Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on February 11 2026
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 00:00:09 Always make it an entrance, Jamie. Speaker 1 00:00:11 Ah, that's why I'm trying my best. Speaker 0 00:00:15 Oh Speaker 1 00:00:16 Goodness. I'm about as computer savvy as, I don't know. I'm Speaker 0 00:00:18 Well, this is why you build stuff. You're not it. Speaker 1 00:00:21 Yes. I can build it. I can't figure it out. There Speaker 0 00:00:24 You go. Speaker 1 00:00:26 What's going on? Everything okay? Speaker 0 00:00:27 Yeah. Everything's good. Living the dream. Speaker 1 00:00:30 Ah, yes. Someone's gone. Somebody's, everything's good. I think this should, I think this should be quick tonight. Speaker 0 00:00:38 You don't change now. You Speaker 1 00:00:39 Did it. No, I just mean, I don't mean, I mean just timeframe. Not whatever. In general time. It's like we have meetings at work and then someone ask the same question again at the end of the meeting and everybody's like, oh, can we get outta here? Speaker 3 00:01:04 Or the kid Did they ask questions at, at 2:59 PM just before the school bill rings. Speaker 1 00:01:09 Yeah. That's, that's always fun. We need a couple days of rain to wash some of this crap outta here. Speaker 4 00:01:37 I can't work with that, Mr. Gordon. We can't deal with him. Speaker 0 00:01:40 Huh? Speaker 5 00:01:42 Gave me Gordon's a sweetheart. Speaker 0 00:01:45 Oh, Angelo's here. Speaker 5 00:01:46 At least once a month Speaker 1 00:01:49 Now. I know you're all full shit. Least once a month. You're all full. Speaker 5 00:01:52 Very are. I was wondering how it started already. Speaker 1 00:01:56 Correct. Speaker 6 00:01:57 Okay. Excuse me. We're ready to broadcast, Speaker 0 00:01:59 Laura. Okay. Well, we're good to go. We're gonna wait a moment. Okay. We having a hard time getting on? I just resent it. Oh wait, I see her. Hold on. Speaker 5 00:02:07 Hey, Angelo. Good morning. Afternoon. How are you? Thank you. Good. I was just asking if I know Tom Barlow. I said, well, unless there's more than one. I do. Speaker 4 00:02:17 I I assume the answer. Yes, the only Speaker 0 00:02:23 All right. Madam Chair is on. Well, good to go. Yes. We're good to go. Stephanie, Adam, chair, whenever you're ready. No rush. Speaker 5 00:02:39 Okay. Anything injured? That all fine? My business witness, can you hear Speaker 0 00:02:49 Me? Yes. Yes we can. Thank you. Speaker 7 00:02:59 Okay, Ms. Getaway township board planning, board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Coer News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Coer News and the star ledger. Ms. Buckley, would you please call the role Speaker 0 00:03:21 Mayor Wahler. Present Councilwoman Cahill. Here, Ms. Corcoran? Here. Ms. Saunders? Here. Reverend Kinneally. Speaker 9 00:03:30 Present. Speaker 0 00:03:31 Mr. Atkins? Speaker 7 00:03:32 Here. Speaker 0 00:03:33 Did Mr. Foster make it? Nope. Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Aria here and Madam Chair Speaker 7 00:03:44 Present. Mr. Barlow, could you read the open public meeting? Notice? Speaker 4 00:03:51 Certainly. Madam Chair, in keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs Playing Board has tried its best to comply with the Open Public Meeting Act. In addition, the applicant whose matter will matters, will be heard this evening, had the login information for the online meeting platform put forth in their notice. Members of the public wish to be heard will be afforded an opportunity as if they were an actual physical space. We've complied with the guidelines and the Open Public Meeting Act. Madam Chair. Speaker 7 00:04:22 Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 4 00:04:25 We did that. Speaker 7 00:04:26 Oh, we did the roll call. Yes, I remember saying here. Okay. Over my roads. Right shoulder is the flag. Can we all recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Union? Unison, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag. Flag of the United, United States of America and to the Republic. Republic for which stands? Nation Speaker 8 00:04:47 One Nation Speaker 7 00:04:48 Under Speaker 8 00:04:49 God, Speaker 7 00:04:50 Indivisible, with Liberty Justice Speaker 8 00:04:53 For All. Speaker 7 00:04:55 Can we have the swearing in of the professionals Speaker 8 00:05:02 Myself? Can you please raise your right hand? I can't see Speaker 4 00:05:08 Ron Carol. Speaker 8 00:05:09 I got it right here. Speaker 0 00:05:10 He's, he's waving. Speaker 8 00:05:12 Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Speaker 7 00:05:21 Are there any changes to our agenda tonight, Mr. Barlow? Speaker 4 00:05:24 Madam Chair, none that I'm aware of. We have two matters on for this evening. Speaker 7 00:05:28 Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to pay the duly audited bills? Speaker 9 00:05:34 Reverend Kinneally, I make a motion to pay the duly order bills. Speaker 7 00:05:38 Do we have a second? Speaker 8 00:05:39 Carol Saunders second roll Speaker 7 00:05:41 Call please. Speaker 0 00:05:42 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 9 00:05:50 Yes. Speaker 0 00:05:51 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Echeveria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Speaker 7 00:05:56 Yes. Do we have a resolution to memorialize tonight from the January 14th meeting? Speaker 0 00:06:02 None. Speaker 8 00:06:03 None. Speaker 7 00:06:04 Agree, sir. Thank you. Do we have minutes to adopt tonight? Speaker 8 00:06:11 Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, Carol Saunders, I like to memorialize the minutes from the regular meeting of January 14th, 2026. Speaker 7 00:06:19 Do we have a second? Speaker 5 00:06:21 Reverend Kinneally? I'll Speaker 8 00:06:22 Second Speaker 7 00:06:23 Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:06:24 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 8 00:06:32 Yes. Speaker 0 00:06:33 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Foster's here. Mr. Echeveria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Speaker 7 00:06:44 Yes. Item number 10 25 PB 19 slash 20 V as in Victor, 51 Holly Road Associates for minor subdivision in bulk variance. Mr. Lavender is hearing Thank. Speaker 4 00:06:57 Thank you Madam Chair and board members and professionals. Thank you all very much for having us this evening. As you stated, my client's 51 Holly Road Associates. The property issue is four Seymour Terrace. It's in the R 10 district and it's currently single lot. And my client proposes a subdivide the existing tract in two lots. The one lot, the first lot that would be subdivided is fully conforming. The second lot would require variance for lot width and frontage. And there are some existing bulk variances. Again, they already exist. And I have one professional witness tonight, Mr. Angela Tuto, who's both an engineer and a planner. And with the the board's permission, I'd like to have him sworn in and I will give him my seat and I will take his seat behind me. Speaker 7 00:07:49 Thank you. Speaker 4 00:07:50 Thank you. Speaker 5 00:07:56 Good evening. Speaker 8 00:07:57 Hello? I don't know how to say your name. Speaker 5 00:08:00 I dunno how to stand up or, Speaker 8 00:08:02 Okay. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 5 00:08:06 Yes, I do. Can Speaker 8 00:08:07 You please state all your name for the record? Speaker 5 00:08:09 Sure. The name for the record is Angelo Middle, initial J, last name Tuto, V-A-L-E-T-U-T-T-O 4 24 Amboy Avenue in Woodbridge. I'm a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional planner in a state of New Jersey. Both licenses are still in good standing and I've had the honor and pleasure of appearing before your board probably close to 40 years. Speaker 7 00:08:36 Thank you, sir. Your credentials are acceptable to us for testimony as an, as a, as an expert in both fields. Speaker 5 00:08:44 Thank you, ma'am. As, as Mr. Lavender indicated, we're here to see equal, we believe to be a, a fairly simple application for a minor subdivision. As he is indicated, it's right now a lot that's over 22,000 square feet has an existing dwelling of three bedrooms fronting on Seymour Terrace. The property as it exists now is a corner lot. Its other frontage is along Wade Street and the application is to subdivide to create a second lot with just frontage on Wade Street in which it'll be fully conforming in lot width, lot area and lot depth and frontage. However, we are not seeking any development at this time. However, with the board's approval, our application is to seek that this building or this property, excuse me, new lot will be a fully conforming use for the zone being single family. And we envision it to have three bedrooms, which is what the existing dwelling has that will be still performing in terms of most of the items, except as Mr. Speaker 5 00:10:07 Lavender indicated with regard to lot width, where we'll be at 99.69 feet versus a hundred required and a frontage of a similar 99.69 where a hundred is required. And the other items we receive reports from both the zoning officer and the board planner and we can comply. And already the applicant has already removed the fence and removed the shed, which were two items that were in the zoning report. And we agreed should we re hopefully receive the benefit of the approval this evening to show on a revised plan the fact that both items, the shed and fencing that was non-conforming for the zone were removed. In addition, we can comply in total with the board planner's report and the one item is to show an entry with regard to lot frontage and again, at that same number, 99 69 and changed what I had shown as two side yards to make the one frontage on the existing dwelling that fronts on Seymour to use that behind it as