##VIDEO ID:Pp-SZbGuE00## the meeting of the township of forany Troy Hills planning board for Monday October 7th 2024 it's a little after 7:30 p.m. now uh Nora would you call the rle Please Mr D Mr Dio here Mr mey here Mr meth present Mr napalitano here Mr Shaw M Smith here chairman dmore here we also have our board planner Mr snikes our board engineer Mr kiano and our board attorney steinley all right announcement is made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given that is being conducted in accordance with njsa 10 col 4-6 SEC of the New Jersey open public meetings ACT stand for the Pledge of Allegiance please I to flag of the United States of America and to the for stands one nation God indivisible liy and justice for all this meeting is open to the general public is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this board on a subject not on our agenda tonight hearing and seeing none we had a couple of resolutions to do but I understand that the attorney for the uh applicant in those cases has asked for a delay so they could do further review all right fine uh we are going to call application number 24 col 52 22 the district at 1515 urban renewal LLC 1515 Route 10 block 200 Lots 1.4 1.05 and 1.06 preliminary and final major site plan would C variants for two permanent outdoor structures and signage um there we've had some discussions about the fact that uh certain details are still under discussion and negot iation so if we go through this the the the question of completeness was raised so I get um if we could have the applicant attorney there's just a question about the tax payments that have been they're under negotiation but they haven't been certified by The Collector Nicole madzak for the record of the law firm day Pitney here this evening on behalf of the applicant there is a tax appeal pending on the property and we are in negotiations with the township on that item we have most recently submitted um a an offer counter offer yeah an offer um which has been submitted to the township attorney and is currently under review by the township all right so we're we're contemplating the possibility just to make sure that there are no problems with any T's that aren't crossed and eyes dotted uh of if we agree to Grant this uh we may very well simply direct the attorney to draw up a resolution that we would actually Grant once the memorializing resolution is in place is that satisfactory related to the tax appeal um is that so the tax payments on the property have they been made their current their current ta the the taxes are current correct but you're under but there's a tax appeal pending correct which is unrelated to that's separate I thought that there were outstanding tax payments to be made which would impact completeness okay correct yes I understand the the difference and you're correct there are there are no taxes outstanding so if we were to file with the tax collector for a tax right certification that all taxes are current um they are current there is just separately a tax appeal that has been filed on the property that's pending okay very good all right um well then your case thank you very much so as was stated we are here this evening um in relation to the property that was formerly known as 1515 Route 10 it's block 200 Lots 1.04 1.05 and 1.06 the board may recall that this property previously received preliminary and final major site plan approv approval C variances preliminary and final major subdivision which is how the Lots exist in their current condition today and also a major soil movement permit from this board by resolution adopted on September 13 2021 to construct a mixed use commercial development which consists of three buildings which are identified as buildings A B and C buildings A and B are currently under construction we actually had an inspection on building a of 26 of the units so far so that particular building is pretty far along and is anticipated to be opening at the end of the year we're not proposing any changes to building a here this evening Building B is currently under construction that building is a a mixed use building so the first ground floor is retail and restaurant space and above that is Apartments there's also the parking deck as part of that building we're not proposing any changes to Building B either this evening so those two buildings are currently under construction under permits that were issued by your building department consistent with that 2021 approval we are seeking modifications to Building C which is an entirely commercial building on story building which will front on Route 10 so that building is not yet under construction so if you drive by the site you wouldn't see anything in that location currently the modifications that we're proposing are limited to the outside of building C there are two restaurants that are part of building sea which are our larger restaurants that will have liquor licenses and we previously had approval for designated outdoor seating for each of those restaurants we are proposing to create or or construct attach to the building a covering that's a permanent covering over that outdoor seating so it'll provide some shade and just extend the ability to use that in a comfortable way each of the restaurant tenants that we anticipate being here have requested that permanent covering instead of umbrellas at tables or some other temporary condition we're also proposing addition signage on the um internal side of the building and you'll see it in our plans as our engineer goes through this we there's an internal werf it's called so it's this community activated space in between buildings B andc we are permitted to have signage on that side of the building but we're only permitted one sign per use we are seeking a variance to permit a second sign which is a logo sign so some of our tenants have asked if they could have a logo in addition to the words of their um actual business so that would be two signs not one so we're seeking variance relief for that and then on the what is actually the back side of the building but faces Route 10 so you would traditionally think of it as the front of the building as you're driving by um we're allowed certain signage but we're proposing wall signs that are larger than what's permitted to be consistent with the werf side of the building and to just provide visibility for those tenants from Route 10 so our um experts this evening will run through the details of what we are proposing but at the core of it it's those two items so one is the Outdoor coverings and two is the signage on Building C we're also seeking I don't think it was mentioned in the beginning a conditional use approval um for the restaurant spaces it's actually conditional use in the Redevelopment plan and it requires us as a condition to confirm that the shared parking works so we do have our traffic expert here also this evening to just run through how the shared parking is um numbers work and to confirm that it complies so we have um four is with us this evening our engineer our architect our traffic engineer and our planner and we'd like to start with our engineer we have a few waivers to discuss first Mr Snus yeah thank you Mr chairman uh Ed Snus a professional planner uh regarding the waivers we had identified four I believe on our memorandum of August 27 2024 uh the first one was Wetlands a letter of interpretation the waiver is requested we recommend that due to the nature of this application it didn't seem to be pertinent to the proceedings tonight um Highland's exemption determination uh it was determined to be exempt because of the amount of coverage there really isn't an increase in coverage being proposed uh traffic study uh where required by the board uh no traffic study has been submitted but we offer to the board that there be testimony in that's what I think the applicant's getting ready to provide as well uh environmental assessment study and again due to the nature of the application uh we felt that that is appropriate for the board to consider as well so those four items are listed for the waivers Mr chairman all right uh do I hear a motion approving the waivers as suggested in the Burgess report of what's that date August August 27th yes Mr chairman Mr melee a motion to approve the waivers as delineated by Mr snakes do I have a second second D Mr D thank you all right all in favor I I any opposed all right thank you very much Mr chairman before you proceed um the other thing I noted in our report depending upon how you feel um is that we identified that due to the permanent nature of the the shade structure it it now reduces the distance between building I guess that's Building C and Building B um and so you're seeking that as as well just for the board's information we always had a dimension in there for that werf area uh that it had at least to be minimally to be 80t wide and right now with that new shade structure this the tightest Dimension will be 60 ft and that's something I just wanted to point out to the applicant to see if they had a question on that before they get started but it seems that you'll be covering that yes we will be covering that both our engineer architect and planner are all prepared to review that and um we also have the calculations done to show that the overall area that's un it's not unobstructed because now we're going to have this covering but the overall area still meets what was required by the Redevelopment plan excellent thank you so with that we'd like to call our engineer as our first [Music] witness if you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record uh Eric Schwarz s c w a RZ uh with Langan engineering our uh headquarters address uh here in Pary 300 Kimble Drive okay ER can you please provide your background and experience for the board sure thank you um so again my name is Eric Schwarz uh I'm a senior principal here with Lang and Engineering environment Services um I have a BS in civil engineering from the University of Delaware that I got in the early 1990s at 31 years of continuous professional experience in the engineering uh Consulting business I'm a licensed professional engineer here in New Jersey as well as in 10 other states at New Jersey over 20 years now uh as a licensed professional engineer and I have been accepted as an expert before numerous boards in New Jersey including this one is as I was here uh I guess I was on the screen a couple of years ago when we're doing it that way we'd like to offer Mr Schwarz as an expert in civil engineering is there any questions on Mr schwarz's uh background no okay thank you okay um so I have um I have some remarks to to run through I'm going to do a very brief overview of the project again just as a refresher um and then get into the specifics of the application uh uh tonight is it okay if I stand over by the board that one testing okay um our first exhibit here which we can Mark is A1 on the left is some recent aerial photography uh of the project site shows what's been what's in construction on four different angles of view and the center image is a top down aerial so as described by the applicant's attorney a little bit ago you can see the project is well under construction especially those first two out of the three buildings and that was prepared by your office uh yes so they were um I guess Drone footage from the uh the the development team and we prepared the exibit okay and we'll just give it today's date of October [Music] [Music] 7th can you please also Mark it as A1 on the sheet I know we have the sticky note but that's why I have up top now so A1 uh October 7th 2024 um and actually I'm going to go right to the second exhibit which is the board on the right here which is a drawing out of the site plan uh engineering drawings uh sheet number 16 out of 88 entitled overall site plan so I can mark that