##VIDEO ID:v3r2DUilXzY## to FL flag of the United States of America to for which it stands madam secretary has this meeting been uh properly advertised according to the sunshine laws yes chairman it has thank you very much can I have a roll call please Mr kandal here Mr algra here Mr Elm miss lman here Mr meller Mr Shaw Mr Valen councilman zabowski here chairman Tai here we have a quorum um Memorial of resolutions first the uh Andrew and Deborah wallentine minor division 43 Persian Aven Block 83.7 17 Lot 12 we did um chairman we need a motion on the um Andrew and Deborah wallentine please motion do I have a second second roll call Mr kandal yes Mr algra yes Miss lman yes Mr Muller yes councilman zabowski yes chairman Tai yes okay all right we just need to memorialize the circulation element for the community facility elemented October 2nd 2022 I need a motion to accept that sorry about that on the circulation for the master plan need a motion motion do I have a second second having a motion maid and second and any opposed hearing none I'll take a roll call Miss laurman can't second that she wasn't um at the meeting yes second having a second and hear hearing no opposed I'll take a roll call Mr Kendal [Music] yes Mr Muller yes councilman zabowski yes chairman Tai yes thank you all right I need to accept the minutes from September 4th 2024 September 18th 2024 and October 2nd 2024 do I have a motion to accept those minutes motion second having a motion made and seconded any anybody like to rebuke that hearing none I'll take a roll call all in favor opposed eyes have it communication agenda none this evening okay site plan and subdivision good evening uh Mr chairman uh members of the board uh Lawrence Sachs on behalf of M did Sedar um if the board will recall we were last here on September 18th uh and at that time we presented the testimony of the valet company and the manufacturer of the uh stacking system uh that Ed into the uh proposed garage uh which will be underneath this building um they're both here this evening as well if there's any questions but uh I think we comprehensively covered that at the last meeting uh and as indicated back on September 18th um my plan tonight was uh to have our traffic engineer testify uh based on the submission of a revised traffic study uh that was submitted this board and for review by your professionals uh so we do have Mr William stimmel who had testified previously so I know he's still under oath um and as well Mr chairman I if time permits I would like to get into planning testimony this evening uh so I do have our professional planner Mr John mcdna here as well so if I can proceed uh and again Mr chairman I'll ask councel I believe Mr stimle is still under oath but if you want to swear them in again that's fine yeah Mr stimle you still understand your under oath based on your prior testimony in connection with this application I do yes okay uh so Mr stimel I know uh between the last time you testified which was a number of months ago uh when you had your initial traffic study uh you had an opportunity to prepare a revised traffic study based upon some uh comments and recommendations from the board so if you can give the board the benefit of uh your analysis on that revised traffic study thank you uh this would be the revised traffic study with the date of October 2nd 2024 I believe all the board members should have a copy of it it's also been posted on the municipal website there were four key points based on the conversations that were held at the last meeting where I testified and and the subsequent meetings um and the uh those are the fireh hall counts the um the applicant agreed to provide traffic counts at the Madison Park fireh Hall where the mosque is currently holding their services on a typical Friday uh we increased the growth percentage which was a uh comment from Bright View engineering the growth percentage affects the increase in background traffic growth in the area of the site uh we made mention of the updated parking calculations based on the provision of the parking lifts and we um we noted that the uh service times for the proposed Services the applicant has agreed to limit the service times for the Friday prayer services from 12:30 to 12:50 and 1:50 to 210 on a year round basis so uh regardless of the time of the year there would be a 1hour gap between the first service and the second service at the facility so those elements were added to the revised study as well as incorporating the revisions that were made to the uh study based on the the two addendums which include additional counts at the intersection of erston and bordon town and the Restriction of left turn movements out of the western driveway so with that said I I would like to not go through the entire traffic report as I had done the first time and just hit the points where things have changed obviously if the board or the public has has any questions we'll go back and touch on that but toward the bottom of the first page of the traffic study there's a note that 120 166 parking spaces will be provided on site where 121 are located in a below grade parking garage 57 of those 121 parking spaces are being provided via the lift mechanisms and then the remaining 45 parking spaces are going to be in the surface lot so the old plan had 109 parking spaces there's 57 lift parking spaces so the new Total is 166 um moving ahead to page three of the report in the existing traffic volumes and data collection there's a note that the mosque is not currently operating at the subject property at the request of the board um and the public as well to be honest there were counts done at the Madison park volunteer Firehouse where the mosque is holding Services now uh the counts were done Friday May 17th 2024 from noon until 4M we also collected additional 24hour ATR data uh atrs automatic traffic recorder at the site Frontage along ernston Road from Friday May 17th through Friday May 24th of 2024 as requested by Bright View engineering the updated uh existing traff volumes if you will are shown on figure two of the report provides a schematic representation of the area and for the purposes of this analysis the Friday peak hour is based on data collected on Friday March 1st 2024 from 1 until 2 pm and the Sunday peak hour is based on data collected Sunday June 18th 2023 from 12:30 p.m. until 1:30 p.m. uh moving on to page four of the report under site generated traffic volumes right now at the firehouse there are currently two separate prayer services occurring during the Friday afternoon Peak period data was collected from 12: to 4: to capture all all vehicular traffic leading up to the first service uh and after departing the second service with a a substantial buffer on either side of that during that 4-Hour window a total of 194 Vehicles enter the site and roughly 2third of those Vehicles were oriented to the earlier of the two prayer services um given the location of the property the adjacent athletic fields there there is uh certainly a possibility that some amount of this traffic would be visiting the nearby park but for the purposes of this report all the traffic at the firehouse is assumed to be there for the prayer services at those times uh based on a schedule of events provided by the client and submitted to the board the Friday afternoon prayers are expected to be the main General Ator of traffic associated with the mosque the peak 1hour period of traffic at the firehouse has 132 Vehicles entering and 110 Vehicles exiting uh in that hour uh from 12:45 until 1:45 that's when that that Peak volume occurs uh that captures nearly all the vehicles entering and exiting for the earlier service and a portion of the vehicles entering for the later service and um it's important to note that the way the services are set up at the firehouse right now they do not provide that one-hour buffer in between um so the the services at 216 ernston road if the board looks favorably on this application would be spaced out a little bit so we're including both of the services to an extent in that 1-h hour Peak period when they'd be spaced out a little better at the the site where this application is proposed uh to present a conservative estimate of future operations and when I say conservative I mean not in the applicant's favor uh these numbers were increased by 10% to 145 Vehicles entering and 121 Vehicles exiting uh the analysis of the Sunday Peak period and the trip generation associated with that period is largely the same as what had been submitted in the previous addendum with the noted exception that the background traffic growth rate has been increased um we did contact the Bureau of sville and the township of Oldbridge uh spoke to the zoning officials in both municipalities about any other area developments in the planning stages or under construction they both advised that there were none um a number of members of the public had mentioned the Arsenal development uh which had recently become operational at the time of the last hearing we did get a copy of that traffic study it showed that the uh Arsenal site is two miles away from the subject property it did not include the intersection of erston and Bordentown or or the section of ernston road across the site Frontage and the analysis so we did not factor that into our analysis specifically although it would be accounted for in the background traffic growth rate in the area so uh the comment from brigh view was to use the updated growth rate table from do which shows annual growth of 2.75% for arterial roadways in Middle sex County over a two-year period that's 5.58% and that growth rate is factored in when you go from the existing traffic volumes on figure two of the report to the no- build traffic volumes which are shown on figure five of the report site generated traffic volumes based on the fire hall counts were added to the no build traffic volumes using the same distribution as the uh as the the site driveways had exhibited when we counted the active mosque operation at the site in April of 22 uh those are shown on figure six of the report as with the earlier versions of the report and the addendums we analyze the existing no build and build conditions utilizing Highway capacity software uh the results of those analyses are shown on a schematic format in figur seven and eight in the no build and build uh traffic level of service figures they're also shown in tabular format in the appendix of the report um and the largely the movements stay the same at the intersection of ernston and Bordentown when considering the existing no build and build conditions at the study intersection there is one level of service deterioration the eastbound through movement at the intersection of ernston and Bordentown Road deteriorates from a level of service D to a level of service e during the Friday peak hour when comparing the no build and build conditions the other levels of service at that intersection remain the same we also did an updated analysis at the site driveway levels of service at the site driveway operate at level of service D for both peak hours and that primarily applies to the traffic exiting the site um the the westbound traffic making a right turn into the site is generally unopposed and eastbound traffic making a left turn into the site U experiences very little delays parking Supply on page six um I note that the site plan prepared by awz engineering last revised July 11th of 24 that was the uh exhibit which speaks about the lift operations and was I believe presented to the board at the last meeting possibly two meetings ago um but again July 11th 2024 plan from AWC engineering uh notes that the parking calculation is 196 spaces for the combined place of worship gymnasium offices and classrooms um whereas a total of 166 parking spaces are provided of course of variance is required for that deficiency um as we had said before and we continue to say no other events will be occurring on the site during the Friday prayer service and if you take the parking requirement for the place of worship alone it's 151 parking spaces uh uh based on that awz plan in addition we collected data at the existing Firehouse during Friday services which show a Peak parking demand of 121 parking spaces leaving a buffer of 45 between the observed parking demand at the Firehall and the proposed parking Supply on the subject property so based on the above we believe that the proposed parking Supply is adequate for the intended use of the property uh moving on to site layout and circulation um much of that section stays the same I did note that a total of 25 cars can be queued in two lanes for the ballet operation um in order to Stage the cars to be loaded into in the underground garage I noted that um based on the volume of traffic at the existing fireh Hall and the distribution of traffic between the early and late Services uh the lifts would not be required for the later service so based on the counts we've done at the other site and based on the anticipated use of the property it appears that the lifts would only be required for the earlier of the two Services uh there was a question I think the last time about the middle sex County review I just spoke to it uh spoke to Mr saaks about it a moment ago uh We've provided materials to Middle sex County for review and approval we've gotten a preliminary approval with the standard engineering comments requiring technical revisions to the plans and things like that um and the board had requested or or the board's traffic engineer I suppose had requested proposing a concrete Island at the Western driveway to uh better delineate the prohibition on left turn movements out of that driveway and force Vehicles exiting to the right uh there was also a comment about providing a walkway from the building entrance out to ernston Road and the applicant has previously agreed to comply with those requests subject to County approval obviously again it's a County Road and and requires their approval uh that is it for the um revised traffic report I'd like to go through the uh comments from uh Bright View engineering chairman if you don't mind we can we can have Mr stimel respond to Mr finger's uh report this is the Bright View engineering report dated October 11th of 24 um it it restates the comments that were presented in the earlier review letter from breit view with a clarification on the points as to where they stand stand and then also a few new comments introduced as well uh the first comment on page two of the review talks about the uh peak hour selected for the Tia the provision of ATR data and the request for additional traffic analysis um and I I I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention it I know it had been discussed before um ernston road is an arterial roadway as everyone in the room know know it experiences relatively High volumes of traffic throughout the day the site of course Redevelopment of the property will add some traffic to this roadway uh this is a conditionally permitted use in the zone it meets all the conditions and is treated as a permitted use so the addition of traffic to an already congested roadway is not grounds for denial of the application um erston Road also is a County Road under the jurisdiction of middlex County and has received the applicant has received preliminary approval for the proposed site development and driveway configuration we had met with uh middle 6 County we had met with representatives of sville several times before submitting the initial traffic study and had looked at various different access scenarios one-way driveways two-way driveways um uh bifurcated driveways and this is what the county ultimately recommended we are flexible let's say as to the access configuration but the uh you know the county holds all the cards on that one particular issue so getting back to the uh the data collection 0.1 from the bright bright view review letter uh we did collect ATR data we went out to the the site between May 17th and May 24th of 2024 collected ATR data which has been appended to the revised report the weekday morning Peak period had a two-way traffic of 1168 Vehicles the weekday midday Peak period had a two-way traffic volume of 1,294 vehicles and the weekday evening Peak period had a 1hour traffic volume of 146 Vehicles so the morning peak hour experiences lower volumes of site generated traffic because the only thing that would potentially be occurring during the morning peak hour on the site is the typical daily prayer services um experiences lower volumes of site generated traffic and lower volumes of Street traffic along erston road then the midday Peak period which was the subject of analysis in the report the weekday evening Peak period experiences lower volumes of sight generated traffic but slightly higher volumes of Street traffic about eight and a half% higher on the street traffic and about 66% lower on the site generated traffic um when compared to the midday Peak period you did do a quick analysis of driveway operations during the weekday morning and weekday evening Peak periods at the site driveways using the same methodologies that were in the updated report uh the results of the analysis show the movements at the site driveway operate at level of service a for vehicles entering the property and level of service C for vehicles exiting the property uh that's largely a function of the much lower volumes of site generated traffic for those daily prayers we had submitted a schedule of operations for the proposed mosque within the traffic report and um uh testimony I believe and we're on meeting five so little fuzzy but I believe testimony related to that had been provided the applicant has agreed that the only Services which will be occurring during the typical weekday morning and weekday evening Peak periods for Street traffic will be those regular daily prayers which again have a much lower much lower attendance let's say than the Friday afternoon services so uh we did do a driveway analysis we believe that's adequate to address the question uh number two from if I may Mr chairman before we move on um while we're on that item I just want to clarify so you said the you you assume and I have not seen that analysis I assume you'll be able to provide it I just did it today I can certainly send you a copy did I hear you correctly that during the morning and evening rush hours the only event going on in the facility would be prayer services the only possible event that would be going on in the in the facility would be the prayer services and that's only if the prayer times align with the morning and evening Peak periods so anything else the the Friday prayers obviously occur before the evening Rush Hour uh family nights weddings uh funerals so on and so forth will not occur 700 to 9:00 am 4 to 6: PM which is the typical Peak and and maybe I missed it I know I was retained a little late in this application so and maybe you're getting to it and if you are we'll get to it when you're ready so when are the what I'll call the amenity space the basketball court the jogging track the when are those uses going to be used because it sounds like they're not going to be used in the morning they're not going to be used in the middle of the day and they're not going to be used in the evenings or on Sundays so when are they being used yeah the um there was a discussion of having family nights on Friday evening 7 or 8:00 Friday evening after the peak period of Street traffic um as far as the use of the other amenity spaces uh you know the client I think might be better equipped to answer that but the the the point from the traffic engineering perspective is that they're going to be outside those critical windows for the street traffic yeah maybe I can clarify and I think we even stipulated to this point at one of the earlier meetings that whenever there's ritual activity going on of any nature the other activities won't occur so in other words the gymnasium is not going to be open when there's ritual act and I understand that completely and I I've heard that heard that but I don't have a clear answer is then when will those facilities be used yeah and I think again we probably testified and it was might have been before you were involved Mr Fishinger but I think what we would like to provide to this board and I think I even discussed this with h with Council is I need to give you a schedule of when these events will occur a written schedule no we can't we can't have the public speak and and and and Shout out we have to let the professionals speak and they'll answer the questions at the end you'll get to say everything you want Mr Sachs go ahead chairman if I can finish without interruption I would appr I would like it to happen too Mr Sax thank you all right so um before this board deliberates on this application and I would imagine it would be at the next hearing we will provide that information well in advance of the hearing oh no it's not the