its rear yard. Speaker 5 00:11:35 And that dimension would be 37.1 feet on its closest, which is in excess of the 25 feet. So that as it stands now, the only variance would be with regard to lot frontage and lot width where we are 0.31, which comes out with just under four inches of 3.72 to be precise from a planning standpoint, I suggest or offer that we can provide it as a C one hardship, which as the board is aware to show that of peculiar, peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties due to exceptional and undue hardship upon the applicant arising out of the exceptional narrowness shallowness shape or specific piece of property. And it's with that specific piece of property I'm offering that we do not have, we do not have the ability to expand the property in both width and frontage to give us the exact a hundred because we are a corner lot. So that's right into a public right of way. And then the lot immediately adjoining us is not only fully developed, but it is already at the minimum of 100 feet so that we do not have the ability to increase our width without causing a domino effect and creating other variances that we believe can be addressed this evening. It is an existing condition, we're not making it any worse. And that, that's Speaker 4 00:13:21 The four Speaker 5 00:13:21 Inches, right? Yeah. And like I said, 3.72 inches Speaker 4 00:13:27 That, that's the difference. Speaker 5 00:13:28 I mean that's really, yeah, that's how much we're mi that's how much we're missing. So Speaker 4 00:13:32 For all practical purposes, a hundred, it it, it meets it but worth three Speaker 5 00:13:36 Inches. Yeah, it's a di minimus, but again, I was asked to keep it as tight as possible. Obviously if there's any questions from the board or its professionals or the public, we'll be happy to answer 'em. But quite honestly, we believe that through the efforts of the applicant, who the owner, who's the owner of the property and my office, and the guidance with your planner and your zoning officer, I mean, the first blush we didn't in, we didn't install the optic wiring. So we, so we did that. And other than that, I'm gonna take a sip of water and if there's any questions madam chairwoman, we'll be happy to answer 'em to the best of liability Speaker 7 00:14:26 Members of the board. Do you have any questions of this witness or the on this application? Speaker 4 00:14:34 Dawn, you're all good with it? Speaker 10 00:14:38 I am. Tom. They agree to all of the reports, so no issues. Speaker 3 00:14:43 And, and same here. This, this is a, you know, ultimately when you clean up, you know, the, the, the different items. It's pretty darn simple. An Angela one thing, this is a pretty deep lot, right? Speaker 5 00:14:56 It it is. Speaker 3 00:14:58 It's, and and part of it, like the existing fence thi this current owner's not using the whole lot. Right? So it is like a dead zone of like 30 feet, right? Speaker 5 00:15:07 Yeah, pretty much. If, let me pull my plan out, Ron. Speaker 3 00:15:12 Well, well, since Mr. Lavender was leading the witness, I'm leading the witness too. This is not an efficient u this is not an efficient use of land. I mean, you've got like 30 feet that does nothing. So by doing the subdivision, it, it's more in context with, with the area. I, I mean I, I was in this area, forgive me, I didn't go during this cold spell. It felt like it was a North pole, but I remember it from the swim club, which is only a block away. So by moving this now, you're gonna have something that's more in context in my opinion. But you know, if you want to confirm that you agree that's, that, that that's fine. Speaker 5 00:15:47 No, and then, and like I said, I had drafted and put together a fairly lengthy, and I know you have items beyond us this evening that may not be as simple, but you're a hundred percent correct. The existing fence that establishes the rear yard coming from Seymour is right at the point that we're doing the subdivision. So it's the only use of that portion was the shed that we're removing or has been removed already. Speaker 3 00:16:16 Okay. That, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Speaker 7 00:16:20 I'll open it up to the public for any questions. Members of the public infer the testimony of this witness regarding this application. Does anyone in the public have any questions that they would like to ask this witness? Speaker 0 00:16:32 You can raise your hand or unmute No one. Speaker 7 00:16:38 Thank you. Close to the public. If there are no more questions, would someone like to pose a motion for this application? Speaker 10 00:16:48 Madam Chair Dawn Corcoran. I would like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the CME report and the staff reports. Speaker 7 00:16:57 Madam Chair, I will second that. Councilwoman Cahill. Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 0 00:17:02 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran, Speaker 7 00:17:11 We lost. Are you, are you muted Ms. Corcoran? Speaker 0 00:17:14 I think we lost her. Speaker 3 00:17:15 I think she dropped. Yeah. We have to wait for her to come back. Yeah. 'cause all of a sudden Carol showed up right in the, in Speaker 0 00:17:21 I I can finish. I can finish the roll call though. Ms. ERs Speaker 7 00:17:24 Finish the roll call and since she'll say, see if she's back. Speaker 0 00:17:26 Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 00:17:28 Yes. Speaker 0 00:17:28 Mr. Atkins? Speaker 3 00:17:30 Yes. Speaker 0 00:17:30 Mr. Foster? Speaker 7 00:17:33 Yes. Speaker 0 00:17:33 Mr. Aria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Speaker 7 00:17:37 Yes. Speaker 5 00:17:38 Thank you guys. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Have a good Speaker 7 00:17:42 Yes, she's back. Go Speaker 3 00:17:43 On. What's your vote? Speaker 10 00:17:45 I apologize. Yes. Yes. Speaker 0 00:17:47 On the motion. Thank Speaker 7 00:17:48 You. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you all. Tom. Good to see you. Byebye. Everybody. I just figured the cat Speaker 0 00:17:55 Hit your tablet or something. Speaker 7 00:17:58 Okay. Item number Laura. Item number 1125 PB 17 slash 18 V as in Victor, KR CX price and price. REIT LLC For a preliminary and final site plan the bulk variance who is appearing for this application. Speaker 0 00:18:25 Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Danielle Beck, attorney at Prime Tove Elli on behalf of the applicant. Speaker 7 00:18:31 Thank you Ms. Beck. Speaker 0 00:18:33 Thank you. So as the chair indicated, the application is by KR CX price REIT, LLC, who is the owner of the shopping center known as Piscataway Town Center, located at 1280 Centennial Avenue. It's also identified as Block 56 0 1 lot 1.02 on the township tax map. The property is approximately 9.57 acres and improved with a large shopping center building and one pad site. The application before you tonight for preliminary and final site plan with bulk variance and design waiver relief is seeking approval to convert the existing 2,553 square foot bank building on the property, which has been vacant for a number of years into a Dunking coffee shop with drive-thru. You'll hear there are a number of variances being requested with the application and may have seen them in your review letters, although many of them are related to existing nonconforming conditions on the property that are not being altered by the application. Speaker 0 00:19:32 You'll hear our professionals testify to them predominantly the new relief that is associated with the improvements we're making to convert the bank to the Duncan, excuse me, is a slight reduction in the parking count sign variances and relief from buffering the loading area for the Duncan use. Prior to the hearing tonight, we did have a pre-application meeting with the township as well as the workshop meeting with the board professionals. So we work to address those comments and concerns. Before we came, before you tonight for the record, we published the, our public notice was published in the Courier News on January 30th, 2026. It was also mailed to all property owners within 200 feet on January 30th, 2026. So I submit that the board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Speaker 7 00:20:23 I would concur. Speaker 0 00:20:24 Thank you Mr. Marlow. So we plan to present the testimony of three witnesses, our civil engineer Mr. Richard Ortiz, our traffic engineer, Craig Parago, and our professional planner, Justin Cielo. So if it pleases the board, we can have our first witness sworn and that would be Mr. Ortiz. Speaker 7 00:20:46 Mr. Ortiz, Speaker 8 00:20:46 Or please Mr, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that's the testimony you're about to give? Will the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 11 00:20:54 I do. Speaker 8 00:20:55 Thank you. Can you please spell your last name for the record? Speaker 11 00:20:59 Sure. It's O-R-T-I-Z. Speaker 8 00:21:02 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:21:04 Thank you. Mr. Ortiz, can you provide the board with your professional and educational background professional? Speaker 11 00:21:09 Sure thing. So I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University in 2019. I am a principal with Dynamic Engineering Consultants with over six years of design experience for commercial, industrial and residential projects. During my experience, I've worked on over 50 small to medium sized commercial developments similar to this project. And I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing and I have previously been qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Speaker 0 00:21:39 Thank you. Does the board have any questions of Mr. Ortiz's qualifications? Speaker 4 00:21:43 No. We have no questions. You may proceed. Speaker 0 