the experts have uh training they've gone to school they got a agree in plan and that's that's what the standard they're stuck with it that the New Jersey legislature said you have to find something that has to do with the public good benefit and the legislature didn't Define it so um it is based on the training that's that's the best I can give you everybody's stuck with that language that's the only way this board could ever exercise granting a variance is applying that that language I didn't mean to cut you off Pun It's I want to explain why that phrase no that's helpful is that same governing body why we can be limited of time on the mic here excuse me is that same governing body that gives that explanation the same one that limits the time at the mic yep they said uh reasonable limitations and things can be cut off for repetitive or relevant or anything else so it's just trying to let everybody get in yes the same legislature wrote that provision that said that the uh presiding officer chair can impose uh reasonable limitations they didn't Define reasonable the court cases did which is why I gave the examples of 3 5 10 and probably every every amount of minutes other than that at some point in time have been a limitation done reasonable so it's balancing the append has the right to move forward the board has a time limit the public wants to get its things in so is it reason that's that's best I can tell you no that's helpful I didn't get my law so the context is helpful I'm trying thanks Juniper J IP um and no I did not donate to the um so you testified that the lighting needs to be internally lit for identification purposes for driver safety correct I'm saying that it assists identification that it like it it provides better identification for Motors well the traffic expert two meetings ago testified that they expect that the vast majority of the traffic is going to be local traffic so do we really need to have internally liit signs when it's going to be apparently all of us who are using that does it need to be that or can we actually consider using the new neck linting or something that is a little bit more in keeping with the sign with the design of the downtown as we've seen it at GES plumbing and things like that I I provided examples of the Chase and Citizens Bank but I would also like to note that kiori delicious moris Wine and Liquor moris Plains Pharmacy Collins Pub scoop station time for a bagel carel hia Chase and citizens they all have eternally luminating signs and I don't certainly think it hasn't been a detriment to to the community or or the downtown nature of speed well I think that's something that we have tried the town has been trying to address though with business owners as they have been renovating as well to try to change the look of some of the buildings that's come up previously so we're just asking if it's possible that you consider some different design ideas so this way it's something we can if we're going to be looking at it to look at it ins say it's nice it Blends in the applicant has drastically reduce the amount of signage on the building for the modest amount of signage has left the applicant is requesting enir for the lighting we're going to look we're going to look at the goose snacks for you and if it's if it's feasible we can probably work those in okay okay s Deo two 3 Mountain Way and not that it's anybody's business but no I didn't donate the fund I will do so later d m e z and if there is a rule about that on some regulation in the state I'd like to know what it is um I I'll I'll I'll pause and give you the courts have said that essentially as part of that interpreting that reasonable word um they have courts have said that if you are represented by Council then you don't also get a chance to question so what does that mean that that's the implementation it's not something that's made up here it's to bring more okay um we've talked about public good which is nice do you run sir do you run outside do you walk outside do you sidewalks in your own town I don't understand how this irrelevant I'll tell you how it's relevant do you know how many pedestrians are hit by cars driving into and out of drive-throughs no I don't have that number that's okay I do um according to the national highway traffic safety administration 20% of pedestrian accidents occur in non- roadway locations which include drive-throughs so if we're going to talk about public good and as somebody who does run and walk outside and is aware of the drive-thru locations because people do in fact speed in and out and most of the locations along speed well are res are more are used more by residents in this town than I've heard argued that the McDonald's will be used for people are generally aware that people are walking on the sidewalks if I have somebody if somebody's coming into town strictly for McDonald's which we imagine that they will right they might not know that this is really a walking town and that kids people with their dogs people with strollers are walking around and they may not pay attention so in the drive-through Lane will there be signs to look for pedestrians to look both ways will there be mirrors are there blind spots the testimony on the function of the drive-thru Lan is done other earings so that's a no no I'm telling you that testimony on a function with drive through lanes and conflicts or or non-c conflicts with pedestrians was done by the traffic engineer and the engineer it wasn't part of my testimony okay that's fine I'll take it as a now I appreciate your time Jo bobo1 Mountain Way B and boy e l l o m o Mr BMA you are identified as one of the five people who retained Miss Kum oh it's the dad it's the dad I'm sorry I'm sorry good you got me you got me Italians always get me I know not that it's any your business whether I do or not be honest with you no it is actually my my question is this it's about the Genesis of this whole this whole thing the uh there was a decision made that change the zoning ordinance for this particular area of of speed AV am I right on that so that it Ena the drive throughs yes okay when was that one when was that past was it past when there was just two separate Lots there the Friendly's lot and then the next lot if there were separate Lots my question is how all of a sudden do these two lots come together and then board can now that now that the mnon can fit in there before it couldn't fit with the with the um just what's the friendly spot you need that extra lot in order to get the drive through so my question is uh when did it occur and if it occurred before the two lots were were merged then really you guys shouldn't be applying for this application if this is a if this is a question this is a conspiracy theory that's been going around town that I've heard of and if you would like to bring up the circumstances of how that how that Amendment took place you should take it up with the Town Council where's the planning board my question is this I'll go right back to what Ron had said earlier if it was just the friendley lot which everybody thought would be a great thing all right we'll get friendlies in there friend you know it's it's a mess we got to something cleared up we going to put a little restaurant in there maybe hamburger stuff whatever that would be great and then the traffic wouldn't be so so bad we wouldn't need a drive through we could have like we did before but that didn't happen what we did we expanded the lot so my question is my question is was this particular ordinance for that one lot or was it for both Lots no this particular ordinance was from for the parcels frontting Speedwell Avenue from Dayton all the way to Han yes it did for all of them but as single Lots am I or am I mistaken there if I'm mistaken that's fine it's Zoning for the entire area you're right but the zoning applies to a single lot not not unless the lots have been combined that's the only way that this thing works people using multiple lots for development applications is common throughout the city right but when when the ordinance was passed it was passed with the knowledge that we've got friendlies then we've got the lot next door then we've got dunken donuts so the people that were making that decision they were making that decision based on what they knew at the time so that that ordinance okay applied to the friendly law and then said okay you can put whatever you want in there in friendlies that makes sense but you can't put to it I respectfully disagree with your well you you're welcome to and you know I could be wrong but I think that was something to bely probably would you consider thank you rob M to Maple Al I have not contributed to anything I would like to register for the record that I think there's a difference between contributing to something and being represented by an attorney and I think that um it's incumbent on the board to make that distinction to all the residents so they know that they can speak if you're not represented by attorney um most of my question actually was what Mr palbo said so I really appreciate that just to extend on that you keep saying that this is an approved use so it's an approved use for one lot would a double drivethru fit on the single friendlies lot alone would that be a something that be buyable on that lot that's not the applic application the applic app no please let him answer would it be the applicant's application is for two lots I'm not going to comment on a hypothe development scenario that doesn't exist I'll understand that as a no so um would this be would a would a 10 driveth through be an acceptable use on the side could if you could put 10 drive-through Lanes would that be an acceptable use my testimony relates to the two drive-thru Lanes being proposed by the applicant nothing more you came in front of the board and you said that you have certain credentials I'm asking you would that be an acceptable use you say this is an acceptable use I'm asking you what is the limit 1 2 10 100 what are the drive Lings that accept my role is to provide testimony for the plan before the board which I've done I'm using my preventions to answer your question it doesn't seem to me like you're answering my question because you're just keep repeating the same thing for the record what I'm trying to ask is there's currently two lots as Mr Columbo said correct are these are these Lots joined right now or are they still separated in terms of their parcel this application includes a request to merge process is there a variance required for that or is there any other um anything I know that in residential lots often times these are merged sort of if the lots are regularly shaped in um business Lots is there what is the process could you describe the process for that there's no variances required for the merging of these is there a process that that needs to undergo after this board in order to merge those lots yes could you describe what that process is for us yes the revised lot needs to be filed with with the county okay so in order for this application to be successful that would need to be approved by the county or by the by the burrow is there any is there any mechanism in the burrow to approve that or it's only on the county level the burrow approves it then it gets filed what governing body is it on the borrow level that approves that this board and is that part of this application or it's a separate application it's part of this application okay so it's fair to say that if that is not approved by this board then the current lot um configuration would not be feasable because there C to be setbacks between whatever the buildings were there have to be two buildings or something this is that fair to say I see no rational reason why that shouldn't be approved on that's not what I asked I asked is it true that if you're if this if the merder did not happen that the current configuration would not be viable sorry I gave you an answer if you want to make a statement you could do that you said you didn't see a reason for it to happen I asked if that merger were not approved would the current configuration you B that's what I asked I answered the question I don't believe you did thank you okay we'll take this Michelle we're going to take this one more and then a break down going to go too but I don't want to be the last guy and not have a shot we can wait yeah