last meeting I don't think we're going to get through all of this tonight and you know we'll have to we'll have to go from at the end of this where we're going okay don't worry you're not getting cut out and Bill while we're still on this first comment and the attorneys in the room can correct me if they believe I'm wrong even if it's a permitted use this the board the planning board is still has to confirm that the driveways will operate safely and efficiently and that is the impetus for why I keep asking for traditional peak hour levels of service and Analysis to confirm that the driveways will operate safely and efficiently when the traffic on erston road is at its highest typically if we were doing an office building the site Peak and the road Peak are the same time that's why you do only see AM and PM in this particular development the traffic from the site doesn't necessarily correspond with the traffic on the road that's why I'm asking to look at both to confirm that the driveway will operate safe and efficiently and that H and that the board has to find that whether it's a fully conforming site plan application or not the the board has to consider whether the site introduces a new safety concern not just the fact that there's traffic on the roadway it's difficult to pull out because that there's traffic on the roadway now at times it can be difficult to pull out if the site remains a single family house so really um you know the as a means to an end there's a relevance to the traffic study but the counted we've counted we've counted we've analyzed we've analyzed uh we we've spoken to the county it's a county roadway the county has more or less signed off on it um you know the the client has been largely open to performing updated traffic counts they've counted at the site driveway they've counted at the intersection of ernston and Bordentown they've done updated counts when school was in session they've counted Sundays they've counted other sites they've counted the fire hall they've done atrs I I understand what you're saying but I I think the applicant's position is that there sufficient data provided at this point for the board to make a determination and if the board disagrees then the board disagrees and we'll go from there I will point out that I've been asking for this analysis since April and Mr stimel just said he just performed it go ahead sorry Mr chairman if I may if I may just add because I think it's kind of what we're were talking about and if it's not appropriate now please uh you know please let me know but uh at the last meeting um since we're talking about the egress and and Ingress uh from the site um the we're talking about parking how it would work in the queuing uh the prior Witnesses had testified that they would be queuing within the site and there was a question by one of the board members and I have a note here about whether that queuing will uh go uh spill out onto urston Road and my notes say that the traffic engineer will address that um I just since we're talking about the egress and that that driveways right now I didn't know if this would be appropriate time to really address that uh question now because uh I understand you know Cy it's County Road and so forth but if the way the traffic the parking analysis works and how it's going to be uh functioning with the valet specifically with the Friday nights I I think we the board wants to hear some testimony from the traffic engineer as to what whether or not that will spill over on erston road and cause any traffic issues in that manner yes good question I did touch on it when I was going through the report um I looked at the exhibit prepared by awz engineering with the revision date of July 11 24 uh looking at sheet C3 from the southeast corner of the building there's a a solid line shown across the driveway there if you take that and extend it back not quite but almost to the property line at the Western entrance you can Quee 25 vehicles in two lanes uh the exhibit that was prepared by the by the uh valet operation the the valet operator rather uh showed additional queuing wrapping back around through the interior of the site which I think would be um I would call it almost a little bit of um overflow or extra queuing in case of um case of emergency not to say it would be an emergency but I think 25 Vehicles could safely cue on the subject property without causing an interference with site operations and I think uh based on the 57 Vehicles which would be oriented toward the lifts uh coming in over a period of a half an hour before the services I think that 25 vehicle queuing Supply is adequate there Mr stemo that that's based on an assessment that you only need 196 parking spaces correct Pard that analysis you gave is based upon the assumption that you only need 196 parking spaces correct the assumption is based on the parking Supply proposed for the site and the the area available for the queuing okay but you're going to need you're going to need a variance for about um 45 parking spaces or 30 parking spaces is that correct I believe 30 30 but that's based off 196 parking space requirement correct the the variance yes it's based off that yes and and we're not sure if it's 196 parking spaces that's required under the ordinance correct uh there there I'm sure will be some discussion of that okay and and you I understand your testimony regarding this as a conditional use and you generally can't look at the additional traffic that's going to be generated on erston road but based upon the fact that your your client is Seeking a variance for parking you would agree that we can consider the impact of that additional additional parking spaces that aren't being provided per the ordinance correct agreed uh the the the whole package is under consideration but we did count the existing facility and provide uh parking data based on that as well too May perhaps Mr Mr s uh you you check the existing facilities can you give us a comparison in size between the two facilities the the fire hall I can tell you that the volume is roughly the same from when we counted the existing the former site on 216 ernston Road versus the fireh hall uh didn't it came out to be roughly 190 cars over a 4H hour period for both of them uh so we did not see a change in the site generated traffic over the two-year period so the uh the comment from our side of the table is that the square footage of the building is not necessarily the best determinant of what the site generated traffic is going to be because of the fact that you've got this existing community here and an existing draw to the area whether the site was uh whether the mosque was in operation on the site or at the fireh hall a mile away roughly um so we believe that that is going to be a better determinant of what sight traffic is going to be than just assigning a number to the uh assigning a rate to the building square footage because the the difficulty is that you don't have 30 mon in sville it's not like you're looking at a coffee shop or a fast food or a gas station there's a limited data pool to draw from and it's to some extent based on the demographics of the community um you know you've got the location of it and then with the site you've got various factors that that could be at play here even though we're not saying that the basketball court for instance is going to be in use during the same time as the services are held um you know you you've got all these other factors so I think it's hard to sus out from that exactly what's determining the trip generation other than the fact that you've got the mosque on the site which had been an operation in 2022 when we counted it and now that group has moved to the fire hall and we counted that as well so I don't know the square footage is off the top of my head but I don't know that that's the the critical Factor here sure go ahead Mr stim did you review the CME report revised report I was going to get to that after the the break view uh I my question is did you do an analysis of what your opinion would be if the parking deficiency were 211 spaces as opposed to 30 if the deficiency was 211 spaces yes that number had been various parking numbers and uh headcounts for the square footage have been kicked around at the previous meetings um again based on my prior testimony based on my testimony tonight we believe those numbers are are far beyond what the demand is going to be at the property so you know if you had 300 or 800 cars all show up to get onto the property at the same time obviously that wouldn't work but we don't believe that's going to be the case here okay so you didn't you didn't do the analysis but you don't think that the deficiency is 211 though correct we did research counts at the existing property based on that we don't think the deficiency in terms of the parking is going to be too under to you believe that there's adequate parking but you didn't do an analysis assuming you're experts can do hypotheticals with different assumptions correct you didn't do an analysis assuming the deficiency was 21 spots correct so you're asking me to do a Capacity Analysis for the site based on the idea that there would be 300 something cars going to the site at one time I'm just I'm just asking you because the CME report notes that there's as it stands right now with the application there's a 21 Space parking deficiency and my question was simply did you would your opinions change if that was true and accurate that there is a 2011 space parking deficiency well the parking deficiency is a number on paper that that's the the ordinance based calculation obviously we give that some weight but the the real world numbers that we're providing show that that is not the case so if the real world numbers showed that there were going to be three that there were 300 cars at the fire hall now we'd say you know we gota we got to change something here and in fact we did revise the numbers based on the data collected at the fire hall we assumed a more even distribution between the two Services when it turns out that in fact two-thirds of the people apparently prefer to go to the earlier service so we we revised our analysis and we included that okay and that's it's just based upon services at the fire station not a 44,000 square foot building that's going to be put on the site which you would agree with me would attract could attract more worshippers correct well you know Mr Miller I I'm not sure that's the case I don't think the size of the building let let me just finish please we obviously know that the space of the ritual Hall the jent hall and the prayer Hall is is limited it's a certain size the fact that the balance of the building has other amenities really is not something that should be factored into us um but I'd like to have if we can if we can have Mr stimel go through the response to Bright View and then certainly you know we can entertain any questions Mr chairman uh if that's okay with the board right you okay that's fine with me okay and I thought that's what we were doing initially so we got a little bit away uh so we are on comment two from Bri view uh comment two talked about the uh queuing across the site Frontage uh talked about testimony providing how the backups affect data collection um we did provide testimony about this at the last hearing I did review five hours of video from the site when it had been in operation at 216 erston Road um and uh you know the the queuing across the site Frontage did occur from time to time uh was very limited outside of a 20 minute period when the mosque exited uh when the surfaces being held at that time exited and then later during that 12 to4 window another roughly 20 minute period when the samsel school discharge the students um at both of those times the queueing extended to or past the driveway way but I noted that traffic moved steadily and cars appeared to make the light within two cycles um it did not interestingly and I I testified to this the last time as well interestingly the cues did not generally interfere with people getting in and out of the site driveway because the motorists were who were stopped in a queue didn't appear to object to letting people enter out of the property at that time um so uh in addition to that we had also agreed to provide police traffic directors which was stipulated to on the record uh the police traffic directors will be there during typical Friday services if this application is approved and um I I think it had been discussed before uh we would look to provide updated traffic counts if and when the site is approved and becomes operational um work out any traffic issues at that time with the board and their professionals comment number three from the Bright View letter uh talks about the selection of the intersection of erston and bordon toown Road and the the count being done or the the data being utilized from one to 2m as the basis for the analysis and then goes into uh peak hours for the intersection peak hours for the similar mosques etc etc um we chose the 1:2 PM period based on earlier traffic counts when the mosque on the subject property was in operation based on the revised schedule the busiest hour for traffic at the proposed site would be roughly 1210 to 1:10 p.m. uh when Street traffic volumes are slightly lower So to avoid giving the appearance of reducing the existing or background traffic volumes on the site we maintain that one to two time period as the basis for the analysis um we again conservative not in our favor we continue to use the slightly higher time volumes uh traffic volumes from that later time period uh anticipated background growth comment four talks about updating the growth rate based on new NJ doot data so we submitted the report initially NJ doot had a growth rate of 1% through all the revisions they had updated their table and showed 2.75% which works out to be 5.58% growth over a two-year buildout period so I believe that comment has been addressed comment number five talks about other area developments uh within the vicinity of the project and uh testified and mentioned in the report that we spoke to the sville and Oldbridge zoning officials and found no such development so I believe that that comment has been addressed as well uh trip generation comment number six in the Bright View report uh talks about the fact that we have updated the traffic counts at the nearby Firehouse where services are being conducted resulting in in 145 inbound trips and 121 outbound trips during the busiest hour so again that captures all of the first service and part of the second service and includes a 10% growth factor over what was observed at the property um there was a a further question from Mr Fishinger about the persons present at the service at the firehouse uh we did go back and parse that data from the fireh hall a little bit further and found out that the per vehicle occupancy was 1.38 persons per vehicle which is slightly lower than the uh the two other sites we had looked at earlier in this process um we had collected data at two other mths show showing an occupancy of 1.82 and 1.88 persons per vehicle so it's about half a person per vehicle lower at the fireh hall versus those two sites uh comment number seven talks about the Limited it data uh talks about how how comparable the facilities in East Brunswick and Somerset are compared to the proposed facility uh I I think I talked about this at the at the last meeting where I testified but possibly not um the the two facilities we looked at the one in East Brunswick is located along Dunham's quter Road uh which is a fairly busy two-lane road primarily residential development around it has a footprint of approximately 18,000 Square feet and pave parking for 100 vehicles with an overflow parking area of an additional 50 vehicles uh the somerset site was located on a local Road in a residential neighborhood and is a smaller facility presents as a large ranch style residence has a footprint of approximately 2500 square fet and a small parking area for approximately 16 vehicles um we uh we did provide the occupancy per vehicle and again that's that 1.82 and 1.88 data set comment number eight from the Bright View review um talks about the trip generation associated with an earlier version of the traffic study I believe that's no longer relevant based on the revised data which has been collected and Analysis which has been submitted comment number nine talks about the um testimony that none of the amenity space would be utilized during schedule prayers additional information and testimony should be provided so to the extent that I understand how the site is going to operate I I provided that testimony the Friday Peak Friday prayer services are the peak generator of traffic on the subject property at times the regular daily prayers will overlap with the morning or evening Peak periods but other than the potential for those overlapping prayers which have much lower attendance uh there will be no scheduled activities at the property during the peaks of the roadway way traffic along ernston Road sorry and Bill while we're on that one I believe uh Mr saxs had already said that you would provide a schedule of when those amenities pit and that's really where that comment is getting to is what's going on with those other uses so I believe that's it's still outstanding because we haven't seen it yet but I think you can move on thank just making a note um comment number 10 and I guess we have um we have spoken about this already but again it ties into the uh weekday morning weekday evening Saturday midday time periods uh based on the schedule of activities above did provide an analysis at the driveway which I will certainly provide to Mr Fishinger uh and testimony related to that item has been provided comment number 11 relates to the trip distribution um it appears from the information provided that the trip distribution for the site is based on the count data collected in April of 22 absolutely correct additional information testimony should be provided regarding the applicability of the uh using this data for a typical prayer service um and uh you know talks about doing I I believe something along the lines of a gravity model or something of that nature to distribute site traffic um this is the rare case where we have a use on the site which is the same as the proposed use it's going to be used by largely the same people we have the distribution of those people to and from the site under real world conditions it's not a projection it's not a calculation in my experience I I would say that I find that to be more accurate than a projection um and you know again it gets back to the issue of your you're just splitting up the traffic slightly differently um and at the end of the day what is the end result going to be you know it's still ernston Road you're still adding traffic to it just in a slightly different uh form so we believe we've analyzed it adequately and we believe that the projection represents an accurate projection of what the site operation is going to be um Capacity Analysis this is kind of the same issue I think so I'm not going to go through it again uh the same we've already covered it comment number 14 talks about the full use of both driveways uh accounting for the left turn out restriction at the West driveway testimony regarding the applicability of this configuration should be provided to address operations when valet parking is being used including if the driveway will be restricted to oneway in slout during the valet operation so this is a new comment uh the valet testimony provided at the last hearing noted that the Western driveway would be for ingris only movements while the valet are queuing vehicles to be parked in the underground garage based on the data collected at the existing fireh Hall I had mentioned this earlier uh the lifts would not be needed for the second service so the restriction on vehicles entering the property would only apply to the time period leading up to the first service the earlier service with the higher attendance and at that time they are very few Vehicles exiting the property so I don't believe that that temporary modification for the valet operation would significantly impact the operations at the site uh comment number 15 level of service for the driveways utilizes a 098 peak hour Factor not going to dive too deeply into the numbers but basically peak hour factor is a numerical description of how site generated traffic is going to be distributed throughout the hour so if you have 60 cars leaving a site one per minute that would be a peak hour factor of one if you have 60 cars leaving within an hour all within 15 minutes that would be a peak hour of 0.25 I can't go below 0.25 um it's an interesting question because obviously there's going to be a peak to the traffic entering and exiting the site the way we had done the analysis based on the counts that the fire hall does incorporate volumes from the two