Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on October 12 2023

Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.

Speaker 0     00:00:01    You are good to begin.  
Speaker 1     00:00:03    Okay. Not Laura, but I'll take it. The zoning board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the vault board of the Municipal Building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the COER News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the role?  
Speaker 0     00:00:27    Mr. Tillery?  
Speaker 2     00:00:28    Here.  
Speaker 0     00:00:28    Here. Mr. Patel? Here. Here. Mr. Regio?  
Speaker 1     00:00:33    Here.  
Speaker 0     00:00:34    Here. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 1     00:00:35    Here. Here.  
Speaker 0     00:00:36    Mr. Heca already was here. Mr. Mitterando?  
Speaker 3     00:00:43    Here.  
Speaker 0     00:00:44    Here. Mr. Ellie? Here. Here. And Chairman Cahill  
Speaker 1     00:00:48    Here. Here will everyone please stand for a salute to the flag.  
Speaker 3     00:00:55    To the flag of the United States stands. Liberty Justice.  
Speaker 1     00:01:08    Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to the agenda?  
Speaker 2     00:01:11    There are two postponements 100 Lakeview here will be adjourned until December 14th with no further notice. L and r properties will be adjourned until October or November 9th with no further notice. So those are all the changes that I have.  
Speaker 1     00:01:26    Thank you sir. Let's move forward with no item number 5 23 dash ZB dash 83 v. EC Li  
Speaker 2     00:01:36    Is EC Lim present. It appears EC Li may have an attorney. Mr. Sach, are you present?  
Speaker 4     00:01:43    Yeah. Good evening. This is David Himmelman. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Sachs was not able to make it this evening, so you get me instead. So don't shoot the messenger. In any event, I know the board has a, a large agenda tonight, so I'm just gonna give a brief opening and I have one witness who's I see. Joe May, our engineer who's online. So if you don't have any direct questions, I can proceed. So just for the record, as you noted, the property is at 84 Lakeside Drive South. It's block 7 9 1 3 15 0 1 and it, of course it's in your R 10 zone. And the essence of the relief we're seeking tonight is for the minimum lot width and the minimum lot frontage, which are preexisting. As you know, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and construct a new two story single family on the property and I believe we provided elevations and architecturals on that. Since this is a C one bulk variance, we will need to establish both the positive and negative criteria as required under the permissible land use law. Mr. May, who is our engineer, is prepared to briefly discuss the proposed application and plan and address the, the planning aspects as well. So if there's no further questions, I guess we could have Mr. May sworn in and qualified.  
Speaker 2     00:03:24    Mr. May, can you raise your right hand?  
Speaker 5     00:03:26    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:03:28    Testimony you're about to give to you the truth?  
Speaker 5     00:03:30    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:03:31    Your name and address please.  
Speaker 5     00:03:32    Joseph May m a y address is 8 0 1 Fay Court Point. Pleasant, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     00:03:41    Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:03:41    Thank you. Mr. May if you could just give a brief back cv your background in qualifications and your licensure status so we could qualify you as an expert. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:03:52    Yes, sir. I'm a graduate of N J I T in class of 1993. I've worked for C M E Associates short of Palmer. I'm a licensed engineer in the engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2004. I currently serve as a borough engineer in a, a town in Monmouth County.  
Speaker 4     00:04:10    I think he's more than qualified. We can proceed. Thank you very much. Thank you. I know Mr. May, you've provided the, the board with some exhibits that you would like to have presented. Is that my understanding?  
Speaker 5     00:04:22    Yes. I can also share screens. I I figured I would just share the screen as I go through my testimony.  
Speaker 4     00:04:27    Fair enough. Okay. I don't know if we need to have those marked, but we can Mr. Kinneally, I guess we can do that as we proceed.  
Speaker 2     00:04:34    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:04:35    Okay. Mr. Mayor, if you would just give a brief overview of the proposed application and then also dis obviously discussing the variance plan and if you would also address the, the justification and proofs, particularly with the positive and negative criteria to support the C one variance, that would be appreciated. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:04:55    Yes, sir. As discussed, the property is 84 Lakeside Drive south. It's in your R 10 zone. The lot has 45 feet of frontage along the street and increases to the rear where there's approximately 83 feet wide. The total existing lot area is 9,285 square feet. The lot is presently occupied by a single family dwelling. The dwelling is situated slightly to the left where the setback is only 2.6 feet on the left side of the existing home. The existing house does not contain a garage or a second floor. There is a driveway on the right side of the house that can accommodate three cars. The surrounding area is residential with a portion of Lake Nelson behind the property and I'll share those photos. Now this is looking at the property from Lake Drive. There's nothing up there.  
Speaker 4     00:05:59    I'm not sure they're up there, Joe.  
Speaker 5     00:06:02    Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:06:03    I see the, the reference to the exhibits, but it's not, they're not open.  
Speaker 5     00:06:09    Okay. Lemme see if I can,  
Speaker 4     00:06:12    Yeah, actually I think if you, if you open up the document and then you just hit share, I think it'll,  
Speaker 5     00:06:18    Yeah, it says you are sharing screen now, so I'm  
Speaker 0     00:06:25    Unshare it then open it and then reshare again.  
Speaker 5     00:06:28    Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:06:29    Oh, thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:06:31    Okay. Stop sharing.  
Speaker 4     00:06:58    There we go. There it is.  
Speaker 5     00:07:00    Okay. This is a view of the property along Lake Drive South. This is the existing driveway of the existing home.  
Speaker 7     00:07:13    Five minute warning or anything? Yes, yes, yes, yes.  
Speaker 4     00:07:16    Okay. You want me to leave  
Speaker 7     00:07:17    Now? No, I just need to, need to see  
Speaker 5     00:07:23    This is a view of the backyard of the property from the driveway. I'm  
Speaker 7     00:07:27    Just gonna leave this on. I'll turn it down a little bit. I'll be back.  
Speaker 4     00:07:32    Please  
Speaker 0     00:07:32    Mute yourself.  
Speaker 5     00:07:37    This is a, a view of the property from the side yard and this is a view of the, of Lake Nelson from the rear of the property.  
Speaker 4     00:07:48    Fair enough. Mr. May, why don't we just have those designated as a one, those five photos?  
Speaker 5     00:07:55    Yes sir. The second item we're gonna share with you is the variance plan. Can everyone see this?  
Speaker 4     00:08:13    Yes. Yeah, that's good.  
Speaker 5     00:08:16    This proposed plan indicates the proposed dwelling. The house will have four bedrooms and an overall footprint of approximately 760 square feet. The new home will have no variances as we improve this side yard variance along this westerly side of the property, two gar, a two car garage is going to be provided. The only relief once again associated with this is the existing nonconform lot area, a lot width and lot frontage. Since we are asking for bulk relief, we'd like to consider the positive and negatives of this case. Taking into account the relief sought, it's a new home, it'll be modern, attractive, it'll certainly benefit the area. The project eliminates the non-conformity on the west of west side of the property or the left side. The house position not to be located in the flood hazard or repairing area. The two car garage increased the availability of off street parking.  
Speaker 5     00:09:21    The project does not require any new utilities or road openings as, as the existing utilities can be utilized. The negatives, this application does not cause any detriment to the surrounding area public good or zone plan. Since the property is presently zoned and is used for a single family dwelling, there is no increase in traffic noise or density. The two existing nonconformities are part of unique size and shape of the lot and do not affect the use of the property as a dwelling. In order to limit the bulk of the structure, the height limit recommendation 32 feet will be adhered to. In conclusion, the construction of a single family dwelling on the property is consistent with the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The uses permitted and the new home complies with the R 10 zone setbacks and coverages. The dwelling has been sized appropriately for the lot size that exists. It's an attractive modern home and only adds value to the neighborhood. I'd like to also add that we will modify the existing or the proposed driveway, so we'll utilize the existing curb cut. So there'll be no impact on the moratorium on that roadway.  
Speaker 4     00:10:33    And Joe, I know that the board's landscape architect, Mr. Hinterstein, issued a memo Indem dated October 11th, and you've had a chance to review those, those proposed recommendations. Is that correct?  
Speaker 5     00:10:48    Yes, sir. We have no issues with complying with the items outlined in his memorandum.  
Speaker 4     00:10:54    Very good. Mr. May, would you like to add anything or do you think you've covered all your testimony?  
Speaker 5     00:10:59    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 4     00:11:00    Okay. Board, we don't have any further questions of this witness, but the board may as required. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:11:08    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:11:10    Are there any amendments of the ward that have any questions for this witness? Henry, do you have any further comments?  
Speaker 8     00:11:18    No, I think, I think the applicant outlined the application. Just maybe for the record, there is no additional property that could be purchased from either home on either side, correct?  
Speaker 5     00:11:29    Correct.  
Speaker 4     00:11:30    That's correct. Although that correct without  
Speaker 8     00:11:32    Yes, without making right. Without making them non-conforming themselves. Okay. So that, that's really the main, I mean, again, this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. I don't think it could be made conforming due to the fact that there's no existing property that's available on either side of this property. Got it. They've offered to comply with the, with the staff memorandum, so I do not see any issues with the application as presented.  
Speaker 1     00:11:55    Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions for this application? Mr. May, could you unshare the screen please, sir? I'm sorry. Thank you. No, that's okay. Thank you. Chairman. Hearing no other questions from the board. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Ms. Buckley? Laura, you're muted. I think it looks like she's having problems with her microphone. Yeah, I think so. I see that is one hand up if there's people. No, there's none. There are no people. She's signaling to me. Okay. We'll close the public portion and I That's the, the, the bro the crux of your testimony, correct? That's the case? Yes, correct. Mr. Chairman? Fine. I make a motion to approve this application. Can I second Laura if you can see me or, or hear me?  
Speaker 2     00:13:15    Would you like me to call the role? Jim,  
Speaker 1     00:13:17    Would you call the role please, sir?  
Speaker 2     00:13:18    Yes. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Mattel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio?  
Speaker 1     00:13:24    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:13:25    Juan?  
Speaker 1     00:13:26    Yes. Mr.  
Speaker 2     00:13:28    Mr. Manda? Yes. Mr. Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:13:35    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:13:36    Mr. Helman, your applicant has been approved. We'll memorialize this at our next meeting.  
Speaker 1     00:13:41    Thank you very much Mr. Kne and nice to see you members. Thank you so much for your time. Have a good evening, gentlemen. Thank you. Good luck with Thank you. Good luck with the rest of the night. Thank you. Let's appreciate that. We're gonna need it. Let's move on to item number 6 23 dash ZB dash 86 V. John Jar.  
Speaker 9     00:13:57    Yes?  
Speaker 1     00:13:58    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:13:58    Are you both gonna testify this evening?  
Speaker 9     00:14:01    Yes. This is my, my wife Mary and my name is John.  
Speaker 2     00:14:04    Okay. I need to swear both of you in. Could you each raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Yes. Yes. One at a time. Could I have your name and address please?  
Speaker 9     00:14:16    J John Rome, 48 Carlton Avenue. Oh my, my my As 48 Carlton Avenue.  
Speaker 2     00:14:23    Okay. Okay.  
Speaker 9     00:14:24    John Rome, 48 Carlton Avenue. Ms. Caraway, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     00:14:29    Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?  
Speaker 9     00:14:34    Okay, so we got the house. We bought the house a year ago and this year we tried to replace the fence. It, the house, it already has a fence, so we replace it. We didn't get the permit because we thought we, we were just replacing the, the, the fence. Fence. Then I got a notice because I didn't have the permit. I went to the town and they told me that, eh, the, like how you say that, that the way who do the permit for us, where we okay with, we tried to do the permit and everything and now is we try to do the variance because the way the house has the fence before wasn't basically the way it should be. Yes. Or has to be. So either the house is on a corner, it's on the corner. And the fence we installed is a chain fence. Five feet.  
Speaker 2     00:15:29    Okay. Mr. Chairman, you may want to check with Mr. Hinterstein.  
Speaker 1     00:15:32    Yes. Mr. Henderson, could you please go over the site impact?  
Speaker 8     00:15:36    Yeah. I mean this is a, you know, one of these cases where I guess they bought the property, the, the fence was there, but it was a complying offense that complied with the ordinance and the fact that it was four foot high and it contained 50% of open chain link mesh. So there was no issues with that. Whether or not the shed was there or when he bought the house, I'm not sure. But that's also in a front yard setback. So the issue here is that the existing fence was replaced, if I'm not mistaken, with a six foot high chain like that or five foot high. Six 20.  
Speaker 9     00:16:11    Yeah. The, the, the new one is six feet. Yeah. What happened is we been have trouble with a lot of, we right behind the house is a, is a big park and we've been have a lot of animals coming inside the property and they jumped, they jumped like the four feet. So we put a five feet on it. Did you? Six feet, sorry.  
Speaker 8     00:16:33    Yeah, no problem. Did you remove the, the split rail fence that was in the right of way? The old split rail fence? Yes we did. Okay. So that's eliminated. I don't have a big issue with the location of defense due to the fact, I'm, I  
Speaker 10    00:16:45    In a meeting right now. I'll call you back.  
Speaker 8     00:16:48    I'm don't have, I'm  
Speaker 10    00:16:49    In a meeting, I'll call you back.  
Speaker 8     00:16:50    C the go ahead. The defense was, is is pretty well screened with the existing landscaping, but the issue with the shed is that you have that shed in the front yard setback. You have a large yard. There's really no reason for that shed to be located in the front yard when you can move it to the opposite corner, the opposite rear corner. So the fence again, really there's no issue. I think though the shed being that it's a small shed should be relocated to a conforming location so that it complies with the ordinance. It's not in the front yard of, you know, charter Street. And then the only other issue is you have a, a lot of shrubbery in the site triangle, which is not a problem, but it has to be maintained at a 24 inch high level. 'cause what happens is, is the cars that are coming outta Charter Street are gonna have a difficult time seeing the cars that are coming down on Carlton Avenue.  
Speaker 8     00:17:41    If you don't keep that in or keep it at 24 inch height so you don't have to remove it, you could just trim it down and keep it low enough where the visibility at that intersection is, is a little bit better and it complies with this side triangle ordinance that the Township has, which states that you're not supposed to have any shrubbery that grows over 24 inches in height. So as long as you're in agreement with moving the shed the fence, I think we could leave as is due to the fact that Charter Street really is an access road for a multifamily development that exists in the back of the site. It really doesn't have a impact on the neighbor. It is still 50% solid. It is well buffered with the existing landscaping. So as long as the applicant agrees to, to move the shed to a conforming location and, and trim down the, the shrubbery corner and see any issues with the application.  
Speaker 1     00:18:31    Gotcha. You guys are okay with that? Jeremy Millers okay  
Speaker 11    00:18:33    With that? Yeah. Okay. Just, just give us a little bit of time for that.  