00:21:45 Thank you. Mr. Ortiz, do you wanna pull up an exhibit or describe the existing conditions and surrounding area of the property subject to the application? Speaker 11 00:21:58 I do. So I'm gonna just share my screen here. Sure. Speaker 4 00:22:02 Ms. Beck, unless he, if any of the exhibits that are being shared are not the specific plans that were submitted and have any yellow highlighting or blue marks on them, like this one? We'll, we'll just mark them as a one, A two and just keep going. Okay. Okay, Speaker 0 00:22:21 That sounds good. So we'll mark this one A one and Mr. Ortiz, you wanna describe the exhibit for the record? Speaker 11 00:22:29 Sure. So this is the aerial map exhibit dated 2 11 20 26 prepared by Dynamic Engineering. Speaker 0 00:22:36 Thank you. Speaker 11 00:22:39 All right, so with that, this, as Danielle had mentioned, the site is a previously or an existing shopping center located at the intersection of Centennial Avenue in South Washington Avenue within the shopping center zone. The existing development does, does have access to the site still Speaker 4 00:22:57 Wonder shoes Speaker 11 00:22:59 From Centennial Avenue be in a via signalize intersection and there is a right in right out access along South Washington Avenue here, here where you can see my cursor to the north of the property. There you can see there's a wooded area as well as some additional commercial properties all within the same se zone to the east we have more wooded area with additional commercial properties be beyond, again, within that same SC zone. And to the south is a wooded area that does include an offsite stream. The properties beyond that area are located within the R 20 zone, mainly undeveloped in this portion of the, of the, of the area. And you can see this is an industrial warehouse located to the southwest, to the west, to South Washington Avenue, again with some more industrial and office uses. Those are located within the LI five zone. Speaker 11 00:23:53 As Danielle had mentioned, zooming into the site, one of the existing buildings is a larger plus or minus 9,500 square foot retail building. And the other is the smaller 2,553 square foot former bank with a drive through. Generally the project area is focused on the, on the northwest region of the property, as we are converting that bank from a bank to a dunking. Moving along to the next exhibit that I think we can enter as a two once it loads, you can see this is the Duncan location map exhibit dated 2 11 20 26. Also prepared by Dynamic Engineering. We just wanted to note for the record that the plan is for this existing Duncan that's located at the intersection of Centennial Avenue and Stelton Road, which does not presently have a drive-through lane to be relocated to this new site, which is the subject property. We just wanted to document that so that, that that was, you know, aware to the board. Speaker 11 00:24:56 Moving along, this is the overall site plan exhibit. We do have a similar sheet within the site plans that that was submitted. However, this one has been modified slightly to update the notes based on comments received from the township professionals. So this is the overall site plan exhibit dated 2 11 20 26 prepared by Dynamic Engineering. And I think we can enter this one as a three. The, the purpose of having this overall view up is to go over some of those existing nonconforming conditions that Danielle had mentioned. Most of those are captured with the, within the review letter issued by CME and a a, a large majority of them will remain unchanged as part of the project. A few of those include the minimum lot area. Overall, the minimum lot area requirement in the SC zone is 10 acres. We're just short of that at, at about 9.6 acres. Speaker 11 00:25:46 But otherwise the site frontage the lot width and the lot depth do comply with the zone requirements. The existing building footprints exceed the maximum building coverage requirement of 20%. Under, under existing conditions, the percentage is 25.3%. That is not going to change as part of this application. When you zoom into the center of the site, there is an, an existing clock tower located at the approximate center of the larger building. That clock tower is at plus or minus 60 feet in height and does exceed the 20 foot height requirement for accessory structures. We did identify in a prior resolution that's, you know, part of the property history that that clock tower was approved at 60 feet with a prior requirement of 50 feet. That's remaining unchanged as most of the project is focused on the northwest corner of the site. Sticking with the buildings, the front and rear yard setbacks for both buildings do not fully comply with the minimum setback requirements. Speaker 11 00:26:47 Again, a majority of these remain unchanged with the exception of one of the setback requirements, which is related to the existing canopy of the bank. That setback is going to be improved from 75 77 0.5 perc five feet to 99.4 feet as part of the project behind the property or towards the rear of the property. There are two existing trash enclosures. One up here in the northeast portion and one out one down here in the southwest portion. Those do not comply with the minimum setback requirements, but given the adjacent offsite wooded areas, which are, you know, undeveloped at the moment, they're substantially buffered move into the parking lot. In general, the parking lot does not comply with front or rear yard setbacks, but there is a substantial berm along the front. The property frontage and, and decent landscaping that we believe sufficiently buffers the parking area while also maintaining visibility of the shopping center from the roadway. Speaker 11 00:27:47 Sticking with the parking lot, it does not fully satisfy the minimum number of required trees, although it does have substantial trees along the frontage and wide landscape islands within the center of the site that do have trees placed within them. Comparing this, you know, to the adjacent developments in the area, it seems to be a, you know, a bit more than what's, what's seen elsewhere along the same corridor. So again, in the respect of maintaining visibility to the interior of the site, we don't plan to supplement those trees with additional trees. However, we did prepare and submit a proposed landscape design for this area of the site that, you know, to accommodate the new site improvements throughout the site. Mainly along the rear of the exist larger existing building, there are a few instances of substandard parking stall dimensions and drive aisle widths. A majority of those are located along the rear of the building, mainly in areas which would be frequented by employees who would be familiar with those conditions. So we're not too concerned about those resulting in an unsafe condition just given that they won't be, you know, primarily used by, by customers who are unfamiliar with the site. Speaker 11 00:28:56 Related to the main site access points along Centennial Avenue in South Washington Avenue, those do exceed the maximum width requirements of 35 feet, mainly due to their design and layout. As previously mentioned, the Centennial Ave access is part of a signalize intersection, so that leads to a larger width. You know, it's a, it's a great access to the, to the site and, and promotes success of the site by allowing full movement along Centennial Avenue and similarly along South Washington Avenue. If I zoom in here, this driveway driveways restricted to write in and write out movements. So because of this pork chop, this concrete apron that's in the middle of the driveway, that leads to a wider width. Speaker 11 00:29:40 And finally, the, the last of you know, the, the list of existing non-conforming conditions relates to the two freestanding ID signs, one here near the main inter intersection that the site is adjacent to, and then one down in this area. Those do not meet the minimum setback requirement of 50 feet. They're at about 17 feet and 25 feet respectively, but they do fit in well with the existing landscaping and serve to identify the overall development without specifically identifying tenants. So they, they, you know, those will stay un un unchanged as part of this project, as we don't propose to add any dunk Duncan signage to those, to those existing signs. Speaker 0 00:30:22 Thank you, rich, I know it was a lot of preexisting conditions to walk through. I think in Mr. Reinhardt's letter there was two more listed associated with the parking lot as distance from the residential zone, and I apologize if you covered that and maximum amount of parking in the front yard area. Speaker 11 00:30:42 Correct. Thanks for, thanks for catching me there. So the front yard area, we conservatively took that to mean this area between the main site frontage and the front of the larger building. So as you can see that we, you know, the existing shopping center does exceed that 50% requirement. However, you know, it's, it's mainly due to efficiency. It's, it's the most efficient way to park a site is outside in with your building towards the back. So that's, that's mainly the reason why that's been laid out that way. Obviously given the minimal scope of work we're do, we're looking to do here. That condition is, is is to propose to remain unchanged. And then as it relates to the residential zone, I will shift back to the aerial map exhibit. I believe that relates to the rear of the site, if this loads. So as I previously mentioned there, there is a stream offsite here that, that does basically run along the back of the property given that stream is there and, and you know, and, and this area is presently undeveloped, we don't expect that development will, will really ever take place there. So the, the parking that is a along the