Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on June 12 2024

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     00:00:00    So Mr. Foster, Mr. Ahamed is here. Okay, we can now all stand for pledge allegiance. Reverend Kinneally,  
Speaker 1     00:00:10    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and two to Republic for which is stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May item number seven. Do we duly pay the bills? May I have a motion?  
Speaker 2     00:00:40    We, we have to swear in Mr. Ryerson. Mr. Reverend Kinneally. Ron, you swear the testimony give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So have you. God.  
Speaker 1     00:00:50    I do. Good to see you.  
Speaker 2     00:00:51    Thank you. Good to see you. Now we can pay the bills.  
Speaker 3     00:00:55    Tom, we also might have to swear in Jimmy Clark and,  
Speaker 2     00:00:58    Oh, okay. You're right. I, I just didn't see him on screen, so I figured Oh, sorry  
Speaker 1     00:01:03    About that,  
Speaker 2     00:01:04    Mr. Clark. And you swear the testimony you'll give before the board will be the whole truth? I do. Okay. Now we can pay the bills.  
Speaker 1     00:01:14    I see Madam chair is here on.  
Speaker 4     00:01:17    Hello everybody. Hello. I've been watching you guys. I've been watching, but here I am now Did you do the pledge of Allegiance?  
Speaker 0     00:01:24    Yes, ma'am.  
Speaker 2     00:01:25    We're up to number seven.  
Speaker 4     00:01:28    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:01:33    Okay, we're about to pay the bills. Madam chair,  
Speaker 4     00:01:39    Can I have a motion to play the duly audited bills, please?  
Speaker 3     00:01:43    Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. I make that motion.  
Speaker 4     00:01:46    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 1     00:01:48    Madam chair. Reverend Kinneally, I second it.  
Speaker 4     00:01:50    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:01:52    Councilwoman? Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 1     00:01:58    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:01:58    Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:02:00    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:02:00    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 2     00:02:02    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:02:02    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:02:06    Yes. Item number eight, adoption of resolutions and to memorialize action. Taken on May 8th, 2024. Mr. Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 1     00:02:20    President Kinneally. I'll make a motion. Okay. For the adoption to memorialize action taken on May 8th.  
Speaker 4     00:02:28    Is that item 20 a 23 PB 11 slash 12 V as in Victor?  
Speaker 0     00:02:35    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:02:36    Yes. Thank you. Do I have a second? The motion?  
Speaker 2     00:02:39    I second that.  
Speaker 4     00:02:40    Okay. Thank you. Roll call please. Excuse  
Speaker 0     00:02:43    Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     00:02:49    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:02:49    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:02:51    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:02:51    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 2     00:02:53    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:02:54    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:02:57    Yes. Mr. Ken, Reverend Kinneally, you wanna give us a motion for this next one? Adoption of resolution to memorialize. Make a motion to  
Speaker 0     00:03:12    Adoption because she bioscience is 23 PB dash oh one.  
Speaker 4     00:03:15    Okay. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 3     00:03:17    Join Coran. I'll second.  
Speaker 4     00:03:19    Thank you. Roll call  
Speaker 0     00:03:21    Councilman Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:03:31    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:03:31    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:03:34    Yes. Can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of May 8th, please?  
Speaker 3     00:03:40    Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. I'll make the motion.  
Speaker 4     00:03:43    Can I get a second?  
Speaker 0     00:03:45    I'll second that. Councilwoman. Cahill.  
Speaker 4     00:03:47    Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 0     00:03:49    Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:03:58    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:03:59    Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:04:02    Yes. Item number 10, discussion to discuss whether the property designated is block 37 0 2 lot two shown on page 37 of the current Piscataway Township Map text map. Who's going to take charge of that discussion?  
Speaker 5     00:04:24    I am here chairwoman. Good evening everyone. Members of the board. I'll be presenting that study for you. I'm sharing my screen now. I've actually taken the liberty of jumping to page five of the report where it kind of gets started on the study area description. So as you said, this is block 3 7 0 2 lot two, better known as two Hancock. It's actually right on the corner of Normandy and Hancock. This is in the western northwestern part of the township near the borders of Borough of Middlesex and Borough of Bound Brook. It's actually located in your R 10 residential zone. If you have my report, there is a map at the end where you can kind of see the aerial to kind of give you a locational setting. But what exists on the site today, it's a two and a half story residential home with driveway two car garage, fenced backyard shed on the outside of the fence.  
Speaker 5     00:05:18    You know, pretty standard residential home, lot size about 0.3 acres. And the home is 2100 square feet. It's actually operating as a two family home, which is not permitted in that zone. You can actually confirm this both by township records, but also there's two meters on the side. There's two mailboxes, lots of cars in the driveway. It's pretty clear that there's two families living there. But when we dug through the zoning records, it actually turns out in 2004 the zoning board approved an application for that home to continue operating as a two families dwelling. I think it was discovered that it was, you know, not approved by a variance and it was allowed to continue this A two family as a, I'll go through the photos in a little bit. But the house itself is not in terrible condition. Little signs of dilapidation or unhealthy living conditions, little bit wear and tear, but nothing obvious that would deem it dilapidated or unsafe. But for context, this study area, this law is adjacent to 10 Normandy Drive, which you may remember you recently or I like a year and a half ago, I presented and yourselves and the town council decided to make it in need of redevelopment. So that lot was a vacant lot. It was the old union carbide phenol plant that stopped operating in 1987. So this lot is right next to it.  
Speaker 5     00:06:47    In terms of environmental hazards, I actually surprisingly did not find any, given the level of contamination at the old phenol plant. I thought there would be something that actually nothing turned up. So it does not seem like there are any wetlands or any concerns there. Your surrounding land uses are a mix of commercial, industrial and residential. The south and the east is more of a residential neighborhood. And if you kind of move west towards river Road, you'll start to see more warehouses and industrial uses from a master plan perspective. As you all know, vacant developable land is diminishing in your township. So older sections of the township are more prime for redevelopment and this fits right in there. This site was originally developed in 1914 and the residential neighborhood in that area was probably developed in the fifties and the sixties. So it's definitely an older part of than of the township that could benefit from redevelopment. And as always, the state planning area classifications always the same for the township, so there's no concerns there.  
Speaker 5     00:07:53    So I'm gonna jump to section five where we start getting into the photos. So you can kind of see the condition of the house in this photo. You can see the two meters there, two garbage cans, well that's not atypical, but you can kinda see the fence and the shed on the side of the home. You can see the four cars in the garage, in the driveway, the two car garage. And in here you can see the two mailboxes. So this confirms that it is a two family home. And you know, when I did my analysis, typically we're looking for something that meets some of the criteria for in need of redevelopment. But in this case, num was actually found. However, I'm still going to recommend it is in need of redevelopment because of a specific statute that's in the law. So this is starting on section six.  
Speaker 5     00:08:49    It's something called necessary inclusion. It's not often used, but in some cases it can be justified to include something as in need of redevelopment, even though no obvious signs of dilapidation or other things that meet those criteria are found. So I'm just gonna read it for the record. It's section four of the local redevelopment housing law. It says a redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or improvements, which themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary with or without change in their condition for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. So I'm gonna go through a couple of things of why I think this is a necessary inclusion.  
Speaker 5     00:09:35    And when I say necessary inclusion, I mean adding this lot to the redevelopment plan for 10 Normandy. So they actually came before your board for site plan approval and they required a number of landscaping and adequate buffering both along Normandy Drive and Hancock Road. So we think the inclusion of this lot will actually enhance that buffering by creating more space, but also more depth, more physical space between the neighborhood and that redevelopment project. So it's almost like a transition area from this new redevelopment project and the adjacent residences. So I think there would be a net benefit to include this lot for a more effective screening and buffering further. Another benefit is specific to stormwater drainage. When they went before you were bored, I believe they had to build a retaining wall in order to capture the stormwater drainage in an effective way. If we include this lot to Hancock, that retaining wall would no longer be needed 'cause it would allow for more natural grading and percolation of rainfall into the ground.  
Speaker 5     00:10:45    You know, since you have more space to work with, there's more just natural drainage available. So that would be a net benefit of including the slot, oh, sorry, I skipped a page. And then a third benefit is they need a driveway to access the site from Normandy. And two Hancock Road is actually like right next to it and may cause some site triangle issues. So the driveway had to be 10 feet, but if we include this, it would actually remove any nuisances from that close driveway to that lot. So it makes sure the project complies with the applicable law, but really makes it safer for those trucks to enter and exit onto Normandy Drive as they'll have better lines of sight in either direction for oncoming traffic. And then finally, there are actual benefits to the township. If we add the slot to make it more effective, that includes providing a 60 foot right of way for the remainder of Normandy Drive and a portion of Hancock Road.  
Speaker 5     00:11:47    Along that intersection, it will remove the multifamily residential structure, the two family that conflicts with your zoning in that district. So that will make, you know, the zone more in harmony with its intended types of uses. And the removal of the structural will return the tax lot to its intended density. Density. So all those benefits and of improvements I think will make for a more effective redevelopment and it's necessary to include it in order to get those benefits. And I don't see any detriments in any way of including the slot in the redevelopment plan for the surrounding community.  
Speaker 5     00:12:28    And then as typically we include the smart planning criteria, which is the age criteria, this was applied to Tim and Normandy. And for very similar reasons, I think this criteria applies to, to Hancock in that you'll be able to use existing infrastructure and your proximity to interstate 2 87 for such uses as was envisioned for the 10 Normandy redevelopment plan would be furthered. So with all that, I'm gonna conclude that this study area to Hancock should be designated as an area in need of redevelopment based on the fact that it meets the criteria H, but also the language I just went over for the effective redevelopment of that area. So if it's found to be in need of redevelopment, it would be allowed to be included in the 10 Normandy drive redevelopment plan. So that would be amended to include the acreage for both lots and therefore implement that more effective redevelopment. So that's really everything I wanted to testify on in terms of summarizing report, my report. So I'm happy to take any questions you may have.  
Speaker 4     00:13:44    Thank you. Mr. Clarken, members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Clarkin re regarding his report?  
Speaker 2     00:13:51    Madam chair, I just wanted to note for the record that the mayor logged on prior to Mr. Clark's testimony with regards to it. So based on his attendance throughout, he would also be eligible to vote on this matter. I just wanted the record to reflect that.  