as 82 and this was prepared by your office correct correct and the date of the sheet just today's date uh so this is the exact plan that is uh in the in the application package which was originally dated February 23rd 2021 and last Revis July 9th 2024 thank you um so again as an overview as an overview of the project um we're fronted on Route 10 we have three main buildings of the project here in parsipany there's a fourth building shown on the bottom which is a proposed hotel that is in the township of Hanover so not specific to to our application here tonight uh building a again uh is a residential building here on this side uh Building B the mixed use building with both residential units as well as retail and restaurant use and the parking garage and then the building C is the smaller narrower building uh closest to Route 10 on the top the overall project is approximately 11 acres identified as block 200 Lots 1.04 1.05 and 1.06 um we can note that since construction has begun significant infrastructure improvements have been made uh including over 3,000 ft of new pable water line and uh and a and a significant roadway connection with this uh roundabout Circle that connects project site to the dry andway ramp and improves uh traffic circulation both for the project as well as the overall surrounding Community U the total units for the project are 498 residential units and just over 56,000 uh square fet of usable retail and restaurant area again the retail and restaurants are between buildings B and C residential units are between buildings A and B uh the unique component about the project that goes all the way back to the development or the Redevelopment plan is the area called the werf which is this rectangular area in between Building C and Building B and that's really part of the focus area of where we're going to be talking tonight um and that werf area is also known as a living street it's an area of pedestrian as well as vehicular activity um and um really viewed as the shared outdoor open area of the project where both residents and the public will interact now I'm going to go to a a third exhibit which should be in a large [Music] [Music] view title of the sheet is and again this is a drawing that is in the site plan submission set that you have title of the sheet is partial site plan phase 2B original date February 23rd 2021 last revise on July 9th 2024 so and we will mark this as [Music] A3 with the 10724 date uh marked on top um so again now a blowup view of the three buildings and what's highlighted in blue are these two canopy areas covered outdoor dining area that we're talking about so the werf and I'm going to get into more detail next on on next drawing is really this rectangular area that's in between the two buildings and extends all the way here to to building a so these two there's restaurant here in Building C and another restaurant here in Building C sizable finer dining restaurants that will have uh this outdoor reserved outdoor dining area with the cover canopies [Music] okay yeah I want to uh actually go to the next exhibit and start to address some of the questions comments that were in the township planers letter and then the township Engineers letters so do so I'm going to have two up at this time two exhibits as bit of a comparison so again drawings prepared by by our office uh the one on the left is uh it's going to be A4 and it's titled outdoor dining plan 2021 meaning what the site plan looked like on the approved set of drawings that we had three years ago that were submitted in 2021 and in comparison will be the second sheet titled outdoor dining plan 2024 um which is a mockup of the current plan we and we can describe the differences so I'm going to mark this one 85 107 2024 107 2024 we have those we're going these do not have you did not have these yet we will be leaving these tonight to for the submission the base drawing under here you do have that is part of the landscape plans and it was a good example we could use to colorize and help explain what we're doing here and uh and requesting tonight the green shading is what's considered the shared outdoor open area by the Redevelopment plan it was required to be at least 80 ft wide by 400 ft long what we actually proposed and we're approved with was longer than that in more area instead of just 32,000 Square ft it's upwards uh 43,2 19 ft as it happens to be a full 530 ft long not just 400 long and it was approximately 80 it was really about 812 ft Wide building to building the area shown in blue were what was predicted at that time before we had our restaurant tenants to be the outdoor dining for these two restaurants so we had 787 ft² and 742 ft identified as reserved area these are areas that are a little more secure they're liquor licensed restaurants so we call it's reserved ging as opposed to the other areas that are in red that are unreserved and those aren't specific for dining their tables and their chairs anybody can come up anybody from the public anybody from uh uh the residents that live there come down with their laptop computer to sit outside or bring their own lunch from from you know with them as opposed again right the blue specific reserved um the way it's written in the Redevelopment plan uh they reserved out their dining there's a limitation on how much of that can be within the shared outdoor open area we fall well with underneath um that requirement as a comparison now with the current plan we have 1163 ft on the western most restaurant for the that'll be covered canopy and 170 uh covered canopy and you can see we still have a lot of unreserved open to the public red outdoor dining and other areas again the length of the green shade from end to end is still 530 ft as Mr snik has pointed out earlier we have a reduction in the width where the canopies are right physical permanent canopy over top of this outdoor dining instead of being 81 ft wide here we shrink to about 58 at the smallest point you know you can see there's a curve on these canopies now what's interesting is even with the size if we take the first 150 ft to the left side and 52 ft in between the two and another 210 ft on the right side we still have actually 410 total feet of the full 80t wide the Redevelopment plan does say the 80x 400 is to be contiguous so that's why we're here explaining the difference so we actually still yield more total area and more total length than what was required for the 80ft width it's just that it's broken up by these two canopy structures so uh it's been identified uh in the planner's letter as something that needs variance um a few a few more numbers I want to read for the record uh um right so outdoor the reserved outdoor dining area which shown in blue again we're allowed up to 20% of the green area where the the original 80 by 400t length up to 20% of that is allowed to be reserved for outdoor dining we're far less than that we're at 6.7% uh that would be if I add these two blue areas together it's 20 223 ft out of the um remaining um uh green shared outdoor open area would be again 6.7% so well underneath the limit that's that's allowed uh one other point that I wanted to make and we addressed these calculations in a response letter that was was member 17th u a response letter September 17 September 17th 2024 we put these calculations into a letter to the board secretary uh in response to um the burges uh review letter uh with respect to uh outdoor seating and relating to parking the Redevelopment plan allows for the outdoor seats to be as long as they are no more than 30% of the indoor seats or seating area then uh no no further parking is required for the addition of those seats and we are well underneath uh that 30% and those calculations were also submitted in the C September 17th letter I think I'm going to go to my next exhibit which is [Music] this will be exhibit A6 the plan is titled bulk requirements plan it is part of the submitted application sheet number 27 of 88 originally dated February 23rd 2021 and revised on July 9th 2024 again that'll be A6 107 2024 this drawing really uh totals up all the data all the site data um requirements from the Redevelopment zone parking counts and calculations such as building coverage and uh impervious coverage and one of the comments in the Burgess Associates review letter asked for Testimony that whether or not the changes were increasing or making modification to the building coverage and door impervious coverage so we want to get that on the record here tonight and in and looking at it again we had noticed a couple very minor changes in the calculations there have no consequence we're still way under the limits that are allowed um we're talking about portions of a percentage um but we did notice that with the building coverage um the approved plan in 2021 had 25477 ft and the new plan has 2 27,100 ft so that's an increase of 2,3 93 ft 2233 of the square ft come from those canopies right there's extra building coverage because it's roof there's another 160 Square ft that just came out of the the evolution of the of the architectural plans since we did the side plan approval as they do the fine details on the architectural plans the building footprint Changed by inches here and there and it added 160 s ft um so that's memorialized with the changes in in the in the drawings we had one mistake in our calculation which was calling out the track coverage the total tra area that we started with of 11.24 Acres that should have been 11.14 typo of a tenth of an acre the end result um is the building coverage is 52. 98% where we're allowed to go up to 55 so we're still over 2% lower than what the allowable is with the proposed canopies similarly similarly um we had the similar error with the impervious coverage um the 11.24 Acres instead of 11.14 Acres was identified and the plan we submitted had 454 I'm sorry 4,554 ft of impervious area on the tract it should have been slightly higher at 4,656 the result uh is impervious coverage on the original 2021 plan that was approved was 8254 we're up 200s of a percent now we're at 8256 we're allowed to go up to 85% so we're still comfortable um more or less 2 and a half% underneath the maximum um Township engineer uh issued a review letter uh dated September 18 2024 with a couple of points to be addressed one of them dealt with a storm pipe which was positioned more or less here coming out of the center um south side of building C it picks up the roof drains off of the building and our revised plan submitted this year reduced that 12-in pipe to a half a percent slope where the original design three years ago was a 1% slope less slope in the pipe less pipe capacity engineer wanted us to submit calculations to uh to justify and prove that that was still sufficient um as a result we looked back at it and decided there was no reason to drop it to a half we want to go back to the original 1% um we have plenty of cover um there's no need so um we're going to push that back uh and that would be submitted on a set of resolution compliance plans for the final review and and approval by the engineer um there was another question relating to uh lighting under the canopies since the canopies are there the outdoor site lighting could then be blocked and we fully um expect the restaurant tenants when they apply for their building permits to also have lighting underneath the canopies spray over top of the seating so that would come then um that is the end of what I formally wanted to talk about I can take questions now or later I think Eric if we can just um identify one more of the township planner review comments just because I think we've gone through most of them that relate to engineering um there's also a comment about additional planting of evergreen shrubs to screen the proposed Transformers along Route 10 we had previously proposed two Transformers