services so it's while it's not going to be a peak hour factor of one it's certainly not going to be a peak hour factor of 0.25 it would land somewhere in the middle um changing that peak hour Factor primarily would affect the analysis as it relates to movements exiting the site driveways um because the site is U because the roadway is so busy adding a small amount of traffic or modifying one of the factors has a somewhat significant effect on the analysis um so it does cause the delays for those movements to increase but that's for the Friday services when again we have agreed to provide the police traffic director so I think although it's a valid question I think the the traffic directors are gonna um mitigate that situation here go ahead um Mr stimel how many square feet is the firehouse still don't know that how many parking spots are at the firehouse the parking spots at the firehouse are they're partly striped they're there's two lots the one on the if you look at the building from the street the one to the left toward the baseball fields is not striped uh the one to the right it has some striping but it's very hard to see um based on my estimation I came up with a roughly 150 parking spaces if you more or less follow a standard aisle WID and and uh parking Dimension um but I am sure that from time to time there have been more cars parked in there than that bill can you clarify that 150 number is that the what I'll call the right lot if you're facing the firehouse that's the two lots combin two lots combined thank you that's where I wasn't that's where I wasn't sure and for the board's edification I did go back and look at those numbers and Mr siml calculations are roughly correct the the more formal lot holds between 80 and 90 cars again it's not really striped anymore and you can get a similar excuse me a simil um roughly 50 to 60 cars on the other side near the fields assuming that cars park in an orderly fashion and fit it fit up so no I don't know the square footage of the building either Mr chairman if if we can I I know the court reporter is trying to take everything down but when there's conversation from the public when testimony is being provided it's very difficult for that to occur thank you please be advised um the next comment moves on to the uh parking section uh talks about a parking requirement of 377 spaces calculated using one space per three occupants um I I think uh there's been an updated plan submitted although it seems like U Bright View and CME may not have seen it uh but it shows a parking calculation of 196 spaces and I believe that reflects a reduction in the assembly area um so I I think that may be some of the discrepancy when we're talking about these parking numbers here um yeah so the revised plans from awz dat of July 11th of 24 show a parking requirement of 196 whereas 166 are provided provided practical testimony related to the use of parking on the property and the parking demand at the current fireh Hall um the the data collected in April of 22 shows a total of 90 vehicles entering the site during the 2-hour window leading up to and including the Friday prayer services the May 2024 traffic counts at the fire hall show a total of 188 Vehicles entering the property during the same 2-hour window um comment number two Mr chair I'm sorry Mr sto go ahead before we get off that comment can we get confirmation that our professionals have that that calculation and agree with that calculation 196 go ahead Mr chairman our report we still raised the question the revised plan that you're referencing I don't think that that's been provided to our office or I think Bri view so we need to see and we say that numerous locations our report we really need to see the size of the different rooms what the uses are what the hours are so we can come up with an accurate calculation I I think all that we saw was revised architecturals that had the size of the prayer area based upon mats as opposed to just open areas aside from that I don't think we've seen revised calculations we're never going to get through this if we don't behave listen if you're going to talk you have to do it amongst yourselves and we can't hear it otherwise we can't go on thank you again I I'll repeat I we we were under the impression it had been provided but if not or if it's somewhere where where it can't be located in the municipality we'll provide it again Mr Cornell not a problem and I'll provide it to Mr Fishinger as well uh back to the the Bright View report it's at the comment number two under parking at the bottom of page six talks about the very limited it parking data published for this use similar to The Limited it traffic uh trip generation data um and it it's kind of the the same thing the the data is of limited utility when you're talking only about two data points um he mentions that the parking at the Firehall uh shows a total of 121 spaces U at the Peak Plus additional spaces required for valet operations weekly variability and attendance and future expansion um you know there's uh no intent to expand the building at this point um so that that's that comment uh the capacity at the fire hall lot is 150 parking spaces we just spoke about which represents a buffer of about 24% over the parking demand at that location during the Friday service um if I hadn't mentioned it before I should mention it now it's certainly possible that a few Vehicles included in the account were parking at the fireh hall to get to the park but we assume that they were all there for the religious Services um based on the 166 spaces provided you've got a buffer of 45 parking spaces for the earlier more heavily attended service even factoring in if all 12 of the valet operators Drive their vehicles to the site you still got a buffer of 32 parking spaces and there was testimony provided at the last meeting by the valet operator uh that he did not think it was likely that all 12 of his employees would be driving their own vehicles to the site and they would uh find a way to shuttle them to and from the property uh if it became an issue uh comment number three is no longer applicable comment number four uh is please provide testimony regarding how the conversion from patrons to parked Vehicles is determined um you know it it's um the the activity at the site based on the different operations um other than the Friday prayer service is largely based on how the site operates or how the site had operated under existing conditions uh there's been testimony provided on several occasions that the regular prayer services which occur multiple times a day have much lower attendance than the Friday services uh there was discussion about the the uh attendance at the the weddings the funerals the the family nights and other events and to an extent these are estimates of how the site will operate um as with the applicant stipulation that they would agree to provide the traffic directors during busier times U during the Friday prayer services uh that would apply to those other operations but the expectation from the applicant based on the way U the mosque operated on the site previously is that the those would all be much lower generators of traffic and lower generators of parking demand so to an extent that information is provided by the applicant but it's um it's based on the knowledge of the current operation Bill while we're on that one um so you had said earlier you did confirm the the number of people per vehicle at the firehouse I believe you said 1.38 right how does that number did you do the math looking at the capacity of the prayer Hall I believe the the last number we have show showed it based on number of prayer mats assuming that 1.38 people per car what how many how does that translate the number of car parking spaces you have on site versus the capacity of the the theoretical capacity of the prayer Hall based on the number of mats did you do that math sorry I thought you were done um I believe there's an updated headcount based on the revised architectural plan I did not get a chance to grab that before the meeting uh but we'll uh get that number and get back to you after the intermission and that's that's the intent of that comment with regard to people versus patrons is if you know how many people how many how many people the prayer Hall holds based on the number of prayer mats you know they're 1.8 or 1.38 people per car does that mean do you have enough parking based on that calculation yeah we could run that calculation um if you if you look at the calculation based on the site plan which shows 340 um you know it's going to be over what the ordinance calculation is uh based on the revised plan but we can we could take a look at that and get you that number certainly um that was number four on page seven number five uh regarding the scheduling of Friday midday services and the ability of the facility to turn over the the parking between Services um so we did talk about that briefly at the beginning of the presentation talked about the fact that two services are going to be separated by an hour uh they're going to be fixed times 12:30 to 1250 and 150 210 which will be consistent year round and allow for the um unloading of uh the unparking of vehicles from the parking spaces and unloading of vehicles from the lifts I think the fact that based on the distribution of traffic to the two Services um showing a lower utilization in the second service not having to load additional Vehicles into the lifts at that time I think probably helps that unloading reloading process and reduces the time um you you know aside from that I I know that extensive testimony was provided about the valet operation at the last meeting and would have to U defer to the gentleman who spoke about the lifts and the the valets for a more granular granular analysis of how their services are going to work um comment number six about the tandem parking spaces there are six tandem parking spaces in the underground garage so three pairs so there's only three spaces if you want to think about it that way that are the inside spaces at in the tandem spots uh and those will be occupied by the Imam and the mosque staff so they're not going to be turning over so is it fair to say those spaces outside of when the lot is being used for valet operations understand at that point nobody's no visitors are parking in there would those spaces be assigned to staff essentially when there's when there's nothing happening at the site I think people are just going to park with at the spot that's most convenient to wear on the property they're going um we can designate those spaces for staff if if the board uh would recommend it and certainly have no objection to it you know if you're talking about 30 or 40 cars there for a typical daily prayer um I I can't imagine why any one would want to park in the tangum spaces and then Mr chairman I believe the rest of the comments on my review um refer to issues with the site plan things like turning radii of vehicles I believe the site engineer may be better equipped to handle them than Mr stimel but of course if you want to go through them bill by all means um no I was going to say largely the same thing I'd have to defer to the site engineer regarding the Turning exhibits Etc anybody have any questions of the uh an on-site hearse or something of that nature I don't have an answer to that the answer is no answerers no just ask you have the people that have the lifts here I do simple this 25 cars in a stacking how long to get them in and out I think the valet operator would be the person to answer that just giving you a try first like me to bring up the uh I would like that I would like to know how how long it's going to take them to get out and how long it's going to take them they pick up their car to leave uh then let me let me just introduce for the record your name again sir for the record I N G last name Lou L IU BL I believe was sworn in at the last meeting Mr sordello so correct do you understand you're still under o all right we've got 25 cars in a stack about ready to go out into erston Road how long does it take for out of his car get into church take care of the car and then come back sure um on average typically in one of our operations is about a minute and a half some run longer some take two to three four minutes um some are very quick uh as I understand from the service it's largely adults adult males in this uh service you know working age healthy somebody pulls up they get out of the car they uh check in and it's a very quick process how long to get the 25 cars through the you're talking you're talking you're telling me it's going to take 30 minutes to clear that so with the way we plan our operations we're going to have five teams one uh one team working in each section of the lower level garage so they can actually uh process five vehicles at a time that's with a full capacity of all your attendance uh actually in an ideal situation they would have one operating the lift one valet what we call as a valet Runner who drives the car to uh the final location but they can actually operate with um five Runners and approximately two to three um lift operators because they're not actually operating the lifts all at the same time it's working in a sequence all right so ideally underground and then some overflow up top for traffic um you know traffic direction the less people you have the longer it takes not necessarily no no I would say on the Underground where's that break point I would say seven underground and then you know two to three up top for uh traffic direction so you're telling me bare minimum is 10 people what if we're down to eight if we're down to eight then it would be you know slightly slower not by much we would just direct some of the traffic the staff up top for traffic direction because I'm accounting for three up top we can bring one down to cover thank you so it would not have a significant impact Mr chairman if I may ask just one question and and I this may be way off Bas and I just I'm just looking at it um you know because I'm looking at the numbers and the track you know set forth in the report and I know it's been testified before but we're saying that 5 seven of the 21 spaces being provided underneath are going to be provided with lift mechanisms but I just now I'm thinking about it in my head that seems an odd number if if there's for the lift systems you have a car above and a car below shouldn't that be an even number am I seven is the number of lifts oh so there's going to be spaces underneath each of those lifts the the the the layout was 109 parking spaces and looking at the the configuration of the garage they were able to add 57 lifts to it okay so 50 that's 57 is just considered the the above numbers correct yes I need to make sure my notes are correct because I was got confused there and spun around a little anybody else have any questions of traffic engineer Mr chair go ahead uh Mr stimo on the Bright View report on page six the um comment on the bottom about the uh sixth edition I parking generation manual yes uh which would seem to require 95 parking spaces for the proposed facility can you explain to me again why you disagree with that it's a limited data size I think it's only two data points um I looked at it quite some time ago but it's a very limited data sample we don't know anything about the configuration of the buildings um you know were they all worship area were they similar to this site where they've got amenities so it's a small data site and we don't know what the basis for those projections is and the it itself tells you in the beginning of all these books trip generation parking generation and so on that they require engineering judgment in the application of the data and then further in situations like this there's usually a note on the page uh to be cautious in the application of the data given the fact that it's a small data size but the data your data point was the um Firehouse observation on May 17 2024 correct correct so you you limit it to one data point too right one data point which represents this congregation in this community a mile away from the proposed site and fair to say you rely on the it throughout your report I I generally rely on the it more than I did in this particular case I noted in the report and instead of my earlier testimony that the the musk is unusual and that there's not a lot of published data out there the it did not have much data the uh Department of Transportation did not have much um so we had to rely on data collected at the site for the most part is uh a data point for one isolated day enough for you to rely to to make your opinions well we counted the existing site in 22 and we counted the uh the the existing site prior to approval uh we counted the operation of this mosque at the fireh hall in 2024 um you know there certainly could be fluctuation from time to time but typically if you're if you're counting site traffic for a use like this for this type of traffic impact study you know you're not going out and counting it 30 times but it's not an Apples to Apples comparison as to what is being proposed for this site and the existing facility in the firehouse correct it's an Apples to Apples comparison and that we think the main driver of traffic for the facility is going to be that Friday prayer which is what the basis for the analysis was all the other things associated with the project that the basketball courts and whatever else are are nice features to have but those are not going to be the main focus of the traffic generation but you're assuming that the congregation is not going to grow to fit the proposed building it's going to stay stagnant at what you could fit in the firehouse now or the existing facility correct there could be growth in the congregation down the road but there could also be additional mosques built you know the idea that if you double the size of the building you're going to double the size of the congregation something hit me in the back of the head uh was uh you know it just doesn't make sense if you said that St bernardet right now is 6,000 square feet and they they increase the size of the Assembly Hall to 12,000 Square F feet I don't think anyone would say they're going to get twice as many people there next Sunday um you know it's a community it grows from the uh number of uh followers of this particular religion within the area and and people that might happen to be close by on a particular day well we follow logic right there'd be no reason to expand an existing use other than to increase its usage right I mean that's logically you're not going to expand St bernardet if uh if there's no reason to do it so all right no more questions Mr chair anybody else have any questions I do go ahead this may or we not be for Mr stimel could be for the uh parking agent or if clouse is still in the room I'm not sure if they're here or not they're here when the uh Friday services are over are the parking units left in the up or down position the we have to let me get him from last time right he was yeah he was not here last time so let's get him sworn could you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and would you please State and spell your name for the record my name is Ryan Callahan r y an Callahan c a l l ah H and Mr Callahan is a representative of the the manufacturer so manufacturer not the installer correct I'm the installer maintainer so at the end of the Friday service how are these units left with the platform up platform down so that all depends on the attendant that's going to be using it so typically when you would get there say the lot is empty all the sleds would be down uh so you could load those up first and then pull under and park you know whether it's one deep or two deep depending on okay and does also like to make sure that clous is okay with the general public parking on those platforms on their own yes so I mean anybody can just drive up and park on it we we we we provide a pro a product you know what the municipality or we know whoever the decisions what they CL has no recommendations for or against non-trained Personnel to park on it so again that really falls back to typically we provide with all of our units um an instruction on how to operate the unit uh typically if it's a attendant uh unit which this would be an attendant unit um we do like to train Personnel into how to use these only attend unit on Fridays so outside someone's got to Park on this without attended so just want to make sure are we are we good clouse are we good with parking on it CL is fine with that you know again like I said we're we're just selling a product what what the owner of that product does afterwards after we we sell that product that's that's their decision we just follow the guidelines of the municipalities to install and to follow guidelines and regulations to make it meet the standards of wherever it's being installed yeah and just to just to follow up Mr chairman