thank you Mr May I'll do I'll hold it in the meantime uh Robert bian ban C hii 11 layer Drive uh I don't believe it's necessary a a retainer agreement needs to be signed in order to be represented by an attorney I signed no agreement and sorry my over here I also did not contribute anyway so it doesn't make a difference I just think that um if there are people here that want to put something on the record and they've been denied that because they've contributed they should at least state that so at least it's clear for the record um Mr gra thank you very much appreciate your uh you're being here I'm just curious if there there's no loading zone and some people suggest that this parking lot's going to be very tight I if I understand if I'm a traffic engineer there's not going to be any Idol in of trucks that are going to be at this facility when they're loading and unloading things is that accurate yes and uh you're a planner so you you've done a slot for McDonald's I assume I've represented McDonald's in the past about how many times one off the top of my head okay so uh you would agree when we're talking about whether or not something is detrimental to the public well-being and the public welfare that having trucks at at a tiank sight uh need to be able to move without any safety concerns would that be fair to say no it wouldn't be okay I I do not characterize this as a tight sight okay would you agree with me that the trucks need to be able to move in a way that's safe for pedestrians and and cars regardless of whether it's tight or not yes uh what is the enforcement mechanism for example if a truck is loading or unloading in an unauthorized spot in other words blocking parking spots or let's say they go in and they're idling would that be a hazard to the community well the the store manager as stated in previous testimony will be guiding the truck deliveries on site the very modest two deliveries at 45 minutes a week right so you do recognize and I think you're looking over towards the somebody over there that it is important that these rules are enforced because if they're not enforced it represents a detriment to the community is that fair to say yes okay so we have to rely upon the store management to enforce the rules in order for this community not to be affected by this facility is that very no okay what happens if the store let him answer I thought he said no no he was speaking oh goad so let him finish I of course good finish the residents also have the ability to call any applicable Code Enforcement Officers the police I thought he was done go ahead he wasn't it's not solely the responsibility of the applicant there there is police power within the municipality to regulate okay what ordinance allows a a public Police Department to come say for example if a truck is idling and enforce what regulation specifically would they be violating the truck if it was idle there's state regulations which regulation there is no regulation yes yes there are can you site it I can't site it off the top of my head but there are regulations pertaining to that activity okay so it now would then be the responsibility of the moris PLS Police Department which enough to do to go and have some sort of Code Enforcement assuming that there is an enforceable code provision is that right s this is a regular activity at 13,000 McDonald's Nationwide as well as Wendy's Burger King every McDonald's Wendy's and Burger King in Morris County loads in the parking lot in this matter is it just you keep saying Morris County in other counties do they have loading areas in other McDonald's and other counties in Hudson County say no this Community seems to like local comparisons so that's why I looked at Mars County does that also applicable to the other say for example the traffic engineer had referred to Bon the Bon facility being very much like this uh configuration where we're at Mor Plains there little non-loading Zone thing also occur in Hudson County as well as mors County all over the state okay so it's a Statewide thing it's how McDonald's operates it's how McDonald's operates it's how Wendy's operates it's how Chick-fil-A operates loading with the parking lot is the industry Norm okay so would you agree or not based on the testimony either by your firstand knowledge or testimony you're listening to that the Bayon facility is going to be very much like the moris plains facility sir we don't need to go down this rout yes we do no no we don't yeah because you're because you were expert testified to it stop berading the witness testify I'm stating that it's the industry Norm to load in the parking lot Okay so so you would agree with me would you not that what is going on in Bon would be very similar to what be going on in Mor Plains that's what the expert testified for McDonald's you agree with that or don't you in terms of voting yes okay thank you i' so so we're going to take a uh that's good we're done with that we're done yes yes so we're going to take a 15 15 minute break and uh we'll be back at about 20 a.m. don't ask enough questions how about a clear ad over f yeah I thought it was just me okay Mr guard for e out I didn't know in my look for there conratulations my know see come up I know yeah okay for know okay yeah e okay take for right I think we're back on the record um if I if I can speak to the public real quick um everybody appreciates all of the involvement everything else I have been asked once of twice um if it makes it difficult for other members of the public who are listening if there is commenting cross talking when Witnesses going back and forth you know you have there's a lot of motion and there's a lot of there's a lot of opinion on this but it makes it easier for everybody else if you don't talk when the witness and being questioned and answer appreciate it um and we thought it was the end but there's few more people's question so there's going to be some more question okay go ahead y I have one hi Dan o y e n e c h e at 6 Diana Road um I'm sorry 6 Diana Road thank you uh just a question I didn't see the signage earlier so I'm sorry that was there will there be anything in there specifically uh to discourage loing customers especially like after the 9:00 p.m. hour you're asking for a no loitering sign at a restaurant is that what you is that I'm asking we we can put up in no Lo well no we were talking about of enforcement and public good and relying on police for code enforcement so if there are people hanging out there creating next to Res 00 down re police store manager okay thank you hi Tom battes B A TT a g l i e s e tler Road um why did your testimony not consider any environmental aspects related to the restaurant and drive-thru as required by the zoning ordinance performance standard to provide evidence of compliance including for stand standards for odors noise and air pollution but as you heard in previous meetings the applicant committed to meeting all applicable regulations does the ordinance not state that it's required that you show evidence prior the approval of the application the applicant put for test on all applicable regulations will be met okay I advise you to check the ordinance um have you ever seen a study on drive-through air emissions exposure values and Associate effects from McDonald's no I have not who is qualified and in from your perspective to uh to provide um evidence on those performance standards the applicant has committed to meeting all applicable performance standards okay that one with your training as a planner and in the spirit of upholding the aicp American Institute of certified planners code of ethics and professional conduct that you said you were part of with that membership um how do truthfully explain that this McDonald's with a double A drivethru will contribute to the vision that was already outlined by Mr seir of War's ples bonance contributes to the vision of the master plan and the zoning ordinance adopting this specific use and the master plan itself how do you truthfully show that it contributes to that the the master plan and Community Vision sir this witness is under oath so he's he's take took take taken an oath to tell the truth so you I was looking for maybe an elaboration if that's possible beyond that this is an approved which actually is a misleading idea there's more to it than just that fact I don't think there's anything misle in here I think you're trying to leading but I think the zoning ordinance and master plan are pretty pretty clear this is a per permitted use which advances the goals and objectives of the master plan to permit a resilient Economy based on uses that are not attainable on the internet and that's what you have before you this evening okay why does your view um that this is such a positive development for moris PLS and supports our master plan conflict so strongly with research Renown experts such as David Dixon vice president planning fellow from a global firm Stant who has said that drive-throughs don't quote support any of the life and vitality and amenities that suggest people might want to come live work or play in a neighborhood drive-throughs belong to a much more autoc Centric world so how's this how's your explanation really um aligning with views such as that that seem to cooperate or align with our master plan sir as I stated previously this isn't the zoning not justifying the particular suitability of this use this is a permitted use by the zoning ordinance of the borrow Morris Plains okay thank you are there any other questions from the public if you want J 11 Dave Ro thank you for letting me contribute absolutely one second um again pertaining to miss M's report uh number nine it said the applicant should provide testimony regarding the proposed location of the trash enclosure and the feasibility of relocating the proposed trash enclosure further away from the Eastern property line um in I believe it was the engineers report there was some line that just said it was given in testimony but there was never any discussion of having it relocated anywhere else the applicant made the trash enclosure area smaller and provided additional Landscaping in that area right but but miss Laney wrote the feasibility of relocating the proposed trash enclosure there's no feasible location to relocate the trash enclosure based off of the design of the optimal McDonald's drive um no based on the fact that the site has two front yards you don't trash enclosures in front yards it's the existing friendlies building never had the trash enclosure in the back it was towards the building it's customary for trash enclosures to be in the corner of the lot not that lot I've lived there 32 years and the friendlies have been there a lot longer than that and the trash enclosure is always away from the question I'm sorry I'm sorry um um a back to substantial detriment of the public good is is it not does does it not mean that when evaluating a for a variance you would need to cause sub I'm sorry excuse when evaluating if a variance would cause substantial detriment decision making primarily needs to be considered on how it would affect nearby properties and the character of the neighborhood yes and how it would negatively impact or not impact bordering neighborhoods and communities yes okay and you don't believe that this would negatively impact the boorder of community no not at all I think the applicant through the engineering testimony has demonstrated adequate off street parking to meet the needs of the proposed restaurant we've gone through countless times discussing that the loading uh within the drive aisles of the parking lot is the industry Norm every freestanding fast food burger restaurant in the county does not have a loading Lane they all load through the drive aisle additionally with relation to the signage uh and during break the applicant has committed to provide goose neck Lighting on all of the signage they will not be internally illuminated so that's another variance that we're eliminating with this application so I think when you look at the variance relief being requested by the applicant there's certainly no substantial impairment to the zoning ordinance or the master plan with the granting of those Varian well it's not the I'm not asking about substantial impact to the zoning ordance um um substantial detriment to the public good is what there's no substantial