Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Oh, please go used to go to sit And then the laundry. I'd like to call this meeting to order Burough Planning Board annual reorganization meeting planning board of the Burville County Somerset and state of New Jersey. Adequate notice of this meeting had been given in accordance with the open public meetings act in that an annual notice was published in the Burnsville News on January 21, 2025. Planning board meeting will be held in person. in the meeting hall on the second floor of the Berlin municipal meeting at one municipal building at 166 mileer road. Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube. If no opportunity for public comment, members of the public wishing to offer comment or ask questions will be required to attend meetings in person. YouTube live stream access for all meetings is at the uh at the internet uh ww.youtube.coms.

This link will be available on the agenda for each meeting which is posted on the board website and on the bureau public board at least 48 hours prior to each meeting. It's the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11:00 at any regular respective meeting of the board unless a motion is passed by the members as present to extend to a later specified cut off time and same shall be announced at the opening of each meeting. In addition, the board would nominate to begin a new hearing after 10 10 p.m. nor begin testimony of the new witness after 10:30 p.m. Any hearing conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. The quorum appropriated to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. It's now my privilege uh to swear in our new and returning members. I would ask the following board members to please stand and raise your right hand. Rich Trainer, John, our class one, excuse me, class three board member, John Liano, our class one mayor's designate. Andrew Malia, our class two board member, and James Sasso, our class 4 board member. Please repeat after me. I state your name. I, James, do solemnly swear. We solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States

and the State of New Jersey in the state of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to same allegiance to the same and to the government established in the United States and in this state and to the government established states and under the authority of the people the authority of the people and that I will faithfully faithfully impartially and justly impartially and perform all the duties of the office of planning

according to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability to grant preferential treatment to grant preferential treatment nor to seek Personal gain receipt. Personal gain. Favor or advantage. Favor or advantage. Not available to the general public. So help me God. So help me. Welcome and welcome back. [clears throat] If we can have a roll call, please.

Yes. Um one thing if I could just after we could just pass them down to the file. Thank you. Mr. Dearos here. Geller present. Mr. Gr here. Mr. Malia here. Mr. Morrison here. Mr. Sasso here. Mr. Strainer here. And Mr. Piano here. We have

it's now our privilege to call for nominations for the chairperson through calendar year 2026. So I would nominate Bob Graham for the chairperson. I have a second. Any further nominations? Seeing and hearing none, we will close the nominations. And it's my privilege to man the figurative ge I'm sorry I did not have a vote. Thank you. [laughter]

I couldn't get written to gle slick enough. My I think it was that opening statement that took 10 minutes. Uh the um can we have we have a nomination? We have a second. Can we have the boy quote by acclamation since it's uncontested? Is that what you need? We have nomination in a second. Voice votes. So all in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Now we have an election. Now the gong and congratulations.

Um so nominations for vice chairman. I'd like to nominate Joe Deco vice chairman again. Second. Any any other nominations? I have none. So you can close the nominations and you have a nomination. Basically must have a second. So it'll do voice. All in favor? I any opposed? thought about it. [laughter]

Welcome to the life. Now, appointment of the professionals, the administrative officer and the newspapers section. Bob, if I may, we may have that there as E, but then in H, the resolutions basically take care of each of those items. So if you want to uh add they take the resolutions in H take care of E, F and G. But if you want to just run seven resolutions separately under H, we'll have covered everything. And uh we just have a selfison plan, right? Yeah. For today.

Yeah. So if you want to just start with the resolution number one well the meeting calendar then I mean yeah I'm saying that that'll be covered if you look at H. Oh just as we do H1 you go through seven under H'll cover E. All right. I'm going to make a request we change your connection if you're okay. So, we do need a um um a resolution with or I guess all of them or we need a vote on each one.

Well, we we should vote on each one. So, the first one, resolution number 2026-01 for planning board attorney. That's all I can say about that one. Roll call. I mean, there resolution. I'll move that one. Second. Okay. Roll call. Mr. DeMarco. Yes. Miss Geller. Yes. Mr. Graeme. Yes. Mr. Malia. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Sasso. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Vilipiano? Yes. Thank you all. You are. Okay.