Speaker 4     00:14:09    Thank you.  
Speaker 6     00:14:11    Madam chair, this is Councilwoman. Cahill. If I could, if I may ask of Mr. Clark. So go ahead. This, this site now is not owned by the people who live in the home. Is, is that an accurate statement?  
Speaker 5     00:14:27    It's my understanding that it may be under contract to sell. I don't know if it's, I don't know if the owner lives there or just owns the home and is renting it, but whoever owns it, I believe is under contract to sell. If,  
Speaker 6     00:14:42    I mean the deed is a corp is an LLC or something like that out of Houston.  
Speaker 5     00:14:46    Oh is it? So maybe it did go through, I thought I saw something.  
Speaker 6     00:14:49    No, that sales from 2018.  
Speaker 5     00:14:51    Oh, okay. Got it.  
Speaker 6     00:14:55    Okay. So they're essentially renting out the house then? I would have to assume, I mean the sale was for a dollar in 2018, so I'm not really sure how that all works. Okay. That, that was my primary, my primary question I'd, I'd have to guess that the members who live in this house somehow are aware of them needing to move out or will be given the appropriate amount of time to find other housing  
Speaker 5     00:15:28    That I do not know. I was not notified by anyone in the township that they needed assistance. But that can be something we can follow up on to make sure they have enough time.  
Speaker 2     00:15:42    If I assume they have a  
Speaker 4     00:15:44    Wait one person at a time, please.  
Speaker 0     00:15:48    Who's speaking? Believe the sale went through.  
Speaker 5     00:15:51    Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:15:52    That was the mayor speaking  
Speaker 2     00:15:55    And I was just saying councilwoman, if there's a a lease as a tenant, they'd have to comply with the terms of the lease or you know, make other financial arrangements I assume.  
Speaker 6     00:16:04    Right. Okay. Very good. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:16:07    So then our understanding is that the, it has been sold, the property is has the sole, has the sale has been completed a per the mayor. Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the members of the board? Thank you. At this point we should open it up to the public for any questions that they may have. Ms. Buckley.  
Speaker 0     00:16:31    Mr. Clarkin, can you unshare your screen please?  
Speaker 5     00:16:33    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:16:34    Thank you. Much easier that way. Members  
Speaker 4     00:16:37    Of  
Speaker 0     00:16:37    The public  
Speaker 4     00:16:38    If Okay, go ahead. If you have any  
Speaker 0     00:16:40    Questions, if anyone from public has questions or comments, you have to raise your hand and then I could give you permission to speak about this application. No. And Madam chair,  
Speaker 4     00:16:52    Thank you. If there's no other questions of Mr. Clarkin, are we ready to make a motion on whether this area is in need of redevelopment?  
Speaker 3     00:17:07    Madam chair. Dawn Corcoran, I'd like to make a motion recommending that the property be designated as a non condemnation area in need redevelopment.  
Speaker 4     00:17:16    Is there a second?  
Speaker 6     00:17:18    I will second that. Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     00:17:19    Madam chair Reverend Kinneally. I'll second it.  
Speaker 4     00:17:22    Thank you. Roll call  
Speaker 0     00:17:24    Please. Mayor? Wahler?  
Speaker 5     00:17:27    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:17:28    Councilwoman. Cahill?  
Speaker 6     00:17:30    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:17:31    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 5     00:17:35    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:17:36    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:17:37    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:17:38    Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:17:44    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:17:45    Madam chair. There's a resolution that's also been prepared and the board so chooses it would be appropriate to adopt the resolution at this time, identifying block 3 7 0 2, lot two as a condemnation, non condemnation redevelopment area.  
Speaker 4     00:18:01    Can I get a motion to adopt the resolution? Motion? Councilwoman. Cahill. Can I get a second?  
Speaker 0     00:18:08    Second. Dawn Corcoran.  
Speaker 4     00:18:10    Roll call.  
Speaker 0     00:18:12    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:18:22    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:18:23    Mr. Hammed? Yes. Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:18:26    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that concludes that matter. Resolution's been done. Item number 10, discussion to discuss whether the property designated as, Nope, we just did number, number 11. Number 11. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It sounded familiar. Thought I  
Speaker 0     00:18:45    Messed up.  
Speaker 4     00:18:46    Addend addendum to the redevelopment plan for block 17 0 1, 2 0.03 Known as 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue.  
Speaker 5     00:18:59    Yes. I'll also be handling that. Mr. Clark? Yes. Thank you. This one's a bit more straightforward. I'm sharing my screen just  
Speaker 4     00:19:08    Okay.  
Speaker 5     00:19:08    It's, it's kind of boring. It's all text, but I'll, I'll just kind of summarize. So as you may recall, block 1701 lot 2.03, it was requested of me to study that as an area needed redevelopment back in 2002. That was done. It went before the planning board and the council, it was adopted as an area needed redevelopment and a re plan was prepared later that year in November, 2022. That was also adopted by both board and council. However, since that time, no redevelopment has actually taken place on the subject property and the existing tenant that occupies that property currently today is still in operation. And so the issue at hand is if that existing operator needs to fix something or make a slight change to his operations, any, and it needs to come before this board, it's going to need a ton of variances because of the redevelopment plan in place.  
Speaker 5     00:20:08    Because the way we did it is we had it as a superseding. So that means the M five manufacturing zone no longer applies. Only the redevelopment plan does. So in order to not have that, 'cause we wanna keep the intent of the redevelopment plan intact and not harm it in any way. The this addend through this addendum, we want to change that to instead of a superseding make it a underlying zone. So this would change it to where the M five is still intact as the underlying, and then the redevelopment plan is on top of that as it can also apply to that site. So what that would do is, oh, sorry I went too far. Is the current business operation called Trans Packers Services Corporation. They can continue indefinitely as there's no timetable to implement the redevelopment plan. And in the time it may take to find a redeveloper, as I said, if need changes or upkeep, they would be able to do it by applying under the M five manufacturing zone under which they, I believe originally got their approvals under anyway.  
Speaker 5     00:21:21    So this will remove the need for a large number of variances that would just be an undue burden both to trans packers, but also wouldn't benefit the redevelopment plan we put together in the first place. Because it says that deviations may be granted as long as it not, doesn't substantially impair the intent and purpose of the redevelopment plan. And if we didn't do that, I think it would unfortunately impair it. So I think this is a necessary change to have the M five become underlying and still have the redevelopment plan applicable to the site. And then summation, this would just allow the existing tenant to make improvements to its operation should it need until a redeveloper can be found for the site. Yeah, that's just a quick summary of the addendum and why we're doing it and its purpose and happy to take any questions.  
Speaker 4     00:22:16    Members of the board, do you have any questions? Okay. Have, since there's no questions from the board, Ms. Buckley, would you see if there's any questions from the public?  
Speaker 0     00:22:34    Thank you. No. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 4     00:22:39    Thank you. Close to the public members of the board. What is your pleasure with reference to this report?  
Speaker 6     00:22:53    Madam chair Councilman Uhrin McCahill. I'll make the motion to accept block 1701 2.03, also known as 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue as an area for the addendum. I guess this is the addendum to the redevelopment plan, Mr. Clarkin.  
Speaker 5     00:23:13    Correct. It's just a, an addendum to make that slight change.  
Speaker 6     00:23:17    Right. So I'll make the offer to accept the addendum.  
Speaker 4     00:23:21    We'll have a second. I'll second that.  
Speaker 1     00:23:24    Reverend Kinneally. I'll second their motion.  
Speaker 4     00:23:26    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:23:30    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill?  
Speaker 6     00:23:34    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:23:34    Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 1     00:23:38    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:23:38    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:23:42    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:23:43    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:23:47    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:23:48    And again, Madam chair. Based upon that I prepared a resolution if it's the board's pleasure to adopt. Same.  
Speaker 4     00:23:57    Thank you. Do I have a motion to accept the resolution? Motion. Councilwoman. Cahill. Thank you. Second please. Second. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:24:10    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 1     00:24:18    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:24:18    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:24:19    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:24:20    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:24:22    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:24:22    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:24:26    Yes. Thank you. Yes. And final. Good evening. Final evening. Oh, no, you're not on this next discussion, Mr. Clark. I'll wait around just to make sure  
Speaker 2     00:24:36    We got higher room to do it first.  
Speaker 0     00:24:39    This one's on Mr. Barlow.  
Speaker 4     00:24:41    Okay. Sorry. You may go then Mr. Clark. All right. Have a good evening. You're dismissed.  
Speaker 0     00:24:46    Good night.  
Speaker 2     00:24:47    Thank you. Madam chair number 12 is a discussion item to authorize Mr. Clark and through foresight planning to amend the redevelopment plan for block 9 2 0 1 lot 46.20, which is the Dale Meadows. There's a previous redevelopment plan from March 6th, 2017, and it's been requested that we, that the planning board look into retaining Mr. Clark to amend the redevelopment plan.  
Speaker 4     00:25:21    Okay. That's the request. We need a second or we  
Speaker 2     00:25:24    Need a motion. We need a motion to retain foresight.  
Speaker 4     00:25:27    Okay. Can I get a motion to retain foresight? I'll make that motion. Dawn Corcoran. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 1     00:25:35    I'll second that motion. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     00:25:37    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:25:40    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     00:25:47    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:25:48    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:25:49    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:25:49    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:25:52    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:25:53    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:25:57    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:25:58    And again, Madam chair, I prepared a resolution to memorialize that in the form of resolution. If there's a motion to adopt the resolution to retain foresight.  
Speaker 4     00:26:09    Can I have a motion to adopt redevelopment plan to retain foresight.  
Speaker 1     00:26:16    Reverend, can I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the re development plan?  
Speaker 4     00:26:23    Thank you. Second. Do I have a second? I second it. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 0     00:26:29    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? There she is. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 2     00:26:44    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:26:45    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     00:26:47    Yes.  
Speaker 0     00:26:48    Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     00:26:52    Yes. Thank you. The, the motion for for the resolution has been passed. Item number 1323 PB 23 slash 24 V as in Victor, spark car wash LLC for preliminary and final site plan.  