detriment to the public with the granting of any of those variances okay um do you under do you realize that under the C variance standards of variance is permitted when one of the purposes of the ml would be Advanced from the deviation for the Bol variance requirements and they benefit from the variance the benefits from the variance will outweigh any detriment to the public good importantly the benefit from the grant of the C2 variants cannot benefit the property owner owner only instead it must actually benefit the community and serve as a better zoning alternative for that property yes I provided that breakdown in my testimony um St seconds I got so many and the Ballard signs uh that how many are there and where are they located CU I could two of them in the Ballard that separate the drive through Lanes on the south side of the property they're two square fet a piece so they just separate the two lanes they're in the drive-through Lanes they serve as directional signs to let the motorists know that there's two drive-through Lanes to be utilized that's okay okay thank you clinda Landy 94 littl Clarinda Landy 94 Littleton Road welcome you haven't contributed to I just have a quick question has the applicant considered uh revising your application to uh eliminate the drive-thru and maybe just put up a McDonald's restaurant no are there any other questions from the public madam chairwoman um concludes our case in Chief and we do uh reserve the right to call Witnesses in rebuttal uh following the presentation of the objector case and we thank the board for their time and patience and the public for all your input thank you okay we're going to first I'm going like to um introduce P sex to be able to uh I'd like to introduce Peter St right now regarding uh he's representing uh my client's interest he's our planning expert here and would you mind up giveing your credential so you be as witness raise your right hand your name your last Peter G St s c i do um I have a handout that I will eventually refer to I already getting a copy to and uh distribute sure I to mark this as an Evidence and also I do have a USB with my if we can put it up on the screen as well can we have your credentials I'm going to do that next thank you for reminding me uh by way of Education I have a bachelor's de degree in civil engineering from Marquette University and a master's in city and Regional planning from ruter uh in terms of work experience uh I served as an associate planner with two consulting firms Alvin a gersan Associates in Trenton and Malcolm castler Associates that was in hackin saac I was the planning director for the township of Montclair for about 9 and a half years uh for the past 20 some odd years I practiced as a uh planning consultant I've appeared in uh approximately 230 municipalities uh and in Superior Court and in tax court and been accepted as an expert planner in those jurisdictions um um I was licensed in 1976 with license number 1776 uh and it's still in effect this evening okay does have everyone agree to accept himor sure uh we're going to show the exhibits but I want to make sure if they are marked um pleas explain what it is did we put a marking on it yet1 01 yeah's got the offici I'll refer to it in my testimony but it's 01 is a four-page document it was prepared by me today uh the first page shows a 2020 satellite photograph where I superimposed The Zone lines and I also reproduced a portion of the 2000 master plan next page are four quarter graphs that were taken by me on December 5th of this year and I believe they accurately depict existing conditions um the last two pages have excerpts upper right hand corner P3 an excerpt from the site plan review standards and the last page is an excerpt from the zoning standards uh that have to do with the location of parking so I'll I'll get to that in a minute um uh this property is you and I'm going to say some obvious things uh to lay a foundation uh this property consists of two lots that are already developed um uh mixed use office on one side in the corn lot is the uh vacant friendlies uh the proposal is to demolish all of the improvements on the property but uh say three trees um the reason I'm uh referencing that is that because everything is being demolished including the sidewalk and the curbing on speed well uh the applicant is essentially starting from scratch so the driveways are flexible although the applicant says oh we're going to keep the same location of one of the driveways the answer is that's being demolished so there are no there's no freezing of existing conditions here that driveway location uh in my opinion is movable because the applicant is demolishing uh the curving the curve Cuts in the sidewalk in the right away um although the uh uh Friendly's site is vacant uh there's no evidence that it adversely affects surrounding properties uh the other surrounding properties seem to be reasonably wellmaintained uh you know people don't like a lot of vacant buildings but the answer is I do not observe any detriment from the current conditions of the property um The Proposal is to uh construct a new fast food restaurant that happens to be McDonald's with somewhat U an extraordinary amount of uh car loading locations for the drive uh most McDonald's you don't always see you know two uh corridors that feed it so this is obviously a um a business plan that's intended uh at least by the to accommodate a lot of drive-thru traffic uh part of my analysis was to look at the surrounding area and I'll refer to the first page of 01 which again is uh a 2000 and 20 aerial photographs and what is uh significant is that uh this property um abuts a residential Zone essentially to the East and as you know that house is quite close uh to the rear property line and for about maybe 40% of the property it abuts a residential Zone across Dayton Road so uh there is a lot of exposure here uh to residential uses if you look on the right hand side of the first page uh I'll talk about this more in a minute but the applicant keeps on saying the applicant's planner keeps on saying I review the 2018 master plan that's not the master plan that's the reexamination report that's a different section of the municipal landard law the master plan that you have is dated 2000 and it's a summary of a 1975 document so the applicant's planner has been looking at the wrong document when you want to justify the negative criteria you want to say it doesn't substantially impair The Zone plan that's the 200 summary master plan that's not the reexamination report the reexamination report doesn't even require a public hearing so the applicant's planner looked at the wrong document now I did look at the master plan and that's on the rightand side of the property the master plan did not have a distinction between the R2 or the r 3 excuse me B2 or the the B4 Zone they all had a General commercial Zone but what was apparent to me is that this section of the speed well Corridor has a higher concentration of non-residential uses excuse me non-commercial uses there are houses that house AB buts this property it is AC there's a house across the street and on both sides they're institutional uses uh again that don't make this uh a dense commercial Corridor and that suggests to me that there is a an additional sensitivity that's needed because of the proximity of the residential uh buildings on the second page of the uh of 01 you'll see on the upper side I have the two um locations uh of lot five uh on the left can upper left and about four on the upper right uh on the bottom I have Dayton Road looking East uh no parking on one side um it is a purely residential street and a very significant is on lot six at 11 Dayton there's a house that's maybe less than 10 ft from that rear property line and that's an important feature because of land use impacts such as noise odors and and the light so this is while it is in the in the B2 District it is peculiar in that there are noncommercial uses in the area and particularly single family homes I knowe that your uh you have a traffic ordinance that says that Dayton for its entire length should not have trucks now you know that you can get to a property delivering the truck but to that specific property but you your public policy is that Dayton should not have trucks now the applicant is obviously uh using Dayton uh both for exit of a trash truck and for a tractor trailer which is the loading and unloading function and there are instances U there's a McDonald's in in Fair laon on Broadway where the property is a corner lot there's a McDonald's there the side street happens to be a residential street and they don't have an access to the side street they're protecting that residential street here the applicant is even though it's an angled driveway the applicant um wants to uh have a driveway there that will accommodate uh truck exiting uh the master plan uh wanted to be consistent with the existing character of the community that was that's the goal that has persisted for a long time and again I'm referring to the 2000 master plan I believe it's August of 2000 that the planning board adopted that's a different document than the reexamination report so when you want to test the negative criteria you look at the 2000 master plan it's a summary of 1975 master plan did not make a distinction between the different commercial zones the applicant apparently applicant planner apparently never even looked at that document the only thing he looked at was the reexamination report you changed your youth Orest Plains changed its ordinance in 2023 ordinance 14-223 it's important that that is a recent change because one would easily surmise that the governing body knew what a McDonald's and a fast food restaurant was uh it knew what a loading space was it knew that some parking spaces are 10x 20 rather than 9 by 18 in fact most of you this evening parked in 10x 20t parking spaces out in the parking lot was easy to get in and out of right now I know that there aren't a lot of kids here with child carers coming out but this municipality knew what a 10x 20t space was and I'm saying that because it's a recent ordinance and it's not like this is an old ordinance that's been around for 30 years and times have changed when the governing body adopted this that's my job when the goverment body adopted this ordinance they knew what a McDonald's was they knew what a loading spot was they knew what 10x 20 parking spaces were and now the applicant is saying well look at all these other uses in the area these other McDonald's well the answer is you get to have your own definitions and and the Gover body didn't say oh we're going to adopt the McDonald's industry standard for our fast food uh regulations your to have your own standards to meet the needs of your community and the peculiarities of this B2 Zone that L residential uses it's a permitted use but that's not the end of the story you have performance standards so you're going to have a McDonald's and the applicant doesn't want to tell you where they're going to load somewhere in the aisles they can't do it in the front yard they're going to probably do it in the rear yard CU that's the back of the building that loading location for a tractor trailer is close to the nearest residential use and one of your performance standards is that you meet the state noise code with changes based on times of the day um they want to open it whenever it was 7 in the morning but the noise code changes I think it uh there's there's a harsher standard or light is standard at night when you have a tractor trailer parking by a residential property line and this is not only a residential property line it's a house maybe 10 ft away that clearly suggests that there's a noise issue and the applicant says don't worry about it I'm going to meet the noise well if it turns out that the applicant can't meet the state standard what are they going to do they're going to come back and maybe put a Highway uh 20ft tall concrete wall to block the noise I'll tell you that Landscaping in an 8ot fence doesn't stop the noise so it is a legitimate concern and it's not enough to say it's a permitted use don't bother me you have standards of odor so has the applicant talked to you about the filtering system has the applicant talked about the noise not of the speaker of the tractor trailer that's going to be parked there