uh you know there I think we testified at one of the earlier hearings that there could be weddings occasionally or funeral occasionally maybe another life cycle event uh certainly if there's a demand to have the valet there that particular time we we will do that if we expect that type of crowd but uh generally you know uh these are going to be in in use on on Fridays so good good anybody else Mr chairman go ahead I'm here to Mr sto actually not to the gentleman from kuss okay earlier on you had I think you had testified that 25 cars could queue on the site waiting to go into the parking garage yes and I couldn't really see where you were estimating getting those 25 cars stacked but will they interfere with the surface parking I'm sorry where was the queuing is that what you're asking yeah you had said that 25 cars could queue and where they're queuing are you going to interfere with access to surface parking or out of the surface parking yeah the um the the 25 Vehicles would start queuing at the southeast corner of the building uh the queue would extend along the front of the building and then wrap around toward the Western entrance and stop before you get to the Western entrance um and that queuing assumes a length of 20 feet per vehicle which is is it's actually 18 feet per vehicle with the two foot space in between so your your mileage may vary there uh you may get larger Vehicles smaller Vehicles space closer or further apart but roughly 25 so again I don't have the benefit of looking at the plan where you're describing it but what you're describing then does not block any of the surface parking the area that you're saying it it would have to block some of the surface parking it wouldn't interfere with site operations you'd still be able to get to some of the surface parking you would still be able to get in and out of the garage um but the queue has to go somewhere and that seems to be the least intrusive place to put it and then just to Mr Sachs you had mentioned uh providing revised calculations for the professionals and and for the board members um Mr STL had mentioned the July revised plan I think was looking at the those revisions going to include plan sheets that have been revised for us to review yeah for some reason I'm not sure we believe we dropped off these plans uh for the July 11th revised plans shortly after July 11th and I'm not sure why they never made it but not withstanding we will we will provide that and if there are revisions that we've referred to uh we can add them on there but thank you thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman while we're talking about the Q area it's something that is in my report but would it be possible to provide an exhibit that shows the limits of the queue not only for cars entering but also cars exiting just so we can understand as as cars are leaving the parking garage where do they queue yeah we we can provide that I've just spoken to my engineer and that's that's something we can provide so we'll do that as a separate exhibit hey Mr chairman just one question and I don't want to blabber the issue on the queueing but for the procedures for the early ma early service on a Friday all the the first I don't know first 100 vehicles or whatever 50 Vehicles will all be queued and all be parked subsurface the uh procedure will be to get all the vehicles that first come in downstairs in the parking or to the surface parking first the the testimony that was presented at the last meeting my understanding was that the cars that were the cars that would would fit on the lift so if you take out the um you know the oversized Vehicles handicap things like that um those would still be in the the surface area uh the regular cars that were capable of going up on the lifts those would go up on the lifts um and and they'd fill the lift spaces first now the um I I think if and when the site becomes operational they're going to find out and have a better idea of whether or not they need to use all the lifts and at that point like I said for the second service it doesn't appear that they'd be needed and then they might change the procedure but at least initially that's the intention okay thank [Music] you anyone else of the Mr stipp n you going to bring your planner up M yes Mr chairman I can bring the planner up maybe we should just give the court reporter a break for five minutes we can take a 10-minute break okay okay back in 10 minutes thank you N9 o'clock e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e AP thank you very much Mr saaks Mr chairman um I how's our recorder don't you fine thank you much better okay okay um so Mr chairman I think uh uh it was indicated to us that let's you'd like Mr stimel to go through the CME traffic uh concern you know the traffic issues raised in Mr Cornell's report we're prepared to do that and then once he's gone through that we'll we'll go to my planner I appreciate that okay all right so uh Mr where does that start mrman if I can highlight there's certain items I think that maybe we want to just discuss this evening some of them have already been talked about others I think we just want want to maybe uh have you prepared to be addressed in the future so if you like I can just point to the ones I think I'd like you to address that's fine first one is section A item number one and not necessarily your traffic engineer but it indirectly comes back to him it has to do with the building size we had initially raised this question based on the architectural plans as an example the first floor of the building initially was 13,000 Square ft now it's 23,000 Square ft when you total all the individual components of that first floor it still doesn't add up to the 23,000 square feet same thing with second floor originally it was 21,000 square feet now it's 13,000 square feet when you total the components it doesn't add up so I think this is maybe an exercise for your architect let him go and just make sure that the numbers of the different types of rooms match the square footage on his plans that leads into the correct calculation of the number of parking places which is kind of what we're having difficulty doing up to this point thank you I guess now we can go to section g in in the traffic item number two again we talk about the inconsistencies between the engineering plans that we had before I don't know if the current plans address this it it may but we just want to make sure that the architectural plans are consistent with the engineering plans the calculations for the parking are based on those accurate numbers and that way we can have it the make sure we have the correct number of spaces that you exceed and and don't need a variance or if you're deficient and do need a variance [Music] understood item number six has to do with the different religious activities taking place at the site the initial report had certain numbers the revised report has significantly higher numbers uh like raising a question about why those numbers have increased so dramatically since the initial report I we had asked the client to give a projection of what the operations would be at the site not just the Friday services but when are you having regular prayers what what do you do in terms of weddings funerals Sunday school Etc um and they had given us some data initially and when it became more of an issue based on updated comments from the board professionals and and the public we asked for a little bit of further clarification on those points and said you know are these are these numbers accurate do you feel safe with these numbers are they a little bit High a little bit low and and based on the revisions U the trend of the numbers was generally a little bit higher to give a little bit more of a factor of safety so I don't think it's really a change in how the site is going to be operating I think it's more of a conservative estimate of how the site is going to be operating I think the concern is are you now trying to justify the larger size of the building and have your numbers match the square footage in that that was the issue that the the the biggest thing will still be the Friday prayer so I think U you know the none of the other events are going to approach that and also same section it talks about Ramadan where previously it was indicated that all activities were going to take place off site now based upon the revised report it appears that there may be activities on site there may be a need for offsite parking at samel school so I I I think that needs to be clarified Mr Cornell we we'll clarify that uh and I'm going to provide that also in my letter of operations with respect to every every every particular room thank you and and Mr Mr chair just on that Mr saak you is that 7 Days Ramadan and and does the prayer service start at 8:30 or 8 pm and end to 10:30 I have to get clarification on that if you could yeah I appreciate that thank you uh Mr chairman if I may just uh uh Mr sex when you do provide this this summary um if you could clarify in there which events are going to if if that's still the case which events will be held off site because I was going through my notes because I was getting a little confused too when it came came to I think prior testimony was that weddings would be on site but receptions would not be if we can just make sure that since we're creating It Anyways that's very clear so that we can yes thank you we do item number seven the attorney just mentioned the uh the wedding services previously you did not have a a multi-purpose Hall I I know you revised one of the prayer rooms it's now multi-purpose Hall just want to make sure that now that that's been revised you you are not going to have wedding receptions since you originally said correct I just want to confirm that item number nine there was some discussion about potential traffic impacts from other developments in town I I did previously provide copies of traffic reports for the Arsenal Trade Center for Camelot at Main Street and Camelot at ernston Road as per the request of the board I don't know that the traffic engineer has uh received those and uh reviewed those so um maybe Mr Sax if you want to provide those to him or if you I I had sent those to you after that may meeting we just want to make sure that that is addressed to make sure there's no impacts from those developments okay I I did briefly talk about the Arsenal development that site is two miles away uh with our intersection and our study area was not included in their analysis so we did not directly address that other than through the background growth rate I I'm not sure where you got the information if you did have that traffic report or if you didn't I did provide it to Mr sack I I had the Arsenal report I don't know how it came to my attention I I did not see the other report for the Camelot development developments and the last time of my report I think that we still have some trouble understanding is the operation of the valet system I had mentioned exhibits for cars entering the site where they're going to queue the same concern with cars exiting when when when someone leaves a service they request their car where does that car go for them to go through and pick up is there going to be a Queue at the same location as the cars entering in Reverse is there another area where cars are going to queue where people are going to have to exit the facility and make walk out to the front of their car so just some some further clarification as to how that's going to operate maybe an exhibit that shows the queue errors for both exiting and entering the site yeah I think we agreed that we will provide some type of uh separate exhibit showing how the queuing will operate and if we need any notes on those plans we'll we'll provide them as well Mr chairman those are the items that have been revised since my initial reports I think that's should be sufficient for discussion this evening I have a question to Mr Cornell if not bring on your planner thank thank you Mr chairman uh can have Mr mcdna come from the side of the room good evening Mr mcdna if you would please raise your right hand do you test uh excuse me do you swear or affirm that testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I certainly do yes and would you please State and spell your name for the record sure hi there everyone my name is John McDonna that's spelled MC Capital do n OU and I'm the project planner all right and Mr McDon if you can just briefly give the board the benefit of your education and professional background sure I am a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey that license is current it's in good standing I also have uh a certification on National level from aicp which is current good standing I have the Good Fortune of getting to testify nightly throughout New Jersey north south east west we get to see the full crosssection of this beautiful diverse state of our I have a recommendation to accept this credentials I have a second second all in favor I thank you Mr chairman all right Mr mcdono with with that said I know you've had an an opportunity you're intimately familiar with this project and if you could give the board the benefit of your uh planning analysis uh of this particular project sure sure thing um as we know all land use planning starts with the land so we're going to take the board uh with a look at the land which you've heard a lot of testimony about I would like to enter an exhibit Mr chairman which are going to be a little packet of drone photographs that were taken last month and anticipation of testifying last month we're going to accept them and we're going to make them exhibit nine I believe nine and A9 for the record is going to be four sheets and they're simply aerial drone photographs of the subject property for our interested parties here they're just photographs of the land that I'm sure everybody all knows and they were taken on September 18th by your firm or someone else's I did not I don't touch the Drone it was taken by a it was taken by a licens drone operator in in my office thank you under my direction okay so looks like everybody has a one the first view is a view of the subject property we try to hover it over the site give you a sort of a look uh from a bird's eye looking top down at the property the first thing that jumps out of course is we've got four tax Lots here in Block 444 04 Lots 23 24 25 and 26 I think the first thing that jumps out at you is we've got a site here that is exceptionally large in the context of the neighborhood in the context of your R seven zoning ordinance as well the key Point here again looking at land marrying up with land use we've got a site that's got excellent spatial capacity to accommodate a development of the scale that's being put forth before you uh this evening uh this site as we know is developed with multiple buildings and parking and you can see that in the in the photograph uh that was taken in terms of the surrounding land use context we've got residential on three sides this is a a residential Zone we've got some non-residential uses sprinkled in on the on the opposite side as well next page we take it more to the back of the property looking at uh some of the homes in the back neighborhood looking back toward Wards the site um looking at the land use on the opposite side of the street as well and then spinning toward another angle showing the subject property again the larger mass in the middle the surrounding land use context and then finally again just to bookend what I told you at the outset is that we are dealing with an exceptionally large piece of property here uh generally rectangular in shape or Square in shape uh again readily able to accommodate the development that's before the board so in terms of the plan before you again this is a Redevelopment project this is going to be to construct a three story 4439109973 type of land use um in my practice we see religious uses of all types I've testified for mosques for temples for synagogues and for churches as well uh it is very typical to see the the worship use at the core and then these other uses as well which would promote fellowship and also a sense of community um and and Social Service as well so again these are all knitted into and integrated into the Rel religious mission of this particular land use and this particular Faith uh you've heard about the subsurface parking you've heard a lot of details about parking the ground level parking as well and the makeup of the rooms that are going to be within the building I won't go into detail about all of them now because you have a good solid record operationally architecturally and then site and expert wise in terms of how the overall site will flow will function and will operate uh the unwavering testimony here on the applicant side is that the site will flow function and operate safely and efficiently and comfortably for all of the persons who will come here again in the interest of serving that Paramount public interest of religious freedom we are here in the R zone R seven Zone District where this use is conditionally permitted I think it's been well vetted that the two conditions that are required here are both met number one to comply with all of your scheduled three bulk standards top to bottom they're listed in Mr con's site plan as well complies complies complies over and over again uh so to the extent that someone is concerned about the land use the land use is permitted here that in and of itself explic explicitly means it serves the public welfare secondly to the extent someone is concerned about the size of the building the overall height of the building complies the overall mass of the building complies the building coverage complies the lock coverage complies the building positioning complies as well from all respects front setback complies side setbacks comply on both sides rear setback complies as well buffering which is intended to provide for integration with the surrounding neighborhood fully complies as well in terms of the width and the composition now now orlu process talks about an interactive process uh whereby the board makes comments public makes comments and applicant listens and responds that's what's happened here it's exactly what our Supreme Court of New Jersey says the process should be a good interactive process where we take a good plan and making make it better as we go so use and scale of the development here are in line with your zoning ordinance um we're looking for again uh design standards landscape lighting and buffering being substantially in compliance with your ordinance as well um through your engineers report I think your planner report referenced the engineer report for some design related relief and I'll I'll pop through that as I I conclude my testimony but in terms of the letter of the ordinance as we now stand now the only relief that the applicant is seeking is relative to parking to the extent that the board is considering the aggregate of all uses if that's the strict interpretation of the ordinance uh you have good solid testimony uh through the witness before me and the witnesses before me that based on the traditional way of calculating parking for a house of worship which is based on the peak demand um we're looking at actual compliance here in terms of parking of 166 spaces being provided we 150 1 would be required if we take all the mats count them as chairs and divided that by three which is the requirement of your ordinance so again 166 provided 151 required based on the number of mats uh for both the men and for the women um operating at one at one time as you've heard the religious practice the ritual um the worship service is non-coincident with all of the other um activities that would take place on this facility and those extra I'll say curricular activities or non- worship activities do not approach or exceed the 151 space demand uh that would be triggered by the ordinance for the religious use at Peak so again we've got good solid testimony on the record that forms a predicate that on balancing the benefits of the application as a whole would substantially outweigh the detriments with respect to parking now when we apply the balancing test we always start with the purposes of the municipal land use law and we see if they're Advanced here uh the very first purpose in the land use law and the reason why this board is here and why your town has the power to create Zone districts and Zone within its borders um is found in purpose a njsa 40 col 55 d-2 purpose a the promotion of the general welfare and that is Advanced here by an applicant delivering a permitted use that fully conforms to the conditional use requirements that would be applied to this use not only we are we dealing with a permitted use but we're dealing with an extra special land use as well in terms of what we would call an inherently beneficial land use or a top tier land use reserved for a very narrow band of uses in our land use law