property line here should be substantially buffered from any future re residential development that may take place a bit further south. Speaker 11 00:32:13 Danielle, were there any others that I may have missed? Speaker 0 00:32:17 No, I think we covered all of 'em and the remaining ones will be addressed in explaining the, the site improvements and proposed conditions. Speaker 11 00:32:26 Sure. So with that, I'll move into the proposed conditions. This here on the screen is the site plan exhibit rendering. Matt Speaker 12 00:32:34 Madam chair, if I, I could just interrupt for one second. I just for clarification, the property to the two south is the Ambrose Doty Brook County Parkland, so that will not be developed. There is another parcel after that that was approved for a storage facility, but everything else is all part of the Parkland. Just for the record. Okay. The mayor Speaker 3 00:32:58 Read my minds. I was gonna say it's a park, so we're good. Thank you. Thank Speaker 12 00:33:03 You, Speaker 11 00:33:03 Thank you. So this is the site plan, exhibit rendering dated 2 11 20 26 and also prepared by Dynamic Engineering. This is basically a colorized rendered version of the site plan that was submitted with And Speaker 0 00:33:22 For the record, this will be a four Speaker 11 00:33:24 Oh, correct. Thank you. Again, this is a rendered version of the site plan that was submitted with the land, the proposed landscape design superimposed. We did along the property frontage show trees based on existing conditions, but, and most of the proposed plantings are generally in this area around the building. The application, again, the application proposes to reoccupy the vacant building with a dunking feature in a drive-through which is permitted within the zone. All proposed improvements will take place entirely within the existing developed limits of the site and actually will result in a very minor reduction of impervious coverage on site. A few key, a few key proposed improvements include a redesign drive-through lane providing nine vehicles of stacking and a partial bypass, which supports the Duncan standards. So that's up here. The existing bank had a stack of about four to five spaces. Duncan requires a bit more than that, so that's why this ex, this is extended to due east. Speaker 11 00:34:24 Again, we did maintain a bypass lane here after the order point in case somebody wants to bail out as a, you know, an accessory to the drive-through lane, mainly to maintain efficient and safe circulation near the drive-thru entrance. We are proposing to convert this drive aisle that goes along the outer perimeter of the site from a two-way function to a one-way function that'll allow cars to basically, you know, safely maneuver past the drive through, drive-through lane, and avoid any issues with cars coming towards the drive-through lane exit. With that conversion, this ex, this drive-through lane, this drive aisle, which, which has a minimum width of 24 feet is below the minimum requirement of 25 feet. Again, given its one way functionality, we don't expect this would be an issue because of the extension of this drive-through lane parking is impacted. Because of that, we are reducing the overall number of spaces by 11 spaces, taking the total down from 4 89 to 4 78. But the layout of this design was, was prepared with the goal of minimizing impact to reduced parking and also improving and maintaining safe circulation around the perimeter of the site. Speaker 11 00:35:40 Zooming in here to the proposed drive-through equipment, the menu board, the order canopy and the clearance bar, those have, those have been identified as ace accessory structures that fall within the a hundred foot front yard setback. Again, those are located as, as needed for the drive through lane and if we, and with the way we designed the drive through lane, if we were to locate those within the setback, it would reduce an, an additional, it would result in additional reduced parking. So that, that was one of the main goals in this layout is to avoid or minimize the impact to parking on site. Moving away from the drive through lane and into additional accessories for the building. We are proposing a new 10 by 20 foot masonry trash enclosure at the rear of the building. Refuse truck collection to this trash enclosure anticipated to take place during off peak hours, approximately, approximately two to three times per week, which is consistent with the remainder of the existing shopping center. Speaker 11 00:36:38 To access that trash enclosure, there is a new sidewalk that's proposed here with access to the existing service store. This store will be used by employees to dispose of trash and also for delivery loading, which is anticipated to take place in this dry aisle here again during off-peak hours. The largest anticipated vehicle is consistent with, you know, what you might be used to with a dunking. It's a standard unit box truck. And as far as delivery, delivery frequencies, dry goods are expected to take place once a week, whereas donut deliveries typically take place daily, overnight. Sticking with operations and regarding employees specifically, a total of 15 employees is, are anticipated. Those would be split into three shifts and the hours of operation is, is will be 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM seven days a week. Moving away from the building. You'll note here that this, this area light has been relocated. That's mainly because there was a landscape island here where the new drive-through entrance will be. It's, it's a minor shift to the lighting that accommodates the new, the new layout. As mentioned in the CME planning review letter, there are a few minor deviations from minimum or maximum lighting requirements, which require design, design waiver relief. These conditions exist today and are modified slightly just due to this relocated area light, but still represent safe lighting levels even with the minor deviations. Speaker 11 00:38:07 As previously mentioned, we're proposing some supplemental low line landscaping around the drive through lane that's up here, down here, and then also around the building over here. I had a conversation with the township landscape architect earlier today and he noted that the proposed landscaping design was sufficient with no comments be beyond those that he provided in the staff staff report dated January 20th, 2026. Moving back to the, the overall site plan exhibit, I believe this was a three and primarily related to site signage, we are proposing seven new directional signs, again to promote safe circulation to the drive-through lane. Those are generally highlighted in yellow here, two of which, if I zoom into Centennial Ave, two of which are located closer than the minimum 10 foot requirement, mainly because we expect Centennial Ave to be the main point of access to the drive-through lane, given that's where most of the traffic enters the site. Speaker 11 00:39:06 We are proposing that those are 4.4 feet away from the property line as opposed to the minimum 10 foot requirement in order to promote visibility of the signs beyond that, on the other side of the site at the South Washington access, there is an, an additional drive through directional sign. That sign will be compliant with the minimum 10 foot setback requirement. And then throughout the sign we do have another four si, sorry, throughout the site we do have another four signs that help with directing traffic effectively to the, the drive through entrance, other no otherwise existing site utilities and grading and drainage patterns will largely remain unchanged given the scope of the site work. In general, the, the proposed site improvements mainly focus on refining circulation and providing a longer drive through stack to support the needs of the proposed use. In addition, the applicant is amenable to working with the township professionals to satisfy the fiber optic line requirement as well as other general site maintenance requirements that were raised in their review letters. Speaker 0 00:40:11 Thank you Mr. Ortiz. With the lighting deviations, can you explain before we get in the elevations sure if there's any impact to adjoining property by those deviations and, and how the deviations being altered by this application? Speaker 11 00:40:25 No, so I wouldn't expect any, any impact to the adjacent properties. I mean if I'm, if I move back to the aerial map exhibit, there are, there are some lights along the back of the property that we did not model. We did limit our, our lighting model to this area, but these are mainly security purposes and again, with the wooded areas that are offsite that no impact to adjacent properties. Regarding the site frontage, there is one minor deviation of, of a 0.6 foot handle that we've noted along the property frontage where 0.5 is, is the max permitted minor deviation with, with really no impact to adjacent properties, especially given the, the lighting that would be coming from the adjacent roadways. Speaker 0 00:41:06 Thank you. And there was an additional waiver noted in the review letter that I think you evaluated to find the site was conforming related to parking lot landscaping, 20% in front yard, 10% in other areas. Can you verify if that complies? Speaker 11 00:41:22 Yes, that's correct. We did run the calculations and had sent that a, a markup that I guess documents those, those measurements to CME. But yes, we, the, the existing property does comply with those, those percentages. Speaker 0 00:41:36 Okay, thank you. Speaker 11 00:41:42 So with that, the, this exhibit here is the architectural colored rendering dated 2 9 20 26 and prepared by GKNA architects? I believe. So Speaker 0 00:41:55 We'll mark this a five. A five. And just so the board is aware, this has not