Speaker 1     00:18:37    No, no, no, no, we're not. You have to do it tomorrow. That's all.  
Speaker 8     00:18:39    You'll have time. We have time.  
Speaker 1     00:18:41    Do we have any other members of the board that have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none. I'm gonna go out to the public portion. Anyone in the public portion have any questions or comments about this application?  
Speaker 0     00:18:55    No. One Chairman  
Speaker 1     00:18:56    Okay. Close the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second?  
Speaker 0     00:19:02    I a second.  
Speaker 1     00:19:02    Thank you. Please call a roll.  
Speaker 0     00:19:06    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio?  
Speaker 1     00:19:11    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:19:11    Mr. Blanc? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Elli? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:19:20    Your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document in our next meeting and send that document to you.  
Speaker 11    00:19:26    Thank you. We  
Speaker 1     00:19:27    Appreciate it. Have a good night guys. Good luck.  
Speaker 11    00:19:28    Thank you so much. Have a good night all. Thanks.  
Speaker 1     00:19:31    Let's move on to item number 7 23 dash ZB dash 71 V. Rafael Santiago.  
Speaker 2     00:19:39    Is Rafael Santiago present? Yes.  
Speaker 11    00:19:42    Hello? Hello.  
Speaker 2     00:19:44    I need to swear you in. Could you, are you both gonna testify?  
Speaker 11    00:19:47    Yes. Yeah.  
Speaker 2     00:19:48    Okay. Could you each raise your right hand? You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 11    00:19:54    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:19:56    One at a time. Gimme your name and address please.  
Speaker 11    00:19:59    Hello, my name is Serpa 2 0 3 Birchwood Drive, Sanela Santiago 2 0 3 Bridgewood Drive.  
Speaker 2     00:20:11    Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you wanna do here?  
Speaker 11    00:20:16    Okay, so I'm gonna be translating for him. Okay. So they bought the house a year ago, but they already had the, the fence was already there, but then they updated it 'cause it was wooden. So now they put a plastic on it, but when he went to switch it, he didn't get the, the, the approval and then he got the notice in the mail to that he wasn't Okay. So yeah, so there was no permission from, from change the fence to change the fence. He want, he changed it to six feet, but seeing where it's at at the moment, that six feet is too high. So he's willing to push it back to meet the, what is requested from him. But he wants to know exactly like how far back is accepted.  
Speaker 1     00:21:36    Mr. Hinterstein, can you, yeah, Henry, could you jump in here Sam for  
Speaker 8     00:21:39    A second? Yeah. I mean, well if everybody can mute themselves, if they're not, if they're not, you know, yeah, this  
Speaker 1     00:21:49    Isn't, it is not your application. Could you please mute yourself until you hear your name called please.  
Speaker 8     00:21:53    There's a lot of interference. The application is twofold. So there's, there's a, there's the variance for the pool and the front yard setback and there's also the variance for the fence. The recommendation for the six foot solid fence in this case is to relocate it at least 12.5 feet off the property line, which is half of what's required on a corner lot and the front yard requirement. So I think that's a good and typical proposal or compromise that we always ask for on the fences that are located on corners. As far as the pool, I just don't understand, is there a reason why the pool can't be located in a conforming location? It appears that you have a, a decent sized yard here you have, you know, over 10,000 square foot property and I, I just don't see why the, the pool has to be, you know, in the front yard. You say according to your survey here, you're saying that the, the pool is 14 feet from what,  
Speaker 11    00:23:00    14 or 24? It's 14 feet. Well, 14, 14 feet from 20 from  
Speaker 8     00:23:07    The, from where you wanted to put the fence or from where the, how far is it from the property line, do you know? Is it 19 feet?  
Speaker 11    00:23:25    Like it's seven feet from the property itself, but then that's 14 by 20 is the dimensions of the pool.  
Speaker 8     00:23:34    A again, I mean you're showing, you're showing the, right now it, it shows 14 feet and then you're, you were proposing the fence to be located five feet off the property line. If I'm reading this right. And then the pool 14 feet off of that. Is, is the pool in that location currently?  
Speaker 11    00:23:55    No, there's no pool just yet, but I know from,  
Speaker 8     00:23:59    Okay, so again, my recommendation would be is that, you know, at a minimum you have to be 12 and a half feet as far as the setback for the fence, which is again, half of what the required amount is. So you need to relocate that back. And then I just, I don't see why this pool couldn't be relocated, you know, further back or more centered, you know, into the property. I think at a, at a minimum, you know, the, the pool should be, you know, 20 feet off of the property line. I'll give a little bit of leeway due to the fact that it is a corner property, the additional 10 foot right of way. So 20 feet from the property line for the pool I think is the fair amount. I think you showed it at 19, if I'm reading your, your plant correctly. So a small modification there, you have to keep the pool 20 feet off the property line and you will have to relocate the fence to 12 and a half feet. And I think then the, the board can look at this in a favorable manner if there's no, you know,  
Speaker 1     00:25:04    Question. Can you agree to that?  
Speaker 11    00:25:06    One second? Okay. Yeah, that's fine.  
Speaker 1     00:25:31    Sounds good. Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions for this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?  
Speaker 0     00:25:43    No. One Chairman  
Speaker 1     00:25:44    Okay. Close the public portion and I'll make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Thank you. Please call the roll.  
Speaker 0     00:25:52    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mr. Regio?  
Speaker 1     00:26:01    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:26:02    Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 1     00:26:09    Yes. Your  
Speaker 2     00:26:10    Application has been approved as modified. We will memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and mail that document to you. You'll need need that document for your permits.  
Speaker 1     00:26:21    Thank you. Let's move on to item number 8 23 dash Z D dash 96 V, guest room events and expo center. Good evening, board chair and members of the board. My name is David Persad. I'm a licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey. I'm here tonight to represent guest room event and expo center L L C that it is seeking a temporary use permit for six months under the Piscataway code section 21 dash 1502 0.4. The property in in question is 1412 Stelton Road. It is a unit within the overall shopping complex and the client is looking for a temporary use permit to allow an event space in the BP one zone where such use is not permitted before moving forward tonight. Has the board attorney got a chance to review the published notice in the Courier news? And has the board received confirmation that the property owners within 200 feet have received their notice?  
Speaker 2     00:27:28    Yes, the board has received their items there in proper form and the board has jurisdiction to proceed.  
Speaker 1     00:27:33    Thank you. Tonight I have two witnesses to present. Danielle Harris, who is the owner and principal of a guest room event and I also have a licensed professional planner, John DuPont here to address a positive negative criteria and also the standards that are listed under the temporary use permit ordinance. We'll also be addressing two staff reports from John t Chadwick dated October 10th and a report from Henry Hinterstein dated October 11th. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. So for the first witness, I would like to call Daniel Harris. She is a principal and owner of guest room event and expo center L L c. I would ask if the board could swear in  
Speaker 2     00:28:21    Ms. Harris, are you present?  
Speaker 12    00:28:23    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:28:23    Okay. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand, swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 12    00:28:30    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:28:30    Your name and address please?  
Speaker 12    00:28:33    Danielle Harris, 6 42 Drake Avenue, Middlesex, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     00:28:36    Thank you. Put your hand in.  
Speaker 1     00:28:40    Okay Ms. Harris, first I would like to ask you your background and experience and what you do for a living.  
Speaker 12    00:28:48    So I do event planning and marketing.  
Speaker 1     00:28:52    And how many?  
Speaker 12    00:28:54    I've been doing it for about 20 years.  
Speaker 1     00:28:57    Okay. And currently how does your business operate  
Speaker 12    00:29:01    Online? Mainly so people find me and they seek me to help them plan events from retirement parties, birthday parties, decorating baby showers and finding venues.  
Speaker 1     00:29:18    Okay. And how do you typically meet your potential customers?  
Speaker 12    00:29:22    At the venues.  
Speaker 1     00:29:22    At the venues. Okay.  
Speaker 12    00:29:23    At the potential venues. Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:29:25    So you're seeking to use this as an event space. Why did you choose Piscataway to operate your business?  
Speaker 12    00:29:31    I am originally from Piscataway. I graduated from Piscataway in 2003. I actually got my passion originally from doing my own Suite 16 at the Piscataway New Market Firehouse. I, I planned my own Suite 16 there and I've been going ever since.  
Speaker 1     00:29:55    Okay. So why is this location, particularly this unit in the shopping complex, why is this suitable for your business?  
Speaker 12    00:30:04    Well being from Piscataway Stelton Road has always been, I feel like the luxury, everyone from Piscataway and surrounding towns knows of Stelton Road. There's ample parking, it's in a perfect location. The rest of the businesses that surround it aren't open at the times that I would be operating. It literally is the perfect location for an event space.  
Speaker 1     00:30:31    Okay. Can you explain how your business will operate in this location? So  
Speaker 12    00:30:38    Monday through Friday, like nine to five on a like a appointment basis, I would hold, if someone is interested in using the space, I would allow them to come in, view it and do like a walkthrough of the actual space. And then basically weekends I would host events there from baby showers to retirement parties. And again, like I said, I'm a a Piscataway alum so I would hope to do a lot of events with Piscataway.  
Speaker 1     00:31:16    Very nice. Can you tell me how many employees you would have at this facility?  
Speaker 12    00:31:21    Well, currently it's just me and my dad that kind of do it for the most part. And then my children  
Speaker 1     00:31:30    Good family business.  
Speaker 12    00:31:32    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:31:35    So why would the space benefit your current business that you're operating now online  
Speaker 12    00:31:42    Currently there's nothing like it in the, in the area from being in the business for so long. There are places that you can host events but nothing but the, the high ceilings and more. They're either really small or really big. The space that I found is the, the perfect spot for an intimate but spacious Okay. Affairs. Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:32:13    You did mention that you were going have customers come in via appointment. I know that there's no current office in this building and it's none shown on the floor plan that we've submitted. Where would you meet your potential customers?  
Speaker 12    00:32:25    So basically I would just show them the space. Yeah, they would come in and I would, hey this is the room and give them like a mock trial.  
Speaker 1     00:32:37    And as an event space, are you providing food for the events and customers? No. No. So they would get it from a third party caterer? Yeah, bring them. Okay. Also, what are your requirements typically for renting an event space?  
Speaker 12    00:32:57    So basically I would make them hire their own caterers or bring their own outside food. They would sign a contract with me and then they would have to get event insurance.  
Speaker 1     00:33:11    Okay. Perfect. And just to be clear, the hours of operation that you're proposing, I did hear that you said Monday through FI Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM just to meet by appointment. Right. What about the event space hours?  
Speaker 12    00:33:27    So I would like to be from 6:00 PM to 1:00 AM during the week. I really don't see something going until 1:00 AM realistically, but then the weekends from like 11:00 AM because baby showers typically are a morning thing or kid birthday parties.  
Speaker 1     00:33:45    Understood. And you mentioned the insurance policy that you would require?  
Speaker 12    00:33:52    Yeah, it's a standard no matter where I go, other people's venues, if someone rents using me as their event place event planner, I require them to get event insurance and it's typically like a 1 million policy.  
Speaker 1     00:34:06    Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Other than that, I believe I will open up the client for a questioning.  
Speaker 12    00:34:14    No, I love Piscataway and I'm excited.  
Speaker 1     00:34:19    Thank you. Any members of the board have any questions for this applicant? Any comments? Hearing none, you can proceed. Mr. Per,  
Speaker 8     00:34:29    I got a couple questions. Mr. Chairman. Oh,  
Speaker 1     00:34:31    I'm sorry Henry. I thought I'm gonna do that at the end. That's okay. Go  
Speaker 8     00:34:33    Ahead. Yeah, when you bring in outside, you said there's obviously you don't handle the food, it's outside caterers, outside servers. Well let's start with this. What's the occupancy of the building?  
Speaker 1     00:34:47    So  
Speaker 8     00:34:48    The occupancy, if you know it, it,  
Speaker 12    00:34:51    So currently I believe when I had the architect come out, he gave me 99. But then when we had the site planner come, come, I believe it's at 1 49  
Speaker 1     00:35:07    If I may, Mr. Interesting. We had a conversation with Joe Hoff from the Township. He did say 99 is a reasonable proposal for the maximum occupancy. However, he did say that 147 is the maximum occupancy this building can have because it has fire sprinklers installed. And as long as the rear entrance door on the unit is designated as a fire exit, which it is.  
Speaker 8     00:35:40    Okay. And when you bring in cater outside food and, and that, that can mean caterers, that can mean servers, that can mean, you know, bartenders, cleanup staff. How many people typically for event space of this size would, would be sort of an associated number of, you know, workers. I understand it's just you and your dad and, and perhaps your kids, but you know, there's other employees that are gonna be coming to that space. So I think what you need to keep in mind is whatever the, the occupancy, whatever we determine to be the maximum occupancy for the event space that that shall include employees and servers I would imagine. Correct. Jim Occupancy is occupancy, right? Yep. So Right, and, and so, you know, I think based on, you know, maybe testimony that we'll hear about the, the part and we'll determine, you know, where in that range from 99 to 1 47 if there needs to be a limitation.  
Speaker 12    00:36:42    Yeah. And from di from doing this for so long, typically when you have an event space that says the average party is typically about 80 people, people like to think they know way more than that. But, and then if you have like a staff of people, they're there before people arrive. Setting up, decorating, dropping all food. If someone uses servers is typically two. If there's a bartender, there may be two, but the staff for the overall is not there at the same time that the, the participants are there.  
Speaker 8     00:37:19    And what were the weekend hours again? One more time please.  
Speaker 12    00:37:22    I would like to go from like 11:00 AM to 1:00 AM  
Speaker 8     00:37:29    And and last question would be is where is this unit located on the, on the premise there was no key plan provided. I, I believe with the application there was an all set of approved plans and there was a set of architectural plans, but there really wasn't a key plan to show where in the, in this larger building, this unit was. Is it in the middle? Is it right next to the daycare?  
Speaker 12    00:37:51    It's right next to the daycare. So I'm, it's located behind the beauty supply store. Okay. And right next to the daycare. And then the daycare doesn't operate at the same time with me. So that's why it's so genius.  
Speaker 8     00:38:03    Okay. I would imagine maybe the planner's got some more information regarding how that's gonna work.  
Speaker 12    00:38:09    Okay. Okay.  
Speaker 13    00:38:13    Any other board members have any questions or comments for this? I have a couple. Mr. Chaill, Mr. Chair, I have a couple. Jones, do you allow alcohol at the events?  
Speaker 12    00:38:24    I'm sorry?  
Speaker 13    00:38:25    Do you allow alcohol at the events?  
Speaker 12    00:38:28    Yeah. Most most events spaces you do allow alcohol and that's why you make them get insurance. You can't sell it and they get  
Speaker 13    00:38:38    They a one day license.  
Speaker 12    00:38:40    Yes. Yep.  
Speaker 13    00:38:42    The other thing, what do you use for security?  