if you can point those out which are now Consolidated into one location instead of separated if we can just point that out on the [Music] plan so I'm back on exhibit A3 and right up here along Route 10 between Building C and Route 10 you see there are two Transformers um they were always along Route 10 the original application a few years ago in 2021 had them further separated there was one in this vicinity and one in this vicinity the idea originally was that two halves of this building SE were going to get their own separate feed the architecture advanced in coordination with PSC andg uh I'm sorry jcpl in this case came along it was determined that all the feed would become into the one end of the building so both Transformers were revised and put together so that's why they're they're roughly right next to each other here the part of the comment had to do with landscaping and and coverage from Route 10 similar to what the application was last time we're really providing the same thing again and you don't necessarily see it in two Dimensions but in the landscape drawings there are details that show some grading that comes up from Route 10 to behind the Transformers there's a small retaining wall of so many feet high uh positioned around them the Earth comes up behind that and then there's plantings behind those as well so from the road you're seeing you're seeing a land coming up with plantings on top Transformers are really down behind it and U just as it was the first time it just used to be two separate ones and outs two together so we think that was probably misunderstood a little bit in the review of the plans and Mr snik is if you still feel that additional planting is necessary we're happy to um work that out with you if you wanted to come to the site and see that after it's installed uh certainly I'll take a look further at that detail I didn't realize that it was going to be walled in order to be screened as well um that's one thing I'll just take a look at Mr shair done so the board Mr kiano do you have any question just wanted to a couple more comments so I asked for the uh I know the Architects plans and Landscape arkers plans were were clouded you could see the revision these are very extensive plans it was hard to see what you changed and I and I actually did like a a look back at the 2021 approval plans versus these plans and if you can comment I'm guessing um they were not brought up in the application or in your testimony now but there are some change no change in parking number but you've changed parking on the lower uh on the bottom of uh building a you've added EV State uh parking there you also have some Transformers in the back of building and generating the back of Building B and I also noticed that you have um a reconfiguration of the trash compactor area adjacent to building be could you comment on what other site change now you testified there's no changes to the buildings but what site changes have changed since the last approval I think you hit on on probably every one of them just now um and and back to the buildings right I did State earlier there was slight change I mean right the 160 total square feet of of building building C uh there was a combination on multiple buildings there's a little bit there a little bit there it's architectural footprint changes happened all over we can get that as a cloud it you hate to as an engineer you hate to Cloud the whole drawing right no exactly that's my point it CL it's doesn't loses its purpose if you Cloud the whole drawing but particularly as it relate to site plan improvements I'd be interested um now could you just comment uh were those EV changes the generator change and the TR trash compactor change was that administratively submitted and approved or do you need approvals for those changes what's the status to that right so the trash compactor that you're you're speaking was over here on the right side right to the west side of Building B it was a it was a configuration change same general spot where it is just reconfigured a little bit and I will note we did not lose a single parking place from the original I think the number is 1062 is our total parking on the project between surface and garage we still have the same total number of spaces um we did go through administrative approval right right for the trash comp uh the change in trash configuration I issued a permit and Revis for the changes at the bottom I couldn't remember doing the EV though did you remember Ed and I were reviewed the changes administratively I should have brought the permits with me but I don't remember making changes at all to the EV our architect can address the EV behind building a yeah our architect can address that that was part of the initial 2021 plan so you wouldn't have seen it as a change not familiar okay well it wasn't called out on the 2021 plan that's why I noticed it the the addition of okay so correct civil drawings did not show the electric vehicle spaces they were always in mind they just weren't perfected on on exactly what they were going to be as I recall um I suppose when you hear from the architect um I'll let him speak to his plans but you are correct identifying this now does show uh electric vehicles parking spaces on the surface here uh on the south side of building a we also have a few shown over here in the um call it the western side of building see and there's also spaces proposed inside the garage and just so you can provide has there been any change to parking count or any reduction in parking zero same number of total spaces um I think what we do with the resolution compliance said is give you a line by line every little thing that we can find that changed very subtle things of where a drainage Inlet maybe move 5T from a conflict or so um I'm I'm pointing into the middle here because I know there was one one inside of here where there's a conflict with something coming from the building no slope changes no no no changes in capacity physically moving the inlet during construction 5T from a conflict that came about um that was that was really the I think there's some landscape related items in the wer here where they Chang they're shown on the landcape that that's fine I so just for the clouding it it's really just what your improvements are um the the the major improvements not a drainage slope change at half% but your canopy and I guess the U BS and and and even the trash area even though was approved already it's a change in the old plant that would be helpful yep you can do that thank you other members of the board have questions Mr mey what would be the operating hours of these restaurants that's not for me to perhaps another witness I don't know that one thank you other question Mr the thank you the uh parking south of building a those have numbers on them uh no they don't parks there well predominantly it's going to be residents that live in build but they're not they're not restricted okay they are so someone wants to go to restaurants can park in those spots they could I would personally my personal opinion is it' be pretty unlikely knowing what's available inside the garage to the short with a short they can also go in the garage as well absolutely yes and how about I see if if you look on the West Side here coming down I guess that's West District drive that would be here going down further down you can hun to the end you can make a right turn there they you can get in the other parking lot yes to the end of District Drive is a connection but you got that's not your property though right that is correct but the joint properties so I'm flipping back to exhibit A2 the overall site plan come down West District drive you can make a left right into can also make a right into here so what you think people are going to park on that area well that I know I would that's a good spot there flip around but can they walk safely across is there a crosswalk there there is so we've we've actually and that wasn't designed for people coming to use this property it was really designed as an interconnectivity with an office building next door office building they have a very clear crosswalk running through their parking lot that we then lined up with ramp because it's a higher elevation there's a an ADA accessible ramp that brings you down and a crosswalk across the street and your sidewalks all the way so the idea being that lunch lunch okay thank you other members of the board Mr chairman quick question yeah um one thing was not really clear to me the the proposed change the the canopi that's not enclosed on the other three sides right on the sides the canopy uh uh so it has a called roughly waste TI wall intended so there's are liquor licensed restaurants you know the operators need a bit of security to control right the usage as well so as I understand the design today the intent is that it's uh it's a roughly a wasti high wall and it's really open and and a rooftop coverage U so it's not a conditioned full enclosed building okay not not a like a hall closed Hall kind of thing it's open okay and then which also means there must be entrance and exits within that right yeah yeah it probably shows better on the architectual plan that architect y other me Mr meth so just you may have already said this but the outdoor dining areas the blue ones the the size of them is the exact same as the 2021 plan correct it's just there's now a permanent fixed um structure over them no they're they're actually bit increased but still well within the the the limit okay um so they were roughly 742 and 787 ft² now it's slightly over a, 1163 here then still but there was other areas that were not designated before weren't there or is there well they they were designated with we'll call it that waist high wall if you will a bit of a of a of a Corral around it but they weren't designated with a permanent canopy structure the idea then wasn't known for sure what would be right for the tenants uh but it was proposed to be reserved dining and likely to have some kind of umbrella or temporary canopy that could be put up with a permit once a year okay not once a year but annually and maybe this is a question for the traffic engineer but the change in restaurant versus retail did that I I understand that the number of parking spaces hasn't changed but did the parking demand or the parking requirement change yes so there's a that is will be best for the traffic engineer but then short um we still fall underneath the allowable U the shared parking calculation comes out to where it results in less than uh less parking required than what we are providing um but again traffic engineer can go through that in more detail and from a traffic perspective in terms of space that was retail now being restaurant does it change the trip generation and that he can speak to that as well yeah I figured I'd ask him that but um we'll cover but uh no I was more interested in does it change the like parking requirement that was the main question does it create a new variance I guess okay no other members of the board have questions Mr Senus you have a yeah just some quick follow-ups regarding the seasonal outdoor dining um restriction that's not something we're discussing today right I just want to inform the board that we're not covering that tonight um and that also loudspeaker you're still pursuing the use of a loudspeaker outside in the outdoor dining area we anticipate that the restaurants will want to have some kind of light music playing um we also think that that's something that would be discussed with the council in connection with the outdoor dining requirements that are in a separate ordinance section very good thank youone not discussing this we're still discussing the two permanent outdoor dining there with regard to the outdoor dining structures themselves but not necessarily for the time