on behalf of the members of the planning board and our professionals I'd like to welcome you to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board this meeting is being held on March 19th 2025 at the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street
Sparta proceedings of the meeting are being livereamed on YouTube at www.youtube.compartwp the time is now 7:05 and this meeting is called to order please note that no new business will be conducted after 9:30 p.m and the meeting will end at 10
please stand and join as we proudly pledge our nation's flaggis with all okay um there are a couple things on the agenda that we're going to be taking out of order our attorney is running late so
we're going to be um starting with the updates um for town council and the various subcommittees um but before we do that I guess we have to do roll call yes ma'am and um then I'll tell you the other two
things were taken out of order got it janette Burke here ernie Ryan here brian Zimmerman here ron Day here chairwoman uh Joan Ferman here councilman Mark Scott here robert Blleley here vice Chairman
Robert Otto here bless Luciano here chris Dunber okay so before we even go to that I want to take one of the resolutions and we'll go back to the others later but I would like to take the resolution uh which is appointing Lindsay Knight as our new
planner just so we can get that business out of the way before we be you know begin with everything so you have the resolution in your packet it is resolution 2025-8 uh to appoint Lindseay Knight uh of
Neglia as the planning board planner i'll make a motion to approve Lindsay Knight as the planning board planning roll call please berke excuse me ernie Ragstead yes brian Zimmerman yes ron Day yes
chairwoman Joan Ferman yes councilman Mark Scott yes robert Blakeley yes and vice chairman Robert Otto yes i'm just going to see Mark if I can make it a little bit louder
sure you want to do that i don't think anybody can you can't hear him can you okay down there okay um so welcome Lindsay we're happy to have you on board and we look forward to working with you thank you
um the other thing that I will take out of order later is the uh the public hearing we'd like to hear Parisella first followed by Rams okay uh we'll move on to the updates and Mark um if you wouldn't mind if you can
start uh giving us the update from the town council sure uh at the last town council meeting the the town council considered the retail cannabis resolution and that's
obviously what we're talking about tonight here and the um the vote on this which I believe will be well attended um is April 8th at 700
p.m and so that'll be uh coming up also the uh film committee was formed and uh approved and so hopefully we'll be uh bringing films to Sparta soon we've got a really great committee of of some
really talented young people and I think that it's going to pay off the first part in the in the long term here and that's pretty much my report thank you right terrific thank you Rob Environmental Council uh we had a
speaker Lisa Cherello from Ruters um who went over plant this not that so native plantings non-invasives uh then we kind of got sidetracked uh a little bit about been a member of the public who had been at a
previous meeting so we kind of were talking about what did the deer don't like um and what could we plant that will be there the next morning so that was kind of interesting um I don't have any magic answers for you guys but then
it kind of got into uh I think we're going to be asking council to consider um there's a free program with the D where we can look at deer management options and potentially a cull so that
will be coming um we didn't have any applications um we're still working on Earth celebration more speakers um I know Margie Murphy is working on the s sustainable New Jersey land use pledge
um to bring that forward to town council uh we talked a little bit about Saltwatch and then we had a ordinance review a little bit um which is just kind of a lighting dark sky um type exercise to just see what environmental
could do to kind of streamline the process for applications and help uh do some of the heavy lifting um as applications come before planning zoning um so yeah that was it great thank you would you follow up with the um minor
site plan subcommittee oh I don't know how detailed getting there i mean we considered some signs and we uh we got through a lot i think we finally got caught up um and I'm catching up because I'm now um chairing
that committee so um if there's anyone on this committee that would be interested in learning a lot about uh design guidelines um and uh zone you know byzone restrictions I
would say you know consider joining minor site plan subcommittee uh I think we have one person that might be looking to vacate a seat and we'd love to have you um we typically would meet
uh one hour prior to this meeting um otherwise we kind of get stuff done over email so just um think about that any of you guys unplanning please um yeah I'm just looking for my copy of
that sorry uh what you just want me to go through all the various properties um so for February we uh [Music]
referred like how detailed Yeah i mean we referred several you know smoke shop to planning board uh right I mean Okay and uh restaurant um we're referring to the
planning board um for some considerations uh we're looking at uh some properties there's a there's been some turnover in White Dear Plaza and um so we're just trying to kind of claw back uh the guidelines that we have for
that area since it's a historic area so we've approved some new tenants there um a new two new signs there for new tenants um and we referred another property uh to the zoning department for
approval um and then yeah we're we're still trying to figure out one of them uh one of the uses we need a little more clarification um so
the February minutes were Oh yeah so so the February minutes were were approved and they're in our packets and what's that they'll go out with the minutes yeah so they'll they'll go out with the minutes um so we just just today um got
those together and approved them thank you yep um the master plan subcommittee met um March 6 the first Thursday in March and we pretty much rolled up our sleeves and got down to work looking at the tremendous amount of
responses that we had to the open-ended questions there were over a thousand responses to each one of the questions so um each member took one of the responses and went through all of the thousand some odd ones and uh looked
for basic themes and then ranked them in terms of what was highest in priority and uh highlighted it so we we're getting that together and at our next meeting we will uh be looking at the survey and then trying to um make a
recommendation as to how we want to uh go about contributing that to the uh larger community so we are well on our way to doing that now and Lindsay is going to be working with us uh with the master plan and Dave of course is always you know helping so we will um we're
moving forward now and we do have some funding so we're going to figure out the best way to use that funding as we uh we go ahead so that's it for the updates um why don't We do resolutions without an attorney
yeah let's do resolutions i I think you should do the minutes first because they he doesn't have to have Okay any comment on that good we'll go back to the minutes um I actually did have a question for him on the minute
um let's do resolutions okay we have resolution 2025-9 PB number 24725 NPS property holdings for at 9 Park Lake Road uh which is in the ED
zone um resolution was sent to everybody and that is also in your packets would anybody like to make a motion to approve that resolution i'll make motion to approve resolutions 2025-9
i'll second okay roll call please n Burke yes ron Day yes robert Bleley yes celeste Luciano yes ernie Ragstead yes vice Chairman Robot yes chairwoman Joan
Ferman okay the next one is 2025-10 PB686 Collineer Machine and Design at 11 Wilson Drive also in the ED zone somebody make a motion to approve that i'll make a motion thank you thank you
roll call bernie Rice yes robert Blakeley yes vice Chairman Robotto yes chairwoman Joan Furman yes ron Day yes janer yes yes all right thank you um all right i guess we'll do minutes
and I'm going to hold my question till the next time um we have the February 5th 2025 minutes motion to approve thank you second i'll second who is that ron yes thank you i'm
sorry all in favor i I Okay then we have the February 19th 2025 motion to approve okay that was with Ernie second i'll
second a motion okay all in favor okay march 5th 2025 motion please i'll make a motion to approve second okay point of discussion if I can
one minor changes um I think it's important that the record show that uh when the application was discussed that Ernie and I recuse ourselves from from there all in favor with that change say I i okay thank
you through a lot of stuff uh can we do the Sussex County of Sussex uh state plan cross acceptance and I'm going to defer to Lindsay on that but um no butts I'll just
defer um so the state has come out with a new redevelopment plan sparta is unique in the sense that um a decision has to be made by mayor and council to determine whether uh Sparta will be represented by Highlands Council
or by Sussex County um the state development redevelopment plan basically has asked each municipality to look through the state development redevelopment plan and determine if there are any consistencies with what is written in the plan um as well as their
mapping and then what is w written within the uh township's zoning ordinances master plans um zoning maps any kind of governing document um right now there is at this time we have not found any inconsistencies i'll be
putting together a memo to just kind of clarify if there are any additional um things that should be brought to our attention um but on a first look we did not find anything that was inconsistent however I'm going to do a little bit of a deeper dig and um find find fine-tune
a memo for you all just to determine if anything should be changed um there is a meeting on I believe the 28th where um the public is welcome to come out and voice anything that um any concerns anything they approve of um and that's
an opportunity to speak about the plan thank you so that's really I guess just for all of our information that this process is taking place and uh it is up to the town council to decide i did have one question what's the difference between being represented by the
Highlands Council or the County of Sussex because we have that option well I think it's we're automatically represented by the Highlands unless we request to have the county be and um guess that's really up to town council to make that decision
and I think that decision had to be made by the 15th so do we know if that was made or was not okay so that might automatically then um unless they accept something late that I don't know okay yeah it's unclear if they would accept
anything um late the county um that would take further correspondence with them um and then also just the Highlands Council representation doesn't matter if you're compliant or not thank you
um okay I was hoping Ken would be here for this one but we'll keep moving on for uh bylaws um just really wanted to bring that to your attention i know as a
new member and still learning I um always look for some answers and I tended to I found the site uh for the Livingston uh that has the bylaws and they're actually you know very
beneficial to look at they um outline everything they give you the general rules they go into details um and so I wanted you at least to take a look at it and Dory had worked for Chester Township she shared those as well so we have two sets here uh there
are plenty more out there but it was just to give you an idea of what is in bylaws and I'd like to make you know the recommendation that we also adopt bylaws for our board i think it will you know help everybody and particularly if you're new and even if you're not and it's also uh available for the public to
see and everybody will begin to understand the process a little bit better so we'd like to take a stab at that bring it back to you and um you know see if we can get that approved so I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it have any comments suggestions i just wanted to put it out
there so is is the intent to to maybe go forward and put together a set of bylaws and do we know that we don't have bylaws i I was surprised we don't we don't most towns do yeah but I know that came up once before and and it was kind of left that we have them we just got to find
them but they're out there which kind of says they're not though okay i don't know where they are um there's nothing in the manual we do not have bylaws for the board specifically okay is there a reason oversight or
I don't know i'm just curious if there people who've been here longer i I don't know yeah there there were there were not bylaws from the moment I took the original seat debbie Card had said that there were no bylaws um Diana our previous uh secretary she wasn't able to
find anything on record hope she was they were hoping that there was something that you know predated um COVID but yeah there was there was nothing all right so I'd just like to move forward with this and uh put it out there for us uh we can make it specific to Sparta i mean a lot of this is
general but it depends on the town some go into it a little more specifically and uh so we'll do like a first draft and then if you want to add anything or you have any suggestions you feel free and we'll we'll put it together all right thank you
well there's only one more thing we can do before the public hearing and that would be the uh master plan consistency review for the uh cannabis so I'm going to look to Lindsay to lead that discussion as
well um so this is a unique kind of consistency review um seeing as the legislation was recently changed um the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes
was approved in 2010 for recreational purposes in 2021 so many of the former planning documents don't address this particular use um so we went through kind of the zone and anything that
related back to the you uh a retail use or anything back to the zone um and kind of any kind of consistency one kind of theme across the board that was represented from 1984 comprehensive plan forward was to safeguard the tax base
preserve economic balance and provide for a continuing source of employment and tax ratables through appropriate use of existing and potential non-residential land um so this was just an additional retailer would just add a ratatable within the township um all of
this is very surface level um in the way that it could potentially be consistent with the master plan the 1997 town center master plan um amendment goals um established a balance of land use appropriately distributed based on an identified need this ordinance does have
a cap of two retailers in the township um and also has um which I'll touch on in the next uh piece it does have parameters of keeping distances from other businesses that would be seem to be inappropriate to be located um nearby
so that goes to the 2000 master plan re-examination report which is examined the economic and commercial zones to provide for a cluster provision for open space opportunities and buffers between land use designations so this ordinance does have buffers um which is keeping
from this use from things like wreck youth centers schools daycarees parks playgrounds similar uses like that um churches and then finally the 2002 amendments to the master plan goals and object objectives once again went back to kind of a fiscal responsibility of
balancing um the managing of residential and commercial growth so I added the note about the state taxes that are um put out by the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission um so there is a high tax value on this type of retail um
and the subsequent re-examination report since 2002 kind of agreed with the previous goals and objectives of previous plans but the most recent plan did not specifically touch upon the use of recreational marijuana
okay thank you um like to open it to the board at this point to um ask any questions um Celeste I want to start down with you so Lindsay um based on the fact that this this is this is all new and
obviously the the law wasn't really there previously and any and any re-examinations or whatever that were done don't really specifically speak to cannabis but in your professional view do you feel that this does or does not
align with what we have currently so a lot of um part of the re-examination reports just kind of from a statute uh statutory criteria standpoint um a lot of the re-examination reports you have to reflect on changes that have uh happened