Speaker 12    00:38:46    It's a, well me personally, I don't do events that require security. I'm doing retirement parties, a graduation party, family gatherings, baby showers.  
Speaker 13    00:39:03    You don't think those events cause some kind of a disturbance Once in a while.  
Speaker 12    00:39:09    I have a pretty good judge. Come  
Speaker 13    00:39:11    On please. Of character.  
Speaker 12    00:39:12    Yeah, I have a pretty good judge of character. I personally haven't had any issues but if there was to be an event that, that felt like I needed security, then I would have it. Either myself or my dad is typically there at an event to kind of gauge and make sure that everything runs smoothly. But if there, if there was something, yeah, I wouldn't be against security.  
Speaker 13    00:39:45    Okay. I have no other questions at this point. Mr.  
Speaker 1     00:39:48    Jones. Thank you John. Mr. Psad, I think you can proceed with your next witness. Okay. For my next witness I'd like to call our professional license planner John DuPont and John DuPont will testify as to the standards for the temporary use permit that is listed under ordinance section 21 dash 1502 0.4.  
Speaker 2     00:40:12    Mr. DuPont, are you present?  
Speaker 5     00:40:14    I am.  
Speaker 2     00:40:15    I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? The testimony you're about to give should be the truth.  
Speaker 5     00:40:20    I do.  
Speaker 2     00:40:21    Name, address please.  
Speaker 5     00:40:23    Name is John p DuPont. 7 5 6 Jackson Road, Stewartsville, New Jersey. Thank  
Speaker 2     00:40:30    You.  
Speaker 1     00:40:32    Mr. DuPont, are you familiar with the ordinance that I just mentioned for Piscataway for the temporary use permit?  
Speaker 5     00:40:38    I certainly am.  
Speaker 1     00:40:39    And can you please just provide testimony as to how we meet those standards?  
Speaker 2     00:40:43    Before you do that, could we have your qualifications at Yes, absolutely. Sorry.  
Speaker 5     00:40:47    Absolutely. So I am a professional engineer and planner in the state of jersey. I've been in planner for about 20 years. I serve as the borough of Cardiac Wreck Planner for the planning board For the last 20 years I've been throughout the state as both an engineer and planner. I've been in front of Piscataway before as both as well.  
Speaker 2     00:41:05    Mr. Chairman, I believe he can be accepted as an expert witness.  
Speaker 1     00:41:07    I, I agree. You please proceed. Mr. P.  
Speaker 5     00:41:10    Thank you very much. So just to recap quickly, so as we know the applicant's requesting a temporary use variance to locate at her business in an existing shopping center. The event center will require a use the applicant's looking at to occupy unit five in that building. However, the Reinder Shopping Center is still being used. Our unit is currently vacant. There's retail and commercial uses still happening on site because we're looking at a temporary approval for the event space. We looked at Piscataway ordinance 21 dash 1502 0.4 this, this allows temporary uses within the Township under certain conditions. And if you'll don't mind, I'm gonna read you the ordinance. So the ordinance again 21 dash 1502. It recognizes that it may be in accordance with the purposes of the Township ordinance to permit temporary activities for a limited period of time. Which activities one constitute uses not permitted, are not not permitted by the provisions of the Township ordinance.  
Speaker 5     00:42:21    Two involves the property which has never received site plan approval. Three involves a property which has zoning violations or property maintenance violations. So we are going under the condition number one that the use is not permitted by the Township ordinance. So there's two conditions of that you have to meet. One is a condition A in a way that the use exert no substantial detriment effect upon the uses and activities normally permitted in his own. So our use does not exert a substantial detriment on the uses of the land and activities in his own. The operation of the event space does not have a typical operating hours and time of business, particularly the adult daycare on site closes at 3:00 PM on weekdays and does not operate on weekends. Our guest room event will operate on weekdays beginning at 6:00 PM to 1:00 AM and on weekends from 11:00 AM to 1:00 AM when the events are taking place.  
Speaker 5     00:43:28    Note that some of the times may vary and we do not all require a closing time. They don't all require a closing time at 1:00 AM that can vary. The maximum parking required for an an event with full capacity at this location will be 37 spaces based on your ordinance. One space per four seats, which will leave over a hundred spaces empty for other uses. When the event is occurring. It's difficult to imagine that we take every space available. I'm sure our client would love to have that happen. But as was brought up earlier, even at full capacity, we're gonna have over a hundred spaces not be utilized by our client. And during the office hours, our customers will be visiting the site by appointment only and that'll be one or two people. So during the day, during the rest of the busiest time for the rest of the shopping center, really we have limited to almost no activity.  
Speaker 5     00:44:22    Now respect to B, there's a second part of this that contribute materially or has to contribute materially to the welfare of the Township, particularly in the state of emergency under conditions peculiar to the time and place involved. And then a zoning board adjustment may by resolution after written application subject to any conditions of the board, any submissions the board deems appropriate. That's a subject to all regulations. Issuances of construction, suing other permits elsewhere. Specified issue, a temporary use for a period of time not to exceed six months on the issuance of temporary use permit, the property owner shall be required to comply with all municipal taxes, fees and regulations. So again, we say that the property, the unit's currently vacant in the existing shopping center our our use fits perfectly with the shopping center. They can share services, they're sharing the parking. The parking exists. You have 140 spaces on site that they RP time are not even being used.  
Speaker 5     00:45:30    We are also in the process of filling out a formal full application for a permanent use. So we understand this is a temporary request tonight we are preparing application for a permanent use on the site as well. The six month time period will allow our clients who currently wanna hire first for our services to do business with us. Right, right away. Now as far as the UL goes, we do have to still balance the positive negative criteria. Very similar argument but positive criteria. When I reviewed the site, I determined that the site was particularly well suited. This is a perfect example of how you could share services and share site. We're bringing in a different peak completely. These businesses will not overlap. They'll actually work perfectly together. There's no building expansion required, there's no parking expansion required. We have different peaks of the users on the site.  
Speaker 5     00:46:28    The other sites on Stelton Road, it's surrounded by commercial and retail properties. We're not gonna be out of character with the neighborhood with the roadway. We have residents residential uses in the rear of the property that are heavily buffered and have been there and our buffers been there. There's no additional signs that'll be outside of what is already proved on site. So we don't need any special signing, no variances for that. Our use works well with the character of the neighborhood. As far as negative criteria, I look at the negative criteria and I don't see any, again, our use works well with all the Stelton Road uses. Long, there'll be no impacts on the character of the neighborhood. Use won't impact the intent and purpose of your zoning or master plan. And we are proposing use which will work well on site. The infrastructure exists already, the lighting, the parking, the signs, et cetera. I see no negative impact at all. And as I said, we are currently preparing full application for permanent use, but tonight we're looking for the temporary approval for six months and that does conclude my testimony.  
Speaker 1     00:47:40    Thank you sir. Thank you John. Members of the board, I would like to open up our professional planner for questioning. Appreciate that. John, you have any questions Ms. Chadwick?  
Speaker 13    00:47:52    Yeah, I do. You said there's no signage change on the buildings any place? Well  
Speaker 5     00:47:59    Mr. Chadwick the, there's an existing freestanding sign that has slats in it. So we will a sign right into existing  
Speaker 13    00:48:06    Slot. That's gonna be it. That's gonna be it.  
Speaker 5     00:48:08    That's gonna be it.  
Speaker 13    00:48:10    Okay. The other thing you didn't mention, is there gonna be any audio systems in this building or is there or another system? I mean a lot of these parties or events are gonna have music  
Speaker 5     00:48:22    Perhaps, or my client could answer that question.  
Speaker 12    00:48:25    Yes, there is music but typically they stay at a a moderate body. Well  
Speaker 13    00:48:33    It, it kind of goes to what Henry's question, I wasn't exactly sure what space you were going to take and whether the walls are gonna be exposed to the neighbors in the back.  
Speaker 12    00:48:46    No, it's located. Oh,  
Speaker 13    00:48:48    You're gonna show that on a plan someplace Okay. Around  
Speaker 12    00:48:52    Okay.  
Speaker 13    00:48:52    Where you are I guess. And you can just list, you are not gonna install any audio systems?  
Speaker 12    00:48:59    No.  
Speaker 13    00:49:00    Okay. And you would probably agree to some kind of level of amplification, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:49:06    Absolutely. I will follow all noise ordinance.  
Speaker 13    00:49:09    The only, the only question I have is really not a question. The parking supply and the various uses, Mr. DeMar has kind of gone through it pretty quick and I don't question it. I think we just need to have as a condition of the board approved this, that he gives us his calculations to show this surplus or at least adequate parking available for events in the, in the range. I guess your calculation was the 80 figure offered by your client? Are you use 140 figure?  
Speaker 5     00:49:48    I did. We did look at off peak, the 140 parking spaces and the full maximum capacity of our unit.  
Speaker 13    00:49:54    Well you could provide that anyway as a condition, correct?  
Speaker 5     00:49:57    We certainly can.  
Speaker 13    00:49:58    Yeah. 'cause I think we wanna back into her full occupancy based on what else is there now.  
Speaker 5     00:50:06    Yes, I agree.  
Speaker 13    00:50:07    That's, that's my only questions Mr.  
Speaker 1     00:50:09    Chairman. Thanks John. I had a question. Did, did I hear right that there's only one restroom facility in this place or is that  
Speaker 12    00:50:17    No, there's two.  
Speaker 1     00:50:19    There are?  
Speaker 12    00:50:20    Yeah, there's two. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:50:22    Any other members have any questions? Hemi, did you wanna retouch on anything?  
Speaker 8     00:50:28    No, I mean the staff report does talk about some things I think that they're gonna have to address within the six months when they come in for the site plan application for this, again, they have six months I think to, to come in with the site plan application to show that during, I think in conformance with, again the parking and then there are site some issues with the site from the approved plan that or the site is not compliant with the originally approved plan currently. So, you know, that's my biggest concern. So I would say that they need to be, these issues need to be addressed that, you know, when they come in for the site plan application. Got it. That's a Cahn should be a condition I think of the temporary use.  
Speaker 1     00:51:18    Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the board of any questions for this witness and or the application hearing Now I'm gonna turn it over to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?  
Speaker 0     00:51:33    No. One Chairman.  
Speaker 1     00:51:34    Thank you. Close the public portion and I motion  
Speaker 8     00:51:39    Yes. What, what question? Mr. Kale, just, you're right next to the beauty supply. Please do, do you know what their hours are?  
Speaker 12    00:51:48    I believe they're closed by like seven.  
Speaker 8     00:51:51    So you may start parties at six, they may be open and there could be music. So again, you, you just need to really, as John was stating, I think figure out the, the, that you know, the level of music because again, you think they close at seven but it's a retail establishment. It's possible that they close at eight. It's possible that they close at nine.  
Speaker 12    00:52:13    Right. And I'll And I'll  
Speaker 8     00:52:14    They have to conduct the business as well.  
Speaker 12    00:52:17    Yeah. So it wouldn't necessarily be events starting at six. So if you were to have a dinner party, you probably wouldn't start until about eight, but I would allow you to come in and start decorating that six.  
Speaker 1     00:52:30    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 12    00:52:33    Yeah, go  
Speaker 1     00:52:34    Ahead. All right. I'd make that a condition of the approval of the six months. I make a motion to approve it. A second. Thank you. Read the roll call. Roll  
Speaker 0     00:52:48    By who's second? I couldn't hear Kalpesh. Thank you. Kalpesh. Okay. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio?  
Speaker 1     00:53:00    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:53:00    Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Rowley? Yes. And Chairman Kale?  
Speaker 1     00:53:08    Yes. We will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.  
Speaker 12    00:53:13    Thank you guys.  
Speaker 1     00:53:15    Thank you board. We'll see you in a couple of months.  
Speaker 12    00:53:17    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:53:18    Okay. A good night.  
Speaker 12    00:53:20    Bye.  
Speaker 1     00:53:20    Let's move on to the next item, which is number 9 23 dash ZB dash 92 V T-mobile Northeast l L C.  
Speaker 14    00:53:29    Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ed Purcell. I'm an attorney at Price. Denise Schulman and Dear Mineo here tonight on behalf of T-Mobile Northeast, L L C T-Mobile is proposing to place one radio dish on top of a 118 foot six inch tower located at 300 South Randolphville Road. That's block 45 0 3 lot 1.05. We're here tonight asking for an interpretation, allowing us to proceed to have this approved administratively as required by section 64 0 9 A of the Federal Spectrum Act and the New Jersey colocation Law.  
Speaker 2     00:54:13    Mr. Purcell, this one radio dish does not increase the height,  
Speaker 14    00:54:17    Correct?  
Speaker 2     00:54:19    It does not create any variances,  
Speaker 14    00:54:21    Correct?  
Speaker 2     00:54:22    It does not expand the ground equipment area  
Speaker 14    00:54:28    Does not expound the, expand the ground equipment area. There's no ground equipment.  
Speaker 2     00:54:35    And as a condition, would you provide the RF analysis and the structural analysis showing that correct? The tower can hold this  
Speaker 14    00:54:43    Correct.  
Speaker 2     00:54:46    Mr. Chairman? I believe that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for an exemption from site plan approval.  
Speaker 1     00:54:53    Thank you Mr.  
Speaker 13    00:54:54    My comment, the  
Speaker 1     00:54:56    Go ahead.  
Speaker 13    00:54:58    The statement that there are no variances. I did verify that and the only suggestion I'd have in addition to Jim, is any prior approval and conditions thereof should be carried forward.  
Speaker 2     00:55:13    Mr. Priscilla, you have any objection to that?  
Speaker 14    00:55:15    No. Agreed.  
Speaker 1     00:55:17    Any other members of the board have any questions for this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone from the public have any comments or questions about this application?  
Speaker 0     00:55:29    No. One Chairman. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:55:31    Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application. I second. Thank you. Kalpesh, please follow. Roll.  
Speaker 0     00:55:39    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:55:45    Cal. You're muted but there you go.  
Speaker 0     00:55:47    Mr. Regio?  
Speaker 1     00:55:49    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:55:49    Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 1     00:55:56    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:55:58    Mr. Ell, we will memorialize this at our next meeting.  
Speaker 14    00:56:01    Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:56:03    Have a good night. Thank you sir. Let's move on to item number 1223 dash ZB dash 84 slash 85 V Equity Land Group.  
Speaker 5     00:56:14    I thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Kevin Morse, attorney in Woodbridge, New Jersey. Appearing on behalf of the applicant Equity land group. The subject property is block 53 0 2 lot 1 0 2. Commonly known as 5 21 Stelton Road in the l i one zone as the board's aware. So it's been a few applications before you. Concerning this property, it presently contains a car wash, a Goodyear Tire Service building a what I refer to as a rear building flex warehouse space and a front building that has been approved for limited retail and personal services use based on a prior use variance approval in 2020. The proposal before you this evening is twofold. One and the crux of the cases with regard to the rear building where we're seeking site plan, approval use and bulk variance approvals to allow that building to be used as a recreational facility, which you'll hear testimony on. And then the second part is just the housekeeping matter. We will request a clarification on one particular item in a prior resolution of approval. Before we proceed, I would ask just to confirm, I had previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing. I wanted to confirm that they were received, that they're in order so that the board has jurisdiction to proceed.  