Thank you. It's a privilege to continue to serve. I appreciate it. Then I would move the resolution for the engineering expert for Steve. Second roll call. Mr. DeMarco. Yes. Miss Gall. Yes. Mr. Gra. Yes. Mr. Million. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Sato. Yes. M. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Yes.

Thank you very much. I'll just continue if that's okay. I would move the next resolution for plan and expert for Allison Fehey of the law of the firm Burgess Associates. Second. Okay. I second. Yes. Miss Geller. Yes. Mr. Graeme. Yes. Mr. Malia. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Sato. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Vipiano? Yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. On behalf of the firm, thanks for having us back and Allison is looking forward to hearing. Thank the administrative officer provided by the burrow as the to continue mission. Second. Welcome. Thank you. Mr. Demarco, yes. Miss Geller, yes. Mr. B. Yes. Mr. Malia. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Bill. Yes. Thank you all.

And Mr. Chairman, if I may or anyone moves the next resolution 2026-5 official new papers. I did already give a change proposed to Denise. I wanted a verbal to put it on the record because it may save us may save us the need to modify uh the resolutions in the future given a statuto change last year with respect to notice uh for public entities to notice. so gladly impose acceptable to the board. It agrees be it resolved that the Burnsville News and Courier News be designated official newspapers for the year uh publishing all notices for applications and other matters before the board which is true and should remain as is. But I thought it best to add thereafter as of March 1, 2026, the board will be publishing legal notices on the burough website at the uh www. website for our bureau pursuant to public law 2025 chapter 72. That's the statutory change uh that occurred last year that takes into effect or excuse me become particularly effective on March one for all municipalities uh as well as the subsidiary agencies including land use boards. So notice of adoption and the like uh come March one will be posted on the website by by our

instead of the papers in addition or instead

here it can here's how it worked in a nutshell uh for January and February have to keep doing it in the papers or the online public uh news papers or news organizations um but as of March 1, we have to do it on the website. There's a variety of other regulations. Discretionary, the bureau, the boards can continue to do both the website and the newspapers, the news publications after March 1, but must do it on the website on March 1. I do not know what the burough's decisions uh let alone, but I suspect our boards may wish to follow what the burrow does. I don't know if they're going to choose to do the discretionary additional publication on the news public news news line or not. Maybe others do know. Um but certainly um we will have to and they will have to come March one published on the website.

We're going to do whatever keyword fiscal responsibility makes sense to me. We we may do the same. I think at that point it probably look just through the website but I don't want to use now they're making ground where you could instead of the current legal notice method you provide a summary legal notice in the papers that just says these are the matters and go to the website you know what they are doing without the statute requires all municipalities twice a month January through December of 2026 to in one of the official newspapers state the fact that all notices will be on the website.

Okay. Uh and to have if I recall correctly a direct link in the website all on the in the paper. So there is a a year-long transition and a link to the state website

and a link to the state DCA's website hyperlinks. there's I've got a nice little packet of all the things that we have to do in our municipalities uh over the course of this year, but ultimately I think it shouldn't weigh in on this. But uh I I think it's not a bad idea uh that the municipalities and the board and other subsidiary agencies will be able to do it on the website. I think that might actually make sense uh and and be more fiscally respons responsible for these counties as well. Hey Steve, and that's where everybody looks now, don't they?

Steve, one other change just to that resolution. The first paragraph says Beville News and Courier and then the second paragraph just refers to the Beville News. Thank you.

Okay. So, so if uh the board is amendable, uh you can move second and roll a call for vote resolution 202605 official newspapers with that. [clears throat] I'll move it to modified. Second roll call. Mr. DeMarco, yes. Miss Gallard, [clears throat] yes. Mr. Graham, yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Morrison, yes. Mr. Sasso, yes. Mr. Trainer, yes. And Mr. Philippian, yes. The motion carried

on the schedule any word? Uh no, try to um avoid holidays and do uh similar to what we did last year. Um for example this month that it's just the one meeting July and August um we started last year just scheduling one meeting um as council does and the board of adjustment has done the same and then around the holidays the same thing in November with the holiday and in December with the holidays there are one meeting each of those.