at the state level so things like um EV charging those things get contemplated in the new re-examination reports um I did not see it contemplated in your most recent re-examination report um so I don't think it's something maybe that was contemplated when I do see these
types of ordinances um they do typically have buffers distances um specifically in more residential um oriented municipalities um do have these buffers where they do want to keep these businesses away from certain other um uses within the
municipality okay um so let me be more specific so in in your professional opinion do do you if you were to say yes this does or no this does not align with with current master
plan values what where would you fall on your assessment i would say that it hasn't been included in this specific use has not been directly identified um but by the same token typically these um plans are pretty generic and don't
always specify specific uses okay but um seeing in the most recent re-examination it did go back to the um it did go back and look what happened between the previous uh re-examination report and this most current one it does
not state does not even have an a section addressing the change in legislation okay thank you um just to make clear I know Ron you were bringing up this point too that it is not our job to say that we are for or
against this particular thing we are just looking to see if it's consistent with the master plan and if there you know anybody wants to voice any personal comments that would be at the town council meeting on April 8th
okay um Mark is dying to say something here so I'm gonna let you go Mark we'll swing back yeah joan I thank you very much um I I just wanted to
uh I don't know comment or or uh disagree possibly with with um the comment that this is a a big revenue generator uh big tax revenue generator
for the town uh just last year in 2024 [Music] uh revenues in New Jersey surpassed $1 billion if you take 7.2
million adults living in New Jersey that means the average person is smoking $138.90 a year of marijuana i just let's think about the demographics of Sparta versus maybe the
rest of the state so if $138 is being smoked by each person in Sparta uh or $138 being smoked by Yeah everyone in Sparta that would generate $2.80 80
in tax revenue per resident so we have 17,100 adults in our town times $280 per per resident for a year's worth of smoking that's $47,500
i am a little unclear as to exactly how bringing in $47,000 is going to exceed the additional
policing the changes in in property values the changes in in the demeanor and and the status of the town for $47,000 and so while it may be bringing in some tax
revenue I think it's actually a it it it it's not that beneficial i just wanted people to be aware of you know we better start huffing and puffing if we're going to bring in this $2.80 per person in town um that's all I have to
say right so are you suggesting that we strike that last um bullet point if you will from this consistency review if that's possible
yeah and the rest of the panel uh the board agrees with me well it's not really a bullet but the very last thing down there u where it says maintain a sound fiscal balance by managing residential and commercial growth Mark is saying that it's not
going to bring in that um type of revenue therefore um it may not be uh Mark Kenor speaking uh I don't have any problem with leaving the language in uh
with your reference to you know what the economics are but it is a uh generator it does affect economics so I would keep that in with the caveat of your analysis okay thank you may I just add something
i think it's important to source uh these numbers because if you look at the uh the Cannabis Regulatory Commission of New Jersey the official site um the numbers are in New Jersey a billion
dollars in 2024 so you know obviously it's we have to figure out where what these numbers where they're coming from maybe that's something better at town council maybe we'll take that up there my only
point is that if we're bringing up numbers here that this whole issue maybe better addressed on the ETH yeah joan could I add one more thing sure that I just wanted just wanted to mention i think the planning board uh
what we what we decided is that we're we're supposed to protect the citizens health safety and welfare and you know just in the past several weeks several months um several major articles have come out about how you
know there's a 25% increase in heart attacks a 42% increase in the likelihood of stroke you know using cannabis so I mean I'm not so sure how this helps the health
safety and welfare of our residents madam Chair may I Yeah to to your point we're not here to to assess the the valid the validity of
whether or not cannabis is a right thing to do or a wrong thing to do our sole goal here is to determine whether or not it is or is not in alignment with current master plan um that align currently aligned with the
master plan that we we have at this point in time um I I think that those other issues are better left to the hearing at the council because those are all hearing questions those are all we're not we're not hearing the hearing because we're not creating the law we're
just here for master plan consistency i think if we stay on point we'll be better suited to our time and the time of our agree we're going to ask something directly about it has to do with the master plan is is is this use
listed anywhere in our master plan it's not i understand it's a it's a new use but there's a whole lot of old uses that are specifically not listed on our master plan because we don't want them here so really it should I I would think this is a use that should be in the
master plan be allowed as a new use i I don't think it's consistent for that reason lindsay yes does that term health safety and welfare appear anywhere in the master plan the old master plan or
any addendums to um I didn't I didn't specifically look for that information when I did my um consistency review i kind of looked for the zones or anything related to certain uses and um like what was reiterated I didn't find this
specific use in any of the reports what what I would say board Kenpora for the record that implied in all legislation is public health safety and welfare and that it is if it's not expressed it's implied in your 1984 1997 2000 and 2002
master plan uh goals and objectives it has to be in there by way of implied intent however uh cannabis is relatively new uh legislation so therefore uh it would not have been contemplated in any
of the historic documents uh there is a presumption that if it's not stated that it's prohibited uh I don't think that applies to the cannabis it is a legal use uh as mentioned and I apologize for being late uh this is referred to you under your power of the planning board
you can accept it you can reject it or take no action whatsoever so it is here before you you have the memorandum from uh Lindsay dated March 17 2025 from Neglia Engineering where she went through her uh findings and it's up to
you to see whether or not you would like to uh find it consistent based upon the new legislation in law and refer uh again take no action uh make suggestions or uh give an affirmance uh for or
against thank you um with that being said can may I make a suggestion with regard to the 2000 master plan examination report i guess we'll see i don't know i had
some concerns about the buffers where it started out at 500 400 300 250 but now the 250 is doortodoor so um from a my point of view as a a planning board and the master plan um I
would like to suggest that they take another look at those buffers and then maybe it be from uh rather doortodoor but between properties is that something that we can recommend yes thank you so to hop on that yeah I I started looking at other
ordinances just to kind of see how how other towns done it i was curious and buffer is something the buffer zone was a question I had too i didn't know the justification for 250 ft versus the,000 ft and the door to door as well so I saw
it most typically I saw,000 ft property line to property line mhm um and if you're considering the property lines in question these sensitive areas daycare school whatever I mean they're typically surrounded by fields kids will be on
those so doortodoor I think is a flawed way to measure what however it's measured i don't think it should be doortodoor because the uses of those areas that you're going to buffer
from they they're not within the the building they're typically stretched out beyond to the extent of the property line so that would be Yeah exactly i thought of it as if you had a building and there was a daycare in the back and the rear yards were um ab budding and
there was 50 feet between them but you do door to door you're going out the front door to the left down the side around the other side and to the other door when it's still 50 feet so that would just be my one recommendation in that anybody else i mean I have more but
you have more uh so the idea is ratables mark kind of covered that um I guess uh as far I think Ernie was talking about uses um so
and then we've talked about how this wasn't really contemplated but there there are prohibited uses that are in the current code and I noticed that if you were to take a look at that and this is not master plan but again um it's it's within our code so for those
prohibited uses at least one of them referred to a regional survey so I guess a point there would be um to the identified need um is is the
need identified are we going off of the state vote results and then the question there might be people that voted to legalize or decriminalize but perhaps hadn't envisioned that that
would be the same as uh locating an establishment within a certain area so I I guess I'm curious if um we've demonst if
if the need has been demonstrated and if uh there was any vote that showed that this need was or that that this ordinance
was desired um by the community i think that's a good question for town council yeah I was going to say that definitely a good question for the hearing because it's also with this you know it says I mean I see it here is
an identified need I agree is an identified need so yeah I mean I'm not I'm not getting I'm just putting it out there is I I would like to see the identified need um certainly I I agree that there's to go any further into that
is probably town council um but can we add a sentence to that it says the ordinance has very specific requirements regarding location of the businesses and has a cap of two retailers in the township need
um needs to be determined yeah we could write something um specifying the demand yeah I think that would be great i have a question for Ken yes and it's my understanding that this classified license is also a license
that is issued to those that want to open a consumption lounge what would be the process looking into the future five six seven years for someone with
a class five dispensary recreational marijuana to expand and open another place that actually be consumption be a use variance the uh
municipality has very strong powers with regard to cannabis uh the ordinance can set forth all types of limit limitations they could even prohibit lounges if they wanted uh if the if it was not permitted
and cannabis is not permitted in that zone uh I'm not 100% sure that they could even go for I don't know that answer uh because it's it's regul it's regulated by the state and let's say the uh sparta says we'll allow two
establishments uh then you have two establishments you have the location the buffers and the like and let's say then they want to expand that permit a lounge if the initial legislation does not permit that in the licensing I'm not sure they could go
before land use board to get approval i think they'd have to go to the mayor and council to change the ordinance to get approval by the state cannabis division so I think I feel comfortable that whatever the mayor council's ordinance is that will be strictly enforced
but to your point right now sell a canvas that isn't approved in our master planes it's not a permitted use so we will be permitting a a use that's not permitted in our plan by the going
forward with this you know shouldn't maybe the better way of doing it is this should be incorporated in the master plan before this this go forward well in in days of old there was issues on adult entertainment there was issues of uh
other areas that uh municipalities uh put specific limitations let's say adult entertainment had first amendment rights uh so they utilized that in trying to get let's say use variances if it was contrary to the master plan and
they have a constitutional right here there is a legal right for cannabis as the analysis again is here for your review it's an evolving area it's so stringently regulated by the state of New Jersey that uh they do delegate to
the municipalities the as we've discussed the number of locations restricting locations on the land use so whether or not it is in compliance with the master plan I think that Lindsay has properly identified uh the economic
aspect of and I know Scott gave his his caution on that uh some on the in identify need some municipalities put out referendums uh in their municipality if they're for or against it uh the burough of Rutherford and Bergen County
did that uh maybe even Caucus had done at one point so that is one if the mayor and council chose to go there that's an option so is on-site consumption allowed
currently under class 5 no um but if am I understanding that if we adopt this as a class 5 the class 5 is uh written by and and controlled by the state so if we approved a class 5 and the state changed
the the rules the language on that would we then be uh subject to a use change no my my understanding is the class 5 license that issued by the state is issued to consumption lounges as well as dispensaries that we're talking about
now i'm just wondering at some point down the road if we wanted to change that class 5 from a dispensary to a consumption lounge what would the process be i mean they couldn't just do it they had to go before I'm guessing the zoning board for
or the uh cannabis ordinance could specifically uh prohibit and then uh leave the jurisdiction only with the mayor and council so I'm looking at the ordinance that is before you and that ordinance
does talk about um uh the identified marketplaces by way of the different uh uh different type of classes um and I'm looking at the uh the bottom line here to establish cannibis retail pursuant to the the
section so there is again the mayor and council are directing to you the ordinance that they are recommending the buffers by way of within schools and public so the ordinance is pretty specific that's in in front of you of where it can be permitted and not
permitted you know it's identified as ordinance of the township of uh Sparta uh permitting class 5 cannabis business within the township adding definitions to it uh deleting certain subsections and prohibiting uses and new sections so the
the four corners of the ordinance before you are pretty specific ken uh another question um can an HOA and you know Lake Mohawk is obviously an HOA can an HOA uh are we
going to have to if can can an HOA prohibit a cannabis door well if it's or or does the state rules trump that well the state rules are what control and it's delegated to the mayor
and council by way of ordinances so if you do not want it in a certain area or have it permitted in some type of HOA you could do that and specifically state it within the ordinance you the mayor
and council have a lot of power on this it's just being reviewed unfortunately and sadly sadly sadly what you're saying is that the HOA has no power to prohibit this from in their zone
well in in in the reservation the Lake Mohawk reservation we we cannot prohibit that i I think you can I think you can prohibit it if you don't want it in that area do you you say the mayor and c it's like any other uh land use where you want to permit it and where you don't
want to permit it but you're saying it's mayor and counsel it doesn't have anything to do with Lake Mohawk's ability to um it is mayor and counsel who issue the licenses an HOA cannot uh unless the HOA tried to buy a license and have it at their facility and again
the four corners of the ordinance would control that i've never seen an HOA uh have the wherewithal or ability to get a cannabis license no I wasn't suggesting that the HOA take get their own cannabis license i was suggesting
that Joe Joe Cannabis wants to open a store in the White Deer Plaza and he rents a space and puts his license there and suddenly you know Lake Mohawk has this undesirable at least maybe in in my
opinion uh undesirable pot shop right in the center of our our e you know our economic area our our little down to path i don't Mark your your mayor and council and your locations uh it says here page three