Speaker 2     00:57:34    Your notices were received. They're improper order and the board has jurisdiction.  
Speaker 5     00:57:38    Alright, thank you. So I have a number of witnesses this evening. I have Robert Dele on behalf of the applicant. Shaar Dass who is a proposed operator principal. I've got our professional engineer Robert Murray architect, available. I don't know that I'll call him Brian Taylor, but I want to have him available also James Higgins, our professional planner. And Jay Trapman who's our traffic engineer. I know we have a busy night. I expect my witnesses will be succinct and to the point. I appreciate that Mr. Marsh. So first I would call Mr. Dele sort of set the table for the application if he could be sworn please.  
Speaker 2     00:58:16    Mr. Dele, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 15    00:58:22    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:58:23    Thank you. Your full name and address please?  
Speaker 15    00:58:25    Robert d j Dele 31 Davenport Way. D a v e n p o r t way, Hillsborough, New Jersey 0 8 8 4 4.  
Speaker 2     00:58:37    Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:58:38    Alright, Mr. Dele, you are a principal of the applicant equity land use equity land group L L C, correct?  
Speaker 15    00:58:45    Correct.  
Speaker 5     00:58:46    And authorized to appear on its behalf this evening, is that right? Correct. I would just ask that you give the board some some very brief background. There are a number of prior applications I understand regarding the site most recently in 2020 where you actually testified and just bring us up to speed how we get to the request this evening for the recreational use.  
Speaker 15    00:59:08    Okay, thank you Kevin. Yeah, just a little historical perspective on how we're, how we're at this meeting tonight. Obviously my 2020 application is probably, this board is probably from pretty, pretty similar makeup as it was as it is today. So I'm sure most of the people on the, on the, on the board remember that application when I came in for two, to further develop the property that had a car wash and a tire service center on it to add two additional buildings, a 17,500 square foot building to the rear of the property and a 10,000 square foot building fronting on Stelton Road. What I wanted to bring up is that prior to my 2020 application that was approved by the board back in 2011, I actually came before the same zoning board with an application on this property on a very similar building to ask for a recreational use to be permitted on this property.  
Speaker 15    01:00:12    I didn't have an a specific recreational use at the time, but I thought I could persuade the board into giving me an approval and conditioned upon when I get into recreational use, I would have enough parking to satisfy the ordinance. Unfortunately, I wasn't persuasive enough and the board didn't really know how to act on it because I, there was no specific use. So I withdrew the application. But I did just wanted to point out that the resolution and findings for that application for the recreational use on the property, I, I have the, the resolution in front of me. But the conclusions and findings were very favorable from that board based on, on the conditions at that time. Now we're talking 10 years later, I don't think too much has changed drastically.  
Speaker 15    01:01:07    And in 2020 when I came before this board, I again did not have a recreational use in mind, but I still believe the recreational use would be very appropriate at this property. So I designed the buildings and the property to provide as much parking as possible to have as much flexibility for different uses. I reduced the size of the front buildings 'cause it's a five and a, it's almost a six acre site actually. And this, the amount of buildings on that site is nowhere near what could be allowed per the, do you wanna call it f a r?  
Speaker 15    01:01:45    So I think we ultimately provided more than adequate parking to satisfy and comply with, and it's only my personal opinion, but a very onerous parking ordinance in Piscataway. So I do think we have enough parking. And also, just as a note, I did when I re, when I redesigned the back building, I decided to do, do it as a clear span building as opposed to having interior columns, which is very attractive for any, any recreational use. So it was always in my mind that a recreational use would be something that would be a viable option at this property. So once we started construction, we did have interests from many, many recreational uses, soccer, indoor soccer, indoor baseball, pickleball, cricket.  
Speaker 15    01:02:42    And so based on the rising population of pickleball, we decided to move forward with the operators that'll be testifying before you today. I do wanna make a comment too, I do have a building in Flemington that is 20,000 square feet. It has two tenants, a pickleball, flemington pickleball, which is an 11,000 square feet with five pickleball courts and a electrical supply house, which is in 9,000 square feet. That property has 50 parking spaces, which is roughly 2.5 per thousand. And I think I am double that here on this property, if not more. So I just wanted to say that, that, that they're very, they're very successful there and I just wanted to make that as a side note. So obviously my hope is that once you hear from all the testimony tonight from the operators themselves and from from the professionals, that you will look favorably on this recreational use of this property. And another feather in the cap for sports town u s a.  
Speaker 5     01:03:51    Thank you. And Mr. Delio, again, you, so you really kind of designed and set this property up with the hopes that in the future you would identify the re recreational user. You sort of built it out for that so you could ultimately make this request before the board this evening. Is that correct? Well,  
Speaker 15    01:04:09    I, I always thought it was a, a viable option. Obviously when I came in, in 2020, it was for more of an industrial flex space, which it still could be in the future. That's what the underlying zoning is. But obviously to have one user for one build for the building as opposed to dividing it up into smaller spaces, there's a much more economical way to go about it. And obviously it reduces all the truck parking that and truck turnarounds that would be going on. So I think I always thought it was a viable option, but it just took a while to get to this point.  
Speaker 5     01:04:42    All right. Now again, it's important. You are an experienced developer of properties, various residential, industrial, commercial uses where you have end user tenants, correct?  
Speaker 15    01:04:53    Correct. I don't have any residential, Kevin,  
Speaker 5     01:04:56    Excuse me, everything's commercial, commercial, industrial type. So you have another facility and you have particular experience with one of your other tenants in another location with a, with a pickleball recreational use. Do you have an opinion as to, based upon your prior experience as a, as an owner of the facility, renting a to a pickleball facility or sports facility, whether the site, as you've designed it here and certainly which we expect will be supported by our other witnesses, testimony has adequate and sufficient parking and otherwise is viable for this proposed use that we're gonna present some  
Speaker 15    01:05:32    Testimony? Oh, no question. I think there's more than adequate parking. And it's got two ingress, it's got two curb cuts. Drive lanes are wider than standard and more than sufficient parking.  
Speaker 5     01:05:47    Right. Very well. So look, I, I'll ask you to stand down. Mr. Dele will be available through the entire hearing. If questions comes up as the property owner, I would next ask to call Sidarth Dass, who is a principal, a proposed operator of the recreational facility. If he could be sworn please  
Speaker 2     01:06:04    Could you raise your right hand? Swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth  
Speaker 16    01:06:09    Yes. Your  
Speaker 2     01:06:10    Name and address please?  
Speaker 16    01:06:12    Sidarth das. Address is two Pembroke Terrace, Hillsborough, New Jersey 0 8 8 4 4.  
Speaker 2     01:06:18    Thank you.  
Speaker 5     01:06:19    Alright. Siddharth, you are one of the owners of the business entity that would be the proposed operator of the recreational business at the subject property, is that correct? That  
Speaker 16    01:06:31    Is correct. And  
Speaker 5     01:06:32    You would operate the business at a 10, that business as a tenant at the subject property, correct? Correct. Now I understand first that personally you have experience in operating a recreational facility similar to the proposed use before the board tonight. Is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:06:48    That is correct.  
Speaker 5     01:06:49    I understand you have another recreational location located in Middlesex County Park Avenue in Edison Township, that you have operated for the past four years, is that right?  
Speaker 16    01:06:58    That's right.  
Speaker 5     01:06:59    And similar type use recreational, it's successful in that location, is that correct? Correct. So much so that you have moved forward to acquire as attended another location to operate a similar type record facility, is that right?  
Speaker 16    01:07:16    That's right.  
Speaker 5     01:07:17    Right. Based upon your experience in the county, Middlesex County and is it current operator, do you believe the site is, would be successful and is adequate both in size and with parking ingress and ingress and so forth to support your proposed operation?  
Speaker 16    01:07:35    Yes it is.  
Speaker 5     01:07:36    Alright. So now some description of the business itself. I understand you is proposed to have four pickleball courts. Two badminton courts, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:07:45    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:07:46    One racket, Bullard or squash court and three batting cage slash tunnels for batting practice, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:07:53    That is correct.  
Speaker 5     01:07:53    And the, the, that batting cage, if you will, could be used for baseball, softball or cricket batting, is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:08:00    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:08:01    Right now I understand that there will be a small reception check-in area at the facility, correct? Correct. Two bathrooms,  
Speaker 16    01:08:11    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:08:12    No locker rooms or changing area?  
Speaker 16    01:08:15    No.  
Speaker 5     01:08:17    And some vending items by machine either water or snacks for the, for the users who come to the facility, correct? Yes,  
Speaker 16    01:08:27    That's correct.  
Speaker 5     01:08:28    Oh, I understand your opera hours of operation are proposed to be 24 hours a day, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:08:34    Yes. However,  
Speaker 5     01:08:35    That really your peak hours are really early morning through mid evening, is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:08:41    That is right.  
Speaker 5     01:08:42    And so that you are gonna staff the facility on Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM because that's when you have most of your business, is that right?  
Speaker 16    01:08:50    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:08:52    Also Saturday and Sunday 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM with one employee, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:08:57    That's right. And the  
Speaker 5     01:08:58    Remainder of the time, I mean it would remain open because I understand you will intend to offer memberships which will have discounted court reservation fees. Is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:09:12    That's right.  
Speaker 5     01:09:14    That you will have an online reservation system. So courts would be booked based upon their availability, is that correct? Correct. And that results in people not waiting around to get a court because they check in before to see if something's available, is that right?  
Speaker 16    01:09:29    Yeah. Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:09:30    And that would include the batting cages as well, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:09:32    Yes. Yes. It would.  
Speaker 5     01:09:34    Now walk-ins would be allowed if courts were available, is that right?  
Speaker 16    01:09:38    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:09:38    But based upon the system and the reservation, do you anticipate everything is going to be pre or predominantly the operation will be for a pre-scheduled visits?  
Speaker 16    01:09:47    Correct. Alright.  
Speaker 5     01:09:49    Now one of the questions in one of the review memos, we have not submitted as part of the site plan any proposed signage for the building because that hasn't been determined yet, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:10:03    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:10:04    Right. I do understand that you have engaged a signed contractor who, who you have advised me is familiar with the the municipalities sign ordinances in particular to design some signage for you, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:10:16    That's right.  
Speaker 5     01:10:17    And you will submit those for review and if they're in conformity, no further relief will be needed if you decide that something exceeds, you understand you would've to come back to the board to make application if you required variance relief for any of your proposed signage, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:10:34    Correct. That's correct.  
Speaker 5     01:10:36    Now, one thing in particular, you know, in reviewing the memos issued by the board professionals, there's a, a question about tournament events. Now I wanna make sure we're, we get this correct. You, I I anticipate like many recreational facilities that you will probably have some leagues, is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:10:57    That is correct.  
Speaker 5     01:10:58    And that I expect there will be interleague tournaments among various leagues that may exist, women's league, men's league, kids league, whatever at your facility, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:11:10    That is the plan, yes.  
Speaker 5     01:11:12    Okay. But those types of, those types of tournaments, those are, those are scheduled events, it's not a one shot deal where everybody shows up for a competition, is that correct?  
Speaker 16    01:11:22    That is correct. They're scheduled  
Speaker 5     01:11:24    Almost, almost like like golf tournaments at, at country clubs where there's different play scheduled and people compete and they they try to move up in score, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:11:34    That's right.  
Speaker 5     01:11:35    Alright. One thing in reviewing the memos is, I understand, I just wanna confirm, you don't plan on scheduling any type of spectator tournaments where it's show up and we're having a big tournament kind of situation, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:11:50    No, we are not.  
Speaker 5     01:11:51    Okay. And in fact the facility itself, it doesn't lend itself to really any spectators, anybody showing up to watch because it's just user courts in a very small reception area where you check in, there's no viewing areas, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:12:05    That is correct. So  
Speaker 5     01:12:06    The facility itself wouldn't support any type of show up and come to a tournament and see how you, you know, see how you do kind of thing, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:12:14    Right.  
Speaker 5     01:12:15    Alright. So if the board were to look favorably on your application, would you agree that to a condition that there would be no spectator or general tournaments to be held at your facility?  
Speaker 16    01:12:29    We would conform to that.  
Speaker 5     01:12:30    Alright. So again, Mr. Kinneally, 'cause we're responding to a comment, I think we can quantify that with language, but I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion 'cause an interleague tournament is different from what I think the board is driving at that you're having some scheduled mass event for people to show up and compete.  
Speaker 2     01:12:51    I think, I think we can cover that.  
Speaker 5     01:12:53    Okay. Very well, thank you. Alright, again, so based upon your experience Siddharth, do you believe this facility has adequate, adequate parking egress and ingress to support the recreational use that you were proposing at the site?  
Speaker 16    01:13:06    Yes it does.  
Speaker 5     01:13:07    All right. So then I have no further questions of Shaar. If there are questions from any of the members with regard to the use, we would invite them. He will also be available for the whole hearing in case for the entire hearing in case a question comes up along the way.  
Speaker 1     01:13:20    Anybody, any member of the board of any questions for this? A witness?  
Speaker 8     01:13:26    Just quick question, Mr.  
Speaker 1     01:13:27    Sure. Henry Chairman  
Speaker 8     01:13:30    Sudar or Mr. Doss, do you, you're, you said you had another facility in Edison, correct?  
Speaker 16    01:13:35    That is correct. How,  
Speaker 8     01:13:36    How many parking spaces do you have at that facility? Just outta curiosity?  
Speaker 16    01:13:40    15.  
Speaker 8     01:13:42    How many courts?  
Speaker 16    01:13:43    We have four batting cages.  
Speaker 8     01:13:47    Just for batting cages.  
Speaker 16    01:13:48    Just for batting cages. It's a smaller facility.  
Speaker 8     01:13:51    Okay. I have no other question.  
Speaker 1     01:13:53    Thank you. Any other members? None. Okay. Mr. Morris, please proceed.  
Speaker 5     01:13:59    The next I call our our engineer Robert Murray. If he could be sworn please. Mr.  
Speaker 2     01:14:04    Murray, could you raise your hand before the testimony you're about to give? Should be the truth? I do. Thank you. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 17    01:14:13    Robert Murray, five 90 Ong Road bound Brook, New Jersey. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     01:14:18    Alright, Mr. Murray, you're a licensed professional engineer, the state of New Jersey, correct?  