of year that is something that was now the per it's only the perview of the governor body that's in the administ so then my here's my question and Ed with regards to permanent outdoor dining I I I don't have an issue with outdoor dining but what does the permanent outdoor dining do for other areas in the township because some areas in the township of parpan aren't conducive for outdoor dining so would something like this um make that part of it set of Precedence and that's not what I I I want to see happen um I would say it's it can be specific to a a spe a specific location um and that what you have here is a context of a development that's enclosed it's within its own realm and that what they're proposing as far as permanent outdoor dining is a structure not necessarily the time of year usage that would still have to be discussed with the government govern so and I know the original intentions some some of the intentions of the yearly renewal of that is to make sure that you don't have any bad players or people who aren't uh abiding by the rules as to whether it's loudspeakers music things of that nature or time of day and time of operation and so that was I believe one of the original intents of that time frame so I think that's something that's why we're saying that this can't be really reviewed by this board it would really be an appeal to the governing body for that and and we didn't uh the clerk's off and the zoning department did not use that ordinance to anyone who was an applicant that was approved by the board in the past for outdoor dining so when they send me the review and ask me to review whether outdoor dining is permitted they do not send me applications that have been approved by the board for outdoor dining so any restaurant in the town that has outdoor dining that was part of their application does not go back to the zoning department and the clerk's office for a yearly approval it is only the um shopping centers that have a pizzeria who wants to put 12 seats outside and some tables those are reviewed yearly because like the mayor said those sometimes those outdoor seating are not appropriate and they don't have the room so those we review yearly but anyone who's been a board application and the board approved outdoor dining does not so make sure that when you explain it to the council they understand that this that the zoning department does not review any of the outdoor dining that's approved by the board those are just the shopping center restaurants who want to try to put seating outside or on the lawn that might not be appropriate or safe it's not applications where the board has approved outdoor dining so so I know there was a lot of confusion on that we kind of went work on that yep and in this instance the board has jurisdiction to um discuss the permanent structure for outdoor dining but the board isn't going to be taking action as to whether um the applicant can actually operate outdoor dining year round they're going to discuss that with the township um separately okay okay I'd always I'd always believed frankly that something like this was was application specific that that it would not be something that really would set a precedent for other because this is such a major project that it strikes me that it would be perfectly reasonable to have it here and yet not have that be setting as a precedent elsewhere that's my point I did that's not what I want you know I want from day one when I was discussed in my office this is not what we wanted set of Precedence right but it it it's useful to know that the council is going to have the final word on a lot of the uh dining because you saw I mean what happened during Co parking lots became um an area of dining and a lot of um of our zoning laws were ignored and and some are still being ignored so um I just wanted to make sure that this doesn't affect that I'd hope that the fact that we are giving them specific relief for this i' speak to that that you would have to get specific relief to have any like this so all right any other questions by members of the board just thank you again uh so the right there the 118 ft and 77 s ft that's is that for people in the restaurant on that corner so the again the ones in red are not dedicated reserved spaces they happen to be next to restaurants but they're not corraled in you me anyone of us show there and sit there that's those those three small ones these ones on the end as well as all of these those too those restaurants over there also there are restaurants on the other side too but again those are not okay so they're not not just for them not Reserve just for them anybody can go all right thank you any questions by members of the public of these this witness and this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor thank you our next witness is our architect you please raise your right hand do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record yes Keith peacock Kei t h p EA c c k address is 756 Haden Avenue Collingswood New Jersey Mr peock can you please provide the board with your experience in education sure uh uh I'm a principal with thriven design We're The Architects of record for the project um uh have a bachelor's of Science in architecture from drexell University uh been uh licensed here in New Jersey for 10 years 11 years uh licensed in Pennsylvania New Jersey Virginia uh Maryland and DC um I've presented in front of uh boards in Jersey City this board obviously uh several years back when we did this um uh also Camden Wildwood uh New Brunswick a number of times so and you were previously accepted as an expert in the field of architecture by this board correct by this well guess we'd like to offer Mr peacock as an expert in architecture any questions on the witnesses qualifications and see none councelor thank you I'm GNA also stand up so Mr peacock is going to walk us through the architectural floor plans and also some elevations that depict the proposed correct correct um so I guess I'll just jump back to the question about EVS as we well we'll talk about we have building a we have Building B and we have Building C as we talked about in the wound up here we have to mark the uh A7 and this was prepared by your office correct it was this is the same plan that we had in the packet with the exception of we changed the nomeclature of one of these spaces uh it's just it's a retail space that we had a different nomenclature before the square feet is the same we just change but we labeled it on the plan but the plan is ID what was in your in your packet other than that that one change um what's the date on this plan U this one is actually dated today um but it was actually a copy from what we had previously okay so we have Delta Dental Route 10 side and our our main axis coming in so our original application had EV charging we had noted here we had power brought out to this corner for EV charging but we hadn't actually delineated the spaces for the EV uh we also had EV charging in the garage uh at in the original submission uh through this process of working through the the final designs we're also increasing the number of EV charging Spaces by 15 spaces some are in the garage gar and we have three that we put out here by Building C uh as well um to uh add add more potential for EV charging so one of the questions about parking uh just to refresh the board when we presented this before that the there's uh the ground floor and the first uh three floors of the building first two floors of the building and the lower level are all open parking for anyone to come to to the property and can park here we have a when you come in and Park there's a walkway between uh between the buildings as um uh you can't really see this I'll show you in a minute um but there's a a connection path from the garage straight out to the werf to all of this retail spaces so you can park in the garage and you can you can come right in here uh parking in these other spaces around the back of building a is is probably going to be one people that don't know the space to come here and find that parking is probably not not something that they're going to do they're going to they're going to use the parking deck that has uh signage that drives them to those those spaces see some other things that we have here uh let's see uh so just talking about the plan uh one of the things that we've also done in this is that the Redevelopment plan had in there for uh a breakup of the building at certain distances and having a certain degree of notch back one of the things we've done is we've pulled this Breezeway between the two halves of building C where there's parking on the other side we have a Breezeway through there that brings you to the W we've brought that can that overhead canopy back uh to again to to facilitate this this thing that there's a building here and there's a building here and it doesn't feel like it's one one long u mass of a building across the the space so these are the canopy areas in on the front here that we have the the seating area and these are these blade um airplane Wings if you will that that come out from the building uh the facade of the building is really here and these things just project out and I'll show you uh some renders here in a minute that that emphasize that um so uh as ER had pointed out with a couple of minor changes in square feet so we did have about a total of 160 square feet as we we work through the buildings uh originally we had uh electrical on both ends of the building and as we revised this now we have water service coming into one side with sprinkler coverage and we have electrical service coming in the other side and this Breezeway roof allows us to service across the building with sprinkler coverage water coverage and um and also uh the the electric to go back and forth so simplified it worked with jcpnl they thought this was a better scenario um so we did that in the back here part of those Transformer changes that happened here was when you looked at the amount of uh electrical connections we had to do we had to bring in a a a transfer box that that it's a you can only have so many lugs on a Transformer and we had many more cables that had come in for the retail spaces as well as for the uh residential so we have a splice box and then we have a Transformer um so this back configuration had to get modified to work with JCP and their requirements for these uh splice boxes where that all of these you know probably 40 cables have to come into this thing and you have a handful that can actually go to a Transformer after that so so that's was the driving of that that reconfiguration and then there were some minor adjustments to the the trash impactor here on the West Side to to make all that uh get uh adjusted correctly so um so that's really the extent of of the plan let's go to call this A8 so these are the same elevations that we had on the on the the packet you have with you I just put them onto a board and enlarge them a little bit here for viewability here in the in the meeting so the as you can see the elevations are slight difference from what we presented back in 2021 um as as we modified through things and and worked out um tenant needs uh for for the major tenants um evolution of the facade modified here and there but primarily it's the same um in terms of the two halves and how things were set up uh across all the elevations so uh just some minor things with the fenestration and doors uh things here and there uh but the overall essence of the elevations remained as what was presented and approved in 2021 and could you just provide the date of that board they're all dated today uh but again these were the elevations that were part of the packet so there's no difference to these from what we actually have in the packet would just enlarged for viewability [Music] A9 and again this is