previously been submitted and Mr. Ortiz will walk you through the revisions, but some of the comments we got on the workshop, we had originally proposed five facade signs and we revised the design and now have three facade signs. Speaker 11 00:42:16 Thank you Danielle. So related to building renovations, I, I don't have it up on the screen, but the, the interior floor floor plan will, you know, basically be reorganized to accommodate what Duncan typically prefers outside of the, of the building. There is a replacement of the bank canopy that will be replaced here by a smaller canopy. The existing canopy is presently 77.5 feet setback from the property line, whereas this smaller canopy is, I think it was about 99.4 feet back from the property line. In addition to that, the existing ATM and teller window will be replaced by a brand new drive-through window based on Duncan standard. And as far as the rest of the facade, you can see here, if you know, if you're familiar with the site that we're not proposing to modify the, the, you know, the look or the feel of the building mostly to just maintain consistency with the other architecture that exists on site. Speaker 11 00:43:16 We are proposing, as Danielle noted, three new building mounted signs down from the original five that were part of the original submittal. Those are consistent with the three signs that the existing bank used to have. And two of these signs, mainly this one on the southern facade and this one on the northern facade, are fully compliant with the maximum allowable area requirement. The, the sign that is on the western facade here, which is, is basically where the main entrance of the building is. That sign is just over when you count the white background, it's just over the, the maximum allowable sign area, which would be 46.4 square feet or 10% of this facade area, including the white area. The sign is at 54.6 square feet. When you exclude the, the, the white background and just focus on the text itself, which is basically the sign that area is actually smaller and compliant, it's at 39.2 square feet. So the, the white background is mainly provided to improve visibility of the sign against the existing brick color and can be seen as part of the buil building facade. Speaker 11 00:44:23 So with that, I mean to quickly summarize my testimony, the project delivers a minimal impact improvement to a long established shopping center by converting a vacant building into a modern dunking with drive-through. Again, all of the proposed work is fully contained within the existing developed areas and enhances circulation while preserving the existing character of the site. The, the requested variances and waivers relate mainly to longstanding conditions or minor adjustments necessary for safe and efficient site operations, really without creating any adverse impacts to the site itself or the surrounding area. And before, before I close, just touching on the, the township professional review letters, the applicant has agreed to satisfy those comments and we've also received approval for the project from the Township Fire Official in DPW. And at this time I'm happy to answer any questions that may not have been addressed in my testimony. Speaker 8 00:45:18 Madam Chair, it's Councilwoman Cahill. I think I really just had one question, if I may. Sure. Speaker 7 00:45:27 No, go ahead. Councilman Cahill Cahill. Speaker 8 00:45:29 Okay, thank, thank you. This, the, the company that owns this Dunkin Donuts is not affiliated with the Dunkin Donuts that's at the corner of Centennial and Stelton. Are they the same? I'm just wondering, is one moving? Speaker 0 00:45:48 Yeah, Mr. Ortiz started his testimony with that. The intent is for the Duncan without a drive through at Centennial and to be Speaker 8 00:45:56 Relocated here. I'm sorry, I didn't catch it. My audio was No problem. Okay, thank you Speaker 9 00:46:03 Madam Chair. Speaker 7 00:46:05 Reverend Kinneally, go ahead. Reverend Kinneally, is that you Reverend Kinneally? Yes, it it's, can we take this on? Can we take what, what you call down? Sure. Speaker 11 00:46:13 Stop sharing here Speaker 7 00:46:15 Reverend, can you go ahead? Speaker 9 00:46:16 Okay, thank you Madam Chair. Just one question. There is no more baking on, on site at this Dunking Donuts. Is there, I know you, before there used to have baking on site, but you said you have delivery trucks that's bacon on, on your master site and then delivered to this place. Is that correct? Speaker 11 00:46:37 Yes, that's correct. Speaker 9 00:46:39 Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you. Speaker 7 00:46:42 Any other questions from members of the board? Speaker 12 00:46:46 I have one, a couple. Go ahead ma'am. Speaker 7 00:46:48 Chair Mayor Speaker 12 00:46:50 Wahler. Does Ms. Ortiz, did you real know that sometimes Applebee's has car wash fundraisers on the side of their building that stacks cars up? Speaker 11 00:47:03 No, I, I was not aware of that. Speaker 12 00:47:05 Well, typically from May to October, they allow some of the civic organizations to have a fundraising event, have people to come in and have their cars washed, handcar washed on the side of the building for fundraising purposes. And sometimes that may contribute some of the flow of the traffic. And the reason why I bring this up, because I've been around long enough. I, I remember when Bank of America first opened and when ShopRite and all the other businesses were in full swing, the traffic flow within the parking lot was not necessarily optimal. I do know, you know, your plans show a different layout, however, I just don't wanna repeat what's happening up at Starbucks up the street where they are blocking some of the lanes up there while they're waiting. And then if you go even further into South Plainfield, the Chipotle drive through lanes is always chaotic with the whole parking. Speaker 12 00:48:06 So I just wanna make sure that this is not gonna be a repeat action and I know you're gonna have a traffic expert testify, but some of these little items that is never anticipated in a traffic report or engineering report. And I just wanna make sure we don't create more, I'm not saying I'm not in, not in favor of this application, I just, I'm just concerned that, you know, if and when Kimco gets another tenant in there to the building where ShopRite left, I just don't want any traffic, you know, constrictions within, within the parking lot, even though you're, you're doing a lot of signage to try to steer people to which way they're, they're supposed to be going in the drive through lanes. Speaker 11 00:48:54 Yeah, un understood on the concern. I, I think, you know, that's something that I'm sure Kimco would be willing to, to work out and, and kind of come up with a better plan for. Right. Obviously, you know, they don't want to take that away from Applebee's, but I think something like that, like a car wash fundraiser typically takes place midday. The Dunkin specifically would have peak hours during the early morning and also with the way we, we've oriented the drive-through lane, the entrance is actually pointed away from, from where the Applebee's is. So if there is a stacking in the dunking, it shouldn't conflict too much with what's going on in the Applebee's. But as you mentioned, I mean I'm sure my traffic engineer has some other thoughts on that, but that's, that's at least the first thoughts I have. Speaker 12 00:49:39 I, I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware that was going on. I'm not suggesting that, you know, they tell Applebee's that they can't do it, but I just wanna let you know sometimes during some Saturdays and Sundays that does happen. Speaker 11 00:49:53 Understood. Speaker 12 00:49:55 Any other questions from the board? Speaker 14 00:49:58 Hi, this is Phil. Mr. Ortiz, this may be a very nuanced question so I apologize, but with the Dunking Donuts that currently exist, there's no drive through the one that we're adding in, is there a drive through? Is there any estimates on the amount of uptick in customer service that you expect from a drive through just trying to anticipate as if ShopRite gets filled, the develop, the development now has more customers just lines that kind of break in that cause a little more traffic when people try to park? I don't know if you guys have rough estimates or if that's for your other engineer. Speaker 11 00:50:31 I can, I can offer some thoughts on that. I'm sure my, again, my traffic engineer has, has more to add in, in general, the, the addition of a drive-through to a Dunkin does in increase the efficiency and, and while it does tend to draw more customers, it does tend to work through them quicker because they're able to just fly through the drive through specifically with a dunking compared to the rest of the, the site, the larger building, the biggest thing we focus on is, is the difference in peak hours. Dunking is very busy, it's popping in the morning and the early morning, whereas the rest of the shopping center probably won't open until, you know, later in the morning at seven 9:00 AM So, and, and by that time, most of the morning commuting traffic that would pass through that dunking has passed. So that, that's my quick thoughts to, to the question. I'm sure you know, Craig's, Craig's testimony would cover more of that and if not, you can ask him the question and see, see what he has to say. Speaker 3 00:51:28 Can I, can I ask counsel? Do are you, do you have the operator here tonight? There's a reason I'm asking because this will clarify this. Speaker 0 00:51:37 Yeah. We have a representative here from the operator. Okay. Speaker 3 00:51:39 The reason I ask is when it comes in into play, I always ask the operators how much business do you get via the app versus the actual drive-through? Because what's happening is, and I I've done several Dunking applications, the app is almost becoming a, you know, a plurality of their business. So what happens is, is it's people order on the app and they're going into the drive-thru to pick up, which reduces the amount of time. But I will leave that up to you to testify to. That may help mi Mr. Arian his question there. Speaker 0 00:52:17 Okay. I think a representative was here and heard, heard the question. I don't know if he can communicate with us if he has any data on how that app mobile ordering impacts. So Ms. Beck, what, what's his name? 