Speaker 2     00:27:11    I believe Mr. Chang is here for that  
Speaker 8     00:27:13    Good Madam chair, board members, board professional. My name again is Jeffrey Chang for Law for Fox Rothchild at the Princeton office. We've been continuing since the May 8th hearing and this evening I have three witnesses I'd like to testify, one being Matt Canali, who is the operations manager. Just to answer a few more questions. We heard some comments from, I believe the mayor and Councilwoman about market data. So we just wanted to have him share briefly some additional research that he did because those were excellent questions. And then I would've Andrew Visio, the traffic engineer from Stonefield Engineering and John McDonough, the professional planner testify.  
Speaker 2     00:27:53    Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:27:53    You may call you, oh, go  
Speaker 2     00:27:54    Ahead. I'm sorry. I just wanted to, to note for the record, this is a continuation of hearing that started on May 8th, 2024 and was continued after Mr. Chang had presented several witnesses. I just also want to note for the record, there had been an obje, there is an objector to this matter who was given an opportunity to appear at the May 8th meeting and did not, he had confirmed that he was going to be appearing today several times to several different people. I think Mr. Chang, myself and Ms. Buckley. And we all received a letter about an hour and a half ago indicating he was not going to appear and he was not going to, I guess, present any objections on the record at this evening. And that was by letter from Mr. Liston dated June 12th, 2024. With that having been said, Mr. Chang, you can certainly continue your application and call your next witness. Sure.  
Speaker 8     00:28:55    I just briefly have Matt Ally, who's the real estate manager at Spark Car Wash to testify. Mr. Canal, you're still under oath. I I don't know Mr. Barlow, if you need just wo in.  
Speaker 2     00:29:09    And one other thing I wanted to mention, the, the seven board members that were here on May 8th and heard the application are all present again this evening. Mr. Foster, who's here present, has listened. He watched the video and he has certified the transcripts so he can also is eligible to vote. Mr. Chang. Okay, thank you. With that being said, Mr. Canal, you understand you were sworn in at the last meeting. You understand you're still under oath before this board?  
Speaker 8     00:29:37    Yes,  
Speaker 2     00:29:37    Sir. Okay. Mr. Chang, your witness?  
Speaker 8     00:29:39    Sure. Mr. Canal, could you just briefly share some of the additional research you did regarding, I believe as mayor and council woman's questions about market research distinguishing with the other car washes in the area and emphasizing the modern environmental friendly aspect of this use? I, I wanted to make sure the record was clear and to honor, obviously honor the them with a, with a well thought out and research answer in addition to what you presented last meeting.  
Speaker 9     00:30:10    Absolutely. Thanks Jeff. Good evening, members of the board, greatly appreciate your time again tonight. I think as part of what Jeff alluded to is just starting off with maybe just reiterating a few points that we made the first time around and then addressing, you know, specifically one of the other competitors in, in the market that I think there was a couple of really good questions about. And how just from a business perspective, we all at Spark here are, are, are comfortable ultimately with the decision and this being a profitable and successful longstanding business within the community. So I'll start with just making kind of a, a high level just reiteration that, you know, as you know, being in the business we're in, you know, it's widely understood and backed by evidence that there's a true distinction between a modern express car wash and other car washes that be it full serve or exterior only and so forth.  
Speaker 9     00:31:13    That's evidenced by not only our own workings within various markets, but also widely understood and accepted throughout the industry. And also the largest full service car wash in the country. It's a, it's a company called Auto Belt. They've alluded to the same. So they're, they're also testifying to the fact that, you know, there's, there's really two different customer bases and that's because of the product offering. It's because of the overall experience that each offering provides. So with that, I think, you know, the, the car wash in the market that I think is, is truly the only similar product offering is the one on Sealy, which there were a number of really good questions about previously. And it is, it is our, you know, my opinion specific to those questions and I went back to look at some further data that I, I, in my opinion, backed by some, some data that that wash may not be as strong as, you know, others would be in a better real estate location.  
Speaker 9     00:32:17    And I think being on CLE off of Stelton and behind Walmart, you are relying in that location on the customers already traveling there to shop at Walmart or Lowe's, which is next door. And if you go into that Walmart parking lot, unless you're coming from Stelton on Steely, you're not gonna see the cars at all. So most of the, what the, what the data does is it backs up the fact that most of the customers that travel to that Walmart are coming from a different direction. They're coming from Centennial because that's where 2 87 ties into the exit coming from the, the, the eastbound traffic and also ties into pretty dense populations on the north and south side. So it's, it's really, in order to be front and center in front of that car wash, you would really need to take one specific route where there is really five routes that you, that, that customers take to ultimately enter that Walmart.  
Speaker 9     00:33:19    So I think that that data, which is via a platform called Placer ai Placer ai, what Placer AI does is it collects cell phone data that show how people trade within markets for real retail strength tracking purposes. So it's pretty live updated data on a real-time basis. And that's, that the data I was looking at is that prevailing 12 month data. So it's, it's, it's very recent as well. I'll also just go in a little bit more depth on the market as a whole and why we feel comfortable with, with what's being provided there and an additional industry, widely accepted industry standard data. And also something that we personally spark experience is that 20,000 people within a three mile radius is a population base that we would feel comfortable operating one of our car washes in and that said $20,000, excuse me, 20,000 people per express car wash.  
Speaker 9     00:34:21    So in this market there are, there, right now there's only one true express car wash and the population base that you're working with in a three mile radius of Skyway is just under a hundred thousand. It's 99,000 in change. So 99,000 in change based upon the, the, the metrics that we use, not only us but Industrywide is more than enough for, for, to ultimately serve successfully the customer base that is there. And on top of that, that's not accounting for the people that travel to town to shop, which i, I got into a little bit more the first time. The, the Piscataway trade area marketplace draws from quite a wide area due to the, its proximity to 2 87 and it's a very convenient location from people as far west as Bridgewater, as far south as like North Brunswick area, which is a very dense population and further north to to other Marxists to the north. So for all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion and feel very, very confident in this conclusion that another well positioned, well operated modern express car wash with the aesthetics and business operations that we ultimately provide will be a, a very successful venture within the municipality of township for, for many, many years to come. So hopefully just that added information helps. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 8     00:35:52    I have nothing further for Mr. Canal. If there's any questions I, I open up for that.  
Speaker 4     00:35:57    Members of the board, this witness has had his testimony. Does anyone on the board wish to ask him any questions?  
Speaker 6     00:36:05    Madam chair, it's Councilman Uhrin Kale. I I just wanted to understand that I, I heard something about a mention of the entrance to the area off 2 87 was on the South Washington side. W is that where you're saying most of the traffic was coming from? I mean versus, I I apologize, I'm just trying to understand that whole entrance exit to 2 87 or off of 2 87 data. I, I guess I I didn't quite understand that piece of it.  
Speaker 9     00:36:41    Sure, absolutely. So what the, what the data says that most of the traffic is coming from, lemme just make sure I'm getting the street names correct. Bear with me one second. Right from South Washington and Centennial. So South Washington is the main thoroughfare that connects the population base to the north. Centennial is the main artery that connects the population base to, we'll call it the south and southeast, further into Piscataway. So it, what I'm trying to say is in order to run directly past the crossers there, you would have to turn down Sealy. There's only one route to see it. You'd have to go down Sealy because everybody else is coming through and from Centennial back onto South Washington at 2 87. So it, okay, so  
Speaker 6     00:37:36    2 80, 2 87 just so you're clear comes both has exits both on the north and southbound sides on Stelton Road and the southbound entrance, actually there's a massive sign there that everyone can see from 2 87 that links right onto Stelton Road where you would take a right and a right onto sea. So, and I mean I've never done this, this study, but I am gonna venture to guess that the Stelton road entrance and exits, based upon my experience driving in town are well more traveled than exit six, which is the South Washington entrance into town. I'm not, that's not an expert and you can't, you know, that's not based on any data, that's just based upon traffic that I see because absolutely Centennial is the, the heavier trafficked and centennial is the, would be like the retail, right? There's no retail on South Washington. Well there is, there's the one shopping plazas each cost, but like along that you don't pull into various stores. So Stelton Road, both southbound and you know, a entrance southbound and northbound are very heavily trafficked. And I'm not so sure how a, you know, a, a statement of you can't see the sign that's pretty big car wash sign that you could see off 2 87. I'm not saying that the data's wrong or anything like that, but there are two entrances and they're one off of 2 87 that is immediately next to where the car wash is.  
Speaker 9     00:39:26    Yes, a hundred.  
Speaker 6     00:39:28    Okay. No, I just wanted to say that I, i I have no facts and no data, but I just wanted to state that, that there is that entrance there.  
Speaker 9     00:39:37    Yeah, no, and you're a hundred percent correct. I think that, I think the, the distinguishing factor is that yes, absolutely Stelton is very highly traveled, which is why we want to be there and front and center on Stelton. There's definitely a difference in our experience between a signage and the actual physical product operating business. There's a draw that the operating business and an energy that the operating business that has that a sign just can't provide. But in order to, in order for that traffic to go by the e car wash itself, it would have to go down Sealy and most of the traffic that's on Stelton going northbound is being a left on Centennial to get to the retail not on Sealy. And the only, so the only traffic Sealy is getting is the southbound on Stelton from the other side of 2 87 because  
Speaker 6     00:40:22    That's very true. You can't make a left on Sealy. So Yeah,  
Speaker 9     00:40:27    Yeah, yeah. There you, so, so that, that's why CLE is, is it's just not highly traveling in order, you know, I think the business model maybe that they rely on us different, I think they do position themself as a destination, which probably works well for them. We're, we're more of an impulse, I think 50 what what our data says is that about 50% of our customers are impulse and about 50% are destination. Right? So that's a whole half that we're relying on capturing as a result of being well positioned within the market, which is why, you know, we wouldn't go for a, a location like that due to those factors. Right. So being front set and on sel, which we a hundred percent agree is a very heavily trafficked road makes a lot of sense for us. And I, I I think this trade area is so strong that there's more than enough to provide for, for a couple different very successful express car washes. Right.  
Speaker 6     00:41:20    And now this is not a question, but more of a statement. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is where the Ppac Gladstone bank was or is still standing? Am I right or am I wrong?  