location shall be committed as a a conditional use only within the TCC and C1 zones in Sparta and only at those locations with direct access to Route 15 or Route uh State Route 181 so that is
pretty specific if it doesn't fall in there they can't get a license and they could not apply could not apply for a use variance because they'd have to have the license to apply for a property that
would have to be within the permitted area so again my experience is that the you determine how many licenses are there and the zone and then it falls into place if there's no HOA within the
T TCC and C1 zones then you have nothing to worry about well Winona Parkway has direct access to uh you know Route 81 Woodport Road etc yeah I know so it's really up to the town council to define this so this is
really something I think that you need to take back to town council and work out there because it's not something that the planning board can do it's It just doesn't have really anything to do with consistency yeah so um I just want to say one thing i misunderstood Mark
before when he said a million dollars he meant ratables right okay sorry i was talking sales yes i I I meant raidables i meant tax revenue the tax revenue per person would
be if if we all smoke the state average $2.80 80 cents per person our vote is on whether this aligns with the master plan correct yeah so let's get back to that exactly so does this align with the master plan we've made
some recommendations uh one is that um they look at need that that has to be determined uh we re-examine the type of the buffer zone um I have one other question then yeah go ahead um this would go to both Ken and to to Lindsay
i've I've looked at probably far too much information than I needed to and couldn't find what I really wanted to um what is the average buffer zone for facilities like this that are proposed in Squawkers is 1,000 ft are
most familiar yeah Northville is 1,000 ft i found that Jersey City is 200 oh a little little more congested you know a little bit little bit different right different neighborhood fabric 200 feet property line or door to door
uh normally it's property line doesn't really matter normally property line but again even if it's 200 feet in Hoboken or Jersey City uh it's 200 feet within specific zones so it's from property line and again
capping the the amount of licenses that are permitted so there's a practicality to it also can I make one other point if we are going to send it back and it sounds like that may be where we go but if it does get sent back you know one one of the
discussions that we've been having for for a while now um I look to Rob and Joan and everybody in terms of you know when you look at um Lake Mohawk Plaza is that TCC or is that C1H um and I think we really need to be clear on what we're
doing here because if if if it is TCC and I think that's where we suspect Lake Mohawk Plaza is this would allow those type of stores to go into Lake Mohawk Plaza so just want to make get an affirmative statement from the town council that that's what they're
intending to do or not no you got to remember yes and on page Good point and on page three it talks about cannabis retailers cannabis retailers operate operate the business it says permitted as a conditional use
and there will be a maximum of two cannabis retailers within Sparta um and then it says one shall be a retail license to a certified uh woman-owned veteranowned and disadvantaged business and or
minorityowned um that was a requirement so in your community this ordinance is contemplating a maximum of two retail that's page three there's nothing about signage or display of products contemplated in here right
that's signage says on page three sign shall be limited to one location uh in compliance with township code shinus shall not promote consumption of any cannabis product a uh no ordering sign shall also be posted so that's page
three dealing with signage but there could be more specific uh conditions on signage so yeah because in in comparing again more established ordinances that you know I know I know this town council has put certain ordinances through the
ringer um that weren't maybe as polarizing as as this one so um but as far as signage I mean just this example uh following word shall be prohibited from appearing on any sign
and um those those words were cannabis marijuana pot weed and any commonly known nickname of cannabis um I'm going to pull this back a little bit again so again town council fine but all right so
just design standards is uh just curious if we can make a recommendations on signage to maybe no all right it does say on page four that it would be site plan approval would be required before you there is no harm in my
opinion in uh uh that you have concerns over the buffer 10,00 that you have concerns over the identified need maybe a referendum and also as to uh uh signage and other site plan review issues yeah i mean the reason I bring it
up and I'm pressing it is because that 250 ft uh doortodoor seems minimal and then school property right so and yeah just think of that so if you combi if you combine that with with my comments about kind of
advertising in words if I have to have those kind of conversations because you know they're they're right there front and center it's fine i will have that conversation but I just want to make sure that
uh consideration of those um have a quick question for Ken um so any of our recommendations they're that that we're going to be providing to the council they're they're
recommendations like we don't we don't get a say over whether or not we can push that through or whether or not they'll even consider them i just want to it's so all we're doing is just just making highle recommendations right
high level recommendations and my experience has been that those recommendations are respected by way of the mayor and council especially the issue as you said with the thousand feet and the signage those are all very valid and uh my experience they'd be honored
and Ken if we could if we could just do something just on the clarification on do they view Lake Mohawk as C1H zone or TCC because that has been a point of discussion lately both here and and at the council i think that's a valid point to raise also I think the other point is
it's a use that's not in our master plan we're supposed to decide whether it conforms with our master plan it's not a use that's permitted in our master plan as a conditional or a permitted use but wouldn't that just stipulate that
it's that as far as consistency review is concerned it's it's not consistent because it's not there i mean is that I mean does that track that tracks I mean look it it tracks i just don't want you to to be misled that cannabis
has so much history by way of uh some people who swear by its its health aspect of it so in the master plan does it talk about medical uh does it talk about not that it's a hospital but we have a lot of these uh evolving urgent
cares that were in historical hospitals but now so there uh even though it's not expressly in there valid point and I I think we reference but it's just such a new emerging area u and if you want to
say you'd rather address it by way of the master plan we're going through now that's a valid statement you can make it's probably the best because um if it's not in there and this goes through it prevents us from putting it in there
later because it's a done deal well it doesn't pro the master plan review would be that is it uh if the mayor and council passed the the ordinance as they have and let's say they incorporated your comments or they decided to table it or to withhold it for a referendum or
to defer it to the master plan to see if uh you want to put it in there those are all options you can do as part of your review the ordinance is before you you can accept it reject it or modify it so I think you've discussed all the issues
based vote is whether we feel it's consistent with master plan or not uh and if because of the emerging area law it is uh if you have cons uh that it's difficult for it ever to meet
the standard of consistency in the master plan that it should be held off until the master plan review that could be another option so Ken you were um referring to kind of medical use therapeutic use for this product and
kind of using that as a way to justify not justify but kind of urgent care has been contemplated so and well-being so we could look at it from that aspect i guess I'd put it back at
you and say if you're conflating uh the medical and recreational in that argument then um should one of our recommendations be to bifurcate uh this ordinance into a a purely
medical uh use and a recreational use because right now it's it's all a single document right that doesn't make a distinction yes we're we're really getting into the weeds of you'll see on page one no that's good there's good dis discussion that there's different
licenses on page one you know the manufacturing license the wholesale license the distribution license the retail license uh the delivery license that's on page one of the ordinance so here the ordinance is talking about uh
permitting to um on page three within certain uh to retail within certain zones and the discussion was and what you've discussed concerned over it not being specifically in the master plan
the identified need uh signage buffers and the like u whether or not it's in the TCC zone what limitations of zoning those all very legitimate concerns that you could say we take uh uh uh we take
offense to or we take objection to the proposed ordinance as a result of these issues you could take that so if the mayor and council came back and addressed those issues they would probably resend the ordinance to you uh but that would be one avenue you could
uh take and sorry just because you got me looking back at the classes but class five is a retailer class six is delivery um but then on page three the language is retail and it's retail business so
brick and mortar but then cannabis delivery service licenses so my recommendation there would be to be specific and say that you're going for a class 5 non-dely my reason for that is
just uh my own uh expertise uh with some of this class is that delivery is extremely hard to regulate so to Mark's points about you know how
how much we would get in ratables uh what infrastructure costs that would be I would have concerns if we did not strike cannabis delivery service from the accepted from the licenses that we're putting forth
under the section 231 cannabis retailer i think that should just be brick and mortar only but that's just me no that's that's a very good point one last thing I I see on the thing it does say here that the town adopted my ordinance on uh
June of June 22nd 2021 uh prohibiting cannabis businesses with attachment so was at that time memorialized other than an ordinance was anything that it's in the code
if you look up prohibited uses it's the third prohibited use the first one is sexual businesses and that's the one I referred to where it used a regional survey to determine non-ne second is tattoo parlors and the third is cannabis I think related to
opting out so that's how could it be consistent with the master plan if it's in the code that is prohibited think you're good to go all good points i have one other question um when
somebody's applying for a license at the state is there a separate license for medical marijuana uh or are they combined where you could do recreational and medical in the same store uh I apologize i don't know uh I do know that it's a very strict procedure and the
mayor and council set forth the categories if you did not want uh one of the six categories the classes you could specifically prohibit it so again the a lot of power local government what they do or don't want could we recommend that
maybe they start with medical if they're going to pursue this uh they could you could I like Yeah and could we also recommend just calling out no consumption on premises it's already in there all right i just didn't see it under the
retail elsewhere okay no loitering too no loitering has Well we have choices here we could either send it up with no recommendation saying we accept it we reject it but our third option is to say these are modifications and at least
that gives us a voice but we still have to make decisions consistent with the master plan or not and if it if it is with suggestions or if it's not with suggestions you know such as incorporating change in the master plan it can't be because it's not in the
master plan it is it's prohibited that's in an ordinance but in the master plan it's not consistent because it's not there yeah the we're all saying kind of the same thing the uh Lindsay summarized in her memorandum the master
plan goals and how it could uh if uh you wanted fit within uh those particular goals i I hear loud and clear the concern uh so therefore in 2002 the last
amendment uh you know cannabis wasn't around in any way shape or form so to say that it's inconsistent with 2002 I think that's a disservice to the law however this is your community if
you have concerns about the cannabis it's currently an ordinance that prohibits it and you have concerns about what is before you uh those should be stated as you are stating this is a good conversation is my point so as the chair had said uh is it
uh not consistent uh however with comments is it consistent based upon the prior goals with comments that would be uh what you have to decide or take no action okay how would you like to frame the
motion no no not on this we can't sorry that's for town council if if I would frame it and someone could either say consistent with the master plan or non-consistent however the issues identified by the uh
planning board in the discussion uh to go back to the mayor and uh council is number one uh the buffer measurements uh that it would be a minimum of 1,000 ft from property line to property line not doortodoor uh number two that there be a
region some type of regional survey to identify uh needs uh could be by way of a referend referendum or some other um uh method uh concerns over signage uh
concerns over uh uh the TCC zone whether or not uh certain properties fall within or or not there was discussion on the HOA on that uh there was also discussion on page three that you're talking about
uh retail however uh does retail also encompass delivery so there should be more uh specific language as to that and also there was some discussion that uh maybe we should start with uh medical uh
usage uh before going to retail that's what my notes reflect i had one other thing that I I previously raised and that is the definition of cannabis which leads um me to ask other questions um I looked
at the state definition and the Sparta definition incorporated the first half of the state definition and left off the other half which related to hemp and and that I'd like to see that definition mirror the state is that
something we can also recommend yes because it it's unclear yes and it could be in in deference to who drafted the uh first one that the law has evolved and u definitions have been revised so
that's a good point though can we make any further recommendations then if if we're getting the definition of cannabis then I assume you're talking about like extracts tinctures all the various products uh going along with the buffer again going along with health safety
well-being uh welfare of say the the younger community um I wouldn't mind i don't know we I mean I guess we could ask for but think about edibles gummy
bears things that are very attractive to uh juveniles and maybe this is more appropriate for town council but if we limited are we talking about what product are we talking about um for these retail sales are we talking
about the flour are we talking about extracts are we talking about the consumable vape cartridges that are going to end up all over the street so just yeah I guess to focus on that is the again the state regulations and what the retail
licensing uh provide uh so so good comments we could add that concerns of the younger community and what uh products are are for sale so those that would be added along with uh
the definition uh sections being clarified and updated as the chairperson had noted you know you know but this this sends a mixed message it really does right because you say no but
here we got all these suggestions it's similar to when I sit when I last year when I sat in in the planning board meetings in the audience and all of a sudden somebody on the plan board says "Well let's pick the paint color." Okay
and so when when we pick the paint color we're approving you know whatever the whatever the building was whatever the variance was and yeah I just don't want to send a mixed message in there but but