Okay. So you were able to logically handle each of the dates. There was no like one or whatever. No, no, there weren't. Um, and we didn't have any um on our regular days, we didn't fall into any holidays that were, you know, accomplish. So, yeah. Okay. The 2027 New York meeting is noted. So I just had one comment to chat team anyone wants but could we move the starting time up to 7:30 today um just we don't

I know two things one I think we can accomplish more if there's a long meeting we get somebody done in one night and I think most of the meetings I attend start at 7 I don't know the time we're at 7:30 is fine but I think starting at 7 works yeah and it would help administratively you know they get theoretically if everything were the same they just get off earlier so half hour

yeah as well I should was thinking about that the same thing today that there's something that extra half hour But can everyone make it from work? Yes. The only uh if we're going to make that change now, of course, we will have to republish. Uh Oh, you haven't published. Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. No, no, we haven't. I'm sorry. We haven't published yet. We're publishing after. We can make that change. No, I sometimes I do it in December when get ahead of it. I do it.

I'm fine with the meeting schedule with the start time at 7. Second. Roll call. Mr. Demarco. Yes. Miss Geller. Yes. Mr. B. Yes. Mr. Malia. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr.

Yes. We got one question on that. Um, not that impact my vocals. So then would that mean that the [clears throat] limit that we have imposed by email meetings have to end by a certain time? Would every be shifted up by half an hour? Not really. Okay. So we're allowing for half an hour more time.

Yeah. Yeah. And sometimes we'd be stuck where that extra half an hour somebody get finished and and the expert finished and makes sense.

It's 12:00. Yeah, those are brutal. All right. The uh readoption of readoption of the bylaws and I'm going to have to make a quick modification now on that one because the bylaws do provide for 7:30 p.m. start time. So I expected be during that 7 p.m. start time to modify our bylaws. We do have a 7:30 p.m. start time also for regular subdivision committee meetings and evaluation committee meetings. I don't know how often those occur or they're in our bylaws.

I just make everything seven. We'll change everything to seven in the bylaws and uh think anything else. But I had checked previously to see if anything needed to be changed in the bylaws. It didn't until we made this start time change. So that would be the only change I would recommend. Okay. Motion

motion to adopt the bylaws with the amendment to a start time of 700 p.m. for all meetings. Second roll call. I'm sorry for the second. Thank you. Mr. DeMarco, yes. Miss Geller, yes. Mr. Graham, yes. Mr. Malia, yes. Mr. Marin, yes. Mr. Sassa, yes. Mr. Trainer, yes. and Mr. Delina. Yes, the motion carries.

So, that concludes our uh we do a motion to close the reorganization and open regular meeting and we don't have to repeat everything. We can go right to our items. Do we have to do the evaluation in subdivision committee points? Did we uh I think the evaluation sounds good today focus on the master plan

subdivision committee my guess is probably no need and I don't see a lot of minor subdivisions coming through these days um but evaluation good we We can appoint the chair can appoint uh brief we don't do we need to do it in this meeting or can we says that in a regular meeting but probably can we can probably move to we'll just just agree to do it later if you want take the time to make sure people won't you know people up the glow is worn off so

we could schedule that for the next Sounds good. Make make sure the appointees are accepting each appointment.

All right. So, we're concluding. We have a motion second voice. It's fine to close the reorg and open the uh rating to close the reorg. All in favor? I any oppose and and another one to reop. No, no, no. That's what that was. That's how I interpreted it. That's what I had. Okay. No meeting minutes, no communications. We do have bills. Some of the bills.

Yes. So the bills typically come four to six weeks later than the time period and public meetings.

Make a motion. That would be a roll call vote since it involves the Spanish department. Yeah. Total for this month is $4,7325. So we have a motion to pay this month's bills totaling $4,725. Second.