Speaker 17    01:14:22    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:14:23    You understand that you've had the pleasure of testifying before this board on prior occasions and you have been accepted as an expert in your field, is that correct? Correct. And so I would ask Mr. Chairman that you accept Mr. Murray again as our expert in his field without me having to go through his curriculum detailed. I appreciate that. Please proceed. Alright, so Mr. Murray, you're employed by Menlo Engineering who is the outfit that prepared the site plan that's before the board, is that right? Correct. And in fact, Menlo Engineering had prepared the prior site plans on prior applications before the board, is that correct?  
Speaker 17    01:14:55    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:14:55    So as such, your firm has been familiar with the development of this property for so many years on various applications, is that right? Correct. And now we don't have a lot of site work going on here, so I would ask you to just describe the site as it exists very briefly and the very limited proposed improvements to the site that are being done or proposed in connection with this application.  
Speaker 17    01:15:19    Okay. Allow me to share my site plan render rendering here. Okay. So as the site exists today, it is a, oh excuse me, the site is block 53 0 2, lot 1 0 2 in the Township of Piscataway as it exists today. It has a car wash limited to retail, a tire service station, and a flex space to the north. The site has access off of steal road via two drive driveways to the north of the property is a railroad right away. And a vacant light industrial lot to the east is a manufacturing facility. To the south is a retail and grocery facilities and to the west is a valley bank. As the site exists today, it has 152 existing parking spaces.  
Speaker 5     01:16:33    Alright, thank you. And what are we proposing in terms of actual site changes  
Speaker 17    01:16:38    To actual site changes? We are adding additional parking to put the parking count to 168 total spaces where eight of which are EV spaces where 144 are required.  
Speaker 5     01:16:51    Right. Other than that, there are no, no other site improvements that are required in connection with this proposed use of the building by the recreational user, is that correct?  
Speaker 17    01:17:01    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:17:01    Right now I'd like to direct your attention to the memo issued by the divisions of engineering dated October 11th, 2023 three. We've had the opportunity to review that with the applicant and its professionals, correct? Correct. Right. Item one was a description of the use, which I believe was covered by the operator. Item two will be handled by our planner. Item three is the board is aware when we propo when we made the application, there was no fencing around the detention basement that's already in place and we requested a variance for that, although it was an existing condition. I'm happy to report to the board that since the application was filed, Mr. De Leo's company actually did fence in the detention basin. So I can with withdraw our request for that variance. Item number four, the EV charging stations, the comment is that they be installed by the issuance of any CO for the new use as a condition of approval. We have discussed that with the applicant. EV spaces or or EV charging stations are kind of a, a, a, a new new item in the development. Is that correct?  
Speaker 5     01:18:16    Correct. Okay. And after discussing this with Mr. Dele, it would be our request to have a bit of relief from the board on that, namely that we would make all the spaces EV ready, meaning that the electrical would be plumbed as it were, or, or set up at those spaces to make them EV ready prior to the issuance of the co. Is that correct? Correct. But that the applicant would be requesting some relief perhaps six months until April 30th, just some reasonable time to not hold up the issuance of the CO so the applicant can get some further information because we don't want to put in inappropriate EV charging stations if the technology is changing and we would ask for relief to the board just to give us, should you look favorably on this application, six months from the issuance of the CO for the building to allow us to install those charging stations. So Mr.  
Speaker 2     01:19:15    Mr. Morris, would it be acceptable if there was a condition that the ED stations would be operational by April 30th, 2024?  
Speaker 5     01:19:25    Let me just confirm that with Mr. Dele  
Speaker 15    01:19:31    If that's gonna gimme my approval. I guess I'll have to do it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but  
Speaker 2     01:19:37    That is the, the board's request.  
Speaker 5     01:19:40    Yeah, look, we're, look, we're requesting from relief. We certainly don't want it. So if the board is going, we we're at, look, we'd asked for a year, but I understand that, you know, it's, it's, there's gonna be some condition as we said, if you can give us that relief then we appreciate it. Alright. And then item five, there's a question on signage. The applicant's already addressed that no building signage proposed that will be dealt with at a, at a later date and hopefully not back before the board. So that is it for our engineering testimony. Again folks, we don't have a lot going on here so unless there's questions from an engineer at this point who will also remain on board until the hearing is concluded, I'd move on to my next witness. Yes,  
Speaker 1     01:20:24    If you could unshare the screen please. Any other members of the board of any questions for the engineer prior witness? Okay, Mr. Morriss proceed please.  
Speaker 5     01:20:36    I will. Next call James Higgins, who is our professional planner.  
Speaker 2     01:20:39    Mr. Higgins, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? I  
Speaker 18    01:20:45    Do.  
Speaker 2     01:20:46    I believe Mr. Higgins has appeared on many occasions before this board as a professional planner.  
Speaker 1     01:20:51    Yeah, I think we can proceed on this.  
Speaker 5     01:20:52    Alright, so you'll accept them as our expert? Yes. Thanks. All right. Mr. Higgins, you are a principal of James w Higgs an associate, correct? Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:21:00    Me,  
Speaker 18    01:21:01    Yes I am. I'm president. I'm still our licensed planner in, in New Jersey.  
Speaker 5     01:21:06    All right. Now your firm actually provided the planning testimony. You were the experts at the last application before the board on 2020 and provided testimony at that time, is that correct?  
Speaker 18    01:21:19    Correct. My, my daughter and my associate, Alison Kaufman actually did that testimony.  
Speaker 5     01:21:24    Right. So as, as such, your firm's been familiar with the continued development of the property and its history, is that right?  
Speaker 18    01:21:31    Yes, we are.  
Speaker 5     01:21:31    Right. Now I understand you've analyzed the proposed application from a planning perspective, is that right?  
Speaker 18    01:21:37    Yes, I have.  
Speaker 5     01:21:38    Okay. I would ask that you detail your analysis, any findings or conclusions you have reached your opinion with regard to the request and the basis for them?  
Speaker 18    01:21:50    Yeah, surely. Yeah. The sites in the LI Light Industrial Zone, it has a mixture of uses on the site as has been described. So I won't go over all that again. You do have a small building that's was recently approved for limited retail commercial uses in the front and the rear building, which was going to be utilized for flex space. And now the applicant is requesting that that building be utilized for recreational purposes. D one variance is necessary and I think there are special reasons for the granting of the D one variance in this instance. The site is particularly suited for the use. Generally recreational uses such as are being proposed here, are best situated in areas where the buildings are designed more for industrial type uses than for commercial uses. In this instance, the building is 17,500 square feet. It is, as has been described by Mr.  
Speaker 18    01:22:49    Delia, has a very open floor plan inside it, which is ideal for the type of recreational uses that are being proposed. In this instance, there's adequate parking on the site so that clearly the, the site can accommodate the use. With regard to the purposes of the municipal land use law, there are a number of purposes of the land use law that I think are addressed by this application and promoted by this application. The first is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health and the gen general welfare. In this instance, recreational uses clearly do promote the public health, both physically and I think psychologically too in terms of having recreational activities that are available to the public. In this instance, there's a variety of recreational activities including the batting cages, which I think have been, are in demand and just about all New Jersey municipalities to particularly to work in conjunction with little League and high school and so on programs.  
Speaker 18    01:24:04    So I think clearly that purpose of the land use law is, is advanced by this application. The others provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses, including recreational uses. And again, as I said, f facilities such as this location such as this, where the buildings are actually designed for light industrial use are most appropriate for recreational uses also. So I think it advances that purpose of the land use law that going to encourage the coordination of various public and private procedures and activities with a view of lessening the cost of development and the more efficient use of land. Again, you have a building here that's been approved that can be utilized by this use appropriately. So I think it really is a, a cost effective condition that advances this purpose of admissible land use law. And it is a more efficient use of land to utilize a building that has been approved on the site, has the parking, has appropriate circulation and rather than to have to build another building on another site someplace else.  
Speaker 18    01:25:17    So I think it advances that purpose of the land use law. I don't think there's any substantial negative impact from the granting of the application. Again, it's a light industrial zone. The building is designed for light industrial use but is clearly appropriate for recreational use. So should at some time in the future, the recreational use of the building cease the building could be utilized very easily for permitted uses in the zone. So there's no substantial impact on your zone. I don't think there's any substantial impact on surrounding uses. You have a railroad track to the immediate, immediate behind the building and there are no residential uses that are close that could possibly be impacted by this use. I don't think there's any substantial negative impact. So I, in conclusion, I do think that there are special reasons in terms of the particular suitability of the site for the use and the general welfare being advanced by that particular suitability and I don't see any substantial negative impacts.  
Speaker 5     01:26:20    Right. So then it would be your opinion that the, again, the use use variance and bulk variances could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without impairment to the municipalities zone plan and zone ordinance. Is that correct?  
Speaker 13    01:26:36    That's  
Speaker 18    01:26:36    Correct, yes. The, the bulk variances actually have been previously approved and they're not being changed. Right.  
Speaker 5     01:26:44    So,  
Speaker 18    01:26:44    So there's no impact whatsoever with regard on this application with regard to those bulk variances  
Speaker 5     01:26:50    And in particular from a planning standpoint, there's sufficient parking, egress and circulation from your opinion as a planner for the proposed use in connection with all the other uses of the site.  
Speaker 18    01:27:01    Yes. And I have also reviewed numerous recreational uses on mixed use sites and this fits very nicely with, with the, the circulation and the ability at the parking ability on the site. So I have no problem at all with that.  
Speaker 5     01:27:18    Right. I'd like to direct your attention to the memo issued October 10th by 2023 by Mr. Chadwick, the board's planner. I believe Mr. Chadwick, that from the testimony of the prior witnesses as well as the testimony you've heard from Mr. Higgins, that we have covered all the comments in your memo, but I just wanted to make sure that we did Mr. Chadwick, was there anything else?  
Speaker 13    01:27:44    Yeah, the, the zoning officer lists three variances under section 21 12 0 3 0.4 freestanding signs and you've agreed that you are not going to have any variances with signs and if you do, you'll be back to see us.  
Speaker 5     01:28:05    Well look for those there, which I think were all pre-approved already. I think the spirit of the comment was you would anticipate that there might be some signage on the building itself from this proposed to operator. Yes. And we don't have that on the plan as proposed because it hasn't been determined yet. So as we said, they've engaged a contractor who's familiar with your ordinances, one of two things are gonna happen. Either they'll be able to pull permits in conformity with the ordinance and just put them up. Or alternatively, if signage would require some type of relief facade signage on the building, we would've to come back and see you to address that.  
Speaker 13    01:28:38    Henry, do you have any history to this? She's got those signs listed. I looked at the plan, they're pre, I think they were preexisting. Preexisting,  
Speaker 5     01:28:47    Preexisting.  
Speaker 13    01:28:48    That's what I thought. Yeah,  
Speaker 5     01:28:50    One one may not be up yet, but it's already previously approved. But in the spirit of being conservative, we always list preexisting condi preexisting variances in our review and know  
Speaker 13    01:29:00    Well they weren't, that's why I'm saying Okay. You've cleared it up. They, they're nothing new in terms of variances on signage, correct. That already been approved?  
Speaker 5     01:29:10    Correct.  
Speaker 13    01:29:11    Okay.  
Speaker 5     01:29:12    Alright, so if there's no further questions of Mr. Higgins, I would move over to my last witness who's our traffic expert  
Speaker 2     01:29:24    And who's your traffic expert? Mr.  
Speaker 19    01:29:26    Jay. Jay Troutman.  
Speaker 2     01:29:27    Mr. Troutman, could you raise your right hand, the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 19    01:29:32    Yes, I do. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:29:34    You. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 19    01:29:36    Jay Troutman McDonough and Ray Associates, 1 0 5 Elm Street, Westfield, New Jersey.  
Speaker 5     01:29:42    Alright, thank you. Now Mr. Chapman, you're a licensed professional engineer with particular expertise in traffic engineering in the state of New Jersey, is that correct?  
Speaker 19    01:29:50    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:29:51    And you've had the pleasure of testifying before this board on, I understand many prior occasions and has always, always been accepted as an expert in your field. Is that correct?  
Speaker 19    01:30:01    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:30:01    Alright. So I would ask Mr. Chairman that you accept Mr. Troutman as our traffic expert Absolutely. Having to go through cv. Appreciate it Mr. Troutman. You are, thank you. You are a thank you. You are a principal of McDonough and Ray Associates, well-known traffic consulting firm in New Jersey, correct?  
Speaker 19    01:30:19    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:30:20    And you're a firm prepared and you participated in the preparation of the traffic statement dated September 29th, 2023 that was submitted to the board as part of our application documents, is that right?  
Speaker 19    01:30:34    Correct.  
Speaker 5     01:30:35    I also understand that your firm were the traffic experts and provided testimony back in 2020 on the prior application for the site that was before the board, is that right?  
Speaker 19    01:30:45    Yes, we did.  
Speaker 5     01:30:46    And as such you have full familiar, you, your firm is familiar with the, historically with the continuing development of the property, is that right? Yes,  
Speaker 19    01:30:55    We are.  
Speaker 5     01:30:56    Alright, I would ask you to just go through the highlights of your traffic statement and render an opinion with regard to the parking, circulation, ingress and ingress vis-a-vis this proposed application and the request for the recreational use.  
Speaker 19    01:31:13    Yes. The first item is gonna address one of the items from your traffic consultants review where they did a comparative trip generation analysis that basically shows that we kind of overestimated the traffic in our report. Your consultants report shows we could have used a lower, lower category. So depending on which category you apply, you're gonna have a very small to non-significant traffic impact here. In either case, there could be zero increase over what's already approved up to maybe 30 trips in a peak hour over what's approved. Neither, neither. Trip impact is significant in our reports. Basically we take you through all the calculations and our finding is that the, the site is generous in terms of parking, supply, traffic, circulation areas for all types of vehicles access to refuse collection. It's a very well laid out site and, and a good fit for the proposed use. We have no other items in your consultants' review that I think they need to be addressed. They, they found the, the parking to be adequate. I think that's, that's throughout your professional's reviews and we think this will be a very suitable site for the proposed use from a traffic standpoint.  
Speaker 5     01:32:38    Alright. So when you say the board's professional, you are referring to the letter dated October 5th, 2023 issued by Dolan and Dean who are the boards traffic experts, correct?  
Speaker 19    01:32:50    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:32:51    Okay. And again, is your opinion that, and certainly the board's experts don't conflict with it, that we have adequate parking egress and ingress for this proposed recreational use?  
Speaker 19    01:33:06    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:33:07    All right. So I have no further questions of Mr. Chapman at this time. If there questions from the board, you've already seen his report. I so no need to go through it in much detail since he just hit the highlights, but he's certainly available for any other questions.  
Speaker 1     01:33:22    Let me address the board. Does anyone on the board have any comments for this particular witness? First hearing none, I'm gonna, at this point Jim, I'm gonna open it to the public. Public, yes. Alright. Okay.  