I I I hear I hear the the rest of the planning i hear the rest of your comments and you know I I think certainly going back to a th00and feet and recommending that is is very important i mean when when Rob Lee was
speaking about having lounges I'm thinking you know the PNC Bank goes out we can put in a a cannabis store right there overlooking the overlooking the uh where the uh you know six-year-olds play softball
mark game is bad you just walk across the street and pick something up mark to your point I think maybe simply of doing this is we say yes and with the following recommendations and if we're a no it's just a no
so and and there no recommendations if you're no how's that i make that as my motion to for a vote mark we can't state whether we're really for or against marijuana here we're just stating if there is going to be an
ordinance what input can we make into it or or we feel it's not consistent we can state that and leave it at that correct if we feel it is consistent with the recommendations right so those are those are two ways to
vote and and you could in all all cander uh you can say you don't find it consistent and that this issue would be revisited at the master plan uh coming up if at all
but then they wouldn't hear any of the recommendations that we've just discussed and it would just go forward without our recommendations and then we're back to square one because ultimately the council can vote on it regardless of of what we say right whether it's consistent or not i think
our job as a board is to give recommendations and at the end of the day the council is going to supersede us yep exactly because they're the ones who create the law we're trying to have an argument in here we're not they're not superseding us they're just we can they can reject or take but this is our
opportunity to feed into that i think we should be very we should have our recommendations so so they should have both both the yes and no responses and we could even we don't even want it in the TC zone town center zone you could say that do that too there's
nothing wrong with that so that with the thousand ft you're not even going to be able to do it in town center yeah i don't know if they've looked at the economic development zone well we did look at the master plan when they were here and that thousand ft was
basically nowhere but then there wasn't 500 there wasn't 400 there wasn't 300 that's why they went through the 250 and 250 door to door so is it is it a motion and then is it feedback two separate things or is it So
just as when you have a land use application before you you can give comment as why you uh let's say you denied an application because you were concerned with traffic because you were just felt it didn't fit this location it didn't have ABCD that was the basis here
for your denial it is referred here the ordinance for consistency it's talking about uses of uh two retail within the TCC and C1 zone we went through the issues of concern again buffers uh
identified need signage uh whether the TCC zone HOA retail versus delivery medical usage uh as a startage definition of cannabis youth concerns that uh you could say it is inconsistent
because of those concerns uh or you could say that uh uh uh you take no action or again you're just against it uh on the referral whatever this board decides well how
many would like to give comments back well I have one comment that I just found out right it because the the the club HOA Lake Mohawk does not have direct access to one 181 or Route 15
but it does it couldn't happen it couldn't happen well I guess it I think what they mean I mean by direct access this is like a question then it's not clear because to me Winona Parkway has direct access going up past uh the
um Mexican place up to the school that's direct access to 181 so well that could be part of the definition that there has to be clarification where there was comment on the TCC zone on the HOA or
not so those that issue is uh discussed and could be brought before the mayor council let me just I I we're trying to end this but just to tag on to that one thought a little a little bit more you know when I look at the master plan for town center that has maps in it and that
has designations and that shows Lake Mohawk Plaza as C1H there's now an ordinance out there that shows it as TCC so I think there's an inconsistency there that I'd like to see clarified yeah yes sir that that you know is like a separate subject but I would like to
have um work with Lindsay on developing uh a recommendation about bringing that C1H zone back and maybe we can have that as something on the agenda for the April 2nd meeting and be really
begin to clarify that could it be a historic overlay that would be something different but the C1H is still on the books yeah and it would be simple to bring back and send that recommendation to town council as well and if the master plan was ever
updated to show that change that to generate a different answer but from what I could see the last version of TCC master plan did not have that updated no the 1999 version did not it what it did was expand the C1H
zone if you really look at it it says we expand the C1H zone from Lake Mohawk to include additional properties but it never took it away okay yeah yeah that that the version back then yes yes that was the latest
okay so um I mean I would make a motion to send it back that it's inconsistent because of our concerns and list our concerns i would agree so so our concerns and then the top one
is it's not listed in the master plan and then here the okay it's not a it's not a contemplated use it's not a contemplated use it's not it's not one that is either a an allowed use or a conditional use but then that gets all of our comments as
well as okay and then beyond that we have these other concerns right Good and can you put together a motion for us we can I believe the uh discussion uh is that on the referral of the uh proposed
cannabis uh ordinance to you it's the finding of the board that uh it is not uh consistent with the Sparta uh master plan consistency review uh as noted it
it's not uh specifically contemplated uh the use and the uh conditions and uh request here are beyond that which were contemplated in the 1984 1997 2000 and
2002 amendments to the Sparta master plan the um the board would also like to bring to the attention of the mayor and council uh specific concerns as to the buffer requirement
uh should be more akin with 1,000 ft uh from property line to property line the uh also there should be a uh more rigorous identifi identification need whether that be by referendum or some other method uh there are concerns as to
the zoning bulk requirements and site plan review by way of signage and other site plan issues there is uh concern over the uh spectrum of the location of the two possible retail defining of the
TCC zone whether or not uh Lake Mohawk and the HOA are within that or not and also the language of the highway routes whether or not uh route 15 and 181 by way of direct access if that could be
better defined or what direct access is there was also concern over the definition of retail that retail would not also be delivery again definition clarification in addition uh there was also definition uh clarification needed
on uh cannabis itself it seems that it does not follow the statutory legislative most recent language uh also concerns over our youth in the community and possible product limitations within
any retail sale uh and then uh finally uh it may be worth looking at whether medical use should be a starting point uh before diving into uh straight retail use those are the comments I have do you
have a referendum in there as a suggestion i said identifying uh need by way of either referendum or some other method somebody would move it okay we're ready for motion
i'll make the motion all right second i'll second the motion roll call please to be to be clear a a yes vote is to say say that it's inconsistent inconsistent but making these recommendations yeah that's a good point
make sure we're all voting on the same thing okay could you say that again a yes vote is what you found that the ordinance is inconsistent that it's inconsistent inconsistent but making recommendations
and what would a no vote be just a plain old no no to what to our recommendations yes no to the recommendations no to any action no to the inconsistency no to any action
yeah we're gang we're over complicating this it's the uh if the vote before you the yes vote is that it's not consistent uh however here are the concerns so you're voicing the concern a no vote is
uh no that it is uh not consistent period with no recommendation that's my recommendation to you yes is inconsistent with uh suggestions no is just no it's inconsistent
so Mark do you want it to be inconsistent with and give a lot of um of our recommendations i I I I would I would think so okay then that will be your vote that would be a yes are we roll robertley yes matt Burke
yes ronda yes celeste Luciano yes bernie Rostad yes councilman Mark Scott yes brian Zimmerman yes vice Chairman Robert Otto yes chairwoman Joan Ferman yes motion is carried and the record
should reflect there was a spirited discussion uh there is uh very good comments the minutes reflect that and the resolution uh will also reflect that thank you high level thank you all right i'd like to just
request we take a fivem minute break and then come back and hear get busy with all the applicants all right thank you everybody for your patience with all of that um now I'd like to welcome uh Parisella PB number
25729 65 uh Park Road good evening ladies and gentlemen we're here to talk about the 80,000 square foot uh uh marijuana distribution sale [Laughter]
um good evening ladies and gentlemen daniel Bankenorf from the law firm of Askin and Hooker uh representing the applicant this evening Albert Perisella mr periscella if you please stand up approach yeah i just want to swear you in so we get that done
swear to tell the truth hold the truth and nothing but the truth help you God i do state your name and what town you live in albert Perisella Bora Township very good thank you right also I have an expert here in the area of planning uh Mr dunn if you please stand
so sorry to tell the truth hold the truth and not the truth shall be done yes I do just state your name and professional address for the record uh Jason Dunn Dun N 11 Lawrence Road Newton New Jersey thank you all right uh Mr dunn you have a working knowledge of the plans is that
correct uh yes I was involved in the uh culmination of the plan and the zoning analysis okay thank you um so um uh Mr porl is it okay hi nice to meet you i don't know that we've had a chance to meet yet um I just want to confirm uh
that uh s adequate service was provided um and we provided a uh correspondence on March 7th 2025 with respect to Yes we uh did receive and rely upon the certification that was provided yeah it has been provided thank you thank you okay um so again we're here to discuss
actually two properties uh it's uh they're located on block 3045 uh it's lot 53 which is um currently a 4.987 acre lot with a single family dwelling and lot 58 it's currently a
0.341 acre lot with a single family dwelling and a detached garage uh both exist in the R3 residential zone um the purpose for this application is a minor subdivision and lot line adjustment uh the goal is to take from
the larger of the two lots 0.275 acres from lot 53 and to consolidate and adjust the lot lines uh of the subdivided portion of lot 58 uh to bring lot 58 closer to compliance at
0.59 acres um and the the big benefit that the town sees from this is that currently um lot 58 is actually over the impervious coverage calculation uh and this actually brings it under the impervious coverage calculation you'll
hear that more about that from our planner um but I think what we should do is start with Mr simmons's report um I think there were some items on there that we should quickly address this is an application that doesn't need much testimony but with respect to the testimony Mr simmons's report is where
we should begin um so Mr simmons if you would like to go through your report and then Mr dunn and I can Is that all right with you Madam Chair certainly uh just for the record I'm referring to the report I prepared dated February 13 2025
and on page one of the report as uh the applicant's attorney just mentioned he basically described what's proposed here in the proposed subdivision to enlarge lot 58 off of a piece of Law 53 going on to page two uh again as he just
mentioned one of the big benefits will be the de decrease in imperous coverage from 37.1% to 21.2% 2% bringing it below the limit of 25% after the subdivision is completed
if approved by the board I just point out that there still will be one uh C C variance type situation sideyard set back to the garage 8 foot minimum is required 5.9 ft exist and will still exist after it's done this subdivision
isn't affecting that but it's in existing non-conforming condition uh with regards to looking at lot 58 after it's completed if approved I do notice that on adjacent lot 57 there's a slight encroachment of existing pavement onto
the easterly corner of lot 58 that's an existing condition it's not caused by this subdivision and also a portion of the existing wood fence on lot 57 encroaches onto lot 58 as well again an existing condition uh on page three item
3E there's an existing utility pole guywire that's located near the easterly corner applicant to determine if there is an existing easement for this guywire i noticed that when I was out there doing a site inspection I think the applicant's attorney is going to bring
up that he did locate an easement to JC or from JCPNL for that existing uh guywire so he'll be producing that as part of the record i believe we did i believe we even produce uh provided it to Miss Fox uh if not we will provide it
okay and then item 3F it appears that the existing water main and park road may come very close to encroaching over the northerly rightaway line of Park Road near the pay parking area sparta Water Department should advise if they want an easement on lot 58 in this area
i believe the board did receive a report from the water department that it was not necessary in this particular location and the one valve that I did know I believe was uh they they ascertained that it was the curb box for the subject property not an inline gate
valve so the map should really be corrected to reflect that properly and I point out in item 3G tax off 53 even after the subdivision is completed will still conform because of its size to the R3 bulk requirements
after the proposed subdivision then item number four looking at tax law 53 again taking 0.257 acres off of lot 53 and extending it to lot 58 as we indicated the bulk requirements for lot
53 after the proposed subdivision will still be met and then item C 4 C the file map in the area of lot 53 should be checked to see if it reflects any of the following easements uh letter I a sight triangle easement at the intersection of
Park Road and Woodlon Road uh I did talk to the applicant's attorney i believe at this point in time they have not been able to ascertain or find a sight triangle easement at that intersection but if one doesn't exist I'd recommend that that be made a condition of any
approval the board consider considers just so it's taken care of and double eye storm drainage easement for the existing discharge in Headwall at the intersection of Park Road and Woodlon Road uh I did also receive some correspondence from the applicant's
attorney where that drainage easement has in fact been conveyed so it's on file in the Sussex County Clerk's office and I'm sure he'll they can put that on the subdivision map the booking page so that X years from now when someone's checking this out they'll know it exists
and it'll be part of the record david may I just make a comment uh on the site triangle easement thank you um the res the proposed condition uh to the resolution is that sight triangle easement uh should be dedicated but can
we modify that to say because I haven't h we haven't had a chance to analyze what that would be we haven't talked with you about um what standards that should be um let's just say the sight lines are within the right of way i don't know then if it's not necessary can can we say the resolution is as as
maybe required or something like that i I would I would say a minimum of 90 foot by 90 foot sight triangle easement 90 by 90 minimum yes and it's such that's such an odd angle i just don't want to I know just so the board knows when I was out there doing the site inspection I didn't
see any apparent sight distance problems but what I'm always concerned about and I ran into one today uh that's fine for these owners that are here now but two or three owners down the road somebody may say "Geez we'd love to have 10 foot high for bushes right on the corner."