'cause I have a few attendees that didn't sign on for the link so I could give him access to speak if he'd like. So I see and maybe whoever wants to respond can raise their hand. It may be Hemanchu Patel or Joar Patel. Yeah, I see Joar Patel. Yep. Speaker 3 00:52:46 Make anyone, anyone who's gone through a drive through who has kids will tell you that, that that's half your time is getting the order straight. If you order already your order on the app, it's just like one and done. You come up and say, this is my order and you pick it up. Speaker 0 00:53:00 Okay. I think Mr. Hemanchu had his hand raised so he can be sworn to answer the question. Speaker 4 00:53:05 Let, let's swear him in if he's gonna be answering any questions. Sure, please. Ms. Saunders, if you wanna unmute? Yes, I'm unmute and I might have my camera on. Yep. Speaker 8 00:53:18 Can you please raise your right, right, right hand please. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 15 00:53:26 Yes, I do. Speaker 8 00:53:28 Thank you. Speaker 7 00:53:31 Do we have his name? Speaker 15 00:53:33 Hemanchu Patel. I'm a franchisee. I'm the operator. I, Speaker 7 00:53:36 Okay. Speaker 15 00:53:37 Yes. Yeah, so I can answer the question regarding this. You're absolutely right that, you know, since the COVID era that we've been going through more of this drive through and you know, we go through the app and you know, these days that we are getting about 25% of ourselves through the app. So when, when the, when the guest person order, they come by the time they come, the places, you know, orders already, either they come in a dry through or they come in the front and pick the orders. So it's about 25% of the cells we get in a, of a typical store. Speaker 3 00:54:11 Thank you. Speaker 15 00:54:14 Does that answer your question? Speaker 3 00:54:17 It does. Thank you very much. Speaker 15 00:54:18 Okay, thank you. Speaker 7 00:54:22 Now are there any other questions from the board members or anyone else here before we actually open it up to the public? Speaker 3 00:54:30 Now listen, just one statement chair, this applicant team that they sent me responses here. They were very thorough. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Speaker 7 00:54:40 Fine. Now we're gonna open it up to the public. For anyone who has any questions of this previous witness, would you indicate by waving your hand if you have a question? Speaker 3 00:54:57 No, Speaker 0 00:54:57 I'm Madam chair. Speaker 7 00:54:59 Thank you. Close to members of the public on this witness, you can call your next witness. Speaker 0 00:55:04 Thank you Madam Chair. My next witness is our traffic engineer. Mr. Craig Parago. Speaker 3 00:55:11 I am here. Speaker 8 00:55:14 Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about the give will the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 3 00:55:20 Yes, I do. Speaker 8 00:55:21 Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Speaker 3 00:55:23 Sure, honor. My name is Craig Pergo, P-E-R-E-G-O-Y. Speaker 8 00:55:27 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:55:28 Mr. Pergo, can you provide the board with your professional and educational background? Speaker 3 00:55:33 Sure. I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey. I testify pretty much regularly on a nightly basis in front of planning and zoning boards. I've testified here in Piscataway and I live here in Piscataway. So marijuana, I, I know about the car wash, it's gonna show up more than just on the engineering plans. So very familiar with the area and I miss ShopRite being in our side of the border. Speaker 0 00:55:58 And, and did you say your license is current in good standing. Sorry. It's okay. Speaker 7 00:56:03 He's acceptable. Speaker 4 00:56:05 Just one question. Are you, are you with Dynamic Dynamic Engineering or do you have your own firm? Speaker 3 00:56:10 It's Dynamic Traffic. We're affiliated with Dynamic Engineering, but with a traffic firm. Speaker 4 00:56:14 Thank you. Speaker 3 00:56:15 Sure. Speaker 4 00:56:18 Sorry Ms. Kim back. You're witness. Speaker 0 00:56:20 Okay. Mr. Parago, did you pre prepare a report in support of this application that analyzed the traffic impacts and parking? Speaker 3 00:56:28 We did. Speaker 0 00:56:29 Would you like to explain to the board the analysis you conducted and conclusions in your report? Speaker 3 00:56:34 Sure. I'll go through the, the traffic impacts, the parking and the drive through queuing. And try not to bore you with the all the det too, too many details for the traffic side of things. When we look at a shopping center like this, the ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers and New Jersey, DOT consider this whole thing a shopping center. And they would run the traffic numbers based on the square footage of the shopping center itself, which isn't changing. So if we were on a state highway, this would be zero increase. But we did take a look and drill down at the difference between the bank, the former Bank of America and the Dunking. And the real key here is the, the pass by traffic associated with this, the, these uses, in other words, somebody's already on South Washington or Centennial and they pop in to go to the drive through to pick up their coffee or their sandwich on the way to work and continue on their way. Speaker 3 00:57:25 So that car would've been there no matter what. You have some of that with the bank, but you don't have nearly as much as you do with the dunking. So if I isolate just the, the bank and the Dunking and look at the new traffic, how much traffic would impact the roads? The difference is an increase in the morning. Obviously Dunkin's busiest in the morning of 21 trips in the peak hour. It's actually a decrease in the evening of 18. And then in Saturday, the Saturday midday gives me an increase of 23, but that's because they don't really isolate morning and evening for Saturday. Obviously the dunkin's increase is gonna be more so in the morning than it is in the midday. And that really makes it a good fit here from a a traffic and even a parking standpoint because you have a shopping center that has uses that primarily are gonna peak in the midday in the afternoons, whereas this is gonna be, its busiest in the morning. Speaker 3 00:58:16 So it really is a nice fit there. And I know when ShopRite was there, I used to try to get there as early as possible because that was when it, everything else was the least busy and you could get a better parking spot. So it fits, it fits really well from a traffic perspective and considering you're moving one location to the other, you're really just sort of shifting that traffic and not really creating any substantial negative impacts. With regard to the parking, the last iteration that I think this board reviewed included the shopping center with the Applebee's and then there was a dental office in there and the bank. And if you do the math based on the ordinance requirements, I won't bore you with all of it, but the math was 626 spaces were required and 489 spaces provided. So it was a shortfall of 137 spaces that was a variance was previously granted for previously approved. Speaker 3 00:59:07 That dental office is now gone, presumably it's gonna wind up going back to some sort of retail use and everything else stays the same. The bank and the Duncan parking requirement is the same, but we are losing, as was in the prior testimony, seven spaces for the drive-through and then the Patel Brothers grocery store that's gonna come into half of the ShopRite space. They, they're taking four spaces away for shopping cart corrals. So you're losing 11 spaces. But if you do the math without that medical office in there, the total requirement is 604 spaces. Whereas we're gonna have 478 proposed that shortfall reduces from the a previously approved 1 37 down to 126 spaces. So we're actually reducing the, the, the, the, the delta there. Now that's the technicality part of it from the ordinance numbers. The reality is Duncan's obviously, again, park has its peak parking demand in the morning. Speaker 3 01:00:05 The the Patel brothers store, the pizza place, all those place. All, all, most of the, most everything in that shopping center, Applebee's is in the evening or the afternoon. So again, it's, it's gonna fit, we did do some parking counts. I know it's like a ghost town compared to when ShopRite was there, but we just wanted to get an idea of, you know, the parking availability we counted on Tuesday, September 30th and Saturday October 4th. During the peak times there were 450 spaces vacant in the morning when the Duncan would have its peak period and a total of 403 vacant overall on the, on the, on the Tuesday, that was when that happened. And that was at 7:00 PM when it was at its minimum. Now obviously all that vacancy is because you have a, a huge amount of the space that's, that's empty right now. But if you do the ordinance requirement based on that about 65,000 and change space that's empty at one per 175 square feet, that would require 373 parking spaces. Speaker 3 01:01:05 So there is enough to even meet the ordinance requirement left over based on those counts. Now obviously, as I said, I, I shopped at