Speaker 9     00:41:31    It's a bank building. What? The previous bank.  
Speaker 6     00:41:34    Oh, okay. But it's a bank building. Yeah. So that bank building, you know, you cannot make a left off of Stelton to get into that location. And if someone were to pass you where you were on the left, there's no U-turn. Right.  
Speaker 9     00:41:49    Understood.  
Speaker 6     00:41:50    There is a left onto Centennial, a left into a plaza, a back out onto Centennial and a right. You have only one side of centennial traffic, only one traffic area going that way. You, you are not getting both sides because there is a median there.  
Speaker 9     00:42:12    Understood. And I, I a hundred percent one of the biggest things that we kind of discussed as a team is exactly that. And really the conclusion is that we're flanked by two very, very busy anchored, big box anchored shopping areas, one by target, the other by ShopRite, the other by Walmart. There it is just, there's, there's a lot of traffic going back and forth shopping at each of these individual centers that we're okay 100% with the right en route given the positioning within that corridor.  
Speaker 4     00:42:48    Any other questions? Any other members of the board have questions of this witness hearing? No response. Ms. Buckley, would you open it up to the public to, if they have any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 0     00:43:00    Do you have any questions of this witness? You could just raise your hand and I'll give you permission to speak. No Madam chair.  
Speaker 4     00:43:09    Thank you. Close to the public. You may call your next witness. Sure.  
Speaker 8     00:43:15    My next witness, Madam chair is Andrew CIO, professional engineer PTOE out of Stonefield Engineering. If I could have him qualified and sworn in. Sure.  
Speaker 2     00:43:26    Mr. cio, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record.  
Speaker 10    00:43:31    Andrew cio. V as in Victor, I-S-C-H-I-O.  
Speaker 2     00:43:37    And your professional address, sir?  
Speaker 10    00:43:39    92 Park Avenue, Rutherford, New Jersey.  
Speaker 2     00:43:44    You raise your right hand. You swear testimony give before this board will be the whole truth.  
Speaker 10    00:43:47    Yes, I do. Your  
Speaker 2     00:43:48    Witness Mr. Chang.  
Speaker 8     00:43:50    All right. Mr. cio, could you tell the board your education degrees held status of your professional licensing and if you've testified before other boards and perhaps even Piscataway in the past?  
Speaker 10    00:44:04    Absolutely. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing. I'm also a certified professional traffic operations engineer. That's a national certification. Received my bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from Georgia Tech. I've been practicing for approximately 13 years and have been accepted as an expert before multiple land use boards throughout the state of New Jersey. This would be my first time in Piscataway  
Speaker 8     00:44:35    Madam chair. Ask if the board could be so kind to accept Mr. CIO as an expert in traffic engineering.  
Speaker 4     00:44:41    He's accepted.  
Speaker 8     00:44:42    All right, thank you. Mr. cio, could you just mark your traffic report that you submitted on behalf of stonefield just for the record title of it when it was dated and last revised? So we have in the record?  
Speaker 10    00:44:59    Absolutely. Stonefield Engineering submitted a traffic impact study dated August 11th, 2023. And also to assist with my testimony, I would like to refer back to exhibit A three, which is a site plan rendering exhibit. I'll be sharing my screen in just one moment.  
Speaker 8     00:45:22    Alright. And Mr. Visio, if you could the narrative, walk the board through the scope and extent of your traffic analysis, the impact of the proposed car wash with the drive through, confirm its relation to future plan development projects, describe site, a, site access, traffic, circulation, queuing, drive aisles, emergency access, ingress, egress, and trip generation in the narrative. That would be greatly appreciated.  
Speaker 4     00:45:51    Mr. Chang, would you mark your report where he is testifying from?  
Speaker 8     00:45:57    I'm,  
Speaker 4     00:45:58    I'm sorry. Does it need to be marked or does it need to be marked? No,  
Speaker 8     00:46:00    This is a three from May 8th hearing.  
Speaker 2     00:46:03    Okay. This has previously been marked in the reports in the record and should be part of the documents provided to the board members Madam  
Speaker 4     00:46:10    Chair. Yep. Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 8     00:46:12    So please go ahead Mr. Visio.  
Speaker 10    00:46:14    Thank you counsel. And just to confirm if I go any further, everyone should be looking at the colorized site plan rendering. I've marked it as Exhibit A three in the top right. Is that correct?  
Speaker 8     00:46:27    Yes.  
Speaker 10    00:46:27    Okay, excellent. As I previously stated, Stonefield engineering prepared a traffic impact study on behalf of the application. The extent of that report is that it was conducted in accordance with Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines. Essentially, first we investigate the existing site and the surrounding roadway network. We then project the anticipated traffic that would be generated by the proposed site to conduct a roadway capacity analysis. And also very important is that we evaluate the site access and onsite circulation. As for existing conditions, as was just mentioned previously, the site is currently occupied by a bank, a vacant bank with four drive-through lanes accessed via one right in right out driveway. The site is located along southbound Delton Road, which is a divided highway as was previously discussed. The site is located between Centennial Avenue to the north and Hadley Center drive to the South, both of which were included in the study network.  
Speaker 10    00:47:42    Stelton Road provides two travel lanes in each direction. Land uses are commercial in the site vicinity. Stel Road is under Middlesex County jurisdiction. As my colleague Paul much mentioned previously, we do have preliminary approval from the county regarding the site access roadway traffic volumes as part of our analysis were collected along Stelton Road at the closest intersections to the north and the South during the times of the day when traffic is at a peak and could potentially be impacted by our site. So that's, that's existing conditions in our existing analysis. Moving along to our future analysis, we turn to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual to understand the amount of traffic that may be generated by the proposed development. The manual allows us to perform these calculations by either the number of drive-through tunnels for a car wash or the square footage of the actual car wash tunnel.  
Speaker 10    00:48:55    We perform both calculations and utilized the more conservative values. Our results indicate that during the busiest time period, which would be the Saturday midday peak hour, one vehicle would enter the site about every 50 seconds. That totals 74 vehicles in an hour. The next step we take is to superimpose that new traffic onto the adjacent roadway network and conduct another capacity analysis and compare conditions with and without the proposed car wash. Our findings indicate that the study intersections to the north and south would operate generally consistent with the future no build condition without the Spark car wash.  
Speaker 10    00:49:51    And one request in the Dolan and Dean traffic review letter was to support our trip generation data with that of an existing Spark car wash site, which we did. We studied the existing location in Sicklerville in Camden County and found that the sicklerville location, which has been operating for a few years now, had a higher trip generation than IPE would project for the Friday peak hour 16 more entering vehicles then ITE projects. However, during the critical Saturday midday peak period, the Sicklerville location had fewer trips than the ITE projections, about 20 fewer entering vehicles. So our conclusion there is that because traffic volumes along Stelton Road are higher on a Saturday than a typical weekday, given the, you know, dense commercial nature of the area, we feel confident that the submitted traffic study contains the most conservative analysis that we can conduct of the, of the driveway.  
Speaker 10    00:51:11    When I say conservative, I mean we used, we analyzed the Saturday, which is higher than a weekday, and we used ITE data for Saturday, which was higher than the, the existing count location. So feel very comfortable with the results of our analysis in the submitted traffic impact study. Moving our focus back onto the site design and site access, referring again to the site plan that's being shared from my screen right now. The site would be accessed via a single right, a single right in, right out driveway along Stelton Road, which you can see here. We don't just conduct a capacity analysis of of the surrounding intersections. We also conduct the capacity analysis of how that driveway would operate in the future condition. The findings indicate that the driveway would operate, operate at generally acceptable levels of service and delay. We're looking at approximately 15 to 20 seconds for a vehicle to exit the site and enter Stelton Road.  
Speaker 10    00:52:36    The queue is expected to be about one or two vehicles looking to leave the site during the busiest peak hours. That's capacity of the site of the, of the site driveway. The geometry of the site driveway is also appropriate for the site's. Design vehicles, which in this case are fire and trash trucks. Turning templates have been submitted within the site plan set as far as onsite circulation. Upon entering the site, vehicles would travel in a counterclockwise direction to three pay stations and a single car wash tunnel. I'll refresh everyone's memory. As of now, we are contemplating two of those pay stations to be pay per wash and one to be member only. However, that is subject to change in the future as we develop our, our client base in the area 27 total parking spaces are provided on the site. Six angled parking spaces to the top of the page. Shown here are intended for employee use only and the remaining 21 parking spaces would be fully equipped with vacuum and other accessories used by patrons to clean their vehicles.  
Speaker 10    00:54:13    The size of the parking spaces and the drive aisles is something i I want to emphasize. They are significantly larger both the parking spaces and the drive aisles than industry standards. For a typical shopping center, your standard parking space in a shopping center is nine feet wide by 18 feet deep. In this case, we are proposing 13 foot feet wide parking spaces and they would be 19 feet deep. Additionally, that center drive aisle where people pull in and out of the parking spaces is not your typical 24 feet. It's 30 feet. All of this is to facilitate efficient maneuvering of patrons cleaning their vehicles. While they may have doors open, trunks open may not be parked perfectly so that, so that you are able to pull into an empty space next to someone who may be cleaning their, cleaning their vehicle.  
Speaker 10    00:55:25    The last topic that I want to touch on about the site design is the Q storage. We have Q storage for more than 30 vehicles, which is far more than is anticipated to be needed. To elaborate on that point, it takes approximately two minutes for a vehicle to travel through the tunnel. And the tunnel is long enough to process four to five vehicles at any one time. Again, the tunnel is 135 feet long. So conservatively, assuming only four vehicles can fit in the tunnel, again, two minutes to travel through the tunnel, the tunnel can process approximately 120 vehicles per hour on the conservative side or one every 30 seconds. Referring back to our, the, the peak demand that we're anticipating that is 74 vehicles. So looking at the, the capacity of 120 vehicles per hour, the demand of 74 vehicles per hour and the ample queue storage available, we, we feel very confident that the site has been designed such that the, any queuing that would take place at the PACE stations would not impact the driveway or the drive aisles.  