the same information that's in the packet on the um the signage sheet uh but we've just enlarged it again so to make it viewability here but just you know trying to point out that we have identification on each of the buildings uh doorway signs that come in we have the parking that that directs people when they come to the parking deck they they know where in and out is and all those we have signs that tell you for uh when you're on the werf coming back into the parking deck that identifies where where that happens and then just a typical um configuration of of a tenant sign we don't know what their logos are going to be we don't know what their signs are going to say just yet we don't have all those tenants in in place so we've outlined in our permit set and that and with our our uh statistics that we've worked out that we're in in in compliance on the wer side of of the building uh with the exception as we'd like to add these larger logos which I'll show you in the rendering here in a minute and then to do the same thing on Route 10 side so that as folks are driving down Route 10 the the tenants have visibility on the street which is important to draw in traffic to uh to their either restaurant or to their uh stores that they they have [Music] there now we get to the fun stuff we'll call this a [Music] t so these are a couple artist uh uh impressions of what this will look like from the werf and we had um the same views we had presented previously uh on this but uh with modifications to this building as you can see that uh one of the things that we're looking to do is that um we we've just used District uh steakhouse here for the moment there is a a proposed tenant that uh would have a a a chicklet logo besides their their name Logo uh on on there and that's part of what we're proposing so this dark area here is this These Wings that are the um these canopies that we're looking to put over top of the the outdoor seating area so as you can see the we've talked about the bringing things in but the facade of the buildings actually remain where they were we're just we're just impeding on that with this blade that that sticks out so it's not really um it's not really not bringing the building facade out to here building facade remains we're just bringing this thin blade out uh that's these airplane wings and again another there are no columns those can there'll be columns out here to support them but they're they're just smaller uh tube columns and then we still have the light poles out here in front of those yes and Mr peacock the logo is a second sign for that business correct that is correct and we're speaking very that is correct yeah so these are just giving an impression of how this werf would work with uh with the with the blades that uh that kind of stick behind the trees there I think have a couple more views here just to accentuate what's going on kind of see a little bit closer up we'll call this one A1 so as you can see if you're you know standing on the down here that really the building's back and there's this this just this thin line that is the the canopy and then uh right now we're depicting this as a as a uh an open wall but again the tenant's going to work out what uh how that uh barrier works so that they're compliance with the ABC for their their liquor license so this shows the uh East part of the building and there's a matching one onto the the west side and then this is just showing signage from Route 10 side I have another view from Route 10 here in a second um that shows that you know the way this building works it's a two-sided building we have the wer side and then we have the route 10 side and so the it doesn't really have a back where it's all the trash goes out it's it's it's a 360 building so there's a there's I think a president there to have signage on on both sides so now we'll go this is a [Music] 12 and again you can see from the rout T side uh the same uh restaurant steakhouse restaurant uh which is this is the East portion of the building this is the Breezeway going through and then we have the this the western part here um so you can kind of see from the route 10 side that there's there's a need to to identify um what what's in here if this were all blank you wouldn't you wouldn't really know what stores were were in here from the highway we'd have to come in to find out what's going on and Mr peacock just so we can be clear about the variance relief related to this side we are seeking one sign for business but the size that we're proposing is larger than what the Redevelopment plan permits correct correct but we are not going to exceed the 10t in length requirement [Music] correct what's on the route 10 the same on both sides L of the war yeah so the the size complies with what would be permitted on the Runar side cor just proposing on the back side correct and I believe it's based on the of the the space the tenant space uh not not a 10 foot rule if you it's a 10% yeah 10% of the area right of the facade that part of the facade and then we do have doors on the route 10 side correct but they're not the main entrances correct to this correct businesses right yep and so our Redevelopment plan only allows signage to be over the main entrance into the retail or restaurant spaces so even though there's doors on the rout 10 side that's not where you as a customer or a patron of the restaurant would go in right so we need a variance for that we have we have parking on the side so some of these stores have doors here but again they have they're two front sided uh restaurants the the the the main the two large restaurants have their doors on the wer side but these other stores have doors on on both sides actual entrance and eess E does um we'll call this one we showed this one previously but we'll call this one again this is 13 [Music] 83 so this is a uh image that we had shown previously about how how the space will will kind of come off at night time we have the um uh Canary lights that go across the werf and you've got this this whole pedestrian walk space and really looking to have a a nice community space in the evenings uh we do have residential up here so been part of that discussion earlier about restaurants and loud noises and things like that that there's got to be some consideration from from the ownership side of operations for these build for these restaurants given that we do have tenants that are literally uh 80 ft away U but as you can see I think it's going to make a a pretty spectacular uh community space and and these uh you know all the the different events that that can potentially happen out there at this got one more exhibit here again this was what we showed uh previously we'll call this one 14 so this is looking back on Building B um and the W if is off to the right here um or or below us and building SE uh restaurant spaces are here off to the right so the the uh visual of the building for Brick and finishes and and how it's all laid out we're playing off the same um same imagery and the same uh material materiality that we're doing in Building B will happen again on uh on this building so we have a lot of lot of the same uh same materials a little bit changed from where we were yet originally slight slight changes in in materials for the for the restaurant that they wanted a lighter lighter brick for theirs um but basically we're following what was U presented and approved uh in 2021 let see what else I [Music] have uh and I guess and part of it that what we've also done is that we've we've done a nice play on the parit that we didn't have so much of before so we so these have come up at the restaurants have come up pretty pretty uh a little bit higher from where they were which helps us uh block any of the equipment that's on the roof um that will be St back towards the center where we have uh all the restaurant hoods and things like that that have to be on the roof set but we have I think a nice play of of up and down on the on the the tops of the parit so it's not just this flat space out there as uh from Route 10 keeps that same kind of Rhythm that's going on in Building B and building a in the background was it and Mr peacock as to the canopies we're showing the maximum extent of the canopy to cover the entire outdoor area the seating area yes yes and it's possible we just don't know for sure yet because we don't have final leases that some of these tenants may want to have some of it uncovered but we wanted to show the board what the maximum um extent of the kopy would look like because that would be the most impact on our W wer area so we just don't know yet if some of them will want to shorten it because they may want some seats to be fully outside corre question any questions by members of the board Mr [Music] Cho uh just going over the trellises are they actually like trellises you call them blades uh are they open to the air above the shade canopies they're like airplan okay solid they're solid structure just're not like the whole building facade is not out like building fa's back just these blades out asort of airpl okay but they're impervious from the standpoint of coverage as far as that is concerned the sky itself yes so any of the drainage from that will be channeled to the storm water system it's being proposed I didn't know if there were open air or not we we have storm connecting through the okay but anys about yeah Eric Schwarz from Langan here again the civil engineer we've actually uh conservatively designed the storm water system as if everything was impervious from the Outer Perimeter property curve line all the way in um even though there is green area in there from a storm water calculation and conveyance point of view uh be considered a 100% Improv right but any run all from that be collected in some way because it's sort of concentrated now since it's a solid River that's what I was trying to get at okay oh yeah I'm sorry so about the canopies here correct yes we're going to have some down spouts that are going to come down and we've already added that was part of the revisions a couple of minor u under um uh drainage pipes within the area with connections to grab those down SPS yes and and the the floor space under there also is connected to that so if there's any side rain or whatever that that that floor would also get to the tree understood um with regard to the building mounted signs that are facing rout 10 you're now asking for them to be in compliance with the area requirement for the RAR right correct and previously as I understand it and I'm sure your planner will cover this is it was previously only for buildings that had entrances from that side but also there was a reduced area as well uh for those signs so you're now asking for larger sign I'm glad you showed the exhibits these are not the actual signs themselves but sort of a depiction correct of what the sign may be um do you have an area or a maximum size for a logo that you're asking for do you know what that might be at this point in time um it'd be good to have a dimension if you had an idea of what that might be it would help the zoning officer I'm not sure if she would be looking for that uh from that standpoint is a 4x4 uh panel or is it something of that size can't say that I know that off the top of my head we have but the the intent Mr peacock is that the total area of the logo and the words are not going to exceed the total of what's permitted corre for one wall sign correct it's just that we're gonna have two instead of just one so for that 10% calculation it wouldn't exceed that correct correct yeah so even though it's broken up into two signs because the logo is separate the total overall area would comply with what the Redevelopment plan permits us to all right the sign second logo wouldn't exceed the roof height um be placed in a proper location on the architecture