And then if somebody has a problem with sight distance then try and get them to take it out i see so I I would recommend that the site triangles be provided okay thank you and the uh the engineer had
referenced the u minimum of a 90 foot sight triangle issue therefore if we put that as a condition a minimum of 90 if there does become an issue the applicant could come back and say that they wanted more but for the sake of clarity uh I
would recommend that we put the minimum uh 90 ft if you were to accept the application is that okay council well yeah i I would ask that this application not be conditioned upon the sight triangle easement i respect uh Mr simmons recommendation unfortunately I
have been unable to communicate with the attorney for the seller and he's also uh directly advised me not to commit that property to anything so I don't know if we're going to have the cooperation of the seller other than the fact that
they're selling us a portion of their property so I would ask that it not be a condition of approval but I understand the board's prerogative i understand Mr simmons report um so just initially um if we could just hear the rest of the testimony and then um if if the board
says "Listen we're not doing this without this condition," then we'll talk more about it but I would ask that it not be a condition of approval i think the that the the town is benefiting from this directly um by decreasing the impervious coverage calculation pretty significantly um bringing the property
into compliance it's not even the property that we're getting that that's acquiring the section of the property it's it's the property that's selling the piece off um so it's really not to their benefit it's to my client's benefit but we can talk more about that later i'm just letting the board know where I stand right now right i just
respectfully that this is we're moving along very well uh public health safety and welfare if this board approves something that creates a possible dangerous situation that's something and to go against the board engineer is something that I've never really seen in
my career but uh go ahead we'll continue well Dave are you done no ma'am okay so then moving on uh item number five uh county planning board approval is going to be required because it is a subdivision it's not on a county road or
affects a county bridge but it's a subdivision and then under miscellaneous I did point out under item A uh there are just a couple minor discrepancies between the various distances on the subdivision map versus the key map which
I'm sure Mr dunn's office can correct yes uh we took a look at them and uh I would say in general the what the dimensions that are on the map or what um what should be reflected in the chart it looks like there's some rounding that was done uh that probably should not
have been that okay then the last comment I had uh this is a question possibly for the boards or excuse me for the applicant's attorney um I did look at the overall key map of the subdivision and the one thing I noticed was and I wasn't sure if this was
applicable able sometimes I've seen it in the Lake Mohawk reservation where properties like that may be subject to certain restrictions for example maybe no building uh no additional impervious coverage in that area not that the applicant is applying to do that but I
didn't know if they had had any kind of title search or searched it back to see if there were any restrictions that run with that big piece of lot 53 and carving off a small portion of it to your applicant's property if those restrictions would in fact attach to it
to that yeah and we didn't find any okay and that concludes my report okay did you ask the club engineer for Lake Mahawk um we did uh make a request but I don't I don't know that we got a response from them so any any approval this evening
would be conditioned upon review and approval by the uh Lake Law Country Club for sure and board if there is a title issue there it runs with the property uh your approval of denial would not change that the resolution would reflect that
if there is any um title issues as to the rightway as identified by the engineer they would remain in place so if we could just to clarify uh council uh except for the right-of-way
easement issue are the concerns uh as raised by the board engineer uh ones that you can satisfy yes great uh the board want to hear from the planner or talk about the rightway well this is all kind of backwards but uh why don't we
hear from the planner which planner are we referring to that's a good point so I I did speak with my planner and backwards yeah so uh if the right of way is required as a condition of approval the applicant's okay with it um because we don't believe it's going
to be of much impact to the application thank you thank you right my concern was it was going to take a big swath off the front of their property they'd have to take down I don't know some kind of out building or something but looking at it now it doesn't seem that way at all why don't we go back then and hear your
presentation and then we'll go back you know um there's really for this particular application I love to talk uh but there's really not too much to say um we're basically asking for um a piece of property that's amounts to a little more than a quarter acre approximately
140 ft wide the same width as the uh lot 58 and about um 75 ft deep you know about because it's just not a perfect rectangle um the land kind of slopes uh uh severely downhill from the back of
the uh the owner's house uh so he wishes to um make his property bigger uh for perhaps useh for his children u his young age children to play um and you know possibly uh resolve any impervious coverage
issues i think that's a big plus um and I know that the neighbor in lot 57 has done the same thing i'm not sure when um but it's it's not uncommon uh for something like this in the in the lake to happen um the good news for me there is only one uh pre existing
non-conforming condition and that is the set back to the garage um by way of planning I think it's uh uh appropriate for the board to uh to approve this even with that non-conformance um because it's the the garage is legally there it's existing and what we're proposing
is not intensifying that uh nonconformity at all um that's about all I have to say we're not we're not asking for any physical improvements for this project it's just a lot line adjustment at this point pass it off to Lindsay then
uh most of my comment my comments were all addressed through Mr simmons letter as well um things I noted were already addressed so um Ken do you have anything else or should report i have nothing thank you all right um anybody on the board have
any comments start down with Janette i have no comments thank you is there existing house on the other on the other property the other property meaning the larger property lot yes 53 yes there is a home and I would assume the the
remainder of all the property coming down behind all these other houses is unbuildable right you know we really couldn't put anything down here oh yes that's that is correct um all right in
the Lake Mohawk final map from 1928 I think it was it left this large 4acre piece because of the slope is all a hill condition right yeah it's it's important to note that the the piece of property that's being sectioned off actually there are uh uh I think at least two
trees that had come down one of which caused over $200,000 of damage to uh my client's property um and so it's really important to him to be able to acquire this piece of property to you know maintain it uh essentially and it's not
it's not you know so that's important to note there as well and and as you said it it aligns with the next door neighbor's property who had been annexed as well so we're talking basically the same thing yeah slowly slowly yes but surely yeah
that's it brian I have no questions no questions no questions rob so I just you're going to get LMC approval i'm just trying to figure out and I don't have the old planning maps
i'm curious if this lot 53 it's essentially an LMC club lot that's just being kind of sliced up it is a residential lot that's occupied by a single family home okay so you're sub no
5 not 58 53 53 has So it's a residential LMC uh lot on the plan you'll notice there's a picture an image that's that's the image of the home that currently exists on uh lot 53 okay all right more or less near the intersection of Park
Road and Woodlong so so it's not changing the the status of the lot type it's no it's not in fact it's it's all taxed as a buildable lot and you're just basically
moving one section of buildable lot to the neighbor okay all right that was all I had thanks last nope i'm all good i don't have anything either so I guess we're ready for a motion i make a motion to approve i'll second wait
wait wait wait wait yes the uh Wait wait we didn't do the public yes good point yes are there anybody from the public who would like to um make a comment okay uh just real quick uh Mr dunn uh
your license is in good standing as of today yes it is still current and good standing and uh can the the owner stand one more time sir you you've heard the testimony that was given by your attorney and uh
your expert yes done uh are you in accord with those with that testimony yes and as far as the conditions that were placed on the record through uh the board engineers correspondence of February 13 2005 are
you uh in accord with complying with those requirements yes and uh you've been present during the entire presentation correct that would be correct yeah and you understand what's going on here today yes yes very good thank you before we just say here's a motion we
have to do the motion with the conditions yes so maybe can can you frame that out yes what I would do is the you've had here uh today an application for a subdivision uh that is set forth in your board uh engineer and uh board planners report as well as the
supporting documentation from the applicant uh more specifically the board engineers report of February 13 2025 uh goes through in detail the conditions and concerns and I'm satisfied that we can reference that report in the
testimony uh if you are so inclined to approve the subdivision so the motion would be to approve the subdivision uh with related uh it would be a an existing uh variance would be uh in place as a result of the sideyard
setback in the garage it's a requirement of 8 ft it's providing 5.9 uh but again all those conditions that were set forth in uh the board engineers report would be a condition of approval and that is also supported by the board engineers uh
planners findings so a motion to approve would be approving the subdivision with the pre-existing uh conditions pursuant to the conditions of the board engineers February 135 analysis just before we do that in your report um
did you reference the 90 foot sight triangle or did you just say sight triangle that was just added verbally tonight but I would suggest that be incorporated as the minimum sight triangle at least so noted okay in the water main question it's noted in the uh
the rest are noted yeah i just wasn't sure about the official 90 degrees okay so so I'll make a motion uh to approve um based on what our attorney uh listening conditions thank you second please
okay and a roll call robert Blakeley yes t B yes ron Day yes celeste Luciano yes ernie Ryad yes councilman Mark Scott yes brian Zimmerman yes vice Chairman Robert Otto yes and Chairwoman Joan
Ferman yes and Mark I know you voted but I'm sorry i forgot that you were on the phone to ask if you had any other questions or concerns you're you're forgiving John thank you all right thank you congratulations thank you ladies and gentlemen have a
good evening and then next I'd like to welcome back Rammes and Company planning board 71 number 713 location 61 Sparta Avenue good evening uh my name is Wade Baldwin
uh law firm Levery Cohen i uh look unfamiliar because I'm covering for Mike Salvage uh but he's uh went over everything with me uh and hopefully we can answer all your questions um we're going to have to get my store
is for Tranquility 61 no Ramirez right yeah that's my landlord okay yeah i I don't know if I should be going up there or Oh no i guess for public comment yeah you should oh okay we'll have to get you on record yeah no
I I guess can I just talk to her real quick sure okay um sorry about that i I didn't know she was coming uh okay so um as you know we've been here a couple yeah wade Baldwin
for the record and just to spell it all out yep uh Wade W okay say I thought it was Wayne that's why we're spelling yeah baldwin d A L B W I N okay welcome all right um
so here a couple times in the past um so from the last application last time we were here uh there's been discussions among other things about parking uh we made some adjustments to the plan it has been sent to the engineer uh we received a report um a
lot of the discussion uh around parking has been uh addressed by changing one of the uses from two restaurants to uh a restaurant and retail um and At this point um I would like to introduce a planner to kind of go over those changes
and uh lay out how that's going to affect the application council before we go there just I'm new to the board is this a carried application or is this the hearing date this is carried carried okay and just for the record uh the and
I apologize the original hearing date um I can get that from Dory i'm August 7 2024 august hearing date August 2nd 7th 7th 2024 correct and
there were multiple after that that was the original date and that was the original notice correct and has there been any subsequent notices provided to the board up to my knowledge so has it this matter has been carried
consistently on your agenda yes okay thank you welcome several reiterations now on the the council saw the you're saying there are less variances now or or is the latest plan the amended plan
why don't you go through the amended plan and go through some concerns and uh John Mcdana is uh the planner he has not uh testified yet so um he uh if you like to swear swear him in sure hi John you swear to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth so I hope you die yes I do name and uh spell your last name uh and professional address sure hi everyone my name is John Mcdana spelled MC capital D O N O U G H uh my business address is 101 Jialta
Drive that's over in Paripony took a while to get here tonight we'll have to go on Route 180 um but yes my uh license in professional planning is current it's in good standing i have a national certification through AICP as well um current good standing and I have I have
the good fortune of getting to do this throughout the state on a nightly basis and I've been here in your great community many times before the chair person I recommend that he be accepted in the area of professional planning yes thank you Madam Chair
take it away okay so first of all for counselor um I have those dates in front of me if it helps right off the bat please if you can hearing number one August 7th uh we were case number three we didn't start till late so we got only one hour we got
through the engineer wherever he went um and we had to come back with some revisions number two uh September 18th we did renotice we submitted revised plans 10 days prior uh I have here we did not proceed because the revised plans did not make it in time to
renotice um October 2nd second hearing we were here all night with the engineer um October 16th the operator the architect and planning still still go planning was not reached that night so the operator was here and the architect
was here so three hearings so far August 7th October 2nd and October 16th and here we are in March now good so and and if you could then uh John just from October 16th to tonight March if you can
just bring us through what happened what revisions thank you um I will I will go through that from where we started i'm going to defer some of the specifics and the particulars to our engineer who will put up a a board but I just want to sort of take the board through where we've
landed from a zoning standpoint this this is a relatively simple application from a pure zoning standpoint and how this application aligns with your zoning ordinance the relief relatively minor there's about four or five variances
which are actually existing conditions this is an adaptive reuse or a retrofit of an existing building we're not enlarging the building as you've heard and it is really is going to focus on 1,400 square feet within the existing building in particular asking the board
to move on a food use or a restaurant use as as opposed to a retail use which is a permitted use in the zone and based on the evolution of the plan um has parking proposed in conformance with what the parking requirement would be so
really no relief related to the parking count per se i know there was a comment in Mr simmons report um about some basement storage that would trigger parking relief and I'll dive a little bit deeper into this but back in
2017 there was actually a resolution I believe before this board with that very same condition was considered and was found that the basement could be occupied as storage for the pharmacy without triggering the need for additional parking relief
so as we know variances run with the land that condition is not changing as part of the application so it's our position that the use of that basement space does not trigger any additional parking demand the conversion to of this
1400 square ft from retail to a restaurant type use would trigger a parking demand of 29 spaces on site and as we get to the plan you'll see we now have a parking proposed of 29 spaces so the process is supposed to be
interactive that's exactly what this has been so compliments to the board for for all your feedback compliments to the applicant as well for a plan that has evolved to the point where again 29 spaces are required 29 spaces are
proposed plus we now have an agreement with the adjacent property which is also owned by the applicant uh to utilize those parking spaces as well and cross access that site has a surplus of four parking spaces so there's actually
additional spaces available under the uh calculation of your ordinance on that particular site i do Madam Chair have some photographs just to give the board a little context a little color on what I just explained and that'll help give
everybody an orientation which I'm sure by now you know but I think it'll help council counselor and maybe some of the newer members here as well as what we're looking at this is going to be a file size 11 by7 exhibit and it's about I
think it's five pages in in total you'll have to mark it correct yes and I don't I don't know where we are you could mark it A1 with today's date if you prefer or Yes a1 for today's date works while you're doing that I just want to make a note that um normally we as I
mentioned in the beginning we stop the testimony at 9:30 and we continue with the rest of our stuff however since we reversed everything I'm not going to cut you off at 9:30 okay thank you Madam Chair and I don't think I'll be particularly long- winded because the
relief that I'm I'm not doing obviously use variance and heavier variances here um so I'll make my points and then I'll hear the board and it looks like everybody on the board except your professionals get one yes
it's a good idea do we can I give you extra so again A1 with today's date 319 2025 uh again it's a is a fivepage exhibit it is going to be drone photographs of the subject
property that were actually taken some time ago back in August but I would offer that they are a a fair and accurate representation of the property as it exists today for the purpose of my analysis here um probably with the sole exception that we were in full leaf at that time and we're just starting to get