Speaker 10    00:57:06    So with that, I just would like to, you know, conclude that the proposed development based on our traffic impact study would not have a significant impact on the traffic operations of the adjacent roadway network. The design of the proposed driveway is sufficient, both from a, an operations and capacity perspective and a geometric perspective. And the onsite circulation and, and queuing is, is more than adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic patterns. We are in receipt of a traffic review letter dated January 22nd, 2024 from Dolan and Dean, I did my best to touch on all of the requests in that review letter in my direct testimony, but I'd be happy to answer any questions and elaborate further as necessary. Counsel, that concludes my direct,  
Speaker 8     00:58:07    I have nothing further for on, on direct for Mr. cio. I open him up to the board and board members  
Speaker 4     00:58:14    And Mr. The board, does anyone on the board have any questions for Mr. Vichi hearing no response from the board. Ms. Buckley, would you check the public to see if anyone in the public has any questions of Mr. cio? If you,  
Speaker 8     00:58:31    Mr. Vish, do you unshare your A three? Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:58:38    Please raise your hand if you have any questions for No, no Madam chair.  
Speaker 4     00:58:43    Thank you. Close to the public. Do you have any, Mr. Chang, do you have any other witnesses tonight?  
Speaker 8     00:58:49    Yes, my, my last witness, Mr. John McDonough, who I'm sure the boards knows well he gets all the glory at the end. So with that being said, if I get him sworn in and confirmed as expert planning, I'd really appreciate it.  
Speaker 2     00:59:04    Mr. McDonough, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your address please.  
Speaker 11    00:59:10    Sure. Hi there everyone. My name is John McDonough and that's spelled MC capital D-O-N-O-U-G-H. My business address is here in Parsippany, New Jersey 1 0 1 Gibraltar Drive, suite one A and I am the project planner.  
Speaker 2     00:59:29    You raise your right hand Mr. McDonough. Do you swear the testimony given before this board will be the whole truth?  
Speaker 11    00:59:34    Yes I do.  
Speaker 2     00:59:35    You're a witness, Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 8     00:59:36    Mr. McDonough, I know you've been there to this board before, however, please give your education your degrees, confirm your license, are still in good standing and confirm that you've been, you've testified before this board before.  
Speaker 11    00:59:48    Sure. My license in professional planning on the state level is current and in good standing. I testify on a nightly basis throughout the state, including here many, many times. I'm also certified on the national level A ICP, American Institute of Certified Planners, also current and in good standing. Again, I testify in that capacity before land use boards and in courts as well. Mr. McDonough is accepted. Thank you Madam chair.  
Speaker 8     01:00:15    Mr. Redon, if you could in the narrative discuss your planning justifications, the C two variances that we're asking this evening. Confirm that this use is permitted in the zone. Confirm that you've been to the site, you've reviewed the zoning ordinance, master plan, reexamination master and overall master plan. And then just to also note which exhibits and reports and and applicant's materials you're relying on for your planning expertise.  
Speaker 11    01:00:43    Sure. We've done a standard and comprehensive review of the application as filed. I'll call it a standard planning analysis whereby we review existing conditions, proposed conditions, we review the zoning, particularly the GB, general business district regulations where this is a permitted use and has been found to be a permitted use in other applications as well. The applicant is seeking some relatively minor relief. The heavier regulations in your zoning ordinance are all hit here by this applicant. And the applicant has respected that the bulk criteria with respect to the building height, the building coverage, the floor area, the overall massing controls, the lot area is nine times greater than the minimum zoning requirement. The lot frontage, the lot depth the setbacks on all sides for both permitted principle uses and accessory uses as well. And as you just heard through Andrew's testimony, the parking complies as well.  
Speaker 11    01:01:44    So this application stacks up very well with the GB zoning criteria, both from a use and from a bulk massing standpoint. The applicant does need some relief related to signage and will tie that back into the benefits of the application as a whole. This use and this redevelopment of this particular piece of property does serve a beneficial public purpose and will tie the two together or the application as a whole under the pullin case whereby the board in considering the balancing test and the benefits substantially outweighing the detriments. Looking at the application holistically, the first thing we always do is take a look at how the development marries up with the site. So we're just gonna take you back with some exhibits that I believe Jeff, I've already been entered to the board.  
Speaker 8     01:02:35    Sure,  
Speaker 11    01:02:38    Maybe not.  
Speaker 2     01:02:40    I don't think that Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 8     01:02:42    I can't recall about this one.  
Speaker 2     01:02:43    The exhibits I have was a one which was a colorized rendering the site for May of 24 A two was an aerial exhibit of the current conditions and a three was a site plan rendering. A four was an architectural rendering, a five was a floor plan and a six was a package of five colorized renderings of the original site and building, I don't think this was utilized. Yeah, especially 'cause it indicates it was taken by Mr. McDonough's office. Yeah, so  
Speaker 8     01:03:14    A eight if you could.  
Speaker 2     01:03:16    So it would be a, what did I say? A seven. Oh, so a seven is an aerial photo a A from January of 24  
Speaker 11    01:03:29    A seven. Mr. Barlow is actually a four slide exhibit. They're all aerial drone photographs that have been sitting here on the shelf from January. What's nice about this one, it makes us appreciate the warmer weather a little bit better. But two more importantly, it shows that even with the leaves down, this is a site that has excellent buffering. This woodland that you see in the back is actually part of the subject property and is to remain as part of the redevelopment of the site and continues onto the lands that would be west of the site as well. Again, constrained by wetlands and and waters and other environmentally constrained areas that would prohibit the development of those particular lands. So the nice thing about this application is that the applicant is working within the development footprint of what has already been disturbed. And as you see, I'll just try to zoom in a little bit here with our frontage on Stelton Road in the foreground.  
Speaker 11    01:04:29    We've got, again what was last used as a bank. I agree with your councilwoman. This was originally or previously the, the brand branded as the Gladstone Ppac Bank. That was about eight years ago that it closed up. Looking at some historic photos from the street level. It looks like it was a subway, a sandwich shop at one point as well. So it's gone through multiple branding, multiple uses here as well. It is flanked by two autocentric uses including Pep Boys auto repair and then an auto service use as well. I believe it's called Bridge Auto Service. And then as you just heard, not only do we have the auto uses flanking the site, but we've got three major shopping centers that are also around this site. It is substantially a commercial area, if not entirely a commercial area defined by auto, auto service centers and retail centers as well.  
Speaker 11    01:05:26    And as I said, the lot behind the subject site that's lot 5.06 contains vast deep woodlands that are constrained by wetlands. Your planner, Mr. Reinertsen actually called that in his report that this site does technically have frontage on three streets, Stelton Road. And then we've got two paper streets as well that wrap around the subject site. Walker Lane and in the back, Howard Grand Boulevard are constrained by streams or wetlands. So unlikely that those paper streets would ever be converted to real streets. So technically we're dealing from a physical standpoint with Stelton Road as our frontage road, our access, our ingress in and out. Just to take you through the rest of the slide packet here, all we did was spin the drone around, starting with a view to the west, then looking to the north and frame number two under a seven. Again to give a sense of the heavily developed non-residential area that this will be a land use that certainly will, will complement not only from a physical and established land use planning standpoint, but also in terms of your zoning criteria.  
Speaker 11    01:06:37    Frame number three spins us around looking to the east and it just reinforces what we've said in the prior frames. Woodland buffered area in the back, working within the confines of the development footprint that's already there and heavily commercialized area along a main corridor that is lined by commercial uses that this land use will certainly compliment. And then finally, the last few takes us two of you looking to the south and just reinforcing what we've said all along, working within the development portion in the front, preserving the undeveloped portion in the back, now stop share there. And then now in terms of the development plan, that's before you, you just saw this with Andrew's testimony, but again, a very nice balanced, well organized layout here with the tunnel type car wash, the queuing areas, and of course the central vacuum court as well. All integrating in a nice free flow of traffic through the site in and out and through the site as well.  
Speaker 11    01:07:41    The building one story, 4,841 square feet. I know you heard a lot of testimony last time from Paul and from Matt and from Oliver about the building and the site and the operations. So I'll, I'll just hit the main points here. As you've heard, this is gonna be branded as a modern express new spark car wash. It is, again, one story, 4,841 square feet, modern, fully automated tunnel type system. It's gonna have a very attractive, neat, well organized appearance. The grounds will consist of, of those 26 parking stalls that you just heard about 21 vacuum, the five employee with the credits fully conforming with your ordinance requirements. The three lane queue, which has ample capacity, and I believe that was reinforced by your own traffic expert in its report that the Q capacity is ample and adequate. Here. You just heard Matt's testimony. Again, the importance of this is being a membership driven land use with state-of-the-art equipment, you've got the water recycling here and the echo friendly aspects as well.  
Speaker 11    01:08:47    In terms of the overall use, again, this is in the GB general business district. It's a zone that nests everything in your C zone with additional uses above and beyond that. And we know that permitted uses in the C zone include business offices and personal service stores where you have found in other applications within this land use that this falls within the rubric of that land use category. So in terms of zone conformance, again the list is long, the use is permitted. And in terms of bulk, I just ran through all of them as well, how all of those heavier bulk controls are met. In terms of the relief the applicant is asking the board to move on preliminary and final site plan approval with some C relief that predominantly relates to signage. And we'll jump off here and we'll just take a look at the applicant's sign package.  
Speaker 11    01:09:46    And you saw this in Oliver's presentation last time. We're looking for three signs on the building facade where one would be the maximum allowed. They're well broken up. The overall area is slightly above what the ordinance allowance would be. There's been some movement in terms of elimination of a logo and a sign that would be on the south elevation or the Walker Lane elevation. So where we've landed is we've got the proposed east elevation. This would face up towards 2 87. You've got the spark car wash word mark and logo on the top facing Stelton. That is 76 square feet fits nicely within the, within the tower element. Likewise to the north elevation. The long axis, actually this is the portion that faces up towards 2 87. This will will face towards the north. You've got the tower element with the spark, spark car wash and the logo at 44.3 square feet.  