correct as far as that's concerned would a tenant then have three signs because one on the rot 10 one on the inside and a logo making a 10 and have three signs it might be four four or four yeah they want logo on both so talking yeah they want logos on the inside a second sign on the inside as well as on the outside okay it's already becoming very complicated to issue the signs that are already approved as I've already been issuing the freestanding and the wall signs um um it's already becoming difficult to know which ones have been approved because they were on like a list but they weren't described um you know they were described like Northwest and you've already changed some of the square footages so however we go forward in approving these I mean I'm I'm not just thinking about six months from now a year from now I'm talking five years from now when a tenant changes how will me as one person trying to keep track of all the signage there some kind of um Excel spreadsheet or some kind of in the plans a list that shows that all the signs that were approved and all the proposed with some kind of we had talked about maybe doing A1 for for if it was a if it was a building a sign it be A1 through whatever to have this chart also kind of broken down because that way we can as we issue the permits keep track of um it's just it's it it's it's a lot of signage for it's probably the most we've ever had we we can provide you with that Excel from that direction um uh just to make it a a little easier for for all that the permit drawings for building C we actually have a Graphic uh on the elevation we have a a dotted line around an area to say here's the permitted area of that sign um and then however they want want to configure their signage within that that that box if you will that we provided I think it may be helpful too and and we can do this um if we have a diagram to go along with the chart so that you can just CR cross reference you know A1 and where is it on the diagram yeah that would be great y that could be tied to the specific unit itself maybe unit a BC or one two three whatever right we can certainly provide that Mr to pauno thank you Mr chairman uh are these uh structures going to be enclosed they're not conditioned space they're they have uh papers for the floor and they have uh just this blade um and then there's Planters or around the parameter to contain the liquor license area so do you need for outdoor heaters I mean you're only looking at about probably four or five months of maybe six months outdoor dining is this going to be all your thing I can't speak to that operation that's do do they need propane heers you guys think about that propane heaters or outdoor heaters or things like that well we have gas in the building so if it was if it were um if they were going to have heaters it would be definitely with the natural gas okay and my other question is this loudspeaker is it simply like you know DP Party of Three your tables ready or are we talking about club music at 10:00 I mean that's a huge difference cuz I mean you got residents right across the right there who that was my point earlier you know dancing in their rooms or they you know yelling quiet you know one the other so right I I suspect it's not going to be a uh a MH pit kind of yeah you never know out area you never know the council gets to decide that one what's that the council get deide that one any other questions by Mr thank you um if you can we go back to A1 quick here [Music] yeah so if you could give quick short testimony around um in case of an emergency or something like that how would the people flow would happen under that um covered area we're referencing this original plan so the uh the restaurant's main entrance is in here uh we have uh egress provided on the backside for both of these and uh and then there's uh egress out of here and there's um it's hard to see on this plan so there's a fence out there right kind they're going to have they will have a gate out of that space because we need a second out of that space on on both of those conditions so would the guest be able to get out on the all three sides or just the one side would right now I think they're we're just planning for a single single G toine with the with the door from from inside so from here out so that and some of those requirements relate to what the ABC requires for liquor licenses so it has to be a particularly secured area Okay so it it has to be gated okay we can't have you know gates at all points there are particular requirements okay all right thank thank you any other questions I just want to note that if there is a future proposal to enclose the restaurant the reserved dining area they you would have to come back for additional approval or seek that from the township yes of course okay any members of the public have any question to this witness on this testimony hearing and seeing none counselor our next witness is our traffic engineer he'll be providing testimony on the shared parking calculation and also the impact or lack of impact to the traffic statement that was you please raise your right hand do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record Allen Lothian a l a n l o t h i a n the address is one University Square Boulevard Princeton New Jersey thank you Mr L can you please provide your qualifications background and experience for the board I've been a traffic engineer with Langan for over 26 years I've a Bachelor's of Science and civil engineering from Ruckers a master's of Science in transportation from NGIT I'm a licensed professional engineer in state New Jersey have testified before dozens of boards including this one we'd like to offer Mr loan as an expert traffic engineer any questions on the experts qualifications hearing and seeing none counselor thank you so Mr L if you can start with the shared parking for this proposed project okay I I was going to start with the D update but so I'm I'm hitting three different things she she mentioned two of them one is since since we were last here since we were last since we approved previously uh do approved the final design of the dried andway connection and if if you've been around there you you you would know that it is almost fully complete uh it is has been constructed there's just a few minor things that they're completing so that's the first thing uh second thing I'll go into the shared parking so as part of the Redevelopment plan uh one of one of the requirements is that we show that there is sufficient parking on site using the shared parking model so with the shared parking model what that looks at is the worst hour of the worst day of the worst week of the worst month of the year uh which in this instance is 700 p.m. on in December and with that with a new configuration of uh approximately just under 4,000 ft more of restaurant space and I believe it's around 7900 Square ft less of retail space uh the same number of residential units the shared parking still comes out to less than the 1,62 spaces that are available on site and and constructed on site uh so that we we meet the int of the Redevelopment plan we have sufficient parking on site you want me to go on to the trip CH yes pleas okay so uh we did not we did not provide a revised traffic analysis traffic study as part of this uh application because actually the square footage of the shopping center area went down so before it was 60,000 Square ft now it's slightly less uh there was never distinction of retail or or uh restaurant space in the original it's 60 it was 60,000 ft of shopping center now if you go back to the original approval of what was reviewed and approved by dot for the shopping center space it was actually 132,00 ft so what we did is in you know when we came to you in 2021 uh for approval we ran calculations on the latest trip latest trip generation manual um from the Institute Transportation Engineers that was the 10th edition the original calculations were done in the ninth Edition now we're in the 11th edition if if I went through that exercise again it would just show that we are less trips than what we were approved for in 2021 and I could provide those to Mr ciano If he if he needs those I that's required I mean no I I again I was just that that that mention was just to address the comment that you had in your letter and and why we did not provide the uh a traffic statement as part of this application so the trip generation is the same or less based on the different years uh there's no increase in in square footage and there's no decrease in in in in parking yes well we we meet the par we meet the parking we we're less than what's provided based on the shared parking that's all the direct testimony we have for this witness any members of the board of Mr Keno you have anything just a minor housekeeping one uh going back to the trash compactor that was uh that was kind of reconfigured um I don't know if this is for the civil engineer or the traffic but it's uh it's the prior TR compact was at a skewed uh angle for easy access for loading or unloading of or for picking up the uh the trash bins this one is more perpendicular has there been any uh circulation testing done a truck uh truck maneuvering plan that yes there uh it is plan CP 101 oh wait that's fire trucks uh the overall trucks moveing plan C P 101 0103 it's sheet 32 of 88 in plan set okay again same same thing with the cloud if if that was revised show that that that was the revised um truck location that's all I have any other members of the board have any questions Mr mey my question earlier about the operation of the restaurant so I know it's hard to determine what that might be but do you have any idea [Music] hours I I do not um I would just think they would be consistent with similar type of restaurants breakfast lunch and perhaps supper I think another witness would be able to answer that question yes our applicant representative is here this evening and he can thank you okay any other questions Mr Senus just one quick question on the shared analysis that you did did you take any EV credit we did not no so it just shows you that it even works without the credit yes this is with just the straight calculations very good thank you other members of the board hearing and seeing none are there any members of the public have any questions on this witness on this time at this time hearing and saying none counselor thank you um at this time we'd like to call Mark hman to answer the question on our operation and then we'll call our [Music] planner can you please raise your right hand do you swear affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do pleas state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record sure mark pmet p TT s Mt uh partner with Stanberry development 2807 Delmar Drive Beckley Ohio [Music] 43209 all right thank you thank you um Mr pment you heard the question relating to both hours of operation I think it would also be helpful if we provide to the extent we know additional information on the seasonal use of the outour thises as well sure so the leasing effort is ongoing and tonight hopefully will be a big help to us to finish two important restaurant leases uh who are looking for covered outdoor dining can you please speak up a little I'm sorry thank you yes so the the leasing is uh ongoing um and the two large restaurants I I guess I would say the they'd be similar in hours of operation to Season 52 and Capital Grill not knowing exactly what those hours are but um 11 to 11 perhaps um with the focus on the dinner hour I know our our leasing partner is also trying to get a coffee uh Bakery type morning use um don't have that one in signed up yet but we are targeting that and I know as far as a Quick Serve um those are more focus on the the lunchtime hours um so we're trying to Target with all of our restaurants different hours