the leaves to emerge now so you know what time of day it was that's what I was going to ask what day of the week was that what day of the week and time time of day and okay time of day he is usually out there and I'm trying to look at the angles of the sun the shadows he's usually out there around 2 o'clock
in the afternoon okay so this is midafter afternoon and August 6 i think we can check what day of the week that was i know it was a weekday i don't Today is Wednesday it was probably Tuesday it was a Tuesday okay so there
you go everybody understand sure so again this was really intended just to give a little orientation here was intended to show the physical characteristic of the land and the surrounding land use context so really looking at this from a physical planning
standpoint um as you know it's a single tax lot 5019 lot number one which is about a half acre it's 24,611 square ft it is a corner lot that
road you see in the foreground is 517 the road you see off to the right is Route 181 or as far to add um the surrounding land use context is commercial but there are residential uses including on the adjacent lot that would be the subject lot is the one
that's in the foreground in this photograph looking towards the downtown and then uh the adjacent building which as we've talked about is also owned by the same applicant and now we have the cross uh agreements between the two properties that does have a residential
component associated uh within it which was factored into the parking calculation frame number two uh is a view and so that first view was looking to the south frame number two we're now spinning around looking to the east and
I should point out the use of the building as it exists now i'm sure you all well know the corner unit is now the Sparta pharmacy and then there are two caps I'll call them endcap units that flank the pharmacy that are the two
subject units before the board they're both vacant retail space right now the one that you see on page number one uh is proposed to be retail spa uh that is the space rather that is proposed to be
a a restaurant space and I'll get into the numbers of that in a moment it's about 1,400 square ft in total that floor area spinning around frame number two we're looking to the east now you can see in the corner is where the pharmacy
would be to the left of the building is where the restaurant unit would be and then on the right portion of the building is where the retail reuse would be and then to the right of that you can see that adjacent building which is actually a mixeduse building with I
believe two dwelling units inside and then commercial space below frame number three is now spinning with a view looking to the north again a commercial area um you can see the uh the restaurant in the background um I can tell you my eye doctor's right there
AC across the way so it is a commercialized area and frame number four is a view looking to the west again giving a sense of the commercialized nature of the area and then finally the
last view is a top down view um there's been numerous discussions along the way about that area in the back of the subject property where all those vehicles were going and I think we cleared that up the first or the second hearing that they will be going away as
part of the application and the new plan that you see uh that you will see before you actually cuts that area off and and there's parking that's going to be in the back that contributes to the 29 spaces on site so with that backdrop we're looking at a
tenant fit up for one restaurant in one of the vacant units and another retail use in the other vacant unit with that third unit being the Sparta pharmacy and just to break down the pharmacy is
1,678 square ft the retail component is 1,100 square ft and then the restaurant is 1,400 square ft i think that's going to be our real focus when I dive into the the parking breakdown but just from a
zoning standpoint we're in your TCC zone your town center commercial district we know the zone permits a wide variety of uses it encourages activity it is the the town center um and other uses including public institutional and and
residential um all the proposed uses are permitted in the zone um and the revised plans do indicate the parking count complies just to break down the parking requirement actually before I jump into the parking uh there's a series of C
variances which are all existing conditions relief for the rear yard setback of 55.1 ft where 60 ft would be required is an existing condition that's not changing the sideyard setback 5.3
feet where 10 feet is the minimum that's required again in existing condition C relief for the building height 35.5 ft where 35 ft would be the maximum that's allowed I saw in Mr simmons report a
note that there were no records of how that 35.5 ft were were permitted it's an existing condition to the extent I have to put on planning proofs for that to to validate what has been a long-standing part of the community I certainly can
can do that as well uh C relief for the lock coverage which I believe we've landed with a slight uptick based on the parking reconfiguration my notes say 71.7% where 40% would be the maximum allowed that was where we started i have
to go back and look at what we're actually asking the board to move on but it is a slight uptick over that 71.7% that we were originally asking for and I just want to double check the plans here i have relief for the parking
configuration uh the tandem parking for three spaces which would be for employee parking only in terms of the actual parking breakdown to walk you through the three categories of of use here the pharmacy would be
treated as a retail use which has a parking requirement of one space for 200 square ft at 1,678 square ft divided by 200 and I believe Mr simmons has this in his report equates to 8.39 spaces or we'll
round that up to a parking requirement of nine spaces for the pharmacy then the retail unit 1,100 square ft divided by 200 lands at 5.5 which is six parking spaces so we've
got 15 between the two retail components being required now the restaurant space is again at 1,400 square feet if this were fed up with a pure retail use you would divide that by 200 the parking
requirement would be seven spaces with the food use we look at it based on the number of seats there are 16 seats proposed here we would divide it by three we come out with a parking requirement of 5.3 spaces actually less
but you also have another method of calculating your your food uses which is based on the dining area excluding the cooking area excluding the storage area and there we're looking at 700 square ft divided by 50 square feet or one per 50
would come out to 14 spots so if we add up the nine for the pharmacy six for the retail and the 14 for the restaurant that comes out to a parking demand of 29 spaces the plan has been restriped to
provide four parking spaces importantly we started at 19 spaces here so again through the positive movement and the back and forth we've landed at a good spot where there are 29 spaces on here to meet the actual uh or the ordinance demand
i'm not counting the storage space based on that 2017 ordinance as as I'm sorry resolution of approval i can read that into the record um and then of course there's the shared agreement with the adjacent property which has a surplus of
four parking spaces in terms of the the requirement there so I'll say there's some wiggle room from a from a parking standpoint um above and beyond the ordinance requirement if if we do that breakdown i believe under current conditions there are 22 spaces out there
so we've upped the parking supply on site to 29 that's an increase of seven if you hone in on the the400 square foot space that we're really talking about here in terms of conversion from retail to restaurant
use under retail use that would equate to seven spaces under restaurant use it's 14 spaces so if we hone in only on that 1400 square feet there's a delta of seven spaces that are triggered by going
with re restaurant as opposed to retail and the applicant has made up those seven spaces with the reconfiguration going from 22 to 29 spaces here bottom line applicant is not asking the board to move on any parking count or any off-
streetet parking supply requirement under your ordinance so the relief that we've landed with are for those setbacks the building height the lot coverage and the parking configuration being tandem for those three spaces i'm going to run them under the
familiar flexible C balancing test whereby the benefits of the application as a whole which substantially outweigh the detriments uh we could certainly look to a certain extent under the C1 standard as this being a hardship related to the land but I think the
stronger basis for proof here is under that that C2 balancing this case called the pull in case P U Len which says look at the application as a whole when you consider the positives and I have four or five purposes of zoning in the municipal land
use law NJSA40 col55D-2 that are being advanced here including purpose A the promotion of the general welfare by delivering permitted uses that serve the public with food choices at a small scale thinking
something like a pizzeria Chinese takeout you just had the bagel shop down the street i was involved with that one um and some sort of specialty market is something I think our um operator talked about um either a halal halal type food
or um Portuguese food I think were some of the things uh that were mentioned by our operator uh purpose G the project promotes the planning goal to provide for a variety of uses according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens by
creating opportunity for and access to a diversity of food choices i like the nexus between this location the ball fields down the road this is a good opportunity I think for your excellent walkability here um a nice nexus with
that as well in terms of grabband go type food choices that would relate to that athletic um amenity that you have purpose I the project promotes a desirable visual environment because it retains what's there is certainly
suffice it to say a visually prominent corner in your community um having inactivity here in my view does not enhance the image and the identity of the community to put something that does have some vibrancy here will certainly be uplifting in terms of the um image
and the identity of the community so I think that does go towards purpose I the promotion of a desirable visual environment it's a beautiful building so kudos to this board again uh that vetted this when it was originally in and we're looking to maintain its continued
viability and and efficacy and I think um filling it with a with a viable use would be a good thing here from a planning standpoint not to mention permitted uses purpose M the planning the project promotes the planning goal for efficient use of land because it is
adaptive reuse of existing commercial space with minimal um if any substantial site modifications or external work um again a retrofit from a planning standpoint adaptive reuse is as efficient as it gets it avoids the
disruptions of construction again at a a busy corner in your community keeping what's there reusing what's there is better than a wholesale knockdown and a reconstruction uh to try to find something better there certainly could be impacts associated with
construction those are the benefits of the project as a whole taking it back to the potential impacts associated with the relief the applicant is seeking again with the revised plan I think we've landed at a good spot the relief that the applicant is seeking is minor
mostly related to existing conditions that are a long-standing part of the local landscape and familiar in the public eye uh the relief related to the building height I have here was an existing condition but to the extent it
was never formally authorized um I don't know how it happened but it did it's a foot over the ordinance allowance it's a C variance not a D variance it is a It is a peaked roof so we're not looking at a full massing with that additional half
foot and we always look at the purposes of height control as they're articulated in the Graasso case i see none of the Graasso purposes of height control being violated here that additional half foot is not going to block any scenic views
is not going to create any negative shadow effects on adjacent lands it is certainly not going to create an obtrusive imposing structure in the landscape and will certainly not create a population density that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land so for
those reasons I think that additional half foot uh is something that the board can move favorably on in in validating what's already there uh relief related to the parking tandem the tandem parking is reasonable it pertains to only three spaces it's for employees
only um again all the relief related to the placement of the building is something that has been well established and by virtue of the extremely small scale of the restaurant I think there's a reasonable probability that the parking impact will be no greater than filling the space with a
popular brandame retail store a medical office use an institutional use or a dance studio um all of which are permitted in the zone district so good planning is about balancing we plan the best we can um but there could certainly be unintended consequences with
something else here what's nice about this application is it has been vetted it takes the unknown out of the equation i think there's enough here for the board to put a good I'll say rope around the application to control the uses and
the uh site design as has been finalized here by our engineer in conclusion I believe the statutory test is met the application is simply to fill vacant space with beneficial smallcale service type uses um again the criteria are met and from a
planning standpoint I believe where we've landed is that approval is warranted um madam chair that's all I have on direct thank you Mr mcdana um I'd like to turn to our professionals uh to ask their questions dave would you like to start
sure Madam Chair uh I'll refer back to the report I prepared dated March 14th 2025 on the latest submission that came from the applicant uh a lot of what the applicant's planner just discussed addressed many of those points in that report but I'll highlight a few if I may
uh going over to page two of the report I agree with what he uh characterized as the existing non-conforming situations that require variance existing conditions the one that is existing but was increased slightly uh in the back of
the property next to that easement in the back there was some a few hundred square feet of additional impervious added uh that created I believe the additional rise in imperous coverage for that area in order to obtain the 29 spaces that they show on their overall
lot so that is an increase right there I believe uh with regards to the site plan I just wanted to point out that in previous testimony I believe the applicant indicated that he also owns
the uh property lot 26 and I did an analysis that uh checked the analysis that they did and based on my calculations overall u there's a total of 17 parking spaces required for lot 26
and that left in excess of four spaces available if there was a cross easement between the property that we're talking about tonight versus the adjacent property on lot 26 so my because of some things I'll bring out next what I'd
suggest is that it may be appropriate if the board wants to act favorably on this uh to request that the applicant do have do that the applicant does enter into an agreement with himself or his other entity if you will to make sure those
four spaces are available i'm concerned as and I might as well get into it now with some of the spaces in the far rear around Lake Space 29 and what have you quite frankly while they show them from a planet metric standpoint going in they're very steep in the back they're
very steep and as we talked about in earlier hearings on this that on some of those if they parked the way they've got them delineated on the site plan if you pulled into those spaces and in fact you opened up the driver's car door to get out you're slamming your door into their
neighbor and when I've gone by this area over the past few months when I've been in the area I purposely look just to see how the parking is or isn't being used back there and several times I saw where parking was not pulled in like it's shown on the plan and in fact was pulled
facing down the hill nose to tail uh probably because of the steepness of that area it's just easier so for that reason I think there may be some reluctance even on employee uh parking especially in the wintertime when it's
icy in a parking lot and what have you they might want to instead opt for those four parking spaces on lot 26 and when they talk about setting up a crossseasement between the parking lot on lot 26 my gut reaction is I think they
should dedicate specific spots that the patrons or the employees on the subject property could use because I know on the northerly side of the existing building on lot 26 for example there's existing spaces that there's signage out there
reserved for the tenant in the first floor and I don't have too much doubt that if somebody parked in some of those spaces the owner of the business on the first floor would be coming out and saying "I'm sorry but you have to move those are for my patrons or clients or
whatever." So I think that that would be a good thing to suggest to get built into any approval the board may consider then as I go through the rest of the report I had talked about how uh there was an aisle width deficiency in
certain areas so there'd be waiverss for that then we talked about we talked about handicap parking signage i know they had a couple handicap spots designated but I don't know and I haven't been out there to double check it in the real world if
they actually put all the ADA required signage up so just to make sure that I'm not saying it's not there but just as a condition to make sure that is taken care of uh with regards to lighting um again I don't recall and I'd stand
corrected if I missed it that the hours of operation for the lighting weren't shown on the plan and also verification that the lighting intensity meets the township's ordinance based on any changes that they're proposing for the facade lighting goost deck lighting or
whatever to make sure it's ade adequately covered uh there is there is water from the township water system for the building and again subject to verification i believe the architect was
here at one time and indicated that the building was not subject to sprinklers now with the restaurant use uh I don't know if they've got some contain uh chemical type hood system to suppress any cooking uh situation perhaps they
could address that as well the sanitary sewer the one thing that I would see going from a um a retail store type situation to a restaurant again it would be my understanding the township water
and sewer department as well as the county health department would probably want a grease trap of some description put in the sewer line to avoid negatively impacting the sewer line and sewer laterals with regards to the storm drainage uh just two things number one
since the plan had been more refined since one of our earlier hearings uh they have shown that they're less than 500 square ft additional impervious going in was 440 some odd square feet so that's below the 500 square foot threshold where they'd have to provide
additional mitigation but I believe one of the original conditions for the area in the back that we were always talking about by the loading dock i haven't seen any plans on it yet but my assumption is there's some dry wells under there because it's in a very low area and they
were to evaluate the capacity of those dry wells and also their structural integrity to take all that loading that would still have to be done uh there are a few construction details that I listed that I'm sure the applicant can provide