that is a noise generator it's going to be heard at the top of the the exhaust pipe and from the engine and I would suggest to you that is a real legitimate concern and I would suggest to you that doing your job is not just listening to the applicant and said don't worry about it I'll meet this code the applicant has the burden approv you have no proof that they can meet that and it clearly is a Troublesome situation your code says that you need a designated loading spot you can to make that choice the industry standard of McDonald's is not the code and the applicant has to show the applicant says there's no hardship here so the applicant shows that the benefits of not having a loading space substantially outweigh the detriment well I think in order for you to know the noise you got to know where that truck has going to be posted you have a standard of 10t by 20 foot parking spaces and McDonald's is telling you don't worry 9 by 18 is fine well 9 by8 is fine for residential uses in the state of New Jersey but you get to call the shots and the Govern body already called the shots it said 10x 20t spaces and 10t wide spaces are great if you have a child oriented use where you open the door you bring out the the car the the your wild carrier with your other two kids and you walk in you have a car a a stroller that you set up that's why 10t wide spaces make sense the applicant is only doing 18t deep spaces which means that there's going to be an overhang and that overhang is going to impinge upon the area that's supposed to be Landscaping since this is a blank slate the applicant is demolishing all of the paving all the sidewalks all the curving all the curve cuts on speed well I would think a traffic expert would say shouldn't you align your driveway with Hill view on the other side your ordinance has a standard for ropes it says you either align it across an intersection or you 125 ft at Le away so a car exiting can straighten out and then make a formal left turn let's say in Hill the applicant is saying oh I'm keeping the existing curve but they're not they're demolishing everything so from a pure traffic point of view shouldn't that driveway and maybe an entrance and exit so you don't mess up uh the side street shouldn't that driveway align uh across the street the applicant says I'm going to make a lot of concessions I'm now going to do goose at the last minute we're we have goose neck lighting here um what about the size of the um letter height don't worry uh you know we need this well your code says twoot tall letters and the applicant says well well they have more than two ft that's not the issue if if if you were drafting an ordinance then I think you would take all the data that that the applicants planner said and maybe you want to change ordinance but the answer is it isn't change when the master plan wants to preserve the character of the community it made the choice of what kind of size what kind of signs and what size signs and what types of letters are needed it that's that's the type of community aesthetic that has been implemented the applicant refers to I guess McDonald's on on Route 10 that has in my opinion a different character than this property does because of its proximity to residential uses so this in my opinion is a tight site and I think there are variances that appear that are not recognized if you look at the last two pages of my report 01 my hand out I showed the design standards so keep in mind that when you have a standard that's in your site plan ordinance relief is called an exception in the municip law or a waiver and uh you have to show that the Practical difficulties there's not a benefits outweigh the detriments rationale in the municipal Landings law for an exception that applies to variances a variance is a provision in your zoning ordinance it's harder to get variances and they they they Trump the standards in your zoning chapter Trump the standards in your site plan ordinance in my opinion so on P3 the third page of 01 I quote from the site plan ordinance and it says 20 by uh 10 spaces are required that did not interfere with the sidewalk or landscape now if the applicant were having an 18t deep space and and that an extra wide sidewalk of let's say 16 ft oh that makes sense you can allow an overhang I don't see any the applicant the last minut says oh we're going to put in curb stocks I don't see them on the plans maybe they're there but I I just don't see them maybe that's a last minute kind of a hail Maring change to the plan but but cars here will overhang and intrude into the landscape area and in my opinion that should not be allowed the only reason you would Grant an 18t deep space is that the overhang really didn't bother anything didn't intrude on any landscaping area I think it does here and that's on both sides of the property the next page is a more important issue one of the standards in your zoning ords now now we're talking variances rather than exceptions section 13- 5.7 D General requirements for non-residential all street parking one no part of any off street parking area shall extend into any required front yard more than the front yard setback requirement of the Zone in which it is situated unless specifically permitted in the respective Zone on while it's 33 ft on uh speed well and actually uh that probably comes close of the parking spaces I'm going ignore that but there are all those red dots on Dayton Road they're in the required front yard setback and they require variances in my opinion because there's a provision in the site plan ordinance which is not doesn't have the weight to it of a design standard the applicant needs variances for all of those parking spaces on dayon that protrude into the required front yard think of how nice the Landscaping would be there if you had 25 ft of landscaping along there and potentially no Drive weather that would offer some decent protection uh for Dayton Road Again according to your ordinances shouldn't have any truck traffic on it this is a variance that in my opinion is a legitimate variance it's in your zoning ordinance while I'll Grant you there is a a standard in the design section that can't undo your zoning standard so this is a requirement the applicant has not addressed it's a requirement that needs some testimony about positive and negative criteria there is no testimony on the record and just as you can at the end of the day yes restaurants are permitted provided they don't produce too much noise too much odor I'll stick to noise provided they don't produce too much noise the applicant doesn't want to tell you where they're going to loow um I think they're going to load in the back and they're going to block an aisle in the back and it's going to be close to that residential use that is a noise generator that must be addressed to to test whether this site plan configuration uh complies with that performance standard uh that is a Statewide standard and by the way you don't get grandfathered in on the state standard if this is approved and built in a year from now and a neighbor complains about the noise and it violates the state code the applicant's going to come back to you with a sound wall a concrete Highway sound wall probably that is going to change the whole character of this development so it needs to be addressed now and it hasn't by the applicant this site is either too small for all the things that are going on but the restaurant's too big for it is a permitted use but not at this scale So based on what I've heard so far and remember the applicant has the burden of proof the applicant has not in my opinion provided adequate testimony uh that would support the relief that's requested the applicant looked at the wrong planning document didn't look at the 2000 master plan and in my opinion there is insufficient credible evidence for you to approve this application um thank you so much for your testimony Peter uh I just want also make no one and just hear your opinion here this because they keep on alluding to the drive-throughs like Chase Bank and stuff like that I'm looking at the hours for Chase Bank and it's 9 to5 as compared to 6 to 11 and something that I forgot and when we're talking about the signage and we're talking about this front your a step back with getting address you have all these cars with headlights that are going in right and you have surrounded by residential property do you think that that's an also one of the purposes for this front yard setep back here is to alleviate that the reason why and all these sort of situations is to prevent sort of the lighting the noise the glare the cars that are having the headlights all over the place till 11:00 that's clearly another factor involved now I'll grant you that with enough fencing and the applicant says put put fencing in the back that made I'm not sure the nature of the fencing that may Block in One Direction some of those light fixtures but this is going to be an active use um the in my experience an 8ot fence does not stop noise Landscaping doesn't U doesn't stop the noise I've seen studies from the Highway Administration that you need to 100 ft of woods to really have a difference of of noise that is clearly an issue here the state says you measure it at the residential property line and the applicant has not addressed that at all so I I would add the fact that that more Landscaping on the side means better protection for headlights better better protection in terms of circulation and of the surrounding properties and again keep in mind this part of the speed Corridor has in my opinion higher concentration of residential us and institutional uses also I just want to make note because they're using and you mentioned these industry standards and the differential treatment the industry standards and the zoning as well as pointing out that even though the drivethru was now a permitted use there that they didn't change the requirement for the size of the parking spots as well as the amount of parking that's needed there that you know that's correct again you you're entitled to uh adopt your own standards which you have uh the state took control over residential parking spaces but you're entitled to have 10x 20 foot parking spaces there isn't an argument that says the benefits substantially outweigh the detriment for parking for for the dimensions of parking SPAC that's a design standard and I would say if you could two uses that come in mind that you need tedbook wide spaces is maybe a food store we have shopping carts coming in and out but you also have a kid oriented use like this is where you have a lot of action a lot of loading and unloading from the side of a van from the side of a passenger car that's why 10 space foot wide spaces are appropriate here what if we're talking about the NL and the A and the g portions of it for the intention of that and we're also looking at the fact that this is a cross the street from a middle school and we're dealing with all these sort of issues how does that come to play the fact that this is cross the street for middle school you know again the applicant is saying this encourages the most appropriate use of land my point is the lot isn't big enough for this use of this land there are too many compromises in the site plan to accommodate this scale of a permitted use uh in terms of Aesthetics there is no detriment that I see from the current Aesthetics of the site someone's going to use that vacant building at some time uh but the fact that it is such a high intensity use one that is child oriented and near a school in my me my mind means there's an extra emphasis on pedestrian safety um so I'm really happy that you included the pictures and I'm going to bring that back right now because one of the arguments for the positive criteria for the benefits of this is that they're getting a rid of this vacant lot over here and that is um attributing to the visual the um to making it attract the visual environment right but you're pointing out here I mean it looks like a friendly is with just no sign and it looks like the Landscaping is pretty well maintained with that in your opinion does this meet the criteria your PES to prove that their that Beacon lot is needed um and by filling it in with the McDonald's that criteria the benefit of replacing this so-called vacant or it's not bled I it's definitely not does not meet the definition