Speaker 5     01:33:36    Yeah, had one had one more item Mr. Kale, before you do that? Sure, please. Alright, so the, the obviously the thrust of the application and while we're here was for the request the site planning use bulk variance re approvals for the recreational use. Since we were coming back to the board this evening, it appeared before you, there was a second housekeeping item that we put into the application that we also noticed for, and we're looking for a clarification with regard to the prior resolution. I had the ability to discuss this with some of the board professionals in 2020. The, the, the front building received the use variance approval for what was called limited retail and personal service use.  
Speaker 5     01:34:24    And when we look at the resolution now in retrospect, the applicant takes a position that the wording perhaps should be, should be corrected so that there's no no conflicts. If someone looks at this in the future down the road, you know, someone looks at an old resolution. And I say that because when we got the use variance approval in 2020 for that front building, it was an, it was not limiting. It was an addition to the, to the other uses in the li one zone that were permitted. But the way the wording comes out, it almost looks in the resolution. Like that building was only approved for use for limited retail and personal service. So that's why we're asking for the qualification. Of course, with regard to the last application, there were exceptions that the building could not be used for restaurants or funeral home usage. And we cer and we certainly agree that those would be exceptions, but we're asking since we're before you and we have the opportunity that we also get a clarification to the prior resolution so that it doesn't look like the front building is limited to only that which the use variances were approved for back in 2020.  
Speaker 5     01:35:34    It just seems like we're here, we could take the opportunity to clean that up. And I don't fault anybody, look, everybody looks at draft resolutions. Applicants look at them as well. They're provided, you know, you look at these down the road and you say, you know, maybe we should have asked it to be worded a little bit differently to just avoid confusion again when all of us are gone and someone's looking at a resolution down the road as as to what, what really the intent was. So that's the only other part, it's a housekeeping item that we're requesting this evening.  
Speaker 2     01:36:03    Mr. Chairman, you should probably check with Mr. Hinterstein and Mr. Chadwick on this.  
Speaker 5     01:36:08    Henry, would you chime in? I  
Speaker 8     01:36:11    I don't see any reason, really any issue with that. I mean I really think the limitation was really, you know, sort of the parameters on the limitations were for the use that weren't uses, that weren't permitted in the zone, not for uses allowed in the zone. The zone is what it is, it's permitted use. So if the, you know, use that that's there now went away and you came back with the zoning permit or c c o permit for a, a use permitted in the zone. But if, like I said, I don't see any issues with that, I think what's gonna be your guiding factor there for that building would be again, as always is is is there parking, is there, is there, is there associated infrastructure that that could support the use that you're proposing there? But the use itself, if it's allowed, it's allowed. And again, I, I think that that limitation was, was more so 'cause that retail use was limited, not, not the industrial use aspect. So if there's language that, you know, you want that clarified in the, in this resolution, I don't see an issue with it. I don't think we ever limited it previously.  
Speaker 5     01:37:24    No, I don't think, no, I don't think you did either. But it again, just reading it and it's not us. Look, we're familiar with it, but you, we, you know, you look at these things, a developer down the road in 10 years when staff members aren't around, you could read that resolution and some it may create some confusion. Yeah, I don't see we, we took the opportunity since we're here, should you look favorably on this to have you include it in this resolution? That  
Speaker 8     01:37:47    Shouldn't be a problem.  
Speaker 13    01:37:49    I, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. What Henry said. We're picking a mountain outta the sandhill. Just put a note on the resolution. Yeah, direct Jim to  
Speaker 1     01:37:59    Do it. Okay. Is that satisfactory Mr. Morse?  
Speaker 5     01:38:02    Yes. And we appreciate that. So that is our case. That is all of our requested relief this evening.  
Speaker 1     01:38:07    Thank you. Any members of the board have any questions for this application or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this particular application?  
Speaker 0     01:38:21    No. One Chairman  
Speaker 1     01:38:23    Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application with the language that Mr. Kinneally mentioned earlier with the EV stations being up and operational by April 30th, 2024. Can I get a second on the, my I'll second. Thank you Kalpesh. Can I get a, a call?  
Speaker 0     01:38:41    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio, did we lose Roy? Oh, there he is. Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:38:53    Thank  
Speaker 0     01:38:53    You. Mr. Blo?  
Speaker 1     01:38:55    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:38:55    Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman. Cahill?  
Speaker 1     01:39:00    Yes.  
Speaker 5     01:39:02    Mr. Morris,  
Speaker 1     01:39:03    I'll be in touch with you regarding the clarification language.  
Speaker 5     01:39:05    Alright. Very well thank you Mr. Neeley. Thank you members of the board have a pleasant evening.  
Speaker 1     01:39:09    Have a good evening. Thank you. Goodnight gentlemen. Goodnight. Let's move on to item number 1323 dash ZB dash 72 slash 73 V PWA Chicken Restaurant, New Jersey, LLL C.  
Speaker 20    01:39:23    Good evening, name is Chairman and members of the board. My name's David Chitz. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. I'll go with PWA but I don't, I'm not sure what like,  
Speaker 1     01:39:32    I don't know why I said that, but he said it's only the abbreviation we see. So  
Speaker 20    01:39:36    I'm teasing. I'm teasing and I know the board's had a long night tonight, so I appreciate you hanging in there for us. Thank  
Speaker 1     01:39:42    You.  
Speaker 20    01:39:44    I'm here tonight. Like I said, on behalf of P W I Chicken Restaurant N J L L C, they're the applicant and proposed tenant for this parcel property located at 1000 Stelton Road on the corner of Stelton and Sealy Avenue property's located in the township's g b zoning district. The subject parcel is approximately 53,500 square feet, give or take, certainly over an acre. As the board may be aware, it was currently being operated as an Exxon gas station, which is improved with an existing one story garage structure and several gas pumps. My client is intending to essentially redevelop the site into a Bojangles chicken fast food restaurant with drive-through and affiliated parking. As the board may be aware, there's a little bit of environmental history with this property. It was under a cleanup, received its clearance and is in the monitoring phases of the property. And as was noted in one of the review letters, still being, they're still monitoring wells on the site site and we'll explain to the board how those are gonna be addressed going forward.  
Speaker 20    01:41:02    The fast food restaurant is going, that's being proposed is gonna be approximately 3,138 square feet in size. It's a prototypical Bojangles fast food restaurant with the double drive through. It will maintain its access to and from Stelton Road, it will maintain its access to and from Sealy Avenue. There is sufficient parking that's being proposed as set forth in the ordinance. As the board's also aware the use is permitted by conditional use. I think the only thing the applicant has issues with in terms of why we're, why we're here today with the board besides seeking the site plan approval, is that there are variances related to signs and some basin fencing. Otherwise I think the applicant is compliance with the use criteria set forth in the ordinance in reviewing the application and the review letters and getting the staff review and discussing the matter with the applicant.  
Speaker 20    01:41:55    The good news is, is I think we can, we're gonna propose to eliminate some of the variances, specifically the ones related to the proposed freestanding sign, taking it out of the site triangle, making sure it's compliant in conjunction with that zoning app request was a placement of the sign within inside the ssep, the 25 foot setbacks that are permitted or that are required. We're going to move the freestanding sign outside the 25 foot setbacks. And then the other sign variance that was talking about our directional signs and moving the directional signs to be compliant as to 10 feet. So that will just leave us with a couple variances related to the proposed basin wall and fence and the number of signs that are being proposed for the site. Originally the applicant was proposing five facade signs on the building. We do have some photos that we can share to show how those look in talking to the applicant.  
Speaker 20    01:42:57    We also, we are, we'll reduce those signs from five to three and once you see the signs you'll see how the, the Bojangles lays out along with some of their architectural features. Mr. Chairman, having said that the board doesn't have any questions. I have two, potentially three witnesses, which I advised that they should go through their, not go through their testimony quickly but go through succinctly. And Mike Ante is consideration. Thank Mike Ante is our engineer, no problem. And planner, he's be doing a double duty. Andy Ola is our traffic engineer, he's here as well. And then Sanjay Patel, who is our, is the owner operator of the Bojangles. To the extent the board has any operational questions, he, I'm gonna hold him in reserve so to speak. Mr. Chairman, if the board has, having said that Mr. Ante is present and I think he, if we could share a screen with him, he could put the plans on the screen and go through his  
Speaker 2     01:43:57    Mr. Ante, can you raise your right hand where the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 21    01:44:03    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:44:04    Your name and address please.  
Speaker 21    01:44:05    Michael Galante, 76 Arle Avenue, Blackwood, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     01:44:09    Thank you.  
Speaker 20    01:44:11    I think Michael's in the dark to keep his young kids away from the computer, so  
Speaker 21    01:44:14    Yeah, I don't have good lighting down here. Kidding.  
Speaker 20    01:44:17    Michael, go through your qualifications for the board, if you don't mind.  
Speaker 21    01:44:20    Yeah, my name is Mike Ante. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I'm also a licensed professional planner. I'm a, I'm a registered engineer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and also an ENG licensed engineer in the state of Maryland. I got my ba, bachelor's and master's of science at Rutgers University. Mr. Ante,  
Speaker 2     01:44:40    Your, your credentials are fine with me please.  
Speaker 21    01:44:42    Alright, great, thank you. No, that's fine.  
Speaker 20    01:44:44    And Mr. Chairman, before Michael starts, we are gonna have him have that double duty of site design, engineer and planner 'cause he's also Alright. Mike, why don't you,  
Speaker 21    01:44:54    So what I'm gonna do, yeah, I'm, I'm gonna go through the plans, fairly straightforward. The first thing I'm gonna do is share the plan set here and just to go through very succinctly, we are proposing a Bojangles restaurant project is located at Block 55 0 1 lot, 7.03, 11.04 1000. Stelton Road, of course in Piscataway. What you see here is our cover sheet that this is a tax map. I'm gonna go down to the existing conditions plan to kind of describe the existing conditions of the site, talk about what what currently exists and then describe what we're proposing. So on the site you see an existing automobile service station that currently is pushed up close to Stelton Road, has multiple access points to access points on Stelton Road, one on Sealy Avenue to the rear of the site. There's a grass lot with a, an old historic access drive.  
Speaker 21    01:45:54    The, and and primarily vacant throughout the site, you'll see that there's numerous monitoring wells. As Mr. Schitz mentioned, mentioned earlier, the site has had some environmental issues and that's been mon being monitored through the L S R P program with the state going down to the site plan North being top of the page, I'm trying to line this up a little bit. Celia Avenue and then East Stelton Road. We're proposing the 3,138 square foot Bojangles restaurant. It's it all, it's proposed to have a double drive-through a right in, right out driveway off of Stelton Road and a full movement driveway off of Sealy Avenue. Immediately around the site, I would say to the north, you, you head toward the highway 2 87 on ramps to the east, you have a, the road is actually divided by a barrier and, and and beyond. You have some hotel uses and various mixed commercial uses to the south you have existing fast food restaurants and to the west you have more industrial style users. We feel like this site fits very good within this location since we're taking an, an existing structure that is in poor condition and we're gonna create a nice new restaurant that can be utilized by all the nu numerous commercial users, hotels that are located within the area, the site also, if you, you'll look at the plan, you'll see that the site has a total of, lemme just make sure I get the right number here.  
Speaker 21    01:47:35    22 parking stalls when 21 are required As and, and, and as I talk about that, I want to, I want to describe one of the variances that we need and one of the ways that we help to try to mitigate that variance. One pertaining to the fence around the basin, but to the west side of the site, there is a rain garden bio retention basin that will accept stormwater runoff infiltrate. And we are not proposing pure infiltration. We have an under drain, which goes into a outlet structure and then discharges at Seal Seal Avenue on the eastern side of the site. We are routing the roof drains into the stormwater system on Stelton Road  
Speaker 22    01:48:27    Around  
Speaker 21    01:48:27    Left field. I'm gonna head down and just go look at the grading plan, just very briefly just to talk a little bit about drainage. I'll go back, I'll talk a little, I'll talk about the signage and talk about the variance relief. So to discuss the drainage, as you can see, the site has a series of inlets that'll collect stormwater runoff routed into this basin area. Along the basin area. There's a retaining wall and the reason I talked about the parking, the basin, the retaining wall is because when we originally were looking at this site, we're actually trying to fit more parking on the site. However, to help improve stormwater management and minimize the amount of wall area we would need. We actually took out this row here understanding that we had adequate parking, which created more green space, more pervious cover, and created a greener site, which we thought looks nicer than have an additional parking that's kind of at the back of the site.  
Speaker 21    01:49:22    Really not in a good location across the drive-thru, we, we envisioned any parking at the western side of the site. This area would probably be used by the employees. However, we are adequately parked per the ordinance and we feel like this scheme is adequate. Plus, when we talk about the variance, one of the variances that we have is the way the ordinance calculates the height of fences. They include the height of the wall in the basin. So in order to, one of the constraints on our site is the adjacent property and we didn't wanna put our basin so close to it. So we want to have a buffer there and a good earth and berm. So when the basin fills up, there's no chance that the water is gonna go on the adjacent site. We want it to overflow in the event of a large a hundred year storm.  
Speaker 21    01:50:14    If it were to overflow, we want it to head out to the right of way, not affect the neighbors. However, the, the basin is designed to maintain and, and, and manage the 100 year storm. With that said, the wall actually acts as a, is minimized, the wall area is minimized, but created that fence that, that variance for defense, which I'm gonna talk about in a little more detail. I just wanted to see, make sure I could describe that to the board so they understand it. And the logic behind our design. Moving down, we, you know, we have a, a utility plan shows more of the inlets and then we have our landscape plan, which we did receive some comments on. And we are ready and willing to work with the Township professionals landscape architect to get a landscaping scheme that they feel would be more appropriate for the site.  
Speaker 21    01:51:10    We, we try to design the site with a good amount of landscape, but also manageable landscape. However, we feel like given the comments from the professionals, we can make this landscape scheme better and make, make the site more, much more aesthetic to the, to the area. 'cause when you're coming off the highway and you're coming down and you're heading towards Piscataway, this is your corner site, one of the first sites you're gonna see as you're heading south on Stelton Road. Next sheet is our lighting plan. We are proposing l e d lights throughout the site. We try to, our, our goal is to maintain a half a foot candle in all walking areas. The half a foot candle level is the amount of light you need to find your keys in a parking lot. That's usually the rule of thumb that we use. However, you know, if, if anybody feels there's additional lighting or they, they want us to make some mods, we can always make those adjustments.  