I always think of the them as the mind body and spirit uses um mind we're talking about educational or academic uses are reserved as inherently beneficial body we're looking at Health oriented uses like a hospital and then finally of course in terms of spirit or religious uses whether we're talking about a church a synagogue a temple or a mosque it's clear under the L use law that all religious practice gets equal treatment um and so again this is going to fulfill the religious mission of this particular Faith at this particular location where the faith is already located every religion deserves a decent place to worship again this building as you've heard through the testimony will uh meet the needs of this particular Faith uh to serve its religious Mission and provide itself with a decent place to worship that all goes towards purpose a the promotion of the general welfare we know in that regard freedom of religion is a fundamental founding principle of this country and again that counts in my view um as Paramount public interest in terms of the advancement of purpose a other purposes Advanced here under njsa 40 colum 55 d-2 would be purpose C planning gold to provide for adequate light air and open space again in terms of the vertical mass of the building complies horizontal mass of the building complies positioning of the building complies this application is spoton in terms of advancing the planning goal for adequate light air and open space next purpose g under the land use law to provide for a variety of uses according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens we know here in New Jersey that there are shifting demographics it is happening in your community as well and again this will fulfill uh the mission of of of this organization and a practice that's already there purpose M the planning goal for efficient use of land taking an assemblage of lots pulling them together to develop in a cohesive unified fashion uh again goes towards that planning goal for the efficient use of land taking multiple lots that create a larger lot um and developing them as a single ho lastly we look at the planning goal purpose I the promotion of of a desirable visual environment the centerpiece of this development is going to be a very beautiful building um and you have the architecturals to support that as well um it is going to take the multiplicity of uses on the property cooin them together in a single focal point single beautiful building um again we have landscape architecture to complement the architecture and that will help build or blend the built environment into the surrounding natural environment as well so again in terms of the positive criteria for the board to consider here we have extreme weight on the positive side in the advancement of purpose a purpose c g m and I counterbalancing that obviously we always have to consider the negative criteria and whether relief can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public without any substantial impairment to the intend purpose of your Zone plan and ordinance in terms of sub stantial detriment to the public I think obviously the key concern here is the queuing is the parking is the traffic you have uncontroverted expert opinion on the record again that this site will flow will function and operate safely and efficiently that the parking Supply is adequate to meet the actual demand again using the ordinance and the 151 ratio if that worship Hall were occupied at Peak or the two worship components components were occupied at Peak at the same time 166 where 151 would be the peak demand you also have good analytic real world calculations in terms of that 1.38 ratio which would also be adequate in terms of providing for the 166 spaces that the applicant is providing here with respect to the Zone plan and ordinance again the degree of departure from The Zone scheme is not substantial here given the parking ratios that I just gave you the core question of course before the board is not the use not the size of the building but rather the the level of activity and the the parking Supply and whether it is adequate to meet the actual demand again based on those ratios based on the consistent and unwavering testimony of the witnesses before me the parking Supply is adequate to meet the demand lastly we look at impairment to your Zone plan and ordinance I looked at your 2023 master plan by su master plan reexamination by Susan GRL that 203 master plan by John lean gavala again recognizing the diversity of your community the changing of demographics and the need to plan for uh future populations so I think this is on point with that as well all said I believe on balancing this is clearly reconcilable under the flexible C balancing test whereby the benefits of the the application as a whole would substantially outweigh the detriments it's not the applicant's burden to prove that it has a hardship here that would be the C1 standard we're not relying upon that that is the older standard in the L use law that is the only standard I can use if I go outside of New Jersey but uh New Jersey is distinct in that we do allow for this reasonable balancing here as well and again I think the clear weight is the heavy weight is on the positive side with minimal weight if any on the negative side lastly we have some design exceptions here that are listed in your engineers report we're now looking at a lower standard of reasonableness and appropriateness and a sense of impracticability whereby um strict or literal enforcement of your ordinance would serve no practical planning purpose uh based on the testimony and and what you've seen on the plans I believe the relief is reasonable we're looking at parking in the front yard we have parking in the front yard now we think it's better to have the open air activity of parking closer to the street and the building mass in the back buildings can become buffers just like Landscaping can as well and we think that building Mass helps separate the residential uses behind from the active land use which is really that that open air parking lot in the front uh no sidewalks against the building no islands in the parking lot no designated loading space and no deceleration Lane all fall within the confines I think of the testimony of the engineer um and the witnesses before me that the site will meet acceptable site planning standards notwithstanding those design exceptions that the applicant is seeking with that again this the board does have an abundance of evidence before it that you can certainly consider but from a planning standpoint I'm satisfied that this applicant has met its burden under the law I would also just remind the board that the R7 zone is not only for single family uses but it does allow for institutional uses here as well from a planning standpoint we're not supposed to say well that that would never happen we have to look at what the Zone plan contemplates as what's okay so you could have a building here of the exact same size that would meet all the light and air controls and be a school where everyone comes at the exact same time and every in that building gets filled so again activity um traffic are contemplated here within this Zone you could also have Community shelters um victims of domestic violence you could have Community residences uh vict for persons that are developmentally disabled again it's not just a single family Zone but there are other uses that could go here as well so in terms of consideration of the degree of departure from The Zone plan I think this plan is is well thought out it is consistent with good planning principles and Community Development and orderly growth most importantly the statutory criteria for the very minimal relief that the applicant is seeking here it's a single variance and some design exceptions I believe the applicant has met its burden here and approval is warranted thank you Mr McDon um Mr chairman with that said Mr McDon is certainly available for any questioning by the board members anybody have any questions to Mr McDon go ahead so John just one question you quoted the one per three seat um number for the parking ordinance how do you reconcile that requirement with Mr stimmel's earlier testimony that the existing operation is 1.38 people per vehicle as opposed to three people per vehicle as the ordinance required how do you justify those two from a planning perspective again I'll fall back on the testimony of Mr stimel and how he dealt with the with the ratio requirement there that again the supply will meet the actual demand that was my only question Mr chairman and Mr Fishinger I I think part of the issue we're having tonight is the fact that you don't have the benefit even though we dropped it off of the July plan July 11 20124 plan prepared by awz where we're showing uh the occupancy of 340 for the gents uh prayer Hall which is 340 prayer mats and I believe 114 for the ladies and based upon that uh Mr McDon if you divide that by three that's where we come up with the 151 now the other uses and I'll ask you this question Mr mcdonal we've already stipulated that the other uses uh will not operate at the same time that's where we tra if you add all of the other uses in terms of the parking requirement we come up with the with the 196 is that correct that's correct yes we assume there's not non-coincident Peaks that they're all happening at the same time well and my question was more to the ordinance says one per three people per vehicle and you have testimony from your traffic engineer saying that actual experience is only 1.38 people per vehicle is the or in your professional opinion is the ordinance correct I I will say that the ordinance standard is typical of what I see for a house of worship yes and typical for a house of worship where the the number of people is based on seats seats or seats versus prayer mats that's my concern is you have an ordinance that says one thing in your testimony from your traffic engineer says something complete something different how which is right obviously the mat would take up more space because people are lying proost prostate um than a seat so it's actually less demand there's a lesser demand than that one point one per three in my view but wouldn't a facility like this say compared to a a church where there's pews or something like that where there's more children present wouldn't that push up the uh occupancy per vehicle is guess ultimately is one is your is it your opinion that one vehicle per three prayer mats is an appropriate ordinance for this this use yes those are my questions Mr chairman do first and then okay okay Mr McDon what type of variance how many additional parking spots are you seeking a variance for is your client seeking a variance for the applicant is providing 166 spaces and I just heard testimony that 196 would be required so a 30 space deficiency you don't know how that 196 requirement was calculated do you it's it's taking the aggregate the uses again for the place of worship I just gave you the 151 based on the number of mats then for the basketball court gymnasium gymnasium at a ratio of 4.5 per 1,000 and we have a 7,703 squ foot gym that comes out to 35 spaces you have the office uses at four per 1,000 and 632 square feet that's another three spaces and then the classrooms on Saturday and Sunday school or seven spaces if you add those four numbers up 151 plus 35 Plus 3 plus 7 that gets to the 196 okay and that's based off that um awz engineering report that is correct yes said earlier that you're calculating number of spaces based on the factor of three persons per car based on 454 that's correct find it appropriate to only consider that we're only going to have that one day a week think you should be calculating your parking spaces based on capacity of the Halls typically when we plan we plan for um you said it you said multiple times in your testimony before that demographics are changing and you're expecting growth in the area Mr stim is only calculating based on what's fitting to the Firehouse today right so is it safe to assume that as demographic shift you could fill the 454 spaces during prayer on any given day of the week we know that this land use has its religious practice on on Fridays that's consistent for this land and at Peak Demand on Fridays we're looking at 454 mats which would come out to that 151 space requirement if in the event there is additional growth here there would have to be planning for that as as they move forward it's not a typical for some religions but you don't plan for that in the building of construction you don't plan for that now you plan an operational consideration it's typical for religious practice to maybe go to a split service to to changing again those are operational things that would have to be considered but don't you take operational considerations into planning have you seen or reviewed in your uh in your planning operation the days of the week we're going to be operating yes yes this is typical for what I have seen for this land use they have planned for 44 mats now to serve to serve their population their members now if there is future growth but there would have to be planning for that down the road but my my point is we're only planning for those spaces on Friday not the rest of the week right right and those an the testimony on the record is those anary uses are not going to exceed that 151 space demand we're not operating the parking lot with 150 with 161 spaces other than Friday we're only operating that on Friday you I'm just CU not to interrupt you but um I believe there's been testimony that the balance of the week has much less attendance even for the daily prayers but in his testimony he said demographics are changing and we're expecting growth well no he no demographics are changing that was his testimony well all right you can ask him that question again I mean certainly it wasn't a question it was a statement that he made during A tes law well so are we projecting growth or we going to base everything on what we have today for a congregation as a planner both where's the upside where's where's the other planning for the future this is planned for the future we're looking at low demand during the non worship service and there's there's adequate supply for soon as as soon as you say that you're going to expand let's say the ancillary stuff stays the same Friday gets busier where's that planned into now as with as with any religious practice that would have to be planned for special services special holidays all of that gets planned for as part of any religious practice we're not even talking about special events we're talking about the the general five five times a day prayer I'm not sure what it's called but Monday I don't know if it's on weekends I've been waiting for the schedule you so Haven promised it are we going to get it next hopefully next time oh yeah can we get before I'm I'm sorry as a um condition of the next hearing can we have this before the next hearing yes I've indicated I'll provide that but you did the last three times can we get a condition before the next hearing otherwise we postpone the hearing if we don't have the information provided to us oh oh I that's why I was confused you're saying condition sorry I don't know how we can review testimon and and try to weigh pros and cons and everybody in the room gets a chance to review things if we don't have the items to review Mr leer I have indicated at the outset of the meeting that I would provide that in time for the next meeting with all due respect you said that the last time before and the very first time as well we can go back to the minutes that you promised this and you have never I'm not I'm not going to get into an argument with you and and I wouldn't do that but it was important that we provide the traffic testimony for clarification this evening which we've provided now that we have the traffic testimony in how could you review the traffic testimony if you don't know when you're doing your prayer services we've already indicated the hours of the prayer service I believe we stated at the outset that it will be from 12:10 to a certain time but there more than just Friday we have to review the entire package as the planner indicated well I think we also provided that testimony back in April at the outset of the meeting you had said that you were only to be work having prayer services from 6 a a.m. until 8:00 p.m. which we already have discovered in previous testimony from you that that is not the case because it's based on different times of the year corre we have right we understand that sunrise doesn't occur at the same day and sunset doesn't occur at the same day and yes we will provide that information to you all right and you will have that in advance of the next meeting however as to the Friday prayer services we know what those are going to be specific set times there's no question about that um Mr chair go ahead you I I express the same um sentiment is Mr aler and I'm not looking to place blame on anyone um the number the parking requirement seems to change every time we come back here and it's very frustrating um additional hours of operation seem to change I'm not really sure about the the level of service for the whole month of Ramadan if that's going to be a nightly event of 300 to 500 people at so there's a lot of moving Parts here and I think we can't proceed forward with our questions to Mr McDon until we get this basic information so I would like to get this information and table this so we can have an intelligent discussion as to what the magnitude of this variance is really we're really dealing with any other questions of the planner go ahead thank thank you Mr chair uh Mr MCD um has the applicant advised you of the number of current members or congregants all right well is that isn't that critical to know from a planning perspective if the occupancy of the building is sufficient to enable the congregation to engage in the free practice of religion you have testimony on the record from an operator sworn under oath that the capacity of this building is adequate to serve its current membership and a reasonable future projected growth so I'm glad you said that because the current testimony in the record is that the membership is approximately 300 to 330 individuals um so right now the testimony that you gave and the testimony and the record are there that there is I'll to say seating but occupancy for ritual service in the amount of 454 you've also o testified at length in your opening Soliloquy about the size of this property and how much space there is so from a planning perspective why wouldn't it be appropriate since there is sufficient amount of space for the applicant to provide parking for either the number of um congregants that they currently have or anticipate having or to reduce the occupancy amount to meet or to provide for what the congregation is course the applicant doesn't need more parking well no they do right the law says they do I mean and that's why they're seeking relief they're seeking a variants they're here for variant that's fine people often seek relief nothing wrong with that but here you've testified that there is that this is a a large property abnormally large for the the area it's located in um and given that it's large for the area it's in and given that right now ritual occupancy is is at 454 and somebody can certainly correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that that congregation size is between 300 and 330 um I I'm I'm confused as to why from a planning perspective we need to Grant relief for parking when it appears that either occupancy occupancy excuse me could be decreased or since as you pointed out this is a very large piece of property additional parking could be put in by redesigning or scaling down the building so that that's what I'm asking you I'll repeat my answer it doesn't change because the applicant does not need more parking the ordinance may say it does you have actual testimony here with respect to supply the applicant doesn't need more parking parking is adequate to serve the occupancy that why are you asking for a variance well let me respond to that Mr chairman we we technically do not need a variance for the ritual activity based upon the uh based upon the occupancy with the prayer mats we need 151 parking spaces when the ritual activity is occurring we have 166 we we need a technical variance because you're adding in all the other uses but we're not adding it in no you're not but your ordinance does which brings it up to 196 I also want to and I know you're saying our or ordinance is out of line no I didn't say ordinance out of line I'm just saying that it's a technical variance based upon the size of the building it triggers 196 parking spaces if the building was smaller the trigger would go away well no if no it wouldn't because we would still have these other uses but in terms of the actual ritual activity which occurs on