Speaker 11    01:10:47    And then finally over by the mat cleaner area. The spark park, as they call it, is only 8.8 square feet. So that adds up to approximately 129 square feet. Where based on your 10% of the facade ordinance maximum 88.9 would be the maximum that's allowed. So we're looking for relief for about 40 square feet above what the ordinance would require. I think the visual speaks for itself that this is going to provide nice hierarchy, give some purpose to those tower elements, a focal point if you will, a demarcation and identification of the land use therein. And a very nice, simple tasteful package without being over branding or excessive or, or gaudy, but a nice overall clean look that will reinforce the branding. We're also looking at relief related to the ground sign area, which again is relatively modest in the context of the ordinance. 50.1 square feet is what the applicant is asking for. 32 square feet would be the maximum that's allowed. Again, this is a sign that is approximately 12 feet across by about four feet high. So relatively modest in its overall dimension. And that's what gets us to that 50 square feet. The sign. John,  
Speaker 2     01:12:07    John, can I just interrupt you for one second just so my night notes, the freestanding sign 30, can't exceed 32 feet and you're indicating it's what?  
Speaker 11    01:12:16    51 50 0.1 50.  
Speaker 2     01:12:20    50.1. Okay. Thank you again.  
Speaker 11    01:12:23    And John, these  
Speaker 8     01:12:23    Exhibits are a 3 84, correct?  
Speaker 11    01:12:27    That's correct. They've already been entered on the record. Yes. Thank, thank you for that, Jeff. I didn't have a, I didn't have a, a copy of the freestanding sign queued up here. But again, it's, it's a monument sign. It's about 12 feet across, four feet up and down. Not excessive in terms of its overall dimensions there. It incorporates the word mark and the logo right next to it. So again, sort of reinforcing the brand meeting customer expectations. 50.1 is what the actual area equates to. 32 square feet would be the maximum allowed.  
Speaker 2     01:13:06    Thank you. I just wanted to make sure my math was right.  
Speaker 11    01:13:08    Yep. The ground sign setback is at 10 feet where 25 feet would be the minimum required. Again, that falls into the design layout that we just saw and the site plan and how this incorporates with that entry location. It is not going to interrupt or intercept clear lines of site. It integrates nicely into the overall site layout. And in that regard, we believe that the benefit of clear and safe site identification would outweigh any detriment associated with that sign setback. Lastly, the directional sign setback. One of the signs is gonna be set at 8.34 feet where 10 feet would be the minimum required. Again, this is integration with the overall site design. Paul touched upon this in his testimony as well as to the rationale for that location, not interrupting lines of sight and relatively di mini deviation from the ordinance requirement. Lastly, the width of the landscape island.  
Speaker 11    01:14:12    We have a pinch point in one of the islands that next down to 5.29 feet where six feet would be the minimum required. That's short by not even a foot. So I would also couch that within the domain of de minimis. With all of that said, we take all of this relief, we run it through the balancing test and as I said, we look at the benefits of the application as a whole. I believe the benefits of the application as a whole would tie to at least four purposes of zoning in the land use law. And the signed package is necessary to effectuate the the benefits that I'm about to recite. First we see the advancement of purpose A, which is the promotion of the general welfare because this project will deliver a permitted use, which explicitly means it serves the public good. It provides car cleaning services for improved visibility, safety, comfort, and prolonged car life.  
Speaker 11    01:15:10    Additionally, the advancement of purpose G, the project will promote the planning goal to provide for a variety of uses in appropriate locations. 'cause the site is located on a main roadway lined with compatible commercial and auto service uses variety, drives, competition. And in the end, in a capitalist society, it's the customer who wins the best value. The best quality is what this state of the art facility would offer here. Additionally, purpose I the project would promote a desirable visual environment because it will eliminate an eyesore, a vacant, abandoned building, which has not served any functional purpose for eight years. And it will revitalize the site with active use and a fresh new image. A neat, clean, attractive building. Well organized site layout, landscaping. One of the niceties about this particular end user is the abundance of landscaping that goes on the site. And you saw that through Paul's testimony as well and all of the other new site improvements that would go here.  
Speaker 11    01:16:18    Lastly, we see the advancement of purpose M, which is our planning goal for efficient use of land. As I said several times now, working within the development footprint of all what's already been disturbed takes underutilized land, puts it back to productive functional use, I think also goes towards that purpose of efficient land use. Counterbalancing that with the negative criteria and first public impacts, based on all the testimony of very good witnesses ahead of me, sworn under oath, the site will flow, function and operate safely, efficiently, and comfortably. The project is compatible not only with the zone but the other uses in the area. So it's safe to say it's not going to alter the character of the area. As I said, the project is loaded with landscaping. It will certainly not have a negative visual effect. The traffic generation, as you just heard, will not be detrimental.  
Speaker 11    01:17:09    The car wash is a modern state of the art best in class gold standard economic echo friendly use that fits well here. And I think advances the goals of your master plan for, for that type of land use. The overall sign package here in terms of its impact is simple. It's tasteful, it's not overbearing, it's not gaudy or not excessive. Each one of those signs from the multiple vantage points do serve a purpose of identifying the site. And then lastly, in terms of the zone plan impact, this is not a substantial degree of departure from the zone plan. We're dealing with a permitted use here that substantially aligns with the zoning ordinance, but for some relatively minor relief for the signs. In that regard, the project will not impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan for a viable and stable commercial base. It will certainly reverse the ongoing stagnation, which is currently inconsistent with the zone plan.  
Speaker 11    01:18:05    Intent relief relates to a distinct site with de distinct attributes and it's certainly not going to open the flood gates for similar approvals elsewhere in the community and undermine the zoning in that regard. So in conclusion, I believe based on all the testimony the applicant has met its burden under the law, the application is going to revitalize and modernize underutilized commercial land. It will give the site a fresh new look. And that's not only going to improve the image of the site, but the overall area as well. And the Stelton corridor. Most importantly, the statutory criteria for relief or met under the C two balancing test. And with that, I'll close that approval is warranted here. Jeff. That's all I have on direct.  
Speaker 8     01:18:50    Perfect. I have nothing further on direct board members for Mr. John McDonough. I open up for questions and to the public  
Speaker 4     01:18:59    Members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 6     01:19:04    Madam chair? It's Councilman, Uhrin, Cahill. I think I have a combination of it. A question for Mr. McDonough as well as I think internally here for the board. 'cause I'm not exactly looking up the zoning ordinance, but this Mr. McDonough, you're, you stated several times that this car wash is listed as a permitted use. Is it specifically listed in the general business zone as a permitted use a car wash?  
Speaker 11    01:19:35    The, the word car wash does not appear as a separate land use category, but certainly from a planning standpoint falls within the umbrella of a service. Land use service land uses, cater to persons or people and personal property as well. And that's exactly what, what cars are. We spend a lot of money on our cars and this is a personal service that relates to personal, personal property.  
Speaker 2     01:20:02    Okay. Ms. Corcoran as the zoning officer also deemed it as a, a permitted use and that's why the planning board got jurisdiction, which was confirmed by  
Speaker 6     01:20:18    Zoning board. Is this the first time this has happened with this kind of application?  
Speaker 2     01:20:24    No, we've, we've, we heard a car wash last year. It was  
Speaker 3     01:20:27    Last year  
Speaker 2     01:20:28    One on Selma Road. We've heard several car wash cases. It's always been  
Speaker 12    01:20:33    Just down the road. Mr. It's a  
Speaker 2     01:20:35    Permitted use. Right. Mr.  
Speaker 6     01:20:37    I'm sorry, I there are a couple people talking. I didn't hear what Mr. Reiner said.  
Speaker 12    01:20:42    Mr. Reinertsen said there was one just down the road. It, it  
Speaker 3     01:20:46    Was in 2020.  
Speaker 6     01:20:47    Is that the one that's on Sealy  
Speaker 3     01:20:51    On Stelton Road? Gabrielle?  
Speaker 12    01:20:52    It's on Tel Road.  
Speaker 6     01:20:53    On Stelton Road.  
Speaker 12    01:20:55    So how  
Speaker 6     01:20:56    On the other side of Stelton Road?  
Speaker 12    01:20:58    So yeah, Ms. Corcoran has the final call. How I highlighted is there, there is a category called retail and personal services stores, which I think it, it would be most closely resemble at. I use that in the prior review. Ms. Corcoran, I think didn't, didn't raise any issues. And I think that's really, it's a bigger umbrella and I think that's where it falls under.  
Speaker 6     01:21:20    Okay. I think  
Speaker 3     01:21:21    It's my opinion as well that a car wash is a permitted use in the GB zone.  
Speaker 6     01:21:25    Okay. Thank you. The other maybe question I have is about the sign package. I, you know, I understand all of the, the points that you made, and I probably wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I'm not gonna agree to the sign package as it stands because we have denied these amounts of signs to like Aldi's, we only allowed them two, some other, so three signs. And, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think I'm missing something here in terms of a variance. Somebody was talking about six feet on one particular sign. The last re the, the, on my, on my page here, and I probably didn't look at the updated paperwork and I apologize, Ms. Buckley, I had one here where there was a pro proposed directional sign at zero feet. Was that adjusted to eight feet back or something?  
Speaker 11    01:22:25    Yes. I'm not seeing that as relief anymore. I'll, I'll yield if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that relief is still being sought.  
Speaker 6     01:22:31    Okay. So that one was taken out. All right, very good. Okay. But yeah, I mean the, the three signs, I mean, I, I mean I clearly remember the Aldi application. They were, I think granted two. Yeah, there might be some other things. I would disagree on the sign package, but I won't vote yes on the sign package as it stands, just as a heads up to the board  
Speaker 11    01:23:00    And councilwoman if it, if it helps you at all. I'm just gonna flip this back up here. There are two word, just two word mark and logo signs. That's it. Two, the, the third sign is this little identifier of where you would get your car mats cleaned. You put 'em in these machines and they'll, they'll clean your car mats. So that's sign number three right there. And that's only 8.8 square feet. Okay.  
Speaker 12    01:23:29    Mr. Where is that facing?  
Speaker 11    01:23:33    That is facing the north elevation. That's the long access to the building that would be facing the vacuum cord  
Speaker 2     01:23:40    And the parking lot. Right.  
Speaker 11    01:23:41    The parking lot. Yes.  
Speaker 12    01:23:44    Okay. So I'm coming down Stelton, I I I'm not gonna really see that, you know, if I turn into, I turn into the lot, I'll see it. It's more ident. Is that more identification for the, for the patrons?  