and then finally on the last couple of pages I went through the analysis on before I received additional information from Mr salvi's office i went through the analysis for the basement because that did total up just
using the figures for the pharmacy the rest the proposed restaurant and the proposed retail unit of about 4,178 square ft and depending on whether that was used for retail office in the basement or for storage uh you came up
between another 21 or nine parking spaces depending on which category you utilize for that and that was above and beyond the 29 spaces that they're providing now I don't think the planner got into the testimony on that resolution yet i'm I'm pretty sure he
can respond to it but I believe when we indicated there was a resolution from 2017 is this microphone picking me up or you need me to it should okay yes uh so there is a resolution from 2017 and I
highlighted the language this is under on page three of the resolution from 2017 and this is whereas number four uh the board also find and I'm reading from the
resolution the board also finds that a site plan exemption or C2 variant should be granted to allow the conversion of 344 square feet of basement storage for pharmacy for theiesy's employees only break room and bathroom
without any additional parking spaces because no additional employees or businesses will be generated so I think that's what we were falling back on with respect to the the storage so I don't believe in the architectural plans and I'd stand corrected on this
one that we received any asbuilt plan of the basement to show and I'm not saying it isn't but that 300 and some odd square feet of break room area and exactly what is being used for the basement area other than storage uh the
reason I bring that up there was some discussion here I believe at a previous hearing that there might have been some training classes down there or something to that effect so it's not clear in my mind exactly what's going on down there especially based on going by several times and there's quite a few cars
parked in the area in the back not saying you're wrong but Right it's a it's a good point i think that's a stipulation a condition of approval to Yeah um we would stipulate any use that was granted pursuant to this resolution would be continued and wouldn't be
expanded uh beyond what has already been granted with the areas um as I was uh just uh advised there is also a representation from the attorney could you speak into the microphone thank you yeah there was a correspondence from the attorney of the
pharmacy uh basically confirming that there has been no change uh to the use of the basement since the uh resolution was approved and uh we could forward that correspondence to the board yes I I appreciate that uh as the board
engineer uh has suggested and is standing customary in the industry the asbuilt plan is something that uh makes people a little more comfortable rather than a a self-serving letter and respectfully a letter from an attorney
as to a uh statement that is made to the attorney and he memorializes in writing so the suggestion of the board engineer of the asbuilt is one that I would echo also but I think we can continue the test yeah we can get that okay then
moving on to signage again uh I don't believe details of any of the new sign plates to add to that uh freestanding sign have been added to the plans i understand it's function of if you get approval here at this board and I believe in the resolution that the
planner uh referenced there was also uh request that was granted to raise the freestanding sign to about 14 1/2 ft in there to accommodate visibility and also the additional sign plates on the prior resolution yes okay
under fire protection we touch base on that just verify with the architect and the construction official department if in fact any fire protection would be required especially additional water usage for the restaurant type use there
was no formal EIS submitted for this application it's an existing building but again uh I just had to note to check on any noise level that might be generated at the property lines there's a note for the architect to take into consideration the design they'd have to
meet Sparta Township and New Jersey D noise limits under 14 we listed all the various approvals that would be required if the board were to approve the application and then finally under item 15 under miscellaneous jumping down to
item B we talked about as the board's attorney just mentioned the ASBUL plan and under item A I did note four conditions that I read off the previous resolution back in 2013 uh that should be verified to make sure
it was taken care of condition number four was about the dry wells and the overflow area uh condition number five verifying the site lighting for the parking lot to make sure it's all in conformance condition number eight provide a copy of the merger deed for
the lots involved with the application and I will note that Mr svaji did send over a copy of that deed uh with some of the other information to our office and I assume it came to to the board as well and condition number 10 uh was the
impervious coverage val calculations which I believe have been updated to reflect the property lines and also uh the additional imperous coverage to get those additional areas in the back added in and that's my updated report madam
Chair thank you very much yes sir ma'am um so I apologize if any of this is being repeated from previous meetings um I'm new here um but um so I just have a couple of questions regarding the first regarding the retail use um it says
Delhi um I would advise the board if they were to look favorably upon this application to maybe restrict having any type of uh tables or anything like that for it to be then considered a ret um a restaurant use um because that kind of seems like that's a fine line that could
easily be crossed um my next is uh question issue is um when looking at the criteria right we consider the um what will benefit the community um we think about public good we think about health safety welfare which we've said
quite a bit tonight um one of my concerns is the two egress stairs in the rear which um just come out of the building right into the parking area um parking space 22 is directly adjacent to both of those um I feel like those could
be potentially um unsafe situations for people exiting the building and um in addition to that I know Mr simmons also brought up um that change in grade in the rear of the building for uh 29
and 28 as it it's already been stated there's that big grade change where I think that that does create a bit of a blind spot for those uh vehicles backing out um and I'm not entirely sure that they would work as parking spaces
i'm sorry what spaces did you have concerned on so 28 and 29 okay and then 22 okay thank you and I also would um bring up just bring to the board's attention
that um lot uh space 20 is going if a car is parked there it'll be blocking the meter to the building and the utilities lindsay can you repeat that i'm I'm sorry pardon can you repeat that yes so
um parking spot 20 is right in front of the meters which are on the exterior of the building you actually can see them better in these drone images um page three you can kind of see the striping and where the exterior
meters are and if a park if that park the white car that's parked there if it was parked in the lines would be blocking the exterior meters yeah yeah that's it um good comments i I think I can take them in reverse i think the main one which is a good one the
blocking of the side doors speak into the microphone please um I think the comments were all good the I'll take them I think in reverse order that's probably easier for me to remember the first was those three parking spaces adjacent to the building
on the side i'm seeing them as shown on the approved site plan from 2014 i'm also seeing them um on the exhibits that I've given you uh so they're there they've been they've been vetted so all right so with all due
respect a prior use parking site plan on tandem parking that is creating a current public health safety welfare issue it's my legal advice that that's not grandfathered it may be a basis to grant a variance on the tandem but it is
in no way shape or form grandfathered so if you can address the concerns of tandem parking there and I the other concern I have is the it looks like the sight line you're trying to see on the
survey is part of the parking space on the other lot yes okay all right i'll let you go with that go ahead i think I can And and I'm not trying to be difficult i was always taught that if god forbid an
accident occurs and we approve something that two wrongs don't make it right just because it was permitted in the in the past doesn't uh if there is a safety issue or the the meter and and you have justification in the testimony that's
great but I think the but go ahead it's your goal solution Do you know where you're going to put the other four spaces on the other lot do you know that yet
well this is going to go back to Mr spaces 23 through 28 along the back of the property about the slopes and the feasibility of those we talked about being employee
spaces so they're not going to have that turnover problem that's certainly something I think our our engineer can address point is there are four lot right of four so there could be four
designated employee only subject site and I always say maybe that helps the subject a little more my reaction but certainly going on or you take the four spaces in the back
you enlarge in you know rather than have one two three four five six spaces in the back you have three spaces four spaces something uh Respectfully I think there's good comments it's we're getting
close to to 10:00 that if the and I would say to the board in my experience it's great to condition applications on things like does the dry well work uh you know signage of certain things uh the ADA uh and I appreciate I
did get from council the merger deed i'll take a look at that i do have pause uh in my experience when you have like and and respectfully to the engineer when you put one and then you put eight i know common sense says this is 2 3 4 5
6 7 i I'm more used to the third grader approach that shows 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 so there's no confusion on where the spaces are uh and I would say that with the concerns that the engineer brought up on the back and where exactly the four
spaces are going to be on light lot 26 I think the board could make an informed decision if they had that data and I don't think that should be a a heavy lift i would also like to see the agreement between the two properties that uh and I can review that very
quickly as to what that would be a form of an easement or uh something that would be a license agreement that if the restaurant fails that that uh parking arrangement would also fail so that would be up to the property owner what conditions they want to put on but I
think it's fair to this board that the parking is an issue that they've talked about i've seen that if if you had a more specific just parking plan i think that would be my recommendation chair person that uh to
carry it to have that yes i' I'd like to bring up one other point i have a ton of questions which I'm going to save to the end after everybody but there is one thing that I think really needs to be addressed um with regard to the parking so that we're all on the same page going forward
um you had one of your tenants come into the minor site plan subcommittee in November of 2024 and the there was a site plan that was submitted at that time on this site plan
with regard to those three parallel parking spaces it says three illegal parallel parking spaces to be abandoned so they were illegal to begin
with um what is that in relation to what I tranquil leaf okay but the site plan what applic I wasn't part of that TRC so I
don't know what that document is you can can't read it i had to do it with my magnifier phone but it says three illegal parallel parking spaces to be abandoned and to address your resolution that you
brought up um first of all you are stating that the pharmacy is leasing the basement area correct i don't know i don't uh correct correct so that would be part of gross leasable
space correct correct i mean I would need to look into I'm coming from Mike Salvage but Yes okay so it's uh and the parking standards relate to gross leasable um space the resolution that you brought up was for the break room and it said that
additional parking is not needed for the 342 square ft but it did not indicate what the parking was it just said not additional for the 342 square feet but you have other square footage there that needs to
be addressed needs to be on a site plan it is part of your gross leasable space so we need to see the whole picture and as Mr simmons was saying that could equate to 21 more spaces even if you want to carve out the 342 square ft from
a prior variance you could do that but it still relates to more so um those are my concerns i think you need to address the parallel parking not only the safety concerns but the fact that it was acknowledged um that it was they were illegal spaces just because
you slap some paint on doesn't really make it a legal space and to put all of it on your site plan then at that point if we want to go back and say okay you know now we know what we're going to maybe give a variance about but it all needs to be laid out so we're missing
all the rest of the square footage in there it is grossable gross leasable space am I correct council what I'll do is I'll get you a copy uh what the chairperson has given us it does say three existing it uses the word illegal
yeah parking spaces to be uh abandoned uh or I think it's abandoned is the word but we'll get a copy of that to you so at least we can any official document is that it's submitted by the property owner it says site plan layout signed by
Joseph Golden PPP it says preliminary and final plan gives a lot and block and it looks like 2013 we'll get to the bottom yeah and we'll get to the the bottom of it in terms of what's going on in that basement as well
we'll we'll pin that down right you want to get it right just FYI because every time I go back there I have tons of pictures on my phone and so the last time you know I went there March 12th they're parked three deep there were 21 cars in the
back so there pharmacy we had asked at one point for the uh number of employees by the tenant uh we never got that but uh 21 cars they could take up all your parking spaces so where are they going to go i think you know all of this needs
to come up um I'm going to hold off the rest of my questions i just wanted to address this so we know exactly what we're looking at as we go through questions that's good the basement the number of employees in the pharmacy uh the tandem parking space
and that we'll take a look at that plan yes okay it may help also that the I mean I've driven by the site also there may be some abandoned cars on the site that the back uh it's not endearing when you
I think that's in the applicant's self-interest too thank you okay just also before we begin with the um rest of the board asking questions Mr simmons um you I don't think you really address the
easement and the distance between um how narrow it gets i I Madam Chair it's a good point in the report that I did March 14th 2025 on page three under parking and loading I did bring up certain areas
where when I was out there uh again referring to the I call them dedicated spaces on the northerly side of the building on lot 26 as you progress down the easement the corridor becomes narrower and narrower based on the con
geometric configuration of some of the parking spaces and it gets below based on my scaling it gets below the minimum requirement of 24 ft so there's some waiverss in there the other thing uh but that's just for parking what about the fact that the easement uh will have to
allow access for moving trucks or whatever else may go to the property behind it that that was the next place I was going to go since I'm I'm hearing the applicants applications going to be carried uh excuse me i would think that it would be a good thing for the
applicant uh and his consultants to provide a copy of that easement and their opinion on what those easement rights are or to the contrary what excuse me I'm sorry what rights these property owners may have to be in that
easement if it's just for ingress and egress or if they're allowed to infringe upon that easement with some of their parking and I'm and I'm going back to what the chair lady just mentioned about those illegal parking spaces i know that
was signed by Joseph Golden PE and my recollection is that Joe Golden uh and his firm did the original site plan for this site so you may find some information on that there okay and and just for the we can uh draft something
for your review and of course uh we can discuss because I think you mentioned maybe designating spots so that can kind of be a what spots get detonated go that route and and my other suggestion on those four spots if you're looking at lot 26
uh I'm assuming that you might be focused primarily on the parking lot in the rear of that building and I would think just off the top of my head that the four spot should probably be closer to u the subject property you're dealing
with so it minimize the traffic going in and out around the residential for parking in the back thank you do we want to start with questions from the board still have some time to maybe
my only concern is obviously the parking and a parking plan would be essential I think in order to move forward and with I will pass it on maybe it makes sense for us to address all these issues and let's see what else may come
up ron I think you have questions yeah so if I can keep these on the record and then we'll So one thing if we can talk about it at the next time was again Corporal Morris's report i'd like to get some type of of response from you on whether you agree disagree and you know is there an expert that can testify to
that that' be helpful to hear your point of view that's the police officer yes okay thank you yes um I I guess Dave already maybe touched on this is the additional square footage in the basement you know there is square footage but it needs parking spaces or not but does that kind of trigger a need
for a fire suppressant system based on the square footage when that's added um we talked about the impervious coverage um talked about those spaces um design standards for TR for the uh
TCC says both sideyard parking and rear yard parking should be no closer than 5T to the building when I look at both buildings I don't see that um in a couple of spots and I don't see variances either being granted previously or being requested um so I'd
like to make sure that that that's addressed um in partic you say that again so when you look at TCC um the ordinance state that that no parking spaces shall be closer than five feet to the building so if you look at the side the sidewalks we talked about as well as
in the in the other building behind you pull right up to the building and there's no stops or anything like that so that's a safety issue I think needs to be addressed um let's see dave talked about the slope with the
basement this um looking at the the drawing um I didn't see a size for the loading space so I don't know if that was compliant or not it wasn't marked on the drawing um just want to make sure that's compliant um as well as um our engineers has has
said you know there's safety issues here associated with the slope of that um I know when I drove by the other day there's cars all all parked in that area so they just want to make sure it's really going to be a loading loading area no parking and that the slope is is