of lien meet the criteria underneath I believe it's the a or G of the mL of again with this whole visual environment because this is what they what they have to prove reling on that I mean you you purpose g talks about having sufficient space in an appropriate location this is not sufficient space for this size restaurant in my opinion and Aesthetics will be changed but there are many alternatives to Aesthetics the fact that you are changing the front thead to put some brick on it in my opinion does not um uh allow you to conclude that this is an improvement in Aesthetics especially when you have so many drive-thru legs this is going to be a large parking lot with a lot of cars in it that's not aesthetic the applicant is drawing your attention oh we're going to do goose neck lighting uh we're going to do a little more Landscaping here we'll do an an 8ft fence that's not going to hide the fact that you have a pure traffic oriented use here that's primarily for the driveth through customer um so again going back to this whole Chase B thing especially since it's only open till 5:00 and they're not you know when we talk about the signs the tyan I'm happy that they're going to address that with the Boost neck lighting but it still doesn't kind of qu playay the headlights with everything that a double drivethru would create there especially one that's open to 11:00 with that how does that go into the criteria can you even have the general wealthier this well lighting is clearly a concern and idling cars are clearly concern and and a a truck uh loading and unloading is a concern it it is possibly manageable to have enough fencing to block headlights but there are head when when someone shows you an engineering plan they show where the illumination is on the ground and they get the fact that you're in front of six other cars and your lights are bouncing off their windshields and everywhere else it's not a true picture of what this is going to look like at night with cars stacked up here yeah and because especially since they you know when they say oh this is permitted use in the creation of this permitted use the you know they might have been referring to a 9 to-5 drivethru here well the answer it's a permitted use but you have to look at the scale you have to look at its operation and the site plan aspects of this you you can approve the use but in my opinion the current site plan is so deficient uh it warrants denial by this board thank you and also the fact that this variance and you heard the testimony when I asked particularly for the planner are there any variances that are also required here um and then you made note of this variance for 13 um SL Five Points out in here um what in your opinion what sort of testimony that they're going to have to show since you're saying that this site plan is just right now doesn't word it the answer is the I'm not going to do the applicant's work for it the answer is the applicant is the burden of proof they haven't even recognized it as a variance um it's their burden to demonstrate that that's justifiable and again think in your mind how much a 25t wide land skap area would modify the adverse impacts of this development assuming that you had enough room to have loading and all the other stuff yeah and one of the things I think that we talk to internally is that honest with you they didn't provide a planning report um well that's the testimony is okay it's just that he looked at the wrong planning exactly so you know thankfully we you know my client hired you in the last minute and we're very grateful that we were able to get your time today but we reexamining what is right now do you think that it would require the municipal planner to kind of re-examine especially with the testimony today and also with the fact of this variant because you know they weren't given all the information the applicant had their chance in my opinion yeah thank you so much um at this point I'm actually going to go into show here because one of the things I'm put this as an exhibit hold on a second like when I bring up this video hold on so I'm going to bring up a video this is showing how much noise a truck on Bale okay so it's so we are going to I would like to admit some evidence here showing can I can I finish this is not my evidence I have seen stop stop please please everybody stop Mr St is walking to speak and then one person this is a uh a video of a loading operation at the B McDonald's which I saw prior to my testimony I did not shoot the video not to shoot the video the only reason why I would like to admit this is because the reference Bon as an example here of how the trucks work here especially in the fact that there's not going to be a loading zone which is one of the Varian that they're asking for I believe that this is relevant to the case we're making here because again they they opened up the door by repeatedly referencing Bon so at this point I mean I would like to introduce a video showing on December 2nd 11:07 a.m. the Bon property it was shot by Jess Willams but again I'm relying upon you know if it's a missible I believe that it's aible and it's definitely relevant here especially since they ref it multiple times and it also shows the standard practice which they keep on referencing that repeated here I believe that it's relevant to show a case where this is actually happening May I make a reference um the Bon site was referenced not in connection with loading noise had nothing to do with it um this is being shown I think just to inflame the crowd there is no relevance to this loading I don't know who took the video I don't know when it was taken it's it's not admissible in this case for sure I mean the Prejudice far outweighs any probative value that this evidence could possibly have we've addressed Noise We addressed it during our engineering and our traffic testimony um to put a video up not of our site is highly prejudicial we we we use the Bayon example if everyone recalls as an example of where there's a McDonald's close to residential neighborhoods that is the only purpose we referenced it we did not open the door to videos of trucks loading and unloading make singer a lot of testimony in my opinion um testimony other sites I think pleas I'm speaking I'm giving my opinion to um it is my opinion that it is say absolutely decide okay we're going to decide I'd like to hear from the board whether or not you agree with our can you tell us exactly what this is a video sure it's a video of McDonald's and B on December 2nd at 11:07 a.m. it was shot by Jess Williams who's over there this is a video of what this is a video of the site and it shows uh the current configuration of circulation with um the loading of one of their trucks going back and forth which they keep on recalling because we didn't have a sound to report or anything like that um and they referenced the own multiple times my client went to to the pay own property just so they can see an example of how this would impact the neighborhood I believe that this is relevant because of that since they keep on referring to the stand just want to ask I I will tell you I'm in favor of it only because bother me from the beginning so I understand the value of it I don't know that I understand how it'll help our plans Kath what to see the video sorry mayor don't okay Steve is agreeing with our attorney and the attorney recation it's not it's not relevant it's just too okay um Mike G you said show it John bzel said show it Maryanne no Cassie no Ron yes on advice of the attorney I Frank and I agree no so it won't be part of the okay thank you so much um at this point uh Peter did you conclude your testimony yes okay I'm I'm GNA pop in quick you're obviously first um know how long going to go can we have the I'm sorry can we have the engineer and the planner ask questions the board runs the sh chair will run the iations um real quick I know that our plan our engineer and our planner haven't had a chance something new got BL up um well may be able to respond today I would would recommend that that also a chance to respond something other than 11:00 tonight that work for the bo consider absolutely I think that's only fair that L has an opportunity to review all this information and come back at our next meeting and then provide you with with your opinion okay so then we will go to Mr V actually I actually have a um important question for you just what would you just said are you available during the next meeting Mr St on Monday what is the next meeting next on Monday to cuz that's important cuz if he says no Then that changes everything well that's going to be a problem so maybe you can let them know that you need to be here because we have had prior to tonight we have had 13 and a half hours of testimony on this case and we have made every accommodation for everyone so I would suggest either you get a different planner or or you make that call maybe you can come here early and go there later or vice versa we're here till 11:00 at night the point here is that um it's 11 as well it's only there that the and the board be allow to question I understand convenience but there is there is going to be a conflict between whatever you have on Monday here and there I don't know how far along schedule but it it would I think behoove the obor and and in the scho if you could discuss it with them that um you know the availability of witness to be plus examined it's pretty important everybody you know the applicants have been plus examined so it is pretty important I would I would strongly suggest that the ability to do that and the inability to then be examine the question by others influences the weight that's going to be given testim it's just natural you have to be available but I'm here this evening to be cross-examined I can't right now say that I'm going to dump other clients that I'm committed to we have time for them to cross-examine we have 20 minutes we can do that right now yes but the board attorne I can ask some questions but the board attorney just said that he would like his planner to have some time to review these new ordinance these new variances that is 100% reasonable sure and if for some reason because of Prior uh commitments if they can't be available by the 16th then we request that in a other special hearing where Mr stack is available would be provided for this especially since there's a a new variance that hasn't been addressed at all and also the planner and everybody else needs to prepare so I think that since you guys have already granted so much of ours if Peter if Mr Z cannot attend then we should be allowed to have him come back on a date where he's available we also have a meeting on the 18th so we'll give you that choice uh I'm chat him on the 18th but I'll have to I'll have to see if I can work I would suggest that you make the make yourself available at one of those I understand your suggestion it just I cannot it see it seems like that I'm sorry I think that some other people from the applicant might not also be be there so maybe there's another date that works for both parties then I I just let me just can I just make a quick record AB um so I know Miss Kumar you went to look thank you I know Miss Kumer that you went to review documents or asked to read documents like over a month maybe two months ago so the fact that you guys waited this long to retain counsel and a planner should not Prejudice this applicant first off i' like let me finish let me I object to this because please stop let's not make this an AR he's going to make a record finish it's not going to be a back and forth that's not what happens you address the board you don't address each other that's it Mr is making a record if and when the board ask for a response we will get a response and so I believe that this board has been extraordinarily accommodating in granting meeting request it has been extraordinarily accommodating when it comes to witness and public question question there were some people who were up at the microphone for 45 minutes uh and people close to that I think the board has gone above and beyond to give everyone an opportunity uh to present testimony we have three meetings today Monday on the 18th to wrap this case up which again is an extraordinarily generous amount of time that the board is giving this applicant and the objectors and our position if this objector