Friday around noon time to 2:00 uh we only need 151 parking spaces at full occupancy of this building that would be if all 454 spaces in that prayer Hall will utilize now Mr mcdonut to follow up on that you heard the testimony from Mr stimmel and he did actual traffic counts at the Madison Park fireh Hall which showed the Peak parking demand at that site has 121 Vehicles yes and that's substantially less than the 166 parking spaces that we provide so to follow up on the question of Mr Mueller and other various board members if you yes we would love to see growth but we know consistently consistently that there are 121 Vehicles parked at the Madison Park Firehall that that was done in April of 2024 that was done on a Friday do we expect the congregation to grow maybe but maybe not we have1 vehicles that are generally there on every Friday and Mr McDon is that consistent with your analysis here yes it is and just to bring it back to the chair I think we all know a variance should not be denied because it's a variance that's the reason why we're here that's why you've had three or four hearings now extensive hearings on this it comes down to the testimony before you The credibility the reliability of the witnesses and the evidence that the supply will meet the actual demand it's based on the testimony that's why we do this so going back to actually since you're incorporating the the the the traffic testimony um Peak on Peak uh at the time the study was done Peak vehicles on the Friday um earlier service were what 12021 with a vehicle occupancy of about 1.38 um that's certainly not 454 um um uh pray mats prayer mats or or occupants or congregants or worshippers so again from a planning perspective and in order to meet this congregation's um ability because right it is an inherently beneficial use it's that's that's certainly not disputed um but hearing the factual testimony and of congregation size and of vehicles and congregants attendance I I just I'm having a hard time understanding where from a planning perspective the for 454 occupancy is necessary when you're seeking variance relief where if that was reduced variance relief may not be needed and and it's this doesn't appear from the testimony that's been put on by the applicant's own witnesses that demand requires that there be 450 that there be space for 454 congregants so that that's what I think myself and I'm sure the members of the board may be having difficulty with understand and so why from a planning perspective understanding that we have a need to to that certainly it's an inherently beneficial use but Mr mcdo wouldn't this congregation and this applicant's needs be met if the occupancy was lower no why this applicant has said this is the space it needs to accommodate its membership but that's telling me that's just saying I disagree with you because I don't like what you say factually if they're telling us that their occupancy is X and they're seeking occupancy of Y and in order to do y they need variance relief why should that variance relief be granted in this situation where based on the own test their own testimony their own experts testimony their own fact witness testimony it doesn't the that that level of of intensity of use isn't isn't supported you have testimony of an operator a religious operator that says we need this number to fulfill our religious Mission that's not what he said I asked how many people how many congregates they said they have it Moes between I believe 3 or 330 somebody can certainly correct me if I'm wrong I believe that's the number the applicant has said that by the plan it has put before you to accommodate 454 persons here well no their fact testimony was your own client's own fact testimony was three to 33 the plan shows 454 well that's what my point is their fact testimony is one number the plan shows another what's the planning justification for granting relief when the when the applicants own testimony both factual testimony from the applicant the the the project or applicant witness as well as that from their experts that theyve put forward doesn't support the need for space for 500 I'm sorry 454 congregants during a single worship service that that's my question again there was a question asked have made to plan for for future growth to a reasonable degree that's certainly built into that 454 mats there all right so if current if current growth is if current OCC if current congregation size is between 300 and 330 and they're they're planning for 454 I'll say 450 I'm a lawyer I'm not certainly if I was good at math I'd be an accountant or an engineer or a doctor um might have a lot with stress probably too the that's almost 150 um congregant increase which you know by my poor math is somewhere between 50% 45 and 50% um increase so what what's the data that shows that that planning for growth in the area of 50 40 to 50% is is the appropriate um the appropriate metric to use what justifies that I'll fall back on the on the record it's not atypical uh in my view to see a 5% growth increase over the course of five years like' seen it uh planned in religious practice uh for this particular land use I get you a 25% and I believe the number you just gave me is about 25% increase it Ms like 50 to 50 or 45 or 50 but that that that's near here and there I given that you've said this is such a significant like it is a large piece of property looking at 9A you know I've driven by the property but looking at the aerial views it it shows it even more um you know could this project be redesigned or reconfigured to provide for the appropriate amount of parking for the appropriate number of for the identified number of congregants by the applicant no why not I just told you no I you didn't I don't know I I why can't it be reconfigured Mr Pullman I think you know the answer sure anything can happen all right and if that's what if that's what you're looking to uh obtain from the applicant then I've answered that but um but certainly I think what Mr uh mcdunn has indicated is that yes we anticipate that there'll be some growth we hope that there's some growth if there's 330 members now we know that the maximum occupancy is 454 I'm not a mathematician either but 450 minus 330 is 120 and you divide that into 330 it's about a third it's about a 33% increase um you know again I understand your point uh but technically we don't need a variance based if we just really look at and I think you have to look at the ritual activity which really is the largest activity here and based upon on that we have enough parking we don't need a variance but when you take in all the other uh all the other is yeah but but the in this applicant chose to Pro provide to present an application that provides not just for Sanctuary or ritual space but for Community Center space which as we've discussed before is certainly within their right and certainly is Encompass with Rel it's certainly a laudable absolutely no I mean I you know if I go down the street past past the church I know there's gymnasium there if I go past no question but the the but it's the intensity of the use based on the testified um occupancy and congregation that I I think is a is a real question that that this board deserves answers to Mr chair Mr McDon um let's assume it's correct then you need a variance for 30 parking spaces I'm not entirely convinced that that's the case um it's your testimony that that's not going to create a substantial burden in the area having 30 cars looking for parking on ernston road that is my emphatic testimony yes how many times have you been on based on based on the underlying record that the supply will meet the actual demand where's what's the underlying data for that sir have a sworn expert under oath here here who has that's the predicate for my testimony one data point on one day on a fire housee where there's no testimony on the square footage that's your whole case I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I am relying upon the testimony of the witnesses that have gone before me let's assume the law is correct on this and you have 30 cars that don't have a place to park where are they going to park I don't know I'm not the traffic expert okay but you say that's good planning I can't see who's asking me question I asked the question your testimon that 30 cars you don't know where they're going you consider that good planning I'm not planning for that happening what happens when it does you're not living here I I can't hear the I can't hear you Mr chairman I said what happens when it does you don't live here that's what I said I don't know how to answer that question I don't know have you been to erston Road have you seen have you have you physically been to the property yes and I have have not done an analysis of the parking testimony I didn't ask you that have you noticed the traffic on ernston road that's all I want to know I can't hear you I'm sorry Mr chairman it's it's difficult to hear you with i i I don't hear the public I hear me and my hearing aids are okay so having difficult I'm sorry Mr chairman what was the question have you been there at peak hours I've been there during all all times yes thank you anybody else have any questions more comment than question but I think what I'm missing is there's only 109 physical parking spots when the parking lift system is not in operation it's only an operation for two hours on Friday plus other parties and celebrations that may occur that you'll bring people in we're only assuming for ritual purposes it's only operating two hours on Friday two three hours ballpark forward give the pronunciation Juma Juma um thank you well what about the rest of the ritual surfaces there's only 109 spots so now while I know you're not the traffic expert wouldn't you plan for all ritual services to meet the capacity of the rooms for this for the ritual Services is it Mr allegri yes close member allegri I it's second time you asked me that so I I think this applicant certainly owes you that answer for sure what happens during the non- peak religious use we know that prayer services are multiple times during the day um and to the extent that the applicant hasn't given you those numbers of what the capacity is as I understand it it's substantially less than those 990 surface spaces that you're but I'm asking would you plan to meet capacity of your rooms as a planner would you plan to meet capacity of those rooms would you plan for other ritual services to have for would I plan for the non Friday Peak service yes to have 450 mats occupied no I would not that's atypical of this religion that is atypical okay Mr chair can I go ahead uh Mr McDon and I don't want you I don't want you to think that I'm being adversarial here because we have a major problem on ernston road I wish we all could figure everyone in this room could figure out a way to solve this problem the County's not helping us but it really is almost that area is almost a public new at night it's really bad and that's no one's fault it's just the way it is but when you said that the benefits outweigh the detriment uh you know for the 30 the variance for 30 parking spots did you analyze what the detriments would be on the area of 30 uh cars not being able to park and what detriment if any that would cause in that area did you do that analysis to say that Det detriment uh that benefits outweigh that detriment I'm not giving my testimony in a vacuum there's been a number of witnesses that are before me you have a signed and sealed traffic report as far as I understand it you've had on the on the board side a check of that data and how that methodology was done and it has not been questioned I'm sure if I'm not saying the right thing I'll be I'll be corrected but there are checkpoints here and I'm not I'm not giving testimony in a vacuum but I certainly relying on at least three Witnesses before me who' said traffic parking and circulation will be okay and and I I understand that's your answer that you're not going to need the 30 spots in essence right because we have the data point saying it's only going to be 121 that we need right because we know what happened at the firehouse right in in accordance with acceptable traffic engineering principles the question is what happens if we do need it the law says you we're going to need it that's what the ordinance says so the law presumes that you're going to need those spots and if you need the 30 spots did you analyze what the detriment would be of not having those 30 spots because you've testified in you know a bit conclusory manner that the benefits outweigh the detriment with respect to parking so did you analyze what the detriment would be of not having of needing the 30 spots and not having them I did not okay thank you Mr merer I can perhaps respond as well because I'll go back to April one of the one of the conditions we agreed to is that there would be no parking in the residential neighborhood so let's say 30 cars show up in excess of the 166 that are there we already know that we are employing the sville burrow Police Department uh to direct traffic they'll be there at 1210 uh they're going to close the parking lot what's going to happen in reality is those individuals are not going to go to that service they'll probably go to the second service which we also know is less well attended I didn't need Applause for that all right but all right but but anyway all right but but please please please both sides listen y we need some decorum here both sides I don't want to hear any more CL youo I've got the floor M please continue Mr than thank you wish we're not Mr Sax before I would I would appreciate both sides not clapping we have to keep on on on schedule and we don't need any interruptions we need to get a solid report from our court court sonographer so please thank you anyway the the bottom line and I think Mr mcdunn has testified to this and I'll ask him again do we need a variance for the use of the ritual Hall no we don't correct we have 166 parking spaces based upon and by the way I apologize that you don't have the revised plans of July 11 2024 because if you had them in front of you that would answer a lot of questions we did deliver them to the town for some reason you don't have them that's fine we'll make sure that you get them tomorrow all right so that you'll have they'll you'll have them in front of you and you can make an educated decision when there's ultimately this application does get adjudicated um but the bottom line is that there are safeguards in place we're not going to have vehicles trying to navigate a parking lot when it's full when it's full you're not going to that service all right and sir your testimony is that everybody that comes to that service that can't get in is going home I would say so Mr chairman all right there's another what happens when they overflow into the residential neighborhoods we will agree to put signage up all right we will we will regulate it we don't want to be a bad neighbor we want to be a good neighbor now again of course I appreciate excuse me again please Mr chairman I have to tell you I I just want to make a comment I mean it maybe it's just endemic of society today but I I would appreciate some civility this is a quasi judicial Hearing in front of this board all right and we need to establish a record now the people who are making comments they can make whatever comments they'd like but it's affecting the ability of the court reporter to get this down accurately I understand this and i' I've tried on both sides I appreciate it and I've asked you again please um all right I don't have anything else to say I think I've covered what I needed to say Mr mull Mr Fishinger um what's the effective impact of having police direct traffic does that create issues in and of itself detriments it can I mean obviously every location is specific and I don't know that it was actually covered in Mr stimmel's testimony one of my questions was the effect putting a police officer out there would have on ernston road obvious viously that would allow vehicles to enter and leave the site easier but whether or not that would cause backups on erston road to increase is still an outstanding issue um so yes that that like everything else the it's a tradeoff it could back up ernston road further thank you anybody else bar your light on Mr Mr chair I just going back to my comments before I would just ask that um Mr saak bring Mr mcdna back once we have the full plans and we know what the the full uh um parking requirements are and if there's any disputes regarding that Mr Sax you have a problem with that I have no objection to that thank you very much anybody else have any plan questions to the planner go ahead oh well actually I'm still and I know we've started to go over this I'm still confused John on which in your professional opinion what is the a the correct number of to convert number of people or congregants parishioners whatever to number of Park needed parking spaces because we have test the ordinance says that's three PE persons per vehicle your testimony your own traffic engineer says it's 1.38 which is correct because if you're assuming the ordinance number is correct you have enough parking but if you assume the testimony of your own traffic engineer of actual real world conditions of this congregation then you don't have enough parking for 454 people how do you reconcile those two which is the correct standard I would have to go back and listen to Bill's testimony about that 1.38 and the context of what it was used within um again the one per three is what I typically see as a planning standard no I it sounds like you're coming back so there will be time to confer with Mr siml I'm sure sounds like there's a few things we'll reconcile anybody else have anything now before I open to the public the only questions we're going to take tonight from the public from either side are traffic and planning nothing else and remind you that is quarter after 10 at 11:00 we end motion open to the public make a motion to open to the public motion do I have a second second second second all in favor I I all right you had your hand up first go to the mic state state your name and where you live spell your name too for the court good evening my name is Osman spelled o m an last name is Zaman Z like zebra a m an 418 Main Street cille New Jersey um this is a question for the applicant if druma prayer does go over occupancy I don't I don't know if uh the traffic engineer could answer that or the planner I mean that's the only testimony we provided this evening I I could get back to I could get back to on that issue Mr chairman I I I don't know the answer to that remember we're talking about traffic and planning I'm I brought it up because it was part of the traffic um I have a question for the board when you guys are discuss ing how many people are going to be at a prayer or a service reference back and forth between Peak which is considered Juma on Peak which is considered right now following the testimony how does the board want to segregate that so that the rest of us citizens understand why you're asking in such close proximity to each other because a board member will ask what is the occupancy of Juma which is a Friday prayer and immediately jump back to what about the rest of the week what about a funeral service and then jump back to okay you answered that question now you're back here right so as a citizen and I will disclaim I'm part of the congregation here it is a it is just as hard for you guys to follow as it is for US citizens to follow um so if the if a board member could answer how do you want that broken out I I yeah I'm I'm sorry I I I hear your question I'm not really sure how it can be answered the questions from the board members are asked based upon the testimony that is brought to them it there's definitely times that the board members may be asking the same question again because maybe a different testimony might have brought up that a question or an issue or or you know they might have forgotten the testimony so they're re questioning it um I mean this board is wants to know what the peak demand is for parking and attendance for all services um and that's some of the one of the things that we were asking because this board might not fully understand what th that demand is what those services are which Services have a higher demand than others what times of those Services that's what and I think your the the applicant's attorney is going to provide a a document that's going to help this board but without having that sometimes the questions do get reased because they don't know and we're trying to get that information thank you that's all I wanted was the clarification it I think it was hard for everyone go my time's up I have one more question are you done no I had one more question okay I'm sorry I was saying that was it for that question I thought you were done no uh one more thing I've been following these hearings