Speaker 21    01:52:09    But we've been, you know, pretty, pretty, you know, the lighting scheme that we've been working on has been fairly well and work very well for the sites that we design. Now we have our so erosion sentiment control plan that gets approved internally within the Township. So we have not submitted that to the conservation district. That was our understanding early on at the meetings. And we will certainly, you know, await Township approval on that. And then I understand that happens after this process. And then we just have our site details. So I want to jump back just real quick and talk about some of the variances. And I know Mr. Schitz was very, you know, detailed in, in his explanation. But the first variance that is listed on the agenda is of course 21 6 0 6 no encroachment into a site triangle. The, the freestanding sign located at the northeast section of the site is located within that site triangle. The applicant is proposing to move that sign and, and in doing so, we're gonna eliminate to it a variances. So we're gonna take the freestanding sign where we would prefer it to be a pylon sign similar to the existing sign and, and move it back outside of the 25 foot setback. So we're gonna pull the sign back up to this section of the parking lot to keep it out of the setback, thus taking it out of the site triangle.  
Speaker 21    01:53:41    We are also, I talked briefly about the fence, I'll go back to that and there's actually two fence variances, but I'll go back to that. And then the wall signs we're actually proposing five wall signs on the plan. And if the board would like me to, I could show what the building's gonna look like. We did submit that with the packet. However, we are gonna move the signs, we're gonna reduce the number of proposed signs down to three wall signs so we can eliminate that variance. One variance that we are still requesting is the size of the freestanding sign. The ordinance allows for 32 square feet. We have 55.59 proposed. Given the location how far it's set back, we feel that this variance would be justifiable 'cause we need, while we want to maintain the ordinances, we also want to maintain adequate visibility for the use.  
Speaker 21    01:54:37    And I will note that the existing sign is located much closer to the right of way, as you can see in the existing conditions plan than what we are going to propose, which would be 25 foot from both frontages. The and and moving down. There's also the directional sign variances, which we will also relocate this directional sign here and any other directional signs, we'll get them to 10, meet the, to meet the 10 foot setback so we can eliminate those variances as well. So realistically, we are coming in, we are a conditional use by definition we, and under the conditional use criteria, there is a statement that requires that to meet the criteria you have to meet every section of the ordinance. So in this case we comply with majority of all sections of the ordinance, parking, setbacks, pervious cover, you know, all all the different requirements.  
Speaker 21    01:55:46    And what we are not meeting are the size of the freestanding sign and the fence and retaining wall. And as I described earlier, we've, we tried to mitigate that variance early on by reducing the parking to meet just what we need, which created more green space. The fence around the basin is, while the ordinance defines it as being the, the wall and the fence, the basin is in fact itself, you know, set down. So when you're driving down the road and you're going down Sealy Avenue, you're at elevation 95, the bottom of the basin is down at elevation 90. So the, the actual visual impact is not an eight foot high wall, it's visually a four foot high fence. So therefore we feel, while the definition defines it as a variance, we felt, we feel we meet the criteria just through the design. 'cause the intent is not to have an eight foot high fence around the site, it's to provide adequate stormwater, adequate buffering to the adjacent use and also as much green space as practical to meet the requirement to, to beautify the site. I think that pretty much sums up my testimony unless you, you want me to show the, what the building would look like  
Speaker 20    01:57:15    Before you get in there, Mike, just a couple of quick things. Sure. I noticed from the existing features to the proposed that some access points are being eliminated. Is that correct?  
Speaker 21    01:57:25    Yes.  
Speaker 20    01:57:26    So  
Speaker 21    01:57:26    I know there's gonna be some traffic testimony, so I didn't wanna get too deep into that, but I did, as I stated previously, there are, there, there's a full movement driveway closer to the intersection of Sealy Avenue and Stelton Road and there's two right, and right out driveways or, or you know, two driveways located along Stelton Road. We're, we're actually consolidating that to one driveway. Both driveways are gonna be located as far as feasible to Stelton Road and the intersection of Stelton Road and CE Avenue, one being full movement, the other one being right and right out, the reason Stelton Road has to be riding right out obviously is because there's a median at the center of the roadway.  
Speaker 20    01:58:10    Okay, great. And can you just briefly  
Speaker 21    01:58:11    And then one, one more. I, you know, I, I should have, you know, the big grand finale, the, the sidewalks, right? We're adding sidewalks along the entire frontage, which was a staff comment and we actually feel like this will really help two things. County has a vision zero plan, which adding sidewalks along a major roadway, a county roadway will help improve safety and it also, you know, helps connect the surrounding uses. Go ahead Dave.  
Speaker 20    01:58:40    Thanks for that Mike. Just briefly, and we'll get into traffic in a little more detail, but just the circulation of the site, can you explain?  
Speaker 21    01:58:48    Oh sure. Yeah. So the generally what would happen is if you're coming off the highway or driving down Stelton road, you make a right into the site and you would be required to make a right coming in and following the arrows. And then that would get you to your either double drive through or you could go find a parking stall and walk into the building. The site circulates counter-clockwise. So you would come into the site, come around, go through the drive through, and then go out and either you could either make a left and go back out to, you can go out and make a left and go to LY Avenue or go right and go out to Stelton Road. And I, I have a good visual if, if there are questions showing how to double drive through works and, and, and it also shows the, how the site's gonna look. If that, if that's something the board would wanna see.  
Speaker 20    01:59:42    Yeah, Mike, why don't you go into some of those visuals now? That'd be great.  
Speaker 21    01:59:45    Okay. Yeah, I just, you know, if I just go into my email here, I haven't done this in a while. Okay. So I have some, can everyone see what I'm looking at here? Yes. Okay, so this is, these are pictures of a typical Bojangles wish I could get this to show a little bit better. But as you can see, as you go down, you can see a good drive-through. You see how they put, you know, in, in some instances they have these temporary delineators to kind of help delineate traffic and also, you know, you can see how the site generally circulates. They have these like temporary delineators to help, you know, manage traffic going around a drive-through and it general likem much drive-throughs, you circulate around you, you come out and then you would, you could go either way. So that's, that's a good pic visual of what it's gonna look like.  
Speaker 2     02:00:45    Were these visuals part of the submitted application package?  
Speaker 21    02:00:47    Yeah, I, I, you know what, that's a good point. I do have, I should have mentioned that Dave. We should have marked these as an exhibit and submit 'em.  
Speaker 2     02:00:53    Okay. We will mark these as a one with today's date.  
Speaker 21    02:00:57    Yep.  
Speaker 20    02:00:57    Thank you.  
Speaker 21    02:00:58    I actually thought these, these are actually more realistic photos. The what was submitted with the application are renderings, which are still very similar to what you see, but I felt like the realistic photos, the, these are actually the, the visuals submitted with the application just showing the drive through, showing parking, showing the, you know, the double drive through and, and that's what you have in your packet today.  
Speaker 20    02:01:23    So Mike, the, going back to the photos and the, and the architectural renderings that were submitted, that they generally depict the types of signs that are being proposed for the site. Yes. For the building facade I should say.  
Speaker 21    02:01:34    Yes.  
Speaker 13    02:01:35    Can we point out which signs are being eliminated?  
Speaker 21    02:01:41    Yes, I think I, I can do that if, if, and the owner, the owner's here too, if he wanted to, you know, generally chime in. But we have, just to kind of go through where the signs are located, we have a Bo jangle sign, a logo sign facing Sealy Avenue and a graphic facing Sealy Avenue. And then we also have the Bo jangle sign facing Stelton Road. I would assume that the owner would be willing to, would want to take away if, if any, I mean the signs that are really just facing the adjacent site in general, they'd be less view and less advertising. So in this case there's two signs. There's a graphic sign, 60.5 square foot at the drive through and there's a another logo sign at the drive through. So that would be two of the signs that in my opinion, would probably be the ones that be removed unless the owner is here and he could tell me otherwise if he, I see him raising his hand.  
Speaker 20    02:02:51    Well let's, we'll get to Mr. Shortly.  
Speaker 21    02:02:55    So there's two signs just to summarize. There's two signs facing Celia Avenue, one side face, one sign facing Stelton Road and another sign facing or two signs facing the adjacent site at the drive-thru lane.  
Speaker 20    02:03:11    Right. And Mike, just one more question. When you were ta talked in depth about the stormwater management that's being proposed, is there any existing stormwater management on the site  
Speaker 21    02:03:21    In terms of BMPs? No. Generally the site sheet flows into the right of way.  
Speaker 20    02:03:30    Alright. So do you believe that the installation of the stormwater management features discussed would be an improvement for the site? Yes. And in improvement for the surrounding area?  
Speaker 21    02:03:38    Yes.  
Speaker 20    02:03:39    Okay. Thanks Mike. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions for Mr. Ante.  
Speaker 1     02:03:44    Do any other members of the board have any questions for this witness?  
Speaker 8     02:03:48    Well, Mr. Chairman, do you want go over Yes. The site impact statement regarding the,  
Speaker 1     02:03:53    That'd be great idea.  
Speaker 8     02:03:55    Is there, you wanna offer that you'll just comply, that's fine as well to the, all the engineering items and other items in the report, but we can go through 'em if you'd like.  
Speaker 20    02:04:06    I think  
Speaker 1     02:04:06    That'd be best for you.  
Speaker 20    02:04:07    Yeah, we can go through them. I think to the extent that we didn't go address any, in any particular detail meant we would, we would comply. So  
Speaker 21    02:04:17    Is this the division of engineering planning development report? Correct. October 12th, 2023.  
Speaker 8     02:04:22    Correct?  
Speaker 21    02:04:25    Yes. We, you said you, do you wanna, how do you, what do you think is the best way to do it? Do you want me to go line by line or how do you want me to Well,  
Speaker 1     02:04:33    Line works for me.  
Speaker 21    02:04:34    Question about,  
Speaker 8     02:04:36    We can go through 'em or, or you could say you're complying with all of them, but, but  
Speaker 21    02:04:40    Well, I'll just go through number one, we have to comply. Number two, we would provide what's called a make ready station on site.  
Speaker 8     02:04:48    I think the would like, yeah, I think the Township would like to see one operational. They want  
Speaker 21    02:04:53    An operational Yeah,  
Speaker 8     02:04:54    One. Just one. But an operational unit at co.  
Speaker 21    02:05:02    All right. I will defer to the owner. I don't know if that would be a problem, but I'd rather the owner make that. Sure. Determination. Definitely  
Speaker 8     02:05:13    Three and four comments, which you'll, you'll agree to, I imagine. Yep,  
Speaker 21    02:05:18    There was, yeah. And they did mention the dedication by Middlesex County to keep the sidewalk out of the easement. We can we'll comply with that. We did look at that. We don't foresee any, any issues with setbacks or any, it won't, we don't see creating any variances. Okay. The  
Speaker 8     02:05:41    Only, again, the only, I don't know what the county required. The right of way is 104 feet on Stelton Road. I don't know what the half width is on that road currently. Typically we ask for whatever the master plan half width is. The the, the county may only require a portion of that to be, you know, in sort of fee simple. If there's other area that isn't, you know, that the county doesn't ask for, the Township may still request that the, the right of way be given. It may, it could probably done in an easement form so it doesn't impact any of the setbacks or any of the area of the site.  
Speaker 21    02:06:22    Okay. Yeah. And that, that would be my question. So the county's comment has a two foot setback behind the sidewalk. I I don't think that's gonna impact our sign any more than that could impact the sign setback.  
Speaker 8     02:06:36    So, so you just have to look at that and if it, if it requires additional half width then it could be done as an easement and again, there'll be no impact.  
Speaker 21    02:06:45    Okay. Setback. Great.  
Speaker 20    02:06:49    Mike, by the way, I just received word that the electric spot will be okay. So that's we'll comply.  
Speaker 21    02:06:53    Okay, great. Yep. Great. That's a will comply. The of course number back to the letter number six. Yes. Number seven. Yes. Number eight, yes. Monitoring wells. There was a question about monitoring wells. They are going to remain, they will be, you know, mo they all monitoring wells are being coordinated with an L S R P. They will also be retrofitted in the event they're an asphalt pavement to make sure that they can be driven on so that the site can operate. So just  
Speaker 8     02:07:30    Provide, there are  
Speaker 21    02:07:30    Some that there are a couple monitoring wells in the building area it'd have to get relocated. And that is also being coordinated by the owner.  
Speaker 8     02:07:37    Okay.  
Speaker 21    02:07:42    The number 10? Yes. Number 11. Yes. 12. That's a variance. Yes. We were asking for relief. We understand that the condition, I think we explained that that's a problem de yeah. Detail for the dumpster. That's, we can comply. We do have, we did show renderings of what the building's gonna look like for 14. I feel like that would satisfy that requirement. 15. There's 15 will comply. 16. We are reducing the number of facade signs. I believe the owner is going to weigh in on which ones they're gonna, they they're willing to remove outta the  
Speaker 8     02:08:26    Five. Yeah. I believe the recommendation, I believe the recommendation was the graphic signs, not the bo jangle signs, just the graphic print signs on each side of the building. I think that was acceptable based on, I think what the, the attorney had had discussed. But I'll leave that up to the owner to, to confirm that or the attorney to confirm it.  
Speaker 21    02:08:46    Number 17, we would, we, I think we discussed that about having a a, a poll mounted sign.  
Speaker 8     02:08:53    The only thing that wasn't addressed on that don't have an issue with the palm mounted versus the monument at that setback location. We do have an issue with the reader board sign.  
Speaker 21    02:09:03    It's not gonna be electric.  
Speaker 8     02:09:05    That's, it doesn't matter there. The Township doesn't want any, any kind of reader board signs. We just have an application right next door to this application with the stagnant reader sign that came in. And we also require that, that applicant to remove the sign. 'cause again, it's not something that we, we permit by ordinance. It's not something that we're looking to do is create all these read board signs. That's, we don't have a problem with the sign being increased a little bit. I know your, your main sign is about 30 something square feet. That sign area could perhaps be enlarged slightly. And  
Speaker 21    02:09:43    There will be no reader boards, by the way. No reader boards.  
Speaker 8     02:09:47    Okay.  
Speaker 21    02:09:48    The owner confirmed, that's no problem. Yep. The directional signs. Yes. We'll, we stated we'll comply 19, we're definitely gonna comply the pa we will conform to the pavement detail for the parking lot. Four inch conduit along frontages. Yeah. We'll coordinate with, you know, whatever where, where the location is. Of course. Yeah. Number 22 broke my heart, but I'll comply.  
Speaker 8     02:10:21    Broke your heart.  
Speaker 21    02:10:22    It broke my heart, man. Nah, I'm kidding. Not imagine  
Speaker 8     02:10:24    What it did. But imagine what it did to my heart.  
Speaker 21    02:10:28    22. I, well I, I'll get my landscape architect. I already sent it to him. I'm gonna have him, 'em really hone in and make it nice. You'll see. No problem. I'm, yeah, number 23 is a comply. 24. We'll, we'll, we'll make sure we add adequate notes for the, the deer rub protection number 25 is also county comment. So Yeah, we're definitely gonna comply it's county comment on, I guess you would, you have all broken or damage on Stelton Road? Probably Sealy, I'm guessing you, you mean as well. Correct.  