cannot have their planner available then we should not be prejudiced for that and I don't think that we should be assigning any additional dates beyond the three dates that we have that is our position based on the long history of this case and all of the time and effort that this board uh has given to this case which is extraordinary okay you can ask question thank you I would like to I need to reply misser you no you don't get to make the rules he's speaking he made the record he's going question that's it I think I'm allowed to respond I I don't think you understand I do understand but when they're referencing shouting down doesn't work please he's making record going get a chance to talk later this is not just going to be an argument ask question I ask I'm just trying to S this that's what's your question you no credibility to the information this present please yes we do if I need any impression not credibility to Mr St that's not what was presented is the the ability to examine and CA as the public has questioned you know for hours Witnesses that's all those things are very appropriate but the witness has I did not say anything more I did and if I imp it I apologize I withraw any implication to not give credibility to any wit not what I meant the ability for all interested parties to question is important that's what's important the is continually made that that comply with the ordinances and that's a blanket thing I can say from the P planning committee when we went around and made rules and regulations and stuff they were broad enough to allow an applicant room to make an application but it wasn't a blanket ticket that you can come in and do whatever you feel like I think there's an overruning factor that they've ignored the public and this they public needs to be heard and they need to know that their issues were addressed let me if I may we we and and correct me if I'm wrong we heard your we heard your testimony tonight and we're going to have some time for some questions from Mr vah if you can't make it to the next meeting we're going to have our planner give her opinion on on what you testify to okay and then the board will make a decision okay so I think that's think that's fair let's see what happens tonight the best way to do I everybody knows the concerns T it down record been made question thank you uh good evening Mr St good evening Mr St um did you review any of the transcripts in this case no so you did not have the benefit of reviewing any of the testimony during the how many five hearings five hearings that have occurred today no my introduction was this evening listening to your plan's T okay sir so you're standing before this board this evening giving professional planning testimony having not reviewed a single word of anything that has occurred in this body since we started this case true prior to this evening that is correct okay and and you are sticking by your testimony that you are qualified to give an opinion in this case is that correct yes um because to as speak but ask what is PA can I explain my relevance here the reason why I'm saying because he's giving testimony based upon the planner's testimony much like their planner said well the other guy testified with this they are he's literally basing upon just their plan and testimony which their own person did so I don't understand the for this thank you okay Mr St returning to the questions um included within the testimony from prior hearings was traffic testimony relating to the parking of the tractor trailer truck on the property um but you don't know that because you didn't review it BR I reviewed the plans that showed uh the tractor trailer movements and I'm aware uh even this evening uh it was repeated that the tractor trailer there would be for 45 minutes couple times a week so you did review the plans why did you testify that McDonald's has not described how it will load trucks on the property because it hasn't fixed a location for 40t long location that the ordinance requires to be on the site plan but you you because you weren't here and then need the transcript you don't know that we do have a location that we identifi you're going to load in an active aisle I I understand correct but you I heard that this evening but you didn't review any of the testimony and literally 30 or 40 questions on how the truck is going to operate you didn't review any of that testimony correct I already answered your question okay so the answer is no you didn't review any of that I'll answer a third time prior to this evening while I reviewed the application materials I did not attend any of the hearings or listen to the prior testimony and of course if you had reviewed the testimony and prepared yourself you might have different opinions in this case true I don't know I would in my opinion the focus of my testimony is uh to review your planner's testimony and I think I have adequate Foundation to make Rend those opinions but we will never know because you've already testified right I can't answer that question but you no we're not okay um Mr St um you have you ever testified uh in support of an application where there is a restaurant on corner lot with no buffering whatsoever um I don't recall uh an instance are you sure I'm sure that I don't recall March 5th 2024 I have a report from Verona where you support an application of a corner knot with zero buffering and you were the planner now this evening I'm not finishing my question this evening you testified that the buffering was insufficient on this property but on March 5th 2024 you testified that a restaurant on a corner lot with no buffering satisfies the standards and there was a residential property adjacent is that true yes okay but if I could give you the details there was an existing okay now onest I'm going to address both and the W unless the chair advises otherwise I'm what Happ please don't tell neither attorney should advise what what somebody should be doing they state things until the chair reings me in I'm going to be the you when were you retaining this case um within the last week and a half so give me the earliest date you think we uh I don't recall I have to look at phone calls was it on a Monday I I don't recall about looking at time sheet I'm I'm getting from L Foundation okay that's what I'm doing so the pictures in your report are dated December 5th yes Miss Kumar kummer was retained on December 9th why were you taking pictures on the 5th because uh one of the neighbors contacted to me to see if I would be interested in revation okay what other things did you do um based on the neighbors request well I looked at the appliation materials that were on the file I looked at the reexamination report I looked at the master plans as I said I toured the the property and put photographs um and I talked to my clients who uh told me what they understood the application to be about now you said before that uh our plan is to was looking at the wrong document you remember that yes I remember saying that so you know he didn't review the summary of The 1975 he the only thing he said in his testimony was the 2018 he referred to it a master plan but it's not the master plan it's the reexamination report but do you know that he didn't review that report he did he said that he only read the 2018 plan okay and again I'll was ask it one last time you have firsthand knowledge that this gentleman didn't review that 1975 from the record that's been presented and his response to questioning he said he only reviewed the 2018 document you you said that um there's a policy your words uh that there are no trucks uh delivery trucks on da Road it's not a policy there's a law right that designates the length of dating uh for it prohibits truck traffic over five times okay and you're aware there's an exception for deliveries right yes okay why wasn't that addressed in your testimony I did maybe you weren't listenting no I must have missed it why don't you repeat it I said that I I'm aware that you can locate you can make deliveries to a site right that's in that area but I'm I gave you an example of the McDonald's that's on Broadway in fairon where it was a corner lot where there was a side street that was residential and that McDonald's does not have access to the side street okay but in Maris plaed you're aware of the exception correct I don't understand your question you're aware that there's an exception for deliveries and War well there's there's a generic exception that if you have a site that you are delivering to you can do that but what I meant what not what I meant what I said there's a law that says we don't want truck traffic on Dayton and I said that establishes the policy that you'd like to discourage truck traffic on dayon sir you you you keep you said a few times you said um well the board just changed the zoning so they knew that 10x 20 spaces were and they knew that uh they would they would need some uh relief or what happen sir you've done you've done this a long time right are you saying are you testing stop one second you got to keep clean record please I know his question is a little bit long let him finish it then answer so are you saying that only conforming applications are appropriate at the planning board when there's an when there's an ordinance that's passed in close approximation to the hearing I'm saying that there's a presumption of validity of all ordinances but the fact that this is recently adopted means that you can't make the argument that uh this is 35 years old and the industry has changed my pres it's there's a the ordinance is legitimate and the municipality is allowed to have its own standards 10 by 20 foot spaces despite what the business model is of McDonald's and I'm assuming that when the governing body adopted this ordinance they probably knew what a McDonald's looked like so you do Redevelopment work right occasionally and you know how it works right they draft a Redevelopment plan that has the zoning the Town Council and then a planning board will take up a site plan application from an applicant according to the Redevelopment plan that make sense to you when a property is bled yes you the law allows you to have a Redevelopment plan for one piece of property and typically they even submit plans to the governing body and they attach them to the Redevelopment plan or the Redevelopment AG Jersey City is great at that you're right and and Mr St even when the governing body writes the zoning there are typically many deviations or deviations from the zoning and that's nearly contemporaneous sir so how is it that in this case where you don't even have a contemporan i me it's a Redevelopment plan is it in your professional opinion common that there are deviations and variances in design waivers all all the time this is not a Redevelopment site it hasn't been declared blighted your analogy to a Redevelopment plan is on another planet has nothing to do with this application this is conventional zoning I'm asking about the timing and for when it it is a zoning if if this ordinance were adopted 20 years ago I would grant you that things have changed but because it's a recent plan the governing body consciously it's presumed to have consciously said we want 10 20 foot spaces we want a designated loading area so it's not your experience sir that and you didn't read the testimony so I understand it that the 9 by8 spaces are not standard now in the market they're they're not necessarily standard depending upon the use there is a presumption of validity of this municipality's ordinances for nonresidential development did you go out and measure the spaces there now the spaces that are there now no most of them are are uh so faded you can't measure how many spaces were on the total site I don't know relevant to my consideration since you're demolishing all of the improvements on the property would surprise you that they were approximately 60 I didn't count them so I I don't know if I'd be surprised or not and that we're reducing the number of spaces from 60 to 30 the number of spaces it's the use of the spaces that's important not the number I I was just asking you if you knew that and you considered it I since you are demolishing all the improvements in my opinion the existing nonconformities are irrelevant you mentioned um noise you're not an acoustical engineer are you no okay so you have no special training