something that we could consider safe um we talked about the aisles give me one second i apologize talk with you so looking at looking at the other building um and we talked about parking spaces so it looks like the other building has a basement as well
um then that's shown on your drawings so do we need to be looking at square footage for that when consideration for parking you know what what's if if if there is a basement as it shows on the drawing what's it being used for and is it included in your parking
calculations um residential parking on the other building so I don't know the answer i'm going to look for you to help me with this when you have tenants in a commercial building do you need to reserve spaces
just for the tenants and if so how many and if you and if and if so does that still leave you a balance of spaces the answer is yes it still leaves a balance of spaces the RSIS residential site improvement standards is what governs it's two
spaces for every unit there's two units there i think Mr simmons but but are are they marked reserved so they're always available if the tenant pulls up there's no requirement that they be reserved but that I think that's certainly something the consider advice for sure okay thanks
u talk to the basement also on on the on the other building when you're pulling you can you can actually see it on on the photographs you did that you provided today the physical therapist has signs all along the side of the building that says parking for physical therapy only so I
thought they were going to be removed but if they're still there I think that you know if if you're going to reserve them then can we include them as part of the count or is the sign going to come down what's what's the plan there um then looking at the other building spaces 16 and 21 they're
directly adjacent to a a garden a playground in the back um you you come right up to it and there's I don't see any safety means of a car accidentally pulling into that playground area so what's what I need to
understand what what's the plan there um and we talked about the five foot talked with the cars and then what came up today um from from our planner I believe was on the um the pharmacy building there's two spaces
I believe was 28 and 29 and the question was you know are they can they be considered spaces or not because they're in the count so please take a look at that and be prepared to respond to that the next time you come back okay thank you no I think we're on cover
so oh Mark sorry Mark mark yeah thank you i'm so sorry do you have questions i I don't want to forget him again you know it it's not really a question but you know I'm very concerned about
Officer Morris's discussion of the ingress and egress i mean these spots are very tight on here and and and I know coming out of that that that lot
it's it's quite quite challenging to make a left turn and I don't understand how if you're going to have a restaurant or fast food pickup whatever traffic going in and
out how how the the the corner here is going to operate how the intersection would operate um so that that's my concern at this point thanks all right thank you sorry yeah kind of hop on Mark's comment
and then I would just add to it that I think you're talking about a takeout style restaurant and a deli and then there's the pharmacy so we're talking about a lot of cars in and out before you go too far on the deli I'm told that was a mistake on the plants okay so the
deli was a remnant from early it's not a deli there's not going to be any space it's going to be a store or shop it's not going to be a food use okay um and then just just the space in between the buildings where there were those illegal
spots uh I guess the engineer I'm curious our engineer what the thoughts were on um I I think you had suggested oh we could move those spaces away from the building
but I think that would just exacerbate I think there's it's pretty narrow already right so that's not an option so we need to address those spaces they probably need to be abandoned well anyway all All right that's it for me got it maybe that's
maybe that's those are the three spaces that go one last thing um and I know we're beating dead horses regarding parking um because we're looking at a cross sement there's no safe walkable path from one
side to the other maybe consider some striping yeah for for walkability from those spaces for the easement purposes um also to reiterate um the Corporal Morris's report I think the focus should
be as as Councilman Scott indicated that left turn out of the parking lot um because that is difficult because you've got two lanes on that one side i mean the other the other driveways further down don't have that same difficulty
that that you do there because if you have the one car sitting to make a left turn in if somebody goes to make a left turn out and somebody's going around them that's that that's an issue so I think that should be a point of focus when you're thinking about how to address Corbal Morris's report um that
that those were the only comments that I had thank you okay um I had a lot some of my questions were answered here but um I had one other regarding if it's not deli style and it says new retail um what is it going to
be is it going to be the tranquil leaf that came into the minor site plan subcommittee i'm don't know an enduser all I know is that it's going to be a permitted use that's a retail use not a restaurant use
okay but somebody will answer that question in further testimony if if there's one that's contemplated yes we'll answer it if there isn't a contend at this point uh we'll testify as to what it's going to be
we have time to find that out from the We're not opening it to the public yet you Well we will open We have to open it to the public before we go right for them to ask questions of the application you're carrying You're carrying the application you have Yeah but they're here if you'd like you have
the ability to have the publish okay um and so we would do that before I ask whatever you want to do okay so I guess that's it for the board questions and I'd like to open it to the public
you're not public let Let me just make sure there's nobody from the public who wants to speak you saw me swear to tell the truth all truth tell the truth i do just name and tell me jenny Derek's tap into Sparta um
I just want to I don't have a copy of the pictures that you've been referring to with the updated plan um is the easement issue that you're talking about is that the easement that comes from the top I brought up the at the last meeting
okay and so those lot those are their spaces still across the back and if so how did they rectify having right but you were this is what this is my question at the last meeting how does that easement get factored in and that would explain then the three illegal the
references to three illegal spots because the easement goes right through the slots but if that's the same thing I asked last time so thank you you understand that that issue yeah yeah okay um can we ask you the question then can
you get sworn in he's sworn in from the So I'm just trying to tell the truth i'm sure you got I do your name is stressing you it's neater ask me for my name right yes it's nater
i don't know if this is on could be dead doesn't sound like you might want to use the the other three others take your pick one of them works green light is
um I guess two two questions that come to mind the first one is allow if you would allow Mr simmons to to discuss outside of the board confinement in here some of the issues that he has raised or the board has raised I think that would make it a whole lot easier for us to
either meet in person or meet on site and go over some of these comments and come back with a resolution to you guys last time we were advised that we cannot meet with them or we cannot discuss any part of the application outside of the board right we'd like to keep all of
this in the open forum so um understood but there's a lot of technical issues that are going on in here especially with the comments that he has raised and and you know beneficiary of him going through it thank you i was going to do it but you did an excellent job so I appreciate it but uh certainly that
would be very helpful so we can again resolve some of these technical issues um and then he could come back to you with more of a resolution or I can come back to you with a resolution well Mr nater just I'm new to the board
u new to the town i drove to the site uh to be candid uh has a lot of challenges by way of I was surprised the way the rear of the property is kept the distinction of some of the even the one lot versus the
children pre play area butdding right up to the commercial lot i I was really confused on the prior approvals the existing approval uh again the site layout of the parking uh over my 30 years that's an issue that could be
deemed the application incomplete uh because the the parking I think that the board has been pretty candid uh you're the if you come back with the parking layout and the traffic issue of the police I think that would bode well the
issues of the dry well to meet with the engineer uh I'm comfortable with saying to the board those can be conditions but I think the parking and the conditions of prior approvals on the site uh I don't think you need to meet with the
engineer just need we need to see what you're going to do well I appreciate it this has never happened i guess in my 40 years of of practicing engineering this has never happened and I've never had the ability to meet with the engineer but I respect the board's decision so
that's fine we'll move on from that uh the comment that was made by the planner about the u u I think you said the meter was adjacent to the parking space what is the issue with it being adjacent i guess you didn't elaborate on the issue
for it it it's been that way since the building was constructed it was approved that way the parking is shown at the at the plans that were approved at the time so what what is the issue that you have or a concern that you have about that all right i'm going to direct her not to answer that because it's common sense
it's public health safety and welfare you don't put a parking space next to a a meter you're an engineer you understand that the concerns were here discussion of setting it back over so even in the plans the the tandem parking spaces are showing on the other
property so I don't think this is rocket science the board has said to you here's their concern here's the layout concern the burden is on you to come forward with an acceptable plan again in my 34 years it would have been the plan would have been deemed incomplete because it's
but we're trying to your permitted use let's try to be on on a positive aspect i I I'm doing my best to be on the positive aspect but with understanding of what we have to do i think leaving here every night and after every meeting was not a clear understanding of what
the board wishes us to have leaves us coming back again and again and again to the board and yet leaving again with more comments so the idea is that if we can understand what the board is exactly looking for or the professionals are looking for then we can address those conditions and come back to the board
with a meaningful plan we feel that our plan addresses all the concerns related to the zoning and related to the site plan however we're open-minded we can make adjustments as needed if we have the ability to do so but just keep going
back and and modify the plan submit modify submit it doesn't do anybody any good i think the the message is loud and clear on the parking layout is confusing and needs to be addressed especially as the chairman brought up on the prior
approval that talked about and I I I'm don't know why they called it illegal but that was the category that the engineer called it so I think the parking layout the message is pretty clear i've I've never seen that plan so I don't know where that plan could if
you have the ability we'll make sure that would be great for your attorney we'll make sure yes also you know we we have raised questions we've given you a lot of questions to go back and you know find answers to and
um you've come back many times with changes to the application so it's not one-sided it is two-sided first it was going to be two restaurants then it was going to be something else and then it was going to be another thing so you
know we've had to look at it each time differently based on what was submitted madame chairperson we've come back based on the conditions that you guys have given us or on the feedback that you have given us right because we're trying to work with you to make this
application suitable but you know when we recommended that two restaurants for this site with the parking issues etc uh and the traffic concerns and the healtha safety and welfare of everyone concerned um we encouraged you to go back and look
at it and specifically said well maybe it shouldn't be a restaurant over in that corner there with all of the traffic circulation even with on the site so we've been asking you to make some of those improvements i mean we could have easily just said okay
doesn't work but we're trying to work with you to go back and forth we did we removed one of the two restaurants we eliminated one based on the feedback we received from and we came back with one and that's why this is a you know back and forth but it's not like we're trying to make you keep coming back we're
trying to help you develop the application to a point where it might be acceptable and I would recommend to the board too on the the shared spaces uh it could be a license agreement rather than a formal easement because let's say the
restaurant fails god forbid uh if you have an easement it runs with the two properties if you have a license agreement and the restaurant fails uh uh then that license agreement could void and not encumber the other property because you may get a a new use that
doesn't require the other spaces so there's avenues that you could have the board could work with you but I I really think the parking layout and the traffic flow is the key issue yeah I'm I'm new here so I haven't been part of the iterative process and I'm
just saying I would echo the same thing just could you just clarify the parking um and address the traffic engineer's comments traffic police
he's a police officer i don't know what his qualifications are but with regard to traffic I know he's the traffic officer he's a local expert he's a traffic engineer we're not asking you to come in with a traffic expert either so if you
could just address themselves okay okay so when do we carry this so our next meeting is April 2nd i don't know if that's too soon for the applicant april 16th we have up in the
air next meeting will be May 7th so May 7th let's carry to May 7th no new notice be required yes sir thank you um All right so at this point we are
going to open to the public for um anything that has not been on the agenda okay hearing none um and I there was actually um Ken before you came in we had gone over the master plan um
subcommittee report but you were going to yes add some things about that yes real real quick uh it is not homework uh it is uh just a blurb from the
uh New Jersey statutes dealing with the master plan coming down okay we go this way do you want mine to you guys and all I did was this
is the black letter law uh dealing with uh the master plan and it it talks about uh the planning board may at the bottom prepare and after public hearing adopt an amendment master plan but more importantly if you turn to the second
page 739 it talks about the land use elements at the top it'll starts the master plan generally comprise reports or statements and land and development propos proposals with maps presenting at least the following uh elements and the objectives there you know you're talking
about physical economic and social development of your community you know your community best and that is uh I admire people who are on the master plan it's a lot of work but you're really setting forth the direction of the community there is uh it says here uh
there's a land use element uh and it talks about also the relationships it goes through uh all the different uh points again I'm skipping down flood planes uh air safety other elements
economic uh sustainability and then and it also includes down below uh future buildouts because of flooding and hurricanes you know it it just gives some really good language if you go to 740 the next page
uh and it talks about uh this is the circulation plan number four I think there was some issue on transportation so here uh number three was the housing plan which is self-evident that's all the fair housing co issues and that's uh
Lindsay and her team will work on that but number four the circulation plan showing the location types of facility and for all modes of transportation uh talking about your roadways talking about rail water i mean that's a big issue in in your community especially as
I understand with Route 15 and the like so that is part of your uh uh your your task when you're looking at the master plan how to develop your community soundly with uh uh sound transportation number five utilities number six
community facilities you know libraries hospitals uh recreation fields number seven conservation plan you know number eight uh economic development obviously you have to keep uh taxes in check uh and this is in line with what we talked
about cannabis that if cannabis was part of the mayor and council's plan that it generates X dollars i know it's public record in Rochelle on Route 17 in Bergen County uh they have a facility there and uh the municipalities public record show
that they've made $900,000 a year on uh the cannabis issues in Rochelle Park so that community has permitted that type of use based upon part of their economic plan and you know I may may be off on the exact numbers but it is public
record uh that they have that's part of their economic development number 10 historic preservation we talked about what you know uh encouraging preservation of historic buildings let's say you have an older building that in order to keep that integrity that
footprint they may need certain variances so uh if that's important that we would encourage historic preservation even if it has to give uh uh weight to certain uh bulk variances uh and then you know number 12 recycling
plan 13 farm preservation these are all elements uh it goes through again the next page um and I'm skipping education again greenhouse green buildings you know do you have on a commercial building number 16 do you have some type
of greenhouse house facilities solar panels or something that absorbs the heat uh 17 public access plans uh you know when we're talking about down the shore the public trust doctrine that people can get to the ocean people can get to the same thing here at the lakes
public access people should be able to get to the uh lakes and the walkways and not be barred as a result of uh certain restrictions again that has to be reasonable uh and then it talks about uh also uh dealing with other aspects of
the uh the master plan uh by way of the state intervent so you can see these are just kind of the black letter topics of it's so broad you have so much power that it's your vested interest to determine
what best suits your community and you can see this checklist hits almost every aspect of uh your societal needs that's it thank you you know what I don't see in here though is the climate change that's a required aspect isn't it yeah climate is in here by way of
environmental uh let's see I did see something 16 16 Okay good yeah greenhouse environmental sustainability yes okay 16 climate conditions right in 16 good catch okay thank you very much thank you
that's it all right anybody else your motion to adjurnn i have a motion to adjurnn second in favor i I Mark thank you for tuning in on the