of the day to kind of get the pedestrian activity activate the the werf throughout the throughout the day so I don't know if that's not specific answer for you thank you Mr thank you yeah and then as far as the seasonal use uh these tenants are are looking to um extend the outdoor dining as much as they can my guess would be March to October and they would likely have fans for the summertime and uh probably some gas heaters for the the shorter Seasons um but it does not have walls as was testimony previously it's to protect from the Sun and the rain um so that's the uh seasonal aspect of the and as far as the the uh speakers go it's really Ambia um noise for for dining where we would see to it there's no Club Music going going out that wouldn't sit well with our residential tenants so thank you Mr pment any questions of this witness any questions from the public this witness hearing and seeing none counselor thank you our last witness this evening is uh Greg Woodruff who is our planner [Music] please raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record sure thanks uh Greg Woodruff last name is spelled w d Ru FF the address is the same as Mr Schwarz uh 300 Kimble Drive uh I am with Langan engineering as well right here in poran Mr wood can you please provide your qualification your licenses background and experience certainly uh so I'm an associate principal uh with Langan uh am currently a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey as well as nationally with the American Institute of certified planners uh I've been a licensed planner since 2008 have appeared before dozens of boards throughout the state including this one been accepted as a uh professional planner um for cases and applications just like this and your license is still current correct correct yes we'd like to offer Mr as a professional planner any questions on the experts qualifications counselor thank you thank you so Mr wer if you can just recap the existing conditions what we're proposing and then the variance relief certainly I I won't go into a great bit of detail about the existing conditions I think the board is is very familiar with the project with the area uh I think what I would mention from a planning perspective and I think it's been said by many members of the board the profess profs there's quite a bit of history and intentionality to the design the Redevelopment plan what was included here uh and I think what's being requested even though there are deviations from a planning a technical planning perspective is very much in keeping with the original planning intent which was a pedestrian oriented werf activated space that really captures the best of of what a mixed use development could be with the residents and also the retail and commercial space immediately adjacent not oriented toward Route 10 so you know I think all of that is still being maintained from a planning perspective even though there are some technical deviations that that we've discussed at length and and I'll go through some planning justifications for I think we can jump in um first to the variants related to the wo area and the open space that we're providing in that area certainly so talking specifically about that from a from a planning perspective uh I think this certainly fits within what would classically be described as as the C2 criteria whereby the benefit outweighs any detriment or perceived detriment from a from a planning or just you know from a planning justification perspective uh in this case you you heard quite a bit of testimony and saw quite a bit of uh imagery relative to uh what's being proposed from a structure perspective the plan always contemplated temporary structures in this area um there's just a little more permanent nature to them now that that shortens that dimension in specific areas but there is still that larger overall complying area that's being provided it's just not the contiguous length that was mentioned the overall length the overall area still complies it's just that contiguous nature that gets broken up by these uh structures however the structures do serve a purpose from a planning perspective within the space to activate the area so in my opinion from a planning perspective that that benefit outweighs any perceived detriment and and in totality in the with the intention of that area of the werf uh that area is still provided that activity will still take place uh from a planning perspective thank you and then if we can jump to signage there are several variances related to signage so if we can summarize them just take them one at a time and then the justifications for the Rel certainly so obviously we heard uh requests for the number of signs um as well as the overall area uh obviously from a planning perspective I would I typically characterize uh signage the intention of the signage is to notify whether it be pedestrians Vehicles whatever it might be about the location of the business again the unique aspect of this development is it's it fronts on Route 10 it wants to draw people from Route 10 but it really is oriented to the internal werf so it creates a little bit of a unique characteristic in that way I think terms of how the signage is contemplated so relative to the the signs on the rear of the building I think from a planning perspective there is clearly that benefit that drivers on Route 10 would be notified and alerted to the location of those businesses and hopefully drawn within the mixed use complex uh through those signs uh the inclusion of logos in addition to uh the actual name of the business from a planning perspective and and and I think this is true for um the the signs being on the rear of the building as well from a planning perspective I think you know the this the visuals that has been disc have been discussed the dimensions even though we don't have specific logos or specific names yet the intention is to comply with the overall size it's really just to provide that overall notification on both sides and the logos would should add in from my perspective uh greater recognition brand recognition for those businesses that will hopefully make them successful because at the end of the day if the businesses are successful the wound orer successful successful the overall development will be successful and that's what everybody wants so in my opinion from a planning perspective what's being requested relative to the uh deviations for the signage again is in keeping with what the intention was have it pedestrian oriented draw people from 10 into the site um while still being aesthetically pleasing which I think is obviously the applicant's goal because they they want an aesthetically pleasing site as well it benefits them if it's if it looks nice um tenants that's what tenants are going to require that's what patrons are going to require uh and I think what what's being asked for from a signage perspective is in keep keeping with all those goals will provide those benefits and all of that outweighs any perceived detriment of like the numbers not matching exactly what was contemplated a while ago before tenants were were fully contemplated as they are being now Mr Woodruff just for the records so that um we can I know you did an excellent summary of both the um purposes of zoning and the positive and negative criteria can you just identify the purposes of zoning that are Advanced certainly I'll highlight two again in the interest of of not going through a million I think there are two that are are specifically relevant uh the first would be uh uh purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses according to environmental requirements to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens right out of the ml um so obviously uh what we're asking for uh supports the the per what is a currently permitted mixed use development uh and what's being requested I think will add to attracting customers and uh the overall health and Vibrance of what is an existing permitted mixed use development in that area so clearly supporting purpose G and the second would be purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement obviously you know this this project is a pretty unique example of getting to plan a large mixed use site the incorporation of the werf these what I would refer to as enhancements just further that goal of what was originally started with the original design thank you and as to the negative criteria you had already summarized the impact on the public good if we can just be specific about the impact of the Redevelopment plan for the reford certainly so obviously from my perspective there's no substantial impact to the public good no substantial impact or impairment to the Redevelopment plan in this case I would highlight two specific goals within the Redevelopment plan that I think uh what's being asked for here this evening uh Contin or further supports the first is goal two which states to promote a planned mixed use mixed use retail commercial/residential development that creates a distinct sense of place is pedestrian oriented and enhances the Greater Community character I think I've already talked at length about sort of my belief from a planning perspective as to how what's being asked for is clearly in line with those original goals I don't think the structures being permanent versus the original thought of them being temporary changes furthering that goal at all uh and similarly with what's being requested for for the sign deviations again still with that goal in mind furthering that goal and the second is goal three to quote promote a highquality architectural and landscape design integrated throughout the proposed development of the tract such a development pattern shall be oriented around a centralized pedestrian Main Street to promote a sense of place and Gathering area for the center again none of that is changing all of what's being requested the deviations continue to try to further that goal uh through just slight design um needs in specific ways thank you Mr Woodruff that's all we have for this witness on direct any members of the board have questions of this witness Mr Senus do you have any uh just one follow-up question um the original intent to put a reduced area on the back of the building was from a planning perspective to try to funnel people more towards the werf area as the entrance and not necessarily dress it up as the front of the building from a planning perspective now seeing the evolution of the of the design this seems to create a better alternative from the standpoint of just how the building looks the building looks more active by having more signage on that side but yet it's still in balance with the overall percentage I I would agree yes if that if you're asking me if I agree yes I would agree with that yes okay and this is just for building C is that correct correct so you're not asking for any changes to Building B correct correct so there's only going to be logos on this building on either side of the building okay I just want to clarify that for the right other members of the board professionals have any questions on this testimony I just wanted to clarify the variant or deviations you're looking for is for the width of the setback or between Building C and Building B correct and then at its narrowest at its narrowest and then the number of signs on the wer side or is that just the the area of the it's the number of signs on the werf side and the route 10 side and the route 10 sign okay of building C right a building C only a building C [Music] only okay just to clarify the the applicant confirmed the request would be to possibly have the logos on Building B as well oh okay sorry well there's retail there so right so your testimon is also applied to billing B correct yes which I don't have a problem I think it still makes sense yeah thank you