Speaker 8     02:11:02    Yeah, that correct. That should have said Sealy as well for the  
Speaker 21    02:11:05    Curb. Yeah, the county had it on Stelton, so yeah, so we'll comply and title 39. Title 39 is, is that just a signage?  
Speaker 8     02:11:18    Signage, yeah. Gives the police the athe authority to write tickets for you.  
Speaker 10    02:11:21    I'll have to call you tomorrow because I'm still in the zoning board.  
Speaker 21    02:11:27    And do you need a copy of the Middlesex County review letter?  
Speaker 8     02:11:31    Well, eventually, you know, you're gonna have to  
Speaker 21    02:11:33    Comply. I can send that. Yeah. I have  
Speaker 8     02:11:34    The conditions will be that you complied with Middlesex County.  
Speaker 21    02:11:38    Yep. That's not  
Speaker 20    02:11:39    A problem. Scheduled for approval. So I think we're in good shape with the county.  
Speaker 8     02:11:43    Okay. I think we're good. I dunno if John has anything.  
Speaker 13    02:11:47    I have a reports dated September 12th. Most of the items we discussed, either testimony or just now, the only items, can you bring the elevations up?  
Speaker 21    02:12:00    Yes,  
Speaker 13    02:12:00    We submitted.  
Speaker 21    02:12:01    That was submitted. Yes. That's not the one. Hold on. Here they are.  
Speaker 13    02:12:07    Alright. Can you, this elevation, which of those, which of those sides I want, the one is, there's one proposal, 110 square feet and another and 125. Is that the bo signs?  
Speaker 21    02:12:25    The bo sign? That's a good question,  
Speaker 8     02:12:28    John. Just, I believe, like I said, I believe those are the gra the larger signs are the graphic signs on the side of that ground  
Speaker 20    02:12:35    Wall. Yeah, both, both  
Speaker 8     02:12:37    Side elevations had these graphic signs. You could see the outline shown here. Okay. That's the sign I wanted to be eliminated. I mean, other signs sort of made sense.  
Speaker 13    02:12:49    Yeah, we're kind of going around this. We're waiting for, I guess, the owner to tell us which signs he then, then I think we have to ask the question, how big are they?  
Speaker 20    02:13:04    Yeah. Mr. Chadwick, I, in conferring with the client, he'll re we we'll agree to remove the graphic signs that are being discussed. So we're just, the signs that would remain are  
Speaker 13    02:13:13    They're gone. Okay.  
Speaker 21    02:13:14    The ones that say Bojangles. Okay.  
Speaker 20    02:13:16    Those are the only mean the Bojangles and the two.  
Speaker 13    02:13:20    Okay. And the, the only then the, the pole sign will have a, which I forgot what you said, 55 square feet.  
Speaker 21    02:13:29    55.29 I think.  
Speaker 13    02:13:32    And that still remains as the variance. Yes. And I then every u saying you could increase that a little, which addressed that sign. Well  
Speaker 8     02:13:41    The 55 included the reader board. So if you eliminate the reader board, there's, that main sign was 37, I believe, or somewhere in that neighborhood. So I don't have a problem with that sign. Like up to 55. Preferably a little bit less because again, we're eliminating the reader board. We're trying to get No, I  
Speaker 13    02:14:00    Agree. I agree. Yeah. Those two big decal signs that I thought were just more than,  
Speaker 8     02:14:06    Or we say yeah, maybe we could say 45 square feet for that main sign.  
Speaker 13    02:14:13    Fine with me. Is  
Speaker 21    02:14:14    That what you, you wanna keep it at 45?  
Speaker 8     02:14:17    No more than that. Yeah. Which gives you a little bit of leeway. Like an additional, I think almost eight square feet from what it is now. If you eliminate the reader board, you could still get the main sign to be slightly larger if you so choose  
Speaker 13    02:14:29    The five by nine size. Good size. Size,  
Speaker 20    02:14:32    Yeah. That will work  
Speaker 21    02:14:33    First. Yeah.  
Speaker 20    02:14:35    Much appreciated. Yep.  
Speaker 21    02:14:37    Okay.  
Speaker 1     02:14:42    No more No other questions, John?  
Speaker 13    02:14:44    No.  
Speaker 1     02:14:45    Okay. And Henry, you're done as well, right? So let's, let's move on to your next witness.  
Speaker 20    02:14:50    Thank you Mr. Chairman. Andy, if you're available, we'll do,  
Speaker 21    02:14:55    Should I share the screen or is Andy gonna, do you need me to keep the plan up?  
Speaker 4     02:15:00    I, I have your plan Mike.  
Speaker 21    02:15:01    Okay, I'll, I'm wanna back off. I can it as needed. Okay. I don't know how to stop sharing. It's been a while. Here  
Speaker 20    02:15:08    On the bottom there's a little green box that says  
Speaker 21    02:15:12    Yeah, I'm trying to get back to the, I like minimized it. Oh, there it is. Alright, lemme just stop share here.  
Speaker 20    02:15:23    Well Mike, while you're doing that, maybe we can have Andy sworn in and he can talk a little bit about his background. Alright, cool.  
Speaker 2     02:15:29    Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 4     02:15:34    Yes, I do. Your  
Speaker 2     02:15:36    Name and address please.  
Speaker 4     02:15:37    Name is Andrew Olo, located at 1904 Main Street in Lake Homo, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     02:15:43    Thank you.  
Speaker 20    02:15:45    I'm Mike. I'm sorry Mike. Andy, do you mind just, it's getting late. Do you mind just going through your, briefly going through your qualifications for the board?  
Speaker 4     02:15:53    Sure. Registered professional engineer in New Jersey. I've been a practicing traffic engineer since I started in this business over 16 years now. I've testified in front of numerous boards, including this board several years ago now. But I have been in front of this board as well. Several others.  
Speaker 1     02:16:10    That's fine. We'll, we'll accept it. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     02:16:13    Thank you.  
Speaker 20    02:16:15    So, and I understand that you prepared an initial report for this particular project. If you can just go through the board, the, the details in terms of the traffic generation, the circulation, and the drive through. Give the board, provide the, the board with a comfort in your opinion that the site will work as designed.  
Speaker 4     02:16:33    Sure. So our office prepared a traffic, traffic impact parking assessment dated May 1st, 2023. It was submitted to your board. It was also reviewed by the board's consultant, Dolan and Dean who also issued a a letter reviewing the report. And to the best of my understanding and through reading it, I didn't see any real concerns with the content of that report, but none, none. Nevertheless, I would like to just kind of step through the report on what we did here. You know, just overall from a traffic perspective, what we'd start to look at when we look at a site like this is, what is the existing use and compare that to the proposed use on the existing use. You have a, a gas station, a a service station is located on Stelton Avenue. So you get a lot of pass by customers that are coming into that station that would be replaced with a fast food establishment.  
Speaker 4     02:17:24    The proposed Bojangles, I think this Bojangles really fits very well within this corridor. You know, I counted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 fast food restaurants within the corridor. Wendy's, burger King, dunking Donuts, white Castle, taco Bell, chick-Fil-A and McDonald's, you know, a little bit further down Sellon. And the reason why I bring that up is because this is really just becomes another option to that existing fast food customer that already exists within the corridor. You know, certainly someone may be interested in Bojangles and they want to check this out, but this isn't something that I see really changing the traffic patterns in the corridor. Again, it really just becomes another option for the customer that already exists within the corridor. So with any fast food establishment, you'd find the vast majority of the customers are pass by customers. They're customers that already exist within the, the street network. I think for this site in particular, I would expect that percentage to be much higher than say a typical fast food restaurant that is just out there on the road. But even with that, you know, with that assumption, when we compare the proposed use to the existing use, we're still just seeing a nominal increase in trips and actually in some cases a reduction in trips based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers. So with that from the traffic perspective, I really don't foresee any kind of impact with this site. I think it fits very nicely within this corridor. Good.  
Speaker 4     02:18:51    You heard a little bit of discussion about the circulation and the driveways. Again, Mike, summarize what we're doing with the driveways. There's two, a bifurcated access along Stelton Avenue or Stelton Road, which is going to be, lemme share my screen here. Okay. Hopefully you can see the sh share this, see the screen here. We're gonna be providing a write in right out driveway along Stelton Road and then as well as a full movement driveway along Sealy Avenue. So this is an improvement over existing conditions 'cause we're reducing the curb cuts on Stelton Avenue or Stelton Road. Of course this would be subject to review and approval by Middlesex County. And as you heard, we have been asked to, you know, in addition to the driveways repair, any broken pieces of curb install sidewalk and those things, and that's gonna really brighten up the frontage for this site from a parking perspective. You heard that we do comply with the ordinance. I don't really have anything else to add there unless there's questions, but there is a requirement we do meet that requirement from a a, a circulation perspective and, and delivery. I know that's always a question and always also a question within the Dolan and Dean letter, you know, the size of the vehicle, it's a, a typical tractor trailer that would come delivered to the site? Yes.  
Speaker 4     02:20:19    This email. Okay. And it would circuit, it would enter, it would enter the site from Sealy Avenue, come around the backside of it and exit out onto Stelton Road. It's just very common, I'm sure with a lot of the other establishments within the area. And there has been a vehicle circulation prepared, I believe by the, the, the, the site engineer. And we can certainly submit that to the board as part of resolution compliance to show that that works. That a delivery I'm told by the operator occurs during off hours. And then you also have one, a garbage truck coming in during off hours to handle the, the, the garbage as far as drive-through customers, you know, based on information from the operator. You know, this site, and this is actually consistent with what we've seen with other kind of chicken sandwich establishments, not Chick-fil-A, but other chicken sandwich establishments is ch 75% drive-through where you have about 25% dine-in.  
Speaker 4     02:21:23    And what that's gonna really do is really gonna make use of the double drive-through that is proposed for this site. You know, we have the ability to stack 14 vehicles within the drive-through before crossing the crosswalk. And if it ever were needed, and I don't foresee that it ever would be, you could actually stack another four vehicles to get you about 18 vehicles stacked. That is a very large stack for a fast food restaurant. You know, that's more analogous to the very heavy hitters out there, like a very busy McDonald's or a very busy or a maybe a not so busy Chick-fil-A, maybe an average Chick-fil-A. But anyway, my my point is this well exceeds anything that we normally see on a lot of fast food restaurants.  
Speaker 4     02:22:12    As for the number of employees, again, I've been told by the operator and I, you can hear from him directly if you'd like, but what would summarize to me is that there'd be a total of 20 employees. This is total staff where the restaurant as a whole, they would be broken out into about 10 per shift. And as for hours operation, the hours of operation are 5:00 AM to, can't read my own handwriting, I'm sorry, till 1:00 AM I'm sorry, 5:00 AM until, excuse me, 5:00 AM till midnight on weekdays and on Friday and Saturday, 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM Again, that was a question that was brought up in the Dolan Indian letter, so I'm just responding to that. Beyond that I don't have any additional direct, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.  
Speaker 1     02:23:02    Any members of the board of any questions for this witness? I honestly believe at this point, sir, with the testimony and with your agreement to the site impact issued by the engineering department. I, I think we could probably move this real quickly. If you get my chest,  
Speaker 20    02:23:24    I'm okay. Mr. I, Mr. Patel is just available. Should there be any questions on the operational side, but I think the professionals did a good job of addressing those questions. So  
Speaker 1     02:23:34    Do I. So do I. Any other members? So I'm gonna proceed at this point. You okay with it? Thank you. Absolutely. Any members of the board have any comments or questions about this application?  
Speaker 8     02:23:44    Mr. Chairman? Just one quick question. Sure, sir. The, the, the menu board, the, the takeout ordering, I assume that the volume control is controlled so that it's based on the ambient noise and it won't be blaring at night?  
Speaker 20    02:23:59    That is correct. Okay. And there is internal controls. The those go down as the, during the night the lights level goes  
Speaker 8     02:24:07    Down, correct?  
Speaker 20    02:24:08    When the dinner rush is gone?  
Speaker 13    02:24:10    Yeah. One, I have one question too. I didn't put a lights out question.  
Speaker 1     02:24:13    Yeah, that's what I was about to say. The lights out o'clock in the morning,  
Speaker 13    02:24:17    You're gonna shut the lights out at the  
Speaker 20    02:24:19    Yeah, when the, when it closes, the lights will be on a timer to, to go out.  
Speaker 1     02:24:23    Okay,  
Speaker 20    02:24:24    No problem.  
Speaker 1     02:24:25    Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public sector have any questions or comments about this application? None. Ms. Buckley, you're, you're muted, ma'am. Yeah,  
Speaker 0     02:24:40    I hit the button. Sorry. That's,  
Speaker 1     02:24:42    It's all right. That's all right. No, I'm gonna close the public portion at this point and I'd make a motion to approve this application.  
Speaker 0     02:24:48    I, a second.  
Speaker 1     02:24:49    Thank you. Please call the roll.  
Speaker 0     02:24:52    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Elli? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 1     02:25:08    Yes. We will memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you.  
Speaker 20    02:25:12    Thank you Chair, everyone.  
Speaker 1     02:25:14    Good evening. Thank you so much. Good night.  
Speaker 4     02:25:17    Good.  
Speaker 1     02:25:17    Let's move on to item number 14, adoption of the resolutions from the regular meeting of September 28th, 2023, three.  
Speaker 2     02:25:24    First resolution is Brandy Rivera. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes.  
Speaker 1     02:25:35    Yes.  
Speaker 2     02:25:36    Next is Ronco Development 1 46 Avenue. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill.  
Speaker 1     02:25:47    Yes.  
Speaker 2     02:25:48    Next is Ronco Development one 60 Hillside Avenue. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill.  
Speaker 1     02:25:57    Yes.  
Speaker 2     02:25:58    Last is the development, the Sonic restaurant. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cato?  
Speaker 1     02:26:10    Yes. Those  
Speaker 2     02:26:11    Are all the resolutions I have.  
Speaker 1     02:26:13    Okay. Item number 15, which is the adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of September 28th, 2023. All in favor say aye.  
Speaker 2     02:26:20    Aye.  
Speaker 1     02:26:21    Aye. And notice 16. Number 16 adjournment. Thank you all for late night tonight, by the way. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm starving now. All just talk about chicken. I, I gotta a hankering. So thanks again everybody. I appreciate your volunteerism and whatnot and, and tonight was a late one, so I really am thankful. Let's, happy Halloween. Let's all connect. Disconnect. Yes. Happy Halloween. No, I,  
Speaker 0     02:26:50    We'll see before that though.  
Speaker 1     02:26:51    Same.  
Speaker 2     02:26:53    See the 26th? We'll  
Speaker 0     02:26:54    See you on the 26th. We'll see you before that. I'm thinking it's the end of October, right?  
Speaker 1     02:26:59    Alright guys. P C T V, take us away. Good. Everyone.