or any liur or anything else to wait wait wait let me finish to aine on sound I just have experience with applications that have been denied or withdrawn because of noise problems with truck loading and unloading but you've never testified as an expert in sound Cas no I just have experience in my practice okay Mr St thank you do you have question question Mr no we don't have another ex right now your right here we can't hear you I think I think the question is two questions after there more questions and there was no more questions as a witness is there anybody else Bel do you have any other Witnesses Hold On Second let me just talk right do have more well let us know what they are and when they leave you do we'd like the names too please so they are still working for the comination GES but appears they're going to be having a traffic engineer their own expert uh for what of them right now I we're going to make sure they're available on the 16th or the 18th available on the 16th fair if you're speaking to somebody trying to find out that person to that it's actually standard yes we're going to make yes right now I don't have the names of those people right because they're still working to retain them but being that the that um they are just retaining these right now uh they would like to have that traffic expert they are confirming they had like just engage the person so I can't say it's completely permanent but we'll make sure to have him on the 16 and not and notify the board as well as the other the applicant attorney before the 16 how about a lot before the 16 a lot before the 16th okay like wnes lot before the 16th you let us know on Wednesday yes what Witnesses you're going to have okay and who they are yes we will and we make them available on the 16th yes will are there any other questions at this Witness by the board Jason there no no no okay it's it's uh 11 o' okay okay one moment we're going to let the public ask questions of that witness and we're going to do that because he may not be available I did contribute so I'm probably not allowed to speak but I would just like to understand why there's a rush to get this done before January this is this is still question that's it Daniel Conway three green I asked a question earlier about the difference between a drive up restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant or uh is there a significant difference between the two I can believe so okay uh a drive-in restaurant is if I recall from the definitions is you kind of sit and eat in your car and sometimes you have roller skates and sometimes you don't uh and a driveth through is what this is because there's a window that you pick up the if I can just follow to that in the 2018 reexamination uh in the section where they reference this particular zoning they specifically say drive through retail phes and drive up restaurants to me is the question a drive up restaurant is I've ordered my food I pull to a parking lot someone bring something out they specifically separate got be a question it's got to be a question that's in in the master Planet says drive through for pharmacies drive up for restaurants is there a significant difference in what they were reexamining and why they were change the language well um you have to look at the definitions of the re ordinance today but a drive in uh in my mind is something where you typically eat in your car and it's a different entity than a driveth through Greg Divine 91 Sun Valley way and you have not contributed to this fund to hire these the attorney no okay not represent I did not donate speaking um earlier you were testifying to the town I think it was 22-5 the limitation of 4 ton or above Vehicles going on um yeah yes there's a a uh a traffic ordinance that designates of for non-truck traffic gotcha so I heard you talking about some of the legislative history and what they must have known some of the testimony did you read any of that I know it was asked the answer but I'm not quite sure the traffic engineer on behalf of McDonald's Had testify that in fact McDonald's is a speed well address are you aware of that yes are you aware that the traffic expert for McDonald's indicated that deliveries will be made by a tractor trailer coming off a speed well into McDonald's they their exhibit shows a tractor trailer turning movements that has uh coming in from Speedwell and exiting onto side street d right so are you also aware that that traffic expert indicated that in fact McDonald's could enter an exit onto speed well but it was their preference and not their preferred plan to do so are you aware of they haven't shown that that it can be done on a a diagam so I don't know if it can or not he may have testified about that but it's not demonstrated in any of the exhibits okay so that'll be in the record so if in fact a speed well address an entrance on speed well and an exit on the speed well is is is is actually in the record for the McDonald's traffic person then based on your knowledge and experience would that regulation actually remaining without an exception because a delivery wouldn't need to be made on Dayton Road delivery would improve the application a minor amount but the the current law allows for truck traffic to access this site but that's why when I talked about policy the policy is this municipality he doesn't want to see trucks on Dat and and that would certainly at least respond POS lead to that policy but if the town was following the strict letter of the law for 22-5 and McDonald says it can enter and exit off the Speed well therefore wouldn't it be arguable that you do not in fact need any access to Dayton Road to make delivery on Speedway well that's why we're part of this application is a site plan approval and while again the use might be permitted the use as embodied in this site plan deserves Denial in my opinion because of the evidence so far in the record so if there was an approval it would be based on a McDonald's plan preference rather than a requirement that add it on well it's it's I don't know if it's a preference but the answer is what they propose is what the the board reviews and as you know this is kind of a moving Target we're getting now apparently Boose neck lighting and etc etc and more Landscaping no one knows what that yet uh but the applicant is suggesting that there could be modifications it's just that typically they get put on a plan so the board knows what it's approving so with your history of expertise does that include understanding the basis of a board's basis for denial of an application yes so if McDonald's if the record shows McDonald's said they can enter and exit on speed well using tractor trailers or whatever trucks they need and speed well address would you based on your expert opinion does the board have a basis to deny the application because they can enter and exit off of speed weld not along gting and it's merely because they have a plan preference to exit onto dat the fact that they have a preference is irrelevant to this application about okay so so elements the fact that they have the ability to enter and exit tractor trailers on well and they still they still want to have uh exiting onto Dayton is one of the factors that would allow this board to deny the out fa thank you very much to Maple a question I asked their planner about thew these are currently two parcels and my understanding is the second parcel was bought by the owner and they're trying to develop the two Parcels together one thing that at least I haven't heard a lot of testimony on here is how that process works and I think that's important because this planning board most of the am planning board and the Town Council voted for rezoning this according to the current Parcels so I guess to my mind uh the when when their planner just keeps repeating that this is an improved use it's an improved use for a certain size parcel people like are hypotheticals but I've heard I don't know if it's true that the same owner also owns the property next door could they then mow down everything and make a 16 Lane driveth through just because it's a driveth there has to be some limit in other words on what this produces taking into account the int the intentions of the board when they pass this well um intentions are secondary what I mean you read the law and there there is no defect the fact that they're combining properties it it it clearly this developer if they didn't combine properties they could not have this use if they acquire two more properties down the line maybe it becomes 100% conform in use that's not before the board they have they have to address this issue and it doesn't require a variance to combine properties if you're demolishing everything on them anyway so they can just uh so their planning has said that there has to be a vote by this board is that vote just on the application separate vote for combining these lws um it's sure I don't know because a lot of times try to ask questions yes right so there's no um there's no basis for legal denial or any criteria and made it clear they can't they don't just so not to waste anyone's time but just hypothetically so if they bought four places in a row they could they could create one business there a supermarket no I'm just asking is thatthe because you a lot but the ability to merge yes that's it's a slam dck it's yes you can always merge to make not then you have so i' suggest that the planning board when they think of these ordinances needs to consider that maybe putting in some sort of square footage because it seems to me that partly why we found ourselves in this situation is because the best intentions of the planning board when the owner bought up into two property then changed what it was zoned for I should suck myself in thect question um okay so basically what they're saying is if they develop a plan that sounds like if they accept the plan then they accept the merger yes okay and is there any um in your experience is there any case in which there was a denial based on the Zone Changing because of the laws with emerged they it's if if an ordinance had a maximum size and I think Morris Town is trying to do that uh that could trigger a variance but there's not there there's no minimum lot size here and no maximum so it doesn't violate any standards um one thing I know you're not a traffic expert and there're supposed to be someone testifying but one thing that the applicant has repeatedly said is that they're not responsible for off-site traffic they keep sting a St cond Do's case uh my question is that my understanding is that the the opinion in that case held that when turns are involved that actually does become relevant to the site so in other words they're not responsible for the amount of traffic on the road but they're respons so in your analysis did you take into account the turns and the way in which turning in and out of that laob may not affect the pedestrian danger well again I I said that again since this is a blank slate they're demolishing everything technically it's good planning to align this combined entrance and exit driveway with Hill view across the street the applicant has jog now which is not as good in fact the town standard said either should the streets anyway should align or be 125 ft away this jogs I think like 46 ft away so it's kind of uh it creates safety issues so are there standards for the U turn and pedestrians that we should be looking at well it's it's one of the considerations to the supply you can't deny the use as the use you can deny this application based on site plan defects defects and the treatment of pedestrian traffic is is one of the considerations thanks very much for time I jamie1 P L I just have a process question not sure if I can ask it or not get through the W Tom batt B AG L to road so Mr B asked you if you were an inable engineer but is it not correct that the burden of proof is on them to prove that they're meeting the the noise performance standards it is I think because of the the location of a truck in proximity to a residential property line in my opinion as a planner it's clearly a red flag issue that needs to be addressed the applicant hasn't addressed it so is that yet another reason to potentially turn down the application if they're not able to approve conformance with that performance that's correct it is is the burden of the applicant to