Mr. DeMarco. Yes. Miss Geller. Yes. Mr. Graham. Yes. Mr. Malia. Yes. Mr. Morrison. Yes. Mr. Sasso. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Yeah. Just board member Geller. The the invoice states that welcome December on this for services in September. Services. Oh. Oh yeah. Well, that's again and sometimes certain professionals feel a little bit, you know, let Yeah, I just happened to know a few times since that.

Okay. Is anyone who's visiting here for matters that are not before us tonight? So, if you're here for something other than VRO 73, you're welcome to come down and ask whatever you like. See none. Okay. So, we're now to the main event, which is public hearings. Um, and we have 73 LLC at 69 Mber Road, block 77 lot 9. It's application. SP22. Mr. Chairman, if I may, as council getting ready to provide the opening, I did have an opportunity to review the active improvement service and publication of notice. I found the notice to be sufficient content and the number to be finally served. Certified mail on January 2nd, published on January 3rd. Both of those dates are at least 10 days prior to this evening. So please decide the application.

Thank you. Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board, board professionals. Frederick Zel postpollock on behalf of the African East 73 LLC. This is regarding 69 mine brick roads block 77 lot 9 located in your BC downtown corridor zone. Uh this is the application of beastro 73 for preliminary and final site plan approval with a parking variance for the subject property. The applicant operates beastro 73 a restaurant on the adjacent property which is 73 road block 77 lot. uh certain of the applicant principles to a different LLC are under contract to purchase the subject property conditioned upon this application being successful. First floor of the building located on the property uh presently hosts a martial arts center and the second floor host residential apartments for which no changes are proposed. The applicant wishes to convert the first floor into an auxiliary dining room with associated restrooms etc to be used as an events venue and smaller wedding receptions and other social gatherings. This venue will be serviced by 73 dies kitchen. There would be no kitchen added to the subject body. By way of history, the applicant's existing restaurant has been the subject of three prior applications before this board. The res included in our materials. In 2015, the applicant obtained site plan approval for outdoor dining. 2017 uh the applicant obtained amended site plan approval for out uh device for different outdoor dining. In 2022, the applicant plans site plan approval to convert temporary COVID related outdoor dining into permanent outdoor dining and to construct a third story to house two additional apartments. The ladder was not actually uh empty. Currently, pursuant to the aforementioned site plan approvals, lot 873 uh hosts a 90 seat indoor restaurant on the first floor, a seasonal covered atrium with 40 seats, and a seasonal outdoor dining area, patio area also with 40 seats for a total outdoor dining of 80 seats. All located between a

building located on lot 8 and the subject building. So, those areas are on lot eight, but physically in between the two buildings. The events dining room proposed for the subject bill would have seating of up to 40 and would be serviced as I said by the VRO 73 kitchen. When this venue would be in use, no more than 50 seats would be in use on lot by indoor and outdoor in order to maintain the maximum seating of 90 permitted under the prior site plan approvals uh due to there being limited parking available as the subject property has no on-site parking. This application is seeking the following relief preliminary and final site plan approval. the operation of a 40 seat social events venue on the first floor of the building on the subject lot. Secondly, parking variance and this is effectively to adopt the relief granted to lot 8 and the prior site plan approvals for the reasons set forth therein as the total amount of seating will remain capped at 90 between the two lots. So, we're not anticipating any actual changes in uh use in terms of number of people in terms of seating, nothing like that. It's just where they're physically going to be seated might now be on lot 69 either solely or in conjunction with lot 7 number 73. My sole witness this evening is a breeze a principal the applicant and a general manager of vastro 7 unless anyone has questions for me and I would ask that Mr. degree should be sworn in

and I'll swear in our voice confessional this morning as we do for every hearing your right hand truth the whole truth and nothing but do thank you please proceed Mr. Bishia, for the record, would you please give us your name and address? A from [clears throat] Bisha, 20 Gold Boulevard, Baskinbridge. And just for the record, spell your last name, please. B E R I S H A Bisha. And this would be self-explanatory, but what is the address of Beastro 73? 73 Mine Brook Road. Okay. And what is your relationship to Beastro 73 LLC?