okay any other questions by members of the board of this testimony and the planer testimony any members of the public have any questions of the planner's testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor thank you very much thanks so that's your case yes that's all we have for our Witness testimony we we would just like to thank the board for their time this evening um and just I may very briefly we know that these are modifications to the overall plan that was originally approved in 2021 but we do believe that they are enhancements not only from an aesthetic perspective but also the functionality of the center and hopefully just creating this true sense of community which um the wer will be able to do and and we want to make sure that it is a successful site um we're really proud of it and the construction that's been going on so far and we think that these modifications that we presented this evening will allow us to make sure that it's as successful as it can be there any members of the public who have any objections to this application or want to speak in favor of this application hearing and seeing none this closes the evidentiary portion of tonight's hearing is there any desire for a discussion or should we Mr diero you have a I have a question there was some brief discussion at the beginning of the meeting about taxes which I I was not privy to did that include U land tax discussions so so the discussion was that we were uncertain if the property owners had were had any outstanding tax bill with the town they confirmed they're up to date with their tax payments but they also are have filed a tax appeal in State Tax Court um to challenge the assessment on the property that's separate from what we are dealing with here with the outstanding tax requirement as a part of completeness that's that really doesn't answer my question was that addressing l tax or something else yes the the prop the land property taxes the land property taxes on appeal yes so then it's not appropriate to discuss it now or is it it would not be relevant to the board's um hearing of this application they stated on the record that all of their current all of their taxes are current and up to dat with the town but they have not been paying a land tax so that cannot be current over up to date that's why I want to bring it up I I I think right now since the property is under construction there's no land assessed value for the land or or for the improvements all right let me let me let me explain something um this was our first pilot project in pipany that's payment in L of taxes um all of the other Pilots we've had in the township under the barbaria Administration has required the developer pay the land tax the land tax has been uh Fair because the School Board gets its fair share of the land tax um for their as a part of their income this is the only pilot that is not paying a land tax and it's it it's my opinion that um while we're granting approvals all the time um why can't we be requesting something as well I mean this is the only pilot we have that does not pay a land tax in Paran doesn't seem fair yep I understand now um so the pilot and the Financial agreement entered between the redeveloper and the township is between those between the township Council and the redeveloper the board doesn't have any any say over the terms of that agreement and it might be the case that in this instance the pilot doesn't include um a land payment um but that's between the township Council and the redeveloper not the board unfortunately the only the only problem I have with that is um the applicant comes before us looking to change the agreement and if they can change the agreement why can't we so the Redevelopment agreement or the Redevelopment plan was already amended um and approved by the township Council right now we're reviewing the site plan approval which is required um under the Redevelopment law the Redevelopment agreement and the any Financial agreement is handled directly with the township not with the board okay so [Music] um I wasn't a May when this was negotiated and I think what M uh councilman no excuse me not councilman former councilman is saying is the fact that I wasn't in the meetings with um previous meetings that we had a several months ago and I understand what you're saying but it's the township and I'm speaking on part of the administration I'm frustrated I'm not going to lie to you with regards to land tax um I didn't make this agreement and I would have never made that type of an agreement with regards to lto being exempt from a pilot um with regards to the pilot um I think all applic applicants should be paying land tax based figuring that the only portion that's conventional tax for the schools is the land tax why on Earth a former Administration would exempt land tax from an application it's it's just mindboggling to me because I know I wouldn't have done that I wasn't in the meetings I know there was meetings with with Stanberry and with the administration with regards to this situation and now I don't know um I just did have the conversation this morning that this application really shouldn't have been on until there was settlement with the township that that we're hearing tonight um and I think that's what the count former councilman saying um so when I saw this applicate on this morning I was kind of surprised to see in their um permanent outdoor dining because as I said I wasn't in the meeting this should not have been heard till there was this further discussion with the township and with uh whoever negotiated with sber I wasn't in the meeting so I think that's what he's saying but you're saying that this applicant tonight is application tonight is not contingent on that as of you're right you're correct that the governor body decides when it comes to Pilots when it comes to the taxes but where's that put us if we approve this [Music] tonight so the the requirement under for planning board applications is that the applicant certify that they are current with their current tax bills and on the record we have the applicants provided that they met that requirement and that's as far as the board can go with respect to um making sure that tax payments are are made any negotiation regarding pilot payments um would have to be this to be more candid and blunt I think that's I really have to be when I'm being told that an application should not be on here until we have an agreement on taxes that's what I expect and that is not what I see tonight and that's what frustrates me I I know this has been going on a while with regards to it but the township has to take a stance when it comes to collecting taxes in my opinion on a proper pilot procedure now as the mayor I'm obligated not just to the taxpayers I'm also obligated I don't know if any's been watching what's going on in the town between the school board and the township and Pilots that I'm pretty fraking frustrated when I saw this on here I was frustrated with Stanberry I was frustrated with the fact that I don't get contacted with regards to what's going on with the agreement or if there was going to be an agreement that's what frustrates me I'm being told tonight and the rest of the board that we have to separate this and Grant either Grant or not Grant an approval now if we don't Grant an approval based on the mere fact of the pilot we could be in violation Okay so in the future I would appreciate the board the attorney or anybody to contact my office when an application like this comes on when we are negotiating And discussing tax taxes being paid to the Township in a proper manner now I wasn't like I said to Mayor prior and whoever the attorney was that was doing this I would have never allowed it but now I got to live with it and the township asked a little bit I think that's what the council former councilman's saying so I know the applicant's here tonight I don't know if he wants to discuss this tonight with regards to this and regards to the back and forth that's been going on between the tax assessor and Stanberry but this should not have been on tonight that's just my opinion and if I knew it was going to be on prior I was kind of confused I'm not going to lie to you when I just thought it was just going to be a simple C variance to discuss that's not what's happened tonight we went full-blown tonight with regards to this how do I move forward now tonight cuz if we Grant this approval then we have no like to stand on the township and I know I have to limit my my comments because you know there's certain things and I know how Pilots work I don't think anybody in this room knows how Pilots work better than I do because I take I took I got my hand it to me cuz I believe in doing certain things to lift our economy up to to help other you know cuz I know you know with the way things are with Co with everything postco things are difficult Supply and demand's up all that interest rates are up I get all that and we want to bring these companies here and we want to bring a a project that's here but I think that and I'm sure you didn't I don't know if you knew about it prior but you know the fact of the matter is that is there any way to vote that a contingent on settlement or anything like that I'm I might just ask the the chairman if we could just go into a brief recess so I could speak with the applicants attorney just for sure all right this board is recessed this and you do this I am Neo I I will be negotiating on behalf of the township whatever you say to them I I don't want to be or my hands tied behind my back that's what I don't want so I will step out of this room if I have to if you're going to have personal back and forth with them or we're going to do it in the open public I just like a recess I can speak with you yes I think it's important you do I have a motion to recess from make a motion I have a second all in favor say I I any opposed all right I have tape on yeah all right would you call the role please bar here pres here here here Dore here all right we've reconvened we've had some discussions uh I'm going to ask you to lead with the discussion sure thank you very much Mr chairman um we would like to carry the application to the board's next meeting in 2 weeks on October 21st and and are hopeful that within that time period um we'd like to be able to schedule a meeting with the township so that we can discuss the um tax peel even though it's unrelated to the planning board's jurisdiction and the offer that was previously submitted by tax Council related to that all right so we have a request by the applicant to adjourn the meeting till the 21st do I have a I'll make a motion but we also need to extend their application if there any tolling of time you'll grant us any tolling of time to the extent that yes correct to the extent that the approval period expires in the next two weeks we agree to an extension of time through that before you make a motion can I get an idea of how much time because I have other things scheduled for that evening so we don't anticipate having any more expert testimony our expert testimony related to the application that is before the planning board is complete you don't want to add the banners on [Music] good um sure so I think at most we would need 30 minutes right don't want to forget about that please do contact our our Township attorney yes uh assessor and business administrator okay would you like us to contact the tax attorney as well huh the tax attorney as well yes I'm sorry I meant to say tax attorney we'll contact both Township and tax all right Sor I a motion I made a motion second we have a motion a second nor would you call the rooll please yes yes yes yes yes yes more yes thank you very much thank Youk you all right is there anything else that needs to come before the board tonight notion is in order motion anybody opposed