Speaker 11    01:23:56    Internal patrons, yes. In the vacuum court. I think it's a good point in that this, this will certainly be substantially obscured by vehicles in the court. This view, by the way, on the bottom is what you would see if you were driving down Stelton. If you were driving south down Stelton I'll say. So you've got the identifier on, on the, on the tower element, but really you're not going to see this, this is an internal sign I call it.  
Speaker 12    01:24:20    So I'm, I'm heading south on Stelton. I see that Spark car wash, I pull in there and I, and I see this identifier sign. Yes. And and the exhibit above it is, is facing Stelton, correct?  
Speaker 11    01:24:33    Correct.  
Speaker 12    01:24:34    So in essence, yes, you see it, but it, it's not something I'm gonna hit the brakes on and say, Hey, I gotta hit the go to the car wash. We're really looking at that sign facing north.  
Speaker 11    01:24:47    Correct.  
Speaker 12    01:24:48    Yeah. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:24:50    So Councilman Cahn does that. It got a little confusing for me also because I was trying to keep track of the changes. So it's, I guess a better way of stating it would be, there are two facade signs identifying the use of the property being a car wash and what's, because it's on the facade, it's really more direct. It's, I mean, I gotta lean in to read it. The spark part. Okay.  
Speaker 11    01:25:18    Yeah. That,  
Speaker 2     01:25:19    That qualifies as the third facade sign, correct Mr. Todd?  
Speaker 11    01:25:24    Yes. And you might categorize it as more informational than advertising. Okay. It's not an a, it's not an advertisement per se. It's,  
Speaker 2     01:25:31    And just so I'm clear on the variances that are, that were still required, you have that three facade signs, we'll call it for right now. You also have the facade signs at 89.9, and when you add the three of them together, it's 1 29 0.1, correct?  
Speaker 11    01:25:48    Correct.  
Speaker 2     01:25:50    And then there's a freestanding side not to exceed 32 square feet and it's 50.1 square feet that shrunk since the original plans, correct?  
Speaker 11    01:26:01    I believe so, yes.  
Speaker 2     01:26:03    Okay. And then the sign being located within the setback, which was 10 feet, I believe the applicant agreed to move that to the 8.34 at the last hearing. Correct. And Mr. Chang, you can jump in if, if,  
Speaker 8     01:26:21    If, if I may, can I have Al Oliver Young, the architect who initially discussed the signage, just to confirm everything  
Speaker 2     01:26:29    Is correct. I just wanna make sure the variances that you're seeking are the variances you're seeking.  
Speaker 8     01:26:33    Yeah, if I could, Oliver, I believe you're a panelist, correct?  
Speaker 13    01:26:45    Yes. Sorry about that. Just firing up the computer.  
Speaker 8     01:26:48    Oh, could you just walk through again, just real clearly to the succinctly, the var the sign variances are being requested, the size location, so that we're all clear of what is being requested by the applicant.  
Speaker 2     01:27:02    And sir, understand you're still under oath from the last hearing, correct?  
Speaker 13    01:27:06    Yes, that's correct. Okay. John, are you currently sharing your screen right now? Would you mind changing to sheet R 2.1? I think that gives a good view of the, all the building signage here as well as the monument sign. Keep going. There we go. Thank I went too fast right there. Much better. So here you see a good view of the two building signs at the front of the building on the blue element, which John referred to as a tower. They're both the same exact size at 76 square feet each. They're the Spark logo with the words spark car wash underneath them. And you can see that John is zoomed in. You can also see farther down in the vacuum area, the very small lettering for what we're defining as the third sign, which is the spark park at 8.8 square feet. So by our math summarizing the two larger spark signs and the spark park sign, that's three signs totaling 160.8 square feet.  
Speaker 13    01:28:20    In regards to the monument sign, you can see that closer towards the curb cut, and I believe we clarified that earlier in testimony as 50.1 square feet total. So in regards to variances, the on the building, the ordinance allows for one sign at a maximum area of 88.9 square feet, which is 10% of the front facade area. And we are seeking three signs, totaling 160.8 square feet. I did mention in prior testimony that our calculation is a rectangle drawn around the Spark car wash and the spark logo above it, which is centered over the words spark car wash. What this does Oh, perfect, John, thank you for highlighting that. That encompasses a lot of dead space in each sign. And in fact, it's about 24 square feet of dead space per logo sign, which totals 48 square feet of what we see as dead space. We subtract the 48 square feet from the 160.8 square feet total. That gives us a smaller square footage calculation of 112.8 square feet, which again is over the maximum allowed of 88.9 square feet for reference purposes.  
Speaker 2     01:29:55    And that's, and that's just a function of, it's not a, a rectangular pure sign. It's  
Speaker 13    01:30:01    Correct. It's the way Spark wants to identify their understood signage with their logo. Let's say for example, if we took that Spark logo and moved it down beside the lettering, it would create a much smaller rectangle under  
Speaker 2     01:30:14    Understood. It's just a manner in which it's the square footage becomes an an odd measurement there. I i got you.  
Speaker 13    01:30:23    Right. And we just wanted to clarify, clarify.  
Speaker 14    01:30:25    All right. Here, here's, here's my thoughts on this is Mayor Wahler, you get one sign on the building and you have one at the entrance and that's it. Period. Pick which one you want and that's what you're gonna get. End of discussion. So you're either gonna have the one coming out or the one on the side and you have the directional one. You're only gonna get two. You're gonna get the directional and one on the building. And that's it. End of discussion. Let's move on.  
Speaker 8     01:31:02    If there are no other, I'll see if there's any other comments. I'd ask for a five or 10 minute recess that we can talk about it internally, if that's okay with the board.  
Speaker 14    01:31:14    You're about to get a board and you guys are fighting us over the signs. Do you want us to vote No on the entire application?  
Speaker 8     01:31:21    No. Mayor, don't be stupid.  
Speaker 14    01:31:23    Right?  
Speaker 8     01:31:24    I need to have the client make the decision. I  
Speaker 14    01:31:27    I can't, alright. To me this is a, no, this is a no-brainer here.  
Speaker 8     01:31:30    Absolutely. No, mayor, we, we will, I'm, I'm  
Speaker 9     01:31:32    Confident  
Speaker 8     01:31:32    We'll agree. I just need the client to confirm that. All right. I can't do as the attorney, Jeff.  
Speaker 9     01:31:37    It's fine. Let's, let's agree to it. Do we need to pick which one right now? Or if we just agree to one sign, can,  
Speaker 8     01:31:42    Can we do it as a condition of approval with your staff mayor or  
Speaker 2     01:31:46    Can we do, they'll pick the sign later, but they'll pick one sign. Yeah,  
Speaker 14    01:31:50    That's fine. That's  
Speaker 9     01:31:51    Fine. Yeah. I just wanna confirm with the group which one we prefer. That one sign is totally fine. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 2     01:31:57    And you're just referring mayor to the two sport car wash. Are you also referring to that little, they're  
Speaker 14    01:32:02    Gonna get the one on, on the, on the, on the street right there. The free sand. And then they get just one on the building.  
Speaker 2     01:32:08    What that, what about the little, the little yellow, yellow sign just for purposes of the resolution  
Speaker 14    01:32:15    Councilwoman, what do you wanna do?  
Speaker 2     01:32:16    That little yellow one that said the mat washing? I didn't know.  
Speaker 3     01:32:20    It's like eight square feet.  
Speaker 6     01:32:22    Yeah, yeah. No, I'm fine with that one. 'cause that's not a big logo sign. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:32:25    Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:32:26    Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 2     01:32:33    And then I know Jeff, if it's you or your, your architect, where is the monument directional sign that's going by Stelton Road? How far off the roadway is it? Does that still need variance relief? We moved it Or is it, isn't it 10 square three? Four what? Dawn,  
Speaker 3     01:32:52    I think it's 10 feet off the property line. You're talking about the monument sign, correct? Yes. That and the plans, it shows at 10 feet. Okay. I think the question is the directional sign, has that been relocated? Because it's initially, and it is still shown on the site plan drawings as being on the property line. The member's directional sign. I know it's in my report. It's also in Ron's report.  
Speaker 8     01:33:19    Oliver, are you able to answer that or do I need the, I  
Speaker 2     01:33:22    I  
Speaker 13    01:33:22    I'm waiting for confirmation from the civil I can, I cannot answer that. Sorry.  
Speaker 2     01:33:27    I  
Speaker 8     01:33:27    Mean we have Paul as well if we need to add him, but he, he's a panelist that  
Speaker 6     01:33:34    I I'm sorry. Madam chair. I have a question here. The, the car wash we approved last year was 1407 Stelton Road. I, I I think Dawn you just com that that's an ex That was an existing car wash.  
Speaker 4     01:33:50    Yeah, that was down closer to stel. That was closer to School Street, but down from the McDonald's.  
Speaker 6     01:33:56    That's that's been there since I went to college.  
Speaker 4     01:33:58    Yeah, but they did a upgrade last year.  
Speaker 3     01:34:00    They did? Yeah. They came in for,  
Speaker 6     01:34:01    Okay, alright. That station. But it's not the same as the new  
Speaker 4     01:34:06    No, that's not  
Speaker 6     01:34:06    The plan Car wash coming in to our board versus the zoning under general business'.  
Speaker 2     01:34:13    The, not, it's, it's, it's, it's the use it, it's a car wash. It doesn't matter. It's a car  
Speaker 6     01:34:19    Wash. But the car wash was there before Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 3     01:34:23    But it's in the scene.  
Speaker 6     01:34:23    That's a, that's a that I'm sorry. That is a, that's a, that's not a fair comparison because just before, I'm saying to myself what Car Wash knew and it's not a new car wash, it's a new owner. There's a car wash there. I'm, I'm not even gonna tell you how old I am. There's a car wash there since I was in college and it just changed hands and they upgraded. It was not a new Apple new company. There's an existing thing. So I'm gonna tell you right now, vote or no vote tonight. My vote tonight is a no for this application. Just telling the board upfront.  