since uh whenever they began in close to the beginning of the year and um I believe the board members are asking people to park ratio and from within my own memory and notes and I can't quote what hearing it was but we did the the applicant did provide testimony of what the congregation currently is and that was an issue because it might grow and when plans and people people to parking spots was adjusted we're now going back to whether it's needed or not so if the board can also clarify that so that we can follow along too because we're going from okay this was your congregation number to the applicant and they testified to that and what they needed for that and then we grew to like okay how much are you expected to grow now and make testimony on that which caused confusion and now we're com circling back to like wait why are you giving us this higher number but to my logic what I'm understanding is that there is a congregation number and the first problem was why is the building so big for that congregation and now it's because this is a traffic hearing why is the building so big and what how many spots are needed for it but one question is leading to a different set of plans that's leading to another question and then the board is circling back around and the public is circling back around from both sides I'm not singling anyone out to what how these questions are being answered so I just wanted to know if the applicant or the board could just you know be like this is the number we need and this is where it's going to go and then if there is alternate plans needed then are you is the board willing to accept the applicant to have different number of plans and can the applicant provide us with different number of plans like a and C that would be reviewed uh just initially I'm just going to start with the point of clarification because this is actually technically supposed to be questions of the applicants witnesses that were presented not questions of this board there will be opportunity at the very end to ask questions or comments generally right now technically I'm going to address your question but technically it's supposed to just be of the witnesses that were presented of the applicant this is not a questioning of the boards will respond just to that to point because it is a valid point that is part of the issue that the board is having as well and even the board's professional is trying to understand because there has been different revisions of the plans in fact uh the applicant acknowledges that there is a a version of the plans that the board actually doesn't have you know it was dropped so there is a confusion and that's why we're kind of circling around because you know the board's hearing one testimony here testimony there that might be slightly different and we're trying to figure out what the final number uh there was some questioning of the planner as to to need versus what is being proposed because that goes to planning justification for a variant that doesn't go for for necessarily what is being proposed is whether or not you should be proposing or not it was a question more for planning as to justification for uh for the variant is whether that's good planning or bad planning and and supporting of the variant so it's a different question than just saying do you you know you shouldn't be asking for that type of space that's thought was the question no problem but but I'm asking for cl apption for both sides right and it is it is confusing over here as it is there and I have one last question for SP parking Mr Lou I believe his name is and I wanted to know you said your minimum Staffing versus optimal Staffing um they were below and above ground and we kind of understand the below ground would need some kind of training to operate the lifts uh shuttle the cars or valet the cars but could you answer what the above ground is doing and if they actually did not exist to one of your questions would it actually stop usage of the lifts or could operations still happen without the two people or three people above ground got to come back up you got to come back up and take the mic and you're done with your questions right yeah this is okay thank you um so I spoke to three people above ground generally they they would be directing traffic and sort of screening vehicles uh previously we spoke of oversized Vehicles parking up top for example um generally I would say that we could do with two three is ideal um but no it would not it would not stop the operation so those are not required one would not losing one would not be Mission critical two would be you know a decent number stick out thank you you and then you I did call on you I didn't know she was waiting it you figure it out go ahead hi my name is Lisa Michelle I live on Main Street um I'm finding a very hard time understanding how any traffic study can approve increased traffic on ernston Road in any capacity I've grown up here my entire life and I think that um people are putting their heads in the sand regarding the impact that the traffic will have I also find to the previous speaker it is very difficult to follow all of this um because every every time we come here there's something different there's something added um so I'm not even sure where we're at with this I don't understand why um you're not planning for the future any business plan has projections we are going through a lot of effort you're going through a lot of effort a lot of expense for 44 square 44,000 square foot property and we're focusing on Friday you're not building a 44,000 sqare foot property just to accommodate Friday you're building it to accommodate 7 days a week 12 months out of the year I cannot imagine that this community center and religious site will remain empty and not being used they there is no clarity as to how this building would be used and I don't understand how we've gotten this far without any clear planning as to the use of this building there has to be projections I believe Mr sack said when he comes back that he will have a I understand that but DET people have been here it's 10 it's 10:15 you guys have put in a lot of time you guys have been here all night this is ridiculous at this point this far into the process nobody knows what is being proposed and why and now we're quibbling over parking spots like this we don't need a variance we don't need a variance well a 5,000 square foot property for Madison Park is sufficient for the M for the for the main purpose of this site but we need a 44 square foot commercial property with underground parking that a 5,000 foot property would would accommodate reducing the size of this building or buildings would would alleviate concerns that I guess we're not allowed to address just yet and I think that we all deserve an opportunity to get an overview of this from start to finish because listening to that there might be activity in the evenings whether on the weekend or during the week I do not think particularly when you're talking about the general purpose the inherent beneficial use and general promotion of general welfare I do not think that it is in the promotion of the general welfare or an inherently beneficial use to impose a 44,000 square foot commercial size site on these residents I don't care if it's a supermarket I don't care if it's a church a synagogue a mosque an Amazon Hub is inappro it is a square peg and a round hole there are plenty of you have not asked a question yet this is for questions of the witnesses when are we going to get a holistic view of what this property is being planned for any business plan has projections they keep saying we don't know we don't know we don't know they don't need 44,000 square feet to accommodate 3 400 people this this is the time for question being disingenuous about their planning and their future use of the site it's what what are the why are they trying to acquire additional property for future growth you're out of order right now this is once again this is questions of the witnesses um just go ahead and then you good evening my name is Joe caresan 322 ernston Road I live across the street um I have a question for the planner actually oh did he step out no he's here um was reading through the sville municipal land use on page 173 code 2665 under environmental impact assessment Alternatives in section f a discussion of site design and project location Alternatives that were considered shall be provided shall indicate indicate why an alternative was rejected if it would have less of a negative impact than the proposed development it's my understanding they showed about 10 properties to you guys and you declined them all now if it showed less of a negative impact you have to give a really good reason other than well we just bought the property there because I think that's what Mr sack said in a previous meeting so like what's the reason for turning down all these alternate sites that were presented first of all I don't know about the alternate sites I wasn't inv I thought you were the planner oh I I am I can tell you what the law tells me in terms of that consideration of availability of alternate sites is not reason for denial of a variance application yeah but it says that you must provide a a good re a reason why these were declined if it shows less of a negative impact on the community I.E ernston Road samsel school they push the the prayer times up now uh samsil gets out half day at 1:15 and I think they said their second prayer services at 1:20 so half days on Fridays it's going to be gridlocked how do how do we accommodate that it sounds to me like what you're reading from as part of an environmental impact statement or a community seral Municipal land use code yeah and this application has been deemed complete to the extent that's in there um I've given you the reason why I don't consider alternate sites as part of my planning conclusions my planning analysis relates to this use on this property here and based on all the evidence my conclusion it's not going to cause a substantially adverse terms of traffic parking circulation environmental um and all of the things that zoning is intended to protect this application lines up very well with the ordinance which those controls are put in to protect the public okay um all right I guess we're not getting answers on that uh because you weren't involved with that I wasn't involved Mr do you have an answer for that I'm not testifying so oh but you gave a lot of test okay gave a lot of testimony um so um my next question is the hours we're going to have hour We're going to have the hours of operation next meeting yeah we we did provide hours at the April meeting but we'll I know that you wanted more clarity yeah something right like you know well the board wanted more clarity as to the hours and the uses of the particular rooms and we'll provide that okay um also we didn't really touch on the weddings and funerals I thought in the beginning of all this they said they weren't having that now all of a sudden they're saying we're having sir what they what they had testified was that ritual activity uh certainly funerals wer car if you look at the plan it provides for be polite and say uh an area for the transportation of a deceased right so what's Peak look like and and so it ritual funeral ritual wedding will take place where the witness testified is that there will not be receptions or we might refer to as a repass or activities such as is that at the site and they and and if the application were to be granted I believe that the applicant has already represented that they would agree that that would be a condition of any application is that correct Mr s correct okay um um I got one other question we still haven't found a good comparison to other mosques around this size in New Jersey about 44,000 square fet like Cranberry Road or you know like as far as their traffic patterns and do we have a comparison at all we have submitted Counts from two other mosques uh we did that with the understanding that the data there was going to be used towards establishing how many occupants are in each vehicle so we tried to go with something in relatively close proximity we we counted the site when it was an operation we counted the site at the fire hall we've had a to be honest with you difficulty in finding an Apples to Apples match because it's not only the size of the overall building it's providing the same amenities being along the same road and then also demographically similar to ernston road so um from my analysis uh and in my professional opinion I leave the data collected at the site and at the fireh hall is more relevant than something three Towns over which is a different size and a on a different type of roadway and has different U amenities included within it so it's not and I had said this to the board before it's not something where you've got a million different um coffee establishments and you can find one that's pretty close uh you know here mosques are fewer and further in between okay uh what about buses did we do we land that there will be busing for like maybe the children or for other people to come in is there going to be buses going onto that property well children are going to be transported by their parents so that that's for Sunday school all right so no buses then no buses for children uh I think we spoke about buses um we spoke about buses perhaps if there's a need for off-site parking for Ramadan um and we'll clarify that in our correspondence to you right Mr saaks one other question if I can butt in there's a there's a mosque on Cranberry Road in East brunic is that too far away no the mosque there's a mosque on on Dunham's Corner Road in East Brunswick which we did analyze well the one on Cranbury Road is rather New Y it's in between the new warehouses it's the road that goes Road road is it's it's not a mosque it's a it's a it's a Hindu temple is it my mistake my mistake yeah it's a cranberry in 522 is is that different uses it's a different religion yeah I know it's a different Religion different yeah traffic study that's all I'm asking is it's got different Dynamics I don't know the particulars of how it operates um yeah so Ramadan is going to be held at this site because you originally said it was going to be off site no we said that the uh the holy days which are Eid and several other days would be conducted off site and I don't know wait wait wait stop please stop please stop I'm trying to talk here I just want to know like what does Peak at Ramadan look like the how late does Ramadan run because it operated across the street from my house and it was all hours of the night just so and I I want to ask the board am I allowed to submit photos because I have a lot of evidence of what happened when they were operating you Mr chairman if I may after the inclusion of their testimony so when they're done they essentially rest for lack of a better term then it gets opened up to public comment okay General you're not limited to testim just questioning testimony and you can present exhibits at that time you have to provide copies to the applicant as well so they can make any objections or comments to those but yes at that time you can provide evidence or or other documentation to the board excellent excellent uh one last thing and I'll I'll leave I just wanted to speak to the variances a little a little bit and they're talking about the one variance you know we just need the one variance for parking but there also was a variance for a de acceleration Lane that was highly recommended by the county probably because it's going to impact traffic and that's another variance and there was a variance on the sidewalks and there's a variance on the height of the building I mean how many Varian is you know before it's too many only talking about the the variants related to the deceleration Lane we had talked to the county about the possibility of providing a deceleration Lane and they didn't want it at this location yeah they said it wasn't viable because we didn't have the space to open the street but they proposed it originally just food for thought thank you gentlemen well come up to the mic introduce yourself and wait wait he's saying he Mr jery saying he has comments not questions so this is not a time for comments for question questions go ahead good evening Michael K 12 Von Street Parlin uh questions for the planner U plenty of questions for parking but without the details that were supposed to be produced this evening from the last evening commitment didn't show up it's questions missing are you not seeking two variances one for 16 in the 50 Foot setback and one for a shortage of overall parking spots a relief for the number of parking for the parking Supply and what was the second one setback parking in the setback parking in the front yes correct so is that not to I'd have to go back and check if the parking location was a a design exception it might have been called out in the um Engineers report as a design it's variances in design exceptions are two different things the variance has a stricter test yeah if the variance I'm assuming I'm using the word variance so I could be wrong for the 16 spots on erston road setback is not granted you agree that there's 29 less parking spots on the property if the variance I'm sorry there are 16 less there are 29 on the surface line the variance for or the relief I'll say for parking location yes there would be fewer on-site parking yep what's the planned life of this project how long is this building MOS you going to be I don't know I'm not an architect it looks pretty solid to me when when does your responsibility end probably never okay if the this application was approved when would the building open I don't know uh laws changing projects future planning we have new law coming into effect in 2027 for the sale of electric vehicles zero emission Vehicles who's why whose commitment is it to park oversized and electric vehicles on the ground lck is that by code or is that by preference I and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but we have state regulations with respect to EV electric vehicle parking and this application is not asking for any relief in that regard so for overall population of vehicles coming to this we can discuss parking that's been infin item without square footage being documented there's no math calculations that can take place to have an educated conversation regarding that so I'll leave that alone however in 2020 model year 2027 which starts in 2026 Advanced Clean Car number two is the law in New Jersey which mandates 30 7% of all light Vehicles sold in New Jersey be electric which escalates to 100% in 2035 how do you plan to use 29 parking spots on the surface to answer any of the responsibilities of the overall parking of either 151 or 196 or 367 or 418 that's yet to be documented I'll give you the planning answer there's probably a traffic answer I see Bill writing your numbers down over there the applicant has provided a plan based on the what it believes the actual Supply the actual demand will be for this site now and in in in the future now in the foreseeable future if that changes going forward I'm sure this applicant will be back in front of this board for some form of an amended site plan the future either but I can go by the mandates in state law that there will be no internal combustion engines sold in New Jersey in 2035 which begins in two years that we don't have sufficient parking on 29 parking spots to fulfill the obligation either 151 or 196 yeah Mr chairman I I these are questions of this witness but it's based on their testimony I I don't think they can answer any questions that are outside of what they testified before this so is that the traffic engineer it well it's a question it would be a it's a traffic question but I don't think it's it's just a lot of speculation about future laws and requirements that this applicant might not even be required to because they may be grandfathered in because they've already got the approval so I I I I I was letting you go forward with the question I wasn't interrupting you before but I think it's kind of going down a line that it's just a little bit uh too speculative to really it's been enacted it is going to it is in effect and if you uh I left it over there with the code numbers I can gladly submit it it's a law it's in effect it's not speculation it's effect no no speculation as to how it may have to be the site would have to be designed for planning purposes for that that's my was my point with that not that the law was speculative okay that's it no I have okay uh parking parking queue we had that's you or that's a parking traffic engine 25 Vehicles parked in a queue on a drawing that we don't have the drawings I have from February submitt are clearly indicated as a flow what sounds to me like what's being testified is q for parking is on c-09 L clearly identified as firr access I don't see a dual purpose area sufficient