provide that evidence through expert Witnesses the applicant has only talked about turning down the volume you know of of of the uh the order system thank you 19 in your experience we talked about your credentials and um cases that you've been involved in in the past um have you seen any applications that promise and approval by the do case in point being the optimizations to the crosswalk that later dot changes their mind and those things actually don't come to fruition um I don't know of an instance just not at that once the application is heard times there are adjustments that do does I'm often not aware of that so I I can't answer your question that's okay um and then really quickly because we were talking about timelines and calendars yours in particular in your experience are most cases felt this rushed or are you usually given adequate time it depends upon the case of the municipality and the county that you're Ina okay good for learning 11 Road um in your opinion as a planner would you believe that a double drivethru fast food restaurant adjacent toer and to without adequate protections it would be a detriment and again I'm going to go to the noise issue the state law says your house could be 500 ft away but the state's law says you measure the impact at the residential property because you want to go out in your yard and enjoy your property and the noise doesn't just pertain to the actual building itself well in this case I think the noise generator uh is going to be the truck that's loading and unloading and the tractor Trail also the 7 to 800s they they will generate noise but the the real impact I suspect is the truck issue and would that also affect property values possibly I can't answer on property values but it would lessen the enjoyment of your property if you had to put up with that Robert bian 11 ler drive I have not contributed uh thank you sir for your testimony appreciate it U just to pick up on the noise sound when on your training and experience when these uh 18 wheelers are dropping things off um even if they turn the emissions off the refrigeration system is still operating is that correct if it's a refrigeration truck yes there's a humming from that and that motor and as you're aware at some point in time the mor planes facility that's being proposed was analogized as close as possible to the Bayon facility you're aware of right I'm aware that that's been alleged right and you had to review the video that has been this loud in this particular proceeding but that was taken because of the testimony that was provided by McDonald's so that we could verify the similarities between Bon and more plain you're aware of that right it it's in my opinion relevant because you can't go to this site and measure noise because nothing's going on here so typically a noise expert would go to another site that has a similar operation with a noise meter and measure what's going on right and and you're aware we we didn't just pick Bon out of the thin air it was because it was testified to by McDonald's experts you're aware of it it was reference yes okay and you had an opportunity to review that video I did and uh that person was just there for a couple of minutes to take some pictures by the way right and a video correct and it showed a truck that was there I know you're trying to get please stop please stop I said it's not relevant the board decided it's not trying to get it into your testimony is just trying to get know that he can't do it sir just so it's clear just so it's clear you said the video you're not to win this argument no discussion can I at least make a record I won't ask the question can I at least make a okay want to make this quick make it easy no the record it's not coming in no testimony no questions about the video unless of rules they said no I know what you're trying to do but the you you keep saying you know what I'm trying to do respectfully I don't think you do okay okay you ruled you ruled that the video couldn't be played you didn't rule there couldn't be testimony about the video now if you want to rule that way now fine that's that's ruling okay so I just so the record is clear we can't discuss anything about the pictures or the video because we didn't talk about pictures before our pictures also going to be disallowed here a video that we discussed how about pictures of the site what pictures of what site there's also pictures at that location as well before we get into it and the attorney can pull them up is the ruling with regard to the video the same with respect to the pictures that were taken these pictures you're talking about no no the the the pictures at the Bayon facility that was referenced as being similar to the Moors Plains facility there's not going to be testimony even the facility they reference as an example stri yeah that's true I then I asked to move to strike their whole testimony with respect to similarity minute 15 seconds I I just made a motion to strike the testimony of their expert no I happen to be a citizen I want my time stop I happen to be a citizen that happens to be a lawyer that doesn't disavow me but my ability to have an interest in what happens to this community now are you saying that we're not allowed to use it and I'm saying I'm asking that to strike the testimony that they referenced as the basis that they own is going to be like orang points I'm just really asking if we don't have an ability to cross examine the credibility of that then why should they have been allowed to have admitted it can you rule on my motion please okay there's the answer you Che this one so is it in your experience my last question to you is having an environment of impact study about smells noise and things of that nature typical for this type of application um it is often and and it's allowed in the ordinance okay because if there's a problem we may be looking at a 20 foot wall right if there's a noise issue it's going to be hard to uh protect that residential structure thank you sir thank you I actually do have a question Jamie 31 Gren um earlier you were asked about a property that you allowed or or in support of that didn't have a buffer zone yes and you weren't allowed to finish your question can you finish that now I can finish that question so on Bloomfield Avenue there's a side street and there is a two-story building with residential above and there was a dry cleaners underneath it and there was a bar next door on the side street there were I think five parking spaces and the applicant was converting the dry cleaning place to part of its restaurant sharing the liquor license next door there was no Landscaping before except on the abunny neighbor's property there was a big Privet Hedge that separated my my client's property from the first house it was a great privet Edge it was probably 8 ft tall was no place to put any Landscaping on the property so we said we're going to keep essentially the parking the way it is and this is a tiny corner lot that was maybe uh 50 by 125 ft was it new develop or was there a drive can you me just there was no drivethru uh this was a a um this was a existing building with only interior modifications and there were minor changes to I think the five Park and spots in the rear that you had no alternatives to they simply backed up yeah so so I I just have one followup question okay um there was just a gentleman up at the microphone and you he agreed on a number of things including that there's been no testimony about noise odor uh the tractor trailer noise Etc um so I just want to confirm you did not review all of the voluminous testimony that this board heard about noise in that arot you didn't read a single word of any of that testimony from Mr Parago and Mr dto you heard Mr but you did not read any of their testimony noise and about odors and about the quality life issues that's my only question you didn't read a word of it is that true I already answered that question and the answer is no that was my answer then it's change okay so so hang on you have a question okay go ahead um so I'm a little bit confused here and maybe you can that that doesn't make you special by the way oh I'm special very special trust me um what is the what is a a four tub does a truck have to be registered over uh 8,000 lb no I think there are two issues um on Dat there's an ordinance right that says no no truck and I think it's a 5 ton 4 ton limit it's over T it shouldn't use Dayton as a pass through correct okay so just like so you have the the Citizens Bank there on the corner um and a Brinks truck that comes into the back and uses date Road what's the gross weight of that truck is that something that would be surpassing the four I don't know but the uh it it depends whether it's loaded with bullion or not I suppose but I don't know and just what about the landscapers with a trailer is again is that over 4 tons registered over four tons I I don't know all I can tell you is I suspect the tractor trailer that delivers to McDonald's is over five tons is there over four tons excuse me is there a three minute Idol ball I'm not aware of the specifics but I'm aware that uh it's that's a law that's hard to enforce is there one then I don't know I don't know specifics of it and I would not volunteer because I don't know the specifics I believe there's a 3 minute idle ball or whatever you know certain things I guess a truck a park truck would have to that that's probably a pollution issue rather than a noise issue right 100% so would a Refrigerated unit on the truck also be required to adhere to that 3 minute idle uh I don't know probably not because otherwise the food would thaw um and another question you talked about you brought up a uh where the burrow has an ordinance about Alig streets does that also include state roads 202 sure your question you said that street should uh you have there's in your site plan and subdivision ordinance you have standards right does that apply to a state road as well or just burrow roads while it's a plan that applies period except that the state makes the final call because it's their road so probably it does not that you brought up does not would not apply to this or would well the answer is it applies to your to enforcing your ordinances let me make a clarification it is it applies to new streets but in this case we have a about we have an intersection and we have a driveway and what I'm saying is the principle of what's safer applies in my opinion it's nice to have if you look at you know to the property just you know to the east of this uh like this with the dun Donuts in if you look at that driveway it aims right at the street across speed well that's a good design and it's on the you have to make a right and then left the the problem with it being only 46 ft away is that the car that wants to exit and go up hill view doesn't really have an incentive to straighten out on speed well and then make a formal left they're going to kind of do a Dio which is not safe but I think the testimony you get me wrong trying to wrap my head around this is that the state approved this this design on 202 with the driveway and the alignment there's there are different considerations when you combine Lots because now you have more flexibility to put a driveway now before when they were I don't know how when that those developments occurred but when they were separate Lots the state can't deny you access to your property but once you combine them and in this case demolish all the curbs and the sidewalks in my opinion you have the opportunity to do something that's safe the that's what I'm trying to I'm trying to understand this but both Traffic Engineers ours and theirs like this design of where this driveway is and I get I think the do as well um I I'm not a traffic expert I'm just talking about planning principles and and maybe they didn't take into consideration that the applicant is demolishing everything on the site so it the driveway can be moved I I I don't know what was in their mind I'm not a traffic expert but I I know your standards and I know typical planning standards okay that's going to be it for tonight no it's 11:30 okay and I I listen I'll stay here all night but we have other people to consider okay good night excuse me we next Monday o Monday o00 also meeting days later no further noce we see youall here on Monday we have a motion to adjourn all in FA