that ShopRite all the time and I know it was, it was crazy. I didn't count parked vehicles at the time I was going to get groceries, but I did look back, we have a high resolution aerial software that has four or five shots a year, gone all the way back to 2014. So I went back and looked at all those and I found one that was pretty representative of how busy it used to get. And during that, you know, high end time, there were 66 parking spaces vacant on that entire site. But what's interesting is 38 of those 66 are back by where the Duncan is, those spaces around right at the intersection that are kind of on the curve there, they're almost always available. Speaker 3 01:01:53 So not only are we kind of offsetting the peak parking demand by bringing in a morning use, but we're putting it in the most remote part of the shopping center where even when it was super busy, it was not filling up in that, that area. So from a parking perspective, I, I, I don't see any issues at all. Last thing I'll, I'll get into is the queuing. I heard somebody, I heard the Starbucks was mentioned. They only have a six car stack and they're the only drive-through coffee game in town. Right now we have nine car stacks, so we got 50% more than than they do. And I think you're gonna split some of that. I think some people who are dunking people maybe add a, I don't wanna get outta my car and walk in in bad weather, so they go to Starbucks. So maybe we're gonna bring some of that traffic over here and split it a little bit. Speaker 3 01:02:37 So I think we have enough here, I'll get into that, but I think we also may help that situation at the Starbucks. So in, in terms of the drive through usage, about 75% of the traffic at Duncan's goes through the drive through, so you don't really have people walking in too much. And as, as was mentioned, the app really helps make that thing that more efficient. But what I did, and it's in my report, we did a queuing analysis based on the service time and that 75% of the traffic going through the drive-through and the 95th percentile queue, that's what you would typically designed to, is five cars. Again, we have nine stacking spaces available. The probability and this, this, this procedure calculates the probability of exceeding X number of vehicles. So if I look at nine, what's the probability of one car hanging out past that nine, it's 0.6%. Speaker 3 01:03:28 So I think we have certainly plenty of drive-through, stack available. And again, we're in the most remote part of the shopping center, and the only time you would ever see an extended QB that that might even approach nine vehicles would be in the morning when the rest of the place is pretty quiet. Applebee's, I don't even think they serving breakfast at Applebee's, so that's not there. And I don't think anybody's in their car wash at that time either. So overall it's really, it's a good fit. It's a, it's a good improvement and it hopefully brings some life back to that place. That's it. Hopefully I didn't bore everybody. Speaker 7 01:04:04 Thank you members. Mr. Board, do you have any questions of this witness? Hello? Is everybody still with us? Speaker 3 01:04:14 I did. I put 'em all to sleep too. Speaker 7 01:04:18 I guess we have no questions. I Speaker 8 01:04:19 Mean, I have no questions. Maybe I could just say this. I don't know that if you, if you could answer this question is, you know, we're talking about that particular shopping center and you know, quite frankly it's not where the Dunkin Donuts is, but up by where the, the, the stores are is always that it's just a terrible situation when ShopRite was there with the way traffic flow went, I mean, would there be any availability at all? I, I know our ordinances call for a certain amount of parking spots, but couldn't some of these aisles be made either bigger or maybe make one that doesn't have parking spaces that might alleviate it? And it's not really for this application necessarily, but just generally that maybe Kimco could redo that and it would still be conforming. I'm not sure. I am just throwing it out there as, as an option. Speaker 3 01:05:13 Yeah, and I understand, I know right where you're talking about where it's sort of like it's a slalom right in front of where the main entrance to ShopRite was. And I think a couple things, you know, you make the aisles wider and then you get people going faster, which we don't want. And that's where a lot of pe that's where a lot of the pedestrian activity is. And I think it, it really depends on what's gonna go on the other half of that ShopRite, what kind of user's gonna go in there. The good thing is the splitting into two, I mean, I know ShopRite had that secondary entrance to the weird side, the pharmacy side thing, but everybody went into the main door, so you kind of concentrated everybody right in that one spot where it's a little bit of a curve. So I'm hoping that, you know, the Patel brothers, which I hope they're successful, but I can't imagine they're gonna be as busy as ShopRite and then whatever use comes in are gonna split the pedestrians to two different locations. So hopefully that'll help. Speaker 7 01:06:00 Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 14 01:06:04 So just a quick comment, Mr. Parago, I always use the pharmacy side as manager and so, you know, just wanna Speaker 3 01:06:11 The no, you realize that's the way to go, but sometimes the shopping carts were on the other side. Speaker 14 01:06:17 I just wanna, you know, no question, just want to thank you for explaining the traffic side of things very clearly. Central Jersey ton of traffic, that area is high traffic, so it's nice to hear that there is a plan to make sure that we're not adding small traffic to already existing big traffic. So thank you for that explanation. Yep. Speaker 3 01:06:36 Okay. And thanks for the slalom comment. Winter Olympics and all, so guys, good. Oh gosh, that's kind of what I think about when I go, when we used to crawl through there. Yeah. Speaker 7 01:06:45 So does anybody have a actual question? Did we open it up to the public for this witness? Not yet. Okay. Then let's open it up to the public for any questions that they may have pertaining to traffic for this witness. Would you please indicate by wave of the handon Speaker 0 01:07:09 Now? Madam Chair? Speaker 7 01:07:10 Okay, thank you. Close to the public. Hey, do you have another witness? Speaker 0 01:07:15 I do. Madam Chair. Thank you. Our our final witness is our professional planner, Mr. Justin Cielo. Speaker 7 01:07:20 Okay, Speaker 16 01:07:22 Good evening. Speaker 8 01:07:25 Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give we the truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 16 01:07:32 Yes, ma'am. Speaker 8 01:07:33 Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Speaker 16 01:07:36 Yes, absolutely. It's Justin Cielo, A-U-C-I-E-L-L-L. Speaker 8 01:07:43 Thank you. Speaker 0 01:07:44 Thank you. Mr. Cielo, can you provide the board with your professional and educational background? Speaker 16 01:07:49 Yes, absolutely. I have a master's in city regional planning from RU University that was granted in in 2005. I've been a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey since 2008. I'm a partner with CAFO Consulting Group located at 52 Reckless Place in Red Bank. I've been qualified as a professional planner at planning and zoning boards throughout the state on hundreds of occasions. I have appeared in front of your planning board and and zoning board on multiple occasions over the years as well. Speaker 0 01:08:24 And your license is current and in good standing? Speaker 16 01:08:27 Yes, it is. Speaker 0 01:08:28 Thank you. Does the board accept Mr. Oslo's qualifications? Absolutely. Now, Mr. Oela, you were present for all the testimony here tonight? Speaker 16 01:08:36 Yes, I was. Speaker 0 01:08:37 Thank you. Speaker 16 01:08:39 So thi this is an application, as you heard from our, our site engineer and our traffic engineer. This is a, in, in my opinion, a, a classic C one and C two application. As the board is aware, even though we do require multiple variances, most of these variances are for existing conditions due to, due to, due to conditions that are of no fault of our own, but it's just within the confines of the shopping center, also in the confines of the existing bank building as well. So under the C one criteria, I would process this as being, being an exceptional situation due to existing physical conditions on the site. And of course that's the existing building and the overall shopping center, as you know, I had stated as a, as a previous witnesses have stated, there are numerous existing additions that are not going to change on the site. Speaker 16 01:09:40 Of course, we also have the confines of having this being a corner lot with, with, you know, two frontages. So that that like in and of itself also presents some practical difficulties. So with that said, it is my opinion that the strict application of the zoning requirements would cause practical difficulty that would hinder the overall zoning objectives that are, that are handled under the C two criteria in terms of the C two criteria, which is also known as as flexible C, which is essentially a, a test of whether or not there are public benefits associated with this application and the variances that are required. Of course, this proposal is a reuse of an existing commercial structure. I would, I would also add that it is a, it is a highly visible structure that is currently, you know, vacant right near the intersection. So from a planning standpoint, we always seek to, you know, ensure that spaces are not vacant in shopping centers. Speaker 16 01:10:52 That goes to overall vitality, but it also sends a certain signal to the community as well. So it