for both which one is it is it parking queue or is it fire Tru access chairman I I can respond to that we'll we'll provide we've already indicated we're going to provide a separate exhibit in which will delineate the queue I believe we already provided A firet TRU template if I'm not mistaken c09 but it did not have an overlay of parking queue on it um is it your intention to add sidewalk as requested by middlex county from ernston road to the front of the facility I I don't know that I didn't testify to sidewalks em you want to answer that yeah I thought the uh request for the sidewalk from ernston road to the front of the building was a comment from uh Mr Cornell or or possibly Mr Fishinger as well um the applicant is open to providing that sidewalk subject to the approval from the county so 1124 middle County page two number 18 County's Vision zero action plan clearly ask for it so the applicant is open to providing that sidewalk if the county is okay with it will that reduce the amount of parking on the ground level that would require a revision to the plan I can't tell you that on the Fly do you intend to create the change the head-to-head parking to what is requested and specified by the township ordinance I'm I'm not following you for the detail I believe there's no head-to-head parking I believe there're supposed to be an island between parking this question why are there no Islands on correct to optimize and maximize the perimeter grading the perimeter Landscaping we've sacrificed the internal parking Landscaping in favor of having a better frame around the development U parking quebe and the operation interaction with the parking service provider where do the people wait for their cars and are their side walks to get for them from the building to their cars or are they walking through traffic I I believe testimony to that issue was provided by the um representative from the ballet operator and I don't want to step on what they said so I would have to defer to them I did not speak about it uh they deferred to a future drawing depicting cars parked along the front of the building that was not provided for this evening so it's another open-ended requirement or request I don't think that was requested for this meeting but the applicant has said that they would provide a queuing exhibit I did a quick sketch there's no rigorous engineering I took a scale and measured 20 foot lengths to show the position of cars but it's just a quick I didn't question your 25 Q I questioned the access to the cars parked in the queue I mean I'm not sure what the issue is it looks like their sidewalk all along the front of the building adjas to the area where the cars would be queued um the the the where the queue wraps around along the Westerly edge of the property the the people would walk alongside the parking stalls to get to the front of the building depending on the revision to the plan that shows the location of the sidewalk between ernston Road and the front of the building they may be able to use that sidewalk as well if you have sufficient parking spaces for the attendees of the services where is the float between the two Services where are they to wait when the parking lot is full where are the is the queue between the two Services going to be there's they had tested uh they testified last time September that it would be first in first out and was the intention of the operator to actually preload the cars out in front of the building is what I derived from the testimony what happens to the ones coming in The Proposal is to have the two Services separated by an hour the first service will and an hour later the second service will begin in the first half hour of that period roughly speaking the cars from the first service will leave the site in the second half hour of that 1eh hour break the cars for the second service will come into the property um based on the counts that have been done at the fire hall about two-thirds of the people coming to the property would be going to the first service so we do not anticipate that the lifts would be needed for the second service so it does simplify the operation for the second service a little bit except if the first cars are up in the air and the second service is parked under them how does the first service get down so they become inoperable and nonv value added for the second session if the first session is full on the bottom that I I don't think that's how it's going to operate I think the cars are going to go up on the lifts first for the first service and then park underneath so then when the first people come out first service attendees leave and the second service people is Park beneath them how does the lift come down on top of that car the there's going to be an hour gap all the cars except for employees are going to leave the site between Services the cars for the second service are going to come in so the lifts will be unloaded there was testimony that if the parking lot was full they would be asked to go home and circle back and come later on so if there's 25 Q available and the street is full the parking lot queue is full and the police officers direct them somewhere else and they decide to go home and they know that this service will be done in one hour and they have an hour break they will come back in addition to the people who were intending to come to the second service do you not see an overload on the second service coming into at the time as well I I I don't follow your question I feel like I've answered it three times I I must be missing what you're trying to tell me I don't foresee an issue between cars exiting the first service and cars coming into the second service sorry testimony was given anywhere between one and a half to four minutes per car right now Tony no it it was about 90 seconds per car was the testimony so 121 parking spots available under the deck right divided by 90 seconds multip multiply by 90 seconds divided by the number of different teams that are bringing cars in and out of the garage it it's think about it this way if it takes five minutes to get through the checkout at chopr right you don't have a hundred people waiting in line for five minutes to get out you have multiple checkout lanes open you don't quite have the same situation but you are processing multiple channels here because you've got multiple teams bringing cars in and out of the parking garage do you not have one delegated exit on the on the holidays the high volume I thought you were closing one and making a single entrance and a single exit it's going to be single entrance for the first period when the lifts are in use and the cues are wrapping around into that area but there's not going to be any cars exiting at that time at the end of the service the cars are going to be able to use both exits and we are not anti ipating that they'll need the lifts for the second service okay that's your testimony I would beg to differ but that I'll I don't want to take it up thank you very much member it's St of Carol Esposito uh six Lova Road parl um my question was about the police so I'm not sure who answers that are you hiring police to to D direct the traffic or is it auxiliary police traffic directors uniform police traffic directors is there a signed agreement with the seral police department there will be and there'll be a condition if in fact this application acted favorably that that would be the case so at this time there's not a signed agreement right no okay um will the police have their lights on while they're doing the the traffic I don't know what police protocol is if it requires them to have their light on they certainly would have them on okay when the traffic study was discussed um was Oldbridge Glenwood green considered that development will have thousands of homes and development's already in process and that development connects will be connecting to Waterworks Road and Cheesequake Road was that development considered in as discussed we contacted both Oldbridge and sville Zoning officials and they both told us that there were no projects in planning or in construction which would should be factored into our traffic step we do account we did look at the Arsenal study which was provided uh Mr Cornell is going to provide two additional studies which we'll take a look at but we did not specifically include those or any other studies of other developments in our analysis we did include a background growth rate which increases the traffic volumes by 2.75% annually over what's there now so over two years it's 5.58% if I remember my math correctly so we did increase the traffic in the area by 5.58% and that's how we accounted for background traffic growth okay so what's really unique about this project though is you're bordering Two Towns you're on the edge of cille you're on the edge of Oldbridge so some of these projects are part of Oldbridge that are not necess like the Arsenal which I'm not even sure what that is is that's part of cerebel so I'm not sure what the question was what was the let me ask that as a question what was the question that you asked the seral or the old Bridge planning board about what projects were you asking what projects are being built on road for a 5 mile radius I called the zoning board official in seille I called the zoning board official in Oldbridge I told them I was doing a traffic study for the proposed Mosk at 216 ernston Road and asked if there were any other traffic studies for other projects in planning or in construction that I should include in my analysis and they said no so you didn't ask about like a certain mile radius any projects that were right so just okay any any projects that I should consider so then when the traffic counts were done at the Madison Park Firehouse were the cars that Park in the Madison Park neighborhood counted we were specifically counting the driveway the the parking lots adjacent to the Madison Park Firehouse so cars that Park in the neighborhood were not counted there was not a countd done of cars parked in the neighborhood no okay um and then I'm not sure if this is part of this as well but um to clarify the use that it was been discussed that nothing was going to be happening in the afternoon Rush Hour however um in April Mr Sax testified that there's school activities in after school activity for prayer for prayer study for the children that occurs between 5 and 6m on Monday through Thursday so can somebody just clarify that how 5: to 6:00 p.m. is not part of rush hour traffic my understanding is that the daily prayers which occur and I'm the last person person to speak about the religious aspect of it but there's daily prayers which occur multiple times a day and those can overlap with the morning and evening peak hours so or Peak periods so typically 7: to 9 in the morning 400 to 6 in the afternoon those are much smaller than the Friday prayer services which are the focus of the traffic study it's something like a third or probably less the amount of traffic right so aside from that there's no other activities occurring during those peak hours okay but that's not what Mr sa said and that's also what's not advertised um through the mosque um last question is there anybody that can actually explain the valy process so if I pull up to check in my car I leave my car there's three people up on the surface directing traffic there's seven people underneath doing whatever how does my car get Underground when the guy comes up is he running up the street like how long does it take for him to come up and get the next car like can somebody actually explain that process there was extensive testimony provided regarding the valet operation at the last meeting and there was an opportunity to ask questions then I I I'm not the valet expert I'm the traffic engineer so I can't answer that for you all right we have time for one more good evening my name is imas CA i m t i a z i m t like Tom I a z last name s i a m w lla uh I'm from 8505 Hannah Road Edison 8505 Hannah Road in Edison so uh since uh we are only talking about uh traffic and parking related issues I'll just address those and leave everything else that I had in mind well let me just clarify we're not talking about this is questions of the witnesses so if you have a statement or something that's not for tonight it's just questions of their Witnesses relating to those okay so let me uh just I think the board had a question in reference to uh parking off of herse so um that is what uh I would like to uh talk about and the reason I think I can talk ask a question we don't want to hear you talking about something either you have a question or you have a comment and what we're what we're getting at at this late hour do you have a question before this board there is no question but it will give Clarity to the board basically that that comes at the end when the public comment comes in fair enough all right go ahead last one kind of quick Jennifer Edwards 10 Vincent Street Harlin Vincent okay so um just to follow up on the question that was asked so last meeting there was extensive um testimony given about the valet parking um and during that testimony it was discussed that Vehicles over 6,000 pounds would not be allowed and uh on the lifts and also electric vehicles would not be allowed under the building uh my question is currently currently so this is not future this is not speculation um but currently seven of the 10 um best-selling Vehicles as of last year 2023 are electric vehicles or trucks how do you anticipate covering the need for parking um with that in mind because if electric vehicles cannot go under the building and trucks cannot go on the lifts potentially can't fit under the lifts I don't have any information on the number of electric vehicles and trucks currently among the top 10 selling vehicles uh what I can tell you is that the intention is to have the larger Vehicles handicap Vehicles Park in the surface area um I don't recall the comment about electric vehicles but the the uh the site is designed to accommodate the volume of traffic we're anticipating to accommodate the amount of parking we did not look at the constitution of the vehicles as the services currently exist at the fireh hall and I don't know that there is um you know any requirement I think it's out of an abundance of caution that the applicant is saying that the electric vehicles will be parked at outside don't we still have the parking guy here is he's the one that said it can we call him back up to answer the question Mr chairman I think we went through this at the last hearing I mean obviously our our test we didn't all get a a chance to ask our questions last time so what what is your specific question he's certainly here but what what is your question because I if it was addressed at the last hearing I don't think there's a need to rehash it my recollection of his testimony is that electric vehicles would be parked outside and larger Vehicles would be parked outside as well so I guess my question is then if seven of or 70% of the new cars being sold are not going to work with lifts or potentially be parked underground how are the 45 total or 43 I don't know exactly what the number is uh spots outside going to accommodate the need for parking we're going to have uh and and again the 10year plan how is that going to be accommodated I'm not sure that's something the valet could answer secondly Mr chairman I don't know I don't excuse me again I I I can I go ahead finish please thank you I don't think this board can take judicial notice of anything regarding what the seven top 10 seven out of the top 10 vehicles are our testimony was that electric vehicles will be will be parked outside and that the larger Vehicles will not be on top of a lift I mean so my question is uh whether or not that 40 those 45 spots are going to be sufficient in any way um additional question uh just for the traffic person um so Sams samil upper elementary school early dismissal is 100 PM um and elementary schools are let out at 1:35 which both fall into that window between 1 and 2 p.m. has it ever been considered to do a traffic study that includes early dismissal no the uh school is scheduled to H the samsil school is scheduled to have two early dismissals on Friday this school year um there were from my recollection five or six Fridays where there was no school from the September to June school year and then the entire summer there off so will it occur on occasion yes is it a significant issue no it it's going to be far outweighed by the number of Fridays when there's no school at all understood that it's not going to be a common occurrence but it is very very very bad at 1M on those early dismissal days um last question um if police are directing traffic where are they going to park their car we have a one lane in each Direction Road and where is their car going to go I I'm sure they'll find a place I'm completely confident of that I'm sure they will yes thank you all right thank you very much thank you that then Ends Tonight um motion to adj oh is he done Larry ready what you have anything Larry no Mr chairman I think we probably just need to set a date for uh the next hearing all right at that the next open meeting that we have is um November 6th would you no I think we I think I may have discussed with Beth uh the meeting after that would be December 4th all right I have a personal problem with December 4th I get my knee operated on that day I have no problem giving it to the vice chair I just want everybody to know that if we have it on December 4th you won't see me here okay and if it goes on to anywhere else I mean if I can hook up to these guys I will during the course of that meeting but this is an operation I've put off for two two years just happens to be that day so stand Mr chairman right what's our what's our pleasure I I can make the 15th of January if I got to get crawled up there is there another meeting in December no that's it Mr chairman why don't we list it now for December 4th and if we if there's an issue I have no problem with that I just want to be up front with everybody I mean I've sat here as long as and I don't want to go through this but my next operation is in the end of February and that messes up Spring Golf so that's not happening so uh I I think for what we're hearing is we're going to the the public hearing is going to be carried to the December 4th 2024 planning board meeting uh if there is a reason that we need to adjourn it or or further then uh either at that meeting uh notice will be provided to the public that it is being carried further if uh that meeting doesn't go forward for some whatever reason then they would have to be R noticing for the next following meeting but the as of right now the public hearing on this application is being carried to the December 4th hearing uh excuse me planning board meeting and no further public notice is required thank you same time and it'll be at 7:30 and it will be at this location open up to the public I make a motion to open up to the public second do I have a second all in favor I anybody from the public like to speak not on this application this is just general comments General comments on anything it can't be on this application on this anybody like to speak go ahead am I allow to speak or you finish today we're not finished excuse me everyone sorry Mr chairman we're still the public meeting is actually still going on so if you have any conversations please take it outside right now we are on public comment for any items outside of the jurisic of this application not any pending application just any general comments uh within this board's jurisdiction questions regarding plan future developments other items can't be about this application or any other pending application I have a comment regarding the application well no that's not this that's not this public comment period it's not under that anybody else have any uh you'll get your chance it's just not now can I say something to you I just no no that's it's not appropriate to hear outside the public hearing on the application it's inappropriate for this board to hear comments outside of the actual public hearing of the app anybody else have any questions of this board under go ahead actually it's not a question I it's only one point regarding the interruption that is being happened every time so I'm just kindly ask you please to use your uh jurisdiction in order to control this please starting from next meeting at least we have the people here from the law enforcement so we can have better control on this please thank you you're welcome anybody else have any comments having none I'll make a motion I need a motion to close make a motion to close to the public second having a second and hearing no uh repeats can can I have a roll call all in favor any opposed the eyes have it thank you take a motion to adjourn make a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn second all in favor everybody December 4th e for