Speaker 2     01:35:07    O okay, but just so the record's clear, the, the board either has jurisdiction or is it, or it doesn't OO  
Speaker 6     01:35:13    Okay. But to say, but to say, Mr. Barlow and I understand, you know, there's, there's ways in which we do it in the terms and the regulations, but to say that this board approved a car wash as a blanket statement sounded like it was a new business. Is it an existing car wash that had been there for years and years and years?  
Speaker 2     01:35:39    Well, for decades, I, I wasn't for  
Speaker 6     01:35:41    Decades. And you know, we've on zoning, they've grandfathered two family homes when they had to, you know, find from years before we changed zoning, you know, in my book that business, if they needed variances for whatever, I mean in it, they would be grandfathered in because it wasn't existing use before it was there, before it was a car wash, wasn't anything else  
Speaker 12    01:36:09    And go to car wash, the jurisdiction, the zoning board.  
Speaker 3     01:36:13    Right. Unfortunately we don't grandfather anything here in.  
Speaker 6     01:36:16    Right. Well  
Speaker 2     01:36:17    It wouldn't, it, I'm just saying from a jurisdictional standpoint, car washes come to the planning board, whether new, old or whatever.  
Speaker 6     01:36:25    Right.  
Speaker 2     01:36:26    We deal with car washes in  
Speaker 6     01:36:27    Permitted. Okay. But our gen, right, but our general business, I mean like zoning says, unless it's specifically permitted, it's prohibited right under 20 whatever of the zoning. I get it that it can be done. But what I don't understand is how all of a sudden that shift happened. And I'm confused by this application being here, number one. Number two, for all the reasons I said at the last meeting, I haven't changed my point of view on  
Speaker 6     01:36:58    The, the location of it as compared to the one right down the street that they came in before. New ownership changed it up a little bit. We approved it here. And the one that's what, not even a half a mile away. I I I'm just saying that in the scheme of things, as you're planning out uses in the town, the particular location doesn't even make to me good sense. But I know that I can be overruled and that's perfectly fine. Everyone has their vote. I just don't understand why this application would be approved as it is today based upon all the things that I said. But I'm not gonna, I just need to tell the board how I feel and rarely do I ever do that. But it's very confusing to me the location of this particular business as compared to the, the one that's further down on Stelton Road, which probably wouldn't be affected by this. And I really, you know, that's not the reason why we do this competition is the name of the game. I come from retail, I believe in that, but I just don't understand when there is quite a bit here. How that one in particular is, is of good use. And I, you know, I understand I'm gonna probably be outvoted here, but that's just the way I feel.  
Speaker 3     01:38:25    And Councilman Uhrin ca I'm sorry? Councilwoman. Cahill. It is, this is Dawn. Corcoran as Tom did indicate, I did put this application before the planning board, as you know, it's located in the general business zone. The general business zone, as Mr. McDonough said, makes reference to personal service uses and retail. And although car, car washes may not be listed specifically here, not every, not every particular use is, I mean, we have a self-service, laundry, you know, dry cleaning, these are all personal items. Your car is a personal item. That is why I chose and made the decision to put this application before this board because it's a personal service store.  
Speaker 6     01:39:09    Okay. Understood.  
Speaker 3     01:39:10    Just wanted to make that clear. So  
Speaker 6     01:39:12    No, Dawn, that's perfectly fine. I've, I, whoever put it forward does, that's not even my concern. It's, it's the location as compared to others. And my feeling that I, I just don't see how it, it succeeds. I get the whole business perspective with the traffic and all that. And that's, and I was misunderstanding when we said we approved a car wash. I'm like, I don't remember a new car wash. So you know, there for me, I just needed it to be on the record that yes, we did, it did come before us. However, that type of business had been, was there for years and years. So that's all.  
Speaker 4     01:40:04    Are we ready to ask any more questions of this witness? I, members of the board are you with,  
Speaker 2     01:40:14    I just wanna clarify if someone can answer this question for me, Mr. Chen, what variances are left that you are seeking? Right? That's all I wanna know.  
Speaker 8     01:40:21    Yep. I got Paul much the civil engine from Stonefield.  
Speaker 2     01:40:24    Can you just tell? Yep.  
Speaker 8     01:40:26    Okay. I just to, just to clarify the, the setback for the, the directional sign. Paul, could you just unmute yourself and confirm you are under oath and you're testifying?  
Speaker 13    01:40:39    Yeah. Understood. Yeah, for the, we have a directional sign proposed along the northern property line. It's just a function of where the existing curve is and where the proposed curve is. There's not a lot of room between that curb and the property line, but we're, we're happy to move it further back or move the sign in, in its entirety to avoid that zero foot setback of that sign. If that's the, you know, if that's the preference of the board and their professionals.  
Speaker 2     01:41:05    Okay. Can you move it so you don't need a variance?  
Speaker 13    01:41:08    What is the, off the top of my head, what is  
Speaker 2     01:41:10    It's 10 feet.  
Speaker 13    01:41:11    10 feet. I would rather go with five feet, but a again, I'll leave it to the board. We can always move that sign out of that position if we need to.  
Speaker 12    01:41:25    Is this the monument sign that that's  
Speaker 13    01:41:28    Direct And what I'll do is I'll share exhibit A three.  
Speaker 12    01:41:31    It's a directional sign. Okay. Yeah, yeah.  
Speaker 13    01:41:32    There's a very small directional sign that sits on the property line here. You know, I think there's an opportunity, as you can see there's, there's some stone and there's some area in between these parking spaces and the parking spaces that, that, that curb line could be shifted down. I'm not sure if we could do the full 10 feet, but there's certainly five feet to be had in there to, to adjust that sign and, or we'll we'll end up moving the, moving the sign in its entirety to if, if the board is, is not comfortable with it.  
Speaker 3     01:42:03    It looks like you have striping, obviously you have the arrows and then that says members, I'm sorry I can't quite read it. If you could zoom in, but you do have the straightening on the pavement there as well, right?  
Speaker 13    01:42:14    Yeah, there's two, there's two lanes. There's one lane de dedicated to members, two lanes dedicated to your daily washers.  
Speaker 2     01:42:22    Mr. Much couldn't you put that sign kind of where the curve is and there's that little shadow box right to the right of bollard type three? Yeah.  
Speaker 13    01:42:30    I think generally we can make it work with the 10 feet, you know, I don't think there's any reason to belabor the point. That's fine. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:42:35    Yes, we can comply. That's fine. We'll, so we can get rid of that one. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.  
Speaker 4     01:42:48    Are we ready to re proceed with questioning now? Any other questions?  
Speaker 2     01:42:53    I have no other questions. Madam chair,  
Speaker 4     01:42:55    Our members, any other members of the board have questions hearing no response? We'd like to open it to the public now. Ms, would you open any  
Speaker 0     01:43:11    Questions or comments? You please raise your hand. No Madam chair.  
Speaker 4     01:43:17    Seeing no response. It's closed to the public. Mr. Chang, do you have any other comments before Not to,  
Speaker 8     01:43:25    Yeah, no, not to belabor. I think we've demonstrated this is a, obviously in accordance with this being a permitted use. It's supporting the, the town's image of revitalizing this area. It is been a vacant bank for eight years. We're trying to make it a modern eco-friendly car wash that is supported by the retail centers on Sellon Road and anchored by the multiple shopping centers in the area. We'd ask that the  
Speaker 4     01:43:50    Be be approved this evening. Thank you. Members of the board. What's your pleasure?  
Speaker 3     01:44:01    Madam chair? This is Dawn Corcoran again, it is my opinion that a car wash is a permitted use in the JV zone. The applicant has agreed to comply with all the board professionals reports. The applicant has agreed to one facade sign. The applicant's agreed to eliminate the directional sign. We've heard all of the testimony. I know that the applicant's worked with the staff to make various improvements to this site throughout the process. For those reasons, I'd like to make a motion to approve the obligation.  
Speaker 4     01:44:37    Do I, do I have a second? I second it  
Speaker 14    01:44:42    Before we vote. Madam chair, I just wanna clarify your, there are applicant's agreeing to the engineering report with Joe Herrera about the conduit lines,  
Speaker 4     01:44:51    Correct.  
Speaker 14    01:44:52    And to the make ready to make to the charging stations, correct?  
Speaker 4     01:44:57    Correct.  
Speaker 14    01:44:58    All right. That they're gonna actually be operational before you,  
Speaker 3     01:45:01    Before a co. You see the  
Speaker 14    01:45:03    Co Yeah. They  
Speaker 4     01:45:04    Had agreed to that. Yep. Correct. Motion and the, a motion has been made in seconded. Would you call the role please?  
Speaker 0     01:45:16    Mayor Wahler?  
Speaker 14    01:45:17    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:18    Councilwoman. Cahill? No. Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 3     01:45:22    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:22    Garvin County?  
Speaker 7     01:45:24    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:25    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 4     01:45:26    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:27    Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 4     01:45:29    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:30    Mr. Ahmed?  
Speaker 14    01:45:31    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:45:32    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 4     01:45:33    Yes.  
Speaker 14    01:45:35    And, and as an aside note with this application, I just find it very interesting that there's gonna be four car washes within a mile and a half, two miles of each other. I don't know how it's gonna work economically, but we're gonna find out. So  
Speaker 4     01:45:54    Thank you all very much. Thank you time. I really appreciate it. Alright, take care. Thank you. All right. Our final item on the agenda tonight. Number 14 is 21 pb 31 m and m at Holes Lane, phase two.  
Speaker 0     01:46:12    Oh, it was postponed.  
Speaker 4     01:46:13    That was postponed. Madam chair. All right. Your evening is yours now. Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion? Thank you. Second.  
Speaker 7     01:46:25    Second.  
Speaker 4     01:46:26    We are, we are adjourned. Everyone Have a good,  
Speaker 0     01:46:30    Everyone and everyone, don't forget the 26th. 26th. We have a special meeting starting at special meeting. 7:00 PM not 7:37 PM I'll email everybody to remind you. Thank we  
Speaker 3     01:46:41    Have a workshop too. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     01:46:43    Have a good night  
Speaker 4     01:46:44    Workshop. Yes.  
Speaker 14    01:46:45    Take care all. Bye-Bye  
Speaker 4     01:46:46    Earlier in the day. Thank you,  
Speaker 7     01:46:50    Tom.  
Speaker 4     01:46:51    Goodnight. Good.