is my opinion that by, by occupying this building with the Duncan use, which which obviously is as the board knows is, is a, is a popular use in the town and, and, and also in the state that does, you know, represent good planning and, and you know, leads to a more functional shopping center. And it's not just my opinion. You, you did hear the testimony from our site engineer and our traffic engineer relative to the ability of this site to accommodate the, the, the Dunkin use in a safe and efficient manner. The signage that is proposed, it is my opinion that it is essential to provide for necessary way finding, again, two, two frontages. There is not, I would know for the record, there is not an existing pylon sign that that is, you know, fairly typical in shopping centers. Speaker 16 01:11:57 So there is the need to provide for, for adequate way finding. I believe the signage package as had been testified by our site engineer is, is, is pretty modest. It's attractive and, and is really intended to ensure that motorists can both find the site and also when they're on the site, can navigate the site properly as well as you did here from our site engineer, there's proper lighting and, and landscape and proposed. I would also add that as existing there is, there's, you know, quite nice, you know, landscaping in BI that's on the frontages as well. I believe what's proposed is a, is a nice supplement to that. Speaker 16 01:12:43 I would note from a planning standpoint, another benefit there is a minor reduction of impervious coverage. That is something that I always look for in, in my review of applications. And I believe that certainly is a public benefit. Certainly I I I think overall there, there are numerous public benefits here that do advance sound planning and that is a good segue into the purposes of zoning that I see that are advanced relative to the municipal land use law. I would, I would note for the record criteria A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of land in the state to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Certainly by occupying a vacant building with the use that certainly, you know, is in demand that will be a benefit to the community, but also a use that as you heard from both witnesses, will operate safely and efficiently. Speaker 16 01:13:40 I believe this is a benefit to, to the general welfare criteria g to provide for sufficient space at appropriate locations for a variety of uses. This is a permitted use in the SC zone. Certainly there is sufficient space as well as testified by the other experts criteria h to encourage the location and design of transportation routes, which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging location of, of such facilities and routes that will result in congestion or blight. As you heard from our, our, our traffic engineer, this site can certainly accommodate this use both from a traffic circulation standpoint and parking standpoint. Criteria I to promote desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Certainly this is an attractive building, you know, properly sized signage and I believe this fits within the, the overall scope and and design of the shopping center. Speaker 16 01:14:43 And I to encourage and, excuse me, criteria m to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures and, and activity shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land. I think from a planning standpoint, by occupying an existing vacant building with an active use that fits with in the, in the style and scope of the shopping center is certainly, is certainly efficient. It's also efficient notwithstanding the fact that, you know, tearing, tearing this building down and, and replacing with something else, it would be inefficient. So I think this certainly is good planning by, by occupying this vacant use. That's a positive criteria. In terms of negative criteria, I certainly don't see any substantial detriment to the public. Good. Again, reuse of the structure. It's not obnoxious use this site is this pad site is, is well accommodated for this use. Speaker 16 01:15:47 Parking is sufficient. No, no negative impacts to parking or circulation. There, there is a berm as as I had stated on the property, frontages, no, no impact to the neighbors. And as was stated earlier, even though there is a residential zone to the south, there's a stream, there's, you know, there are trees there and there's a park as well. So no impact to that area. In addition, no impairment to the intent and purpose of his own plan, zoning owner to the master plan. This site, this shopping center has been here for, you know, for decades. Certainly it is a permitted use. It's certainly consistent with the zone plan zoning ordinance and the master plan. Master plan speaks to economic development by occupying this, you know, this building certainly helps to achieve those goals. So, you know, with all that said, certainly I think from a professional planning standpoint, the benefits of of of these variance or of granting these variances certainly outweigh the detriments. And if the board does find any detriments, the statutory criteria is substantial and I certainly don't see any detriments that would ever rise to the level of being substantial in this application. Speaker 0 01:17:09 Thank you Mr. Cielo. Speaker 16 01:17:11 Thank you. Speaker 7 01:17:13 Any questions from members of the board or for this witness hearing? No questions. Let's open it up to the public. Speaker 3 01:17:22 Madam Chair. Can I ask one question, Mr. Ello? I'm gonna lead the witness here. Mr. Cielo. Thank you. This is a pretty large site, isn't it? Speaker 16 01:17:30 Absolutely, it is. Speaker 3 01:17:31 Okay. So in your experience with Dunking Donuts or the drive-through facilities, this is a pad site, this is not a typical site for a dunking? No, it's not. I mean if just, and and, and I think everybody can relate to Starbucks, Dunkins are on smaller parcels. This is a big parcel and they have a lot of queuing thing here because there's not a lot of public impact from this. So the, this site could absorb the drive-through, would that be correct? Speaker 16 01:17:59 Yes, absolutely. I mean, I mean this is certainly a, you know, unique opportunity to, to cite a Duncan and a site that could absorb, you know, the demand from a planning standpoint. Speaker 3 01:18:09 Thank you very much. Speaker 16 01:18:10 Thank you. Speaker 7 01:18:12 Any other members have questions of this witness hearing? No response from the hearing? No response from the members of the board will open it up to the public members of the public. You've heard the testimony of this, of this planner. Does anyone have any questions that please do so by waving their hand? Speaker 0 01:18:38 No. Madam Chair, Speaker 7 01:18:39 Close to the public. Do you have any other witnesses madam? Speaker 0 01:18:46 No, that concludes our presentation. Speaker 7 01:18:49 Okay. Do you have a closing? You have any closing statements you wanna give? Speaker 0 01:18:54 I'll, I'll rely on how Mr. Cielo wrapped up the application. You know that it's a adaptive reuse to revitalize the shopping center. The pad's been vacant for a number of years. We are reducing impervious coverage and despite the relief requested as part of the application, we believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. So we're asking the board for an approval tonight. Thank Speaker 7 01:19:15 You. Members of the board. Speaker 0 01:19:18 Just, I, I know we open to the public for questions of Mr. Cielo. Just to confirm for the record, if maybe at a later point you open up for general comments from the public just to cover that. Speaker 7 01:19:30 Well that's not, that's, that can be done. Members of the public, you've heard the testimony of three witnesses regarding this application for a very central site in this township. If anyone has any questions for any sum up questions for any of the witnesses, you can do so by raving your hand at this time. Speaker 0 01:19:57 No one Madam Chair, Speaker 7 01:19:59 Close to the public members of the board. Do I have a, do I have a motion? Speaker 9 01:20:05 Madam Chair? Reverend Kinneally, I make a motion that this application be approved subject to the applicant, complies with all this, the said reports and I look through all of 'em and seems to agree with everything and I make a motion that this application be approved as set forth. Speaker 7 01:20:27 I will second that. Madam Chair. Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 0 01:20:32 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 9 01:20:40 Yes. Speaker 0 01:20:41 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Speaker 7 01:20:44 Yes. Speaker 0 01:20:45 Mr. Aria? Yes. And Madam Chair. Speaker 7 01:20:49 Yes. Speaker 0 01:20:51 Thank you everyone. Speaker 7 01:20:52 Thank you. You're welcome. Have a good night. Speaker 9 01:20:55 Thank you. Goodnight. All Speaker 3 01:20:57 Happy Valentine's Day Speaker 7 01:20:59 Everyone. I'm not going yet. I didn't close the meeting yet. Okay, well, okay. Well we have completed our agenda. I just wanna remind you that our next planning board meeting for March will be March 11th and our subdivision site planning meeting will be on March 25th. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion? All in favor? Speaker 3 01:21:23 Aye. Speaker 9 01:21:24 A Speaker 7 01:21:25 Needing adjourned. Thank you. Have a Speaker 3 01:21:27 One. Good night everyone. Yourself happy. Bye Speaker 7 01:21:30 Everyone. And warmer. Speaker 3 01:21:32 Oh, absolutely. We having Speaker 0 01:21:34 A heat wave. It's gonna be 50 next week. Oh, Speaker 3 01:21:37 I love that. I love, I'm tired of this. Speaker 0 01:21:41 I can't even, I have a good night everyone. Good Speaker 7 01:21:43 Night. Speaker 3 01:21:44 Bye.