I'm the majority owner again for 23 years. And that property, lot A, is owned by Helil and Zoj, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. That's correct. It's an LLC as well. Yes, it is. And what's your relationship to that entity? So, I'm also the landlord of the property. So, you're you're a member of that LLC that owns the property? Yes, I am. Okay. And Beastro 73 is a tenant of that. That's correct. Okay. Uh what is 69 Mine Brook LLC? That is across from our patio, the building next door to us, which uh Jim Quan owns. Okay. So, are you a member of 69 Mindbrook LLC? I am not. You're not? Are you going to be? That's my goal. Okay. Just to be clear. That's the goal.

Let's not confuse with the current. 60 69 Mine Brook LLC is intended to own that property ultimately. Yes. If this is a proven seed, that is correct. Okay. You are or will be a member of that LLC group. Yes, sir. Okay. There we go. Okay. And again, so 69 Mineberg LLC is under contract to purchase lot 9. Is that correct? That is correct. Uh but it's conditioned upon approval tonight.

That's right. Okay. Let's discuss the current operation of Beastro 73. Uh can you describe the act, the atmosphere, the type of quality of the fair that's offered? Describe the restaurant. It is a Bible be which we will remain that will. It's a American beast Italian influence takeout [clears throat] and we do events and alcohol. Um, not a fast served restaurant, a full as a sit down. It is a little quicker pace because it is a by so it is a quick and pace restaurant. Yeah. But yeah, more fine dining. Now, how many dining rooms? Let's stick with the building for now. How many dining rooms do you have? There are two dining rooms inside. Okay. And what is the seating capacities of each of those?

One is 50 in the back area. The front area seats 40. So that's the total of 90. Yes. And the board's going to hear that number 90 quite a bit today. Yeah. Yes. And now tell us what's outside on line 8.

Okay. So, we have the patio that's in between uh the atrium and the building. So, you walk outside from the side door, you enter the patio seating. Then, if you go further in, you have the atrium which retracts and uh we serve out there as well. And patio is only seasonal. We do serve all year long in the atrium itself. It is heated uh not adequately enough but it's heated enough we still when it's very cold. That is an actual building with walls and so forth. Absolutely. Okay. It closes. It opens. Yes.

And we discussed the prior approvals in 1517 and 22. Uh, and primarily because of parking, the board has limited you to a total use of 90 seats at any given moment. Is that correct? That is correct. And just to be clear, and we'll repeat this a lot, that's intended to stay in place even if this is approved tonight. Yes, it is. My kitchen can handle them more anyway regardless, but that's 90 seats yet. Um, and between the I didn't ask you, how many seats are there in the atrium? I have 40 seats in the in the patio, uh, there's another 40. And we can offset a little bit but you know 40 90 outside total which is in the season of I mean 99% of guests are selling. Okay. Yeah.

And so generally and you might have just answered the question but generally how do you you have 170 physical seats you're only allowed to seat 90. So how do you make sure that that is adhered to? Well again our kitchen only services all people. So we use uh certain uh dining rooms collectively at times like you know for all the cart of course. So but again in the season the vast majority are outside and but do you do make do you make sure that at no time more than 90 we use the back row we don't use the front dining area or we use the atrium collectively 90 seats. Yes. Okay. And aside from the restaurant, what does 73 mind? What does that building include? [clears throat]

There are two tenants upstairs. Two apartments. One is my mom and the other is our two employees that work downstairs. Okay. And where do tenants for 73 park residential tenants in our back partner and that is not allowed to be used by customers? That's correct. It's only for tenants and employed. So that's the next question. Where do your employees park the same in our partner? And now where do your patrons park your customers? Uh street parking they park in the uh train station as well. Uh there was mention in the prior applications about an off-site parking lot to the south I believe on the hill. Is that generally not used by your customers?

Uh you know people free to go to but there are landing pump space at the train station. So and then right across the street they marked their one day folks there. It's now currently um Bruce and Cole. Okay. I can make a request that the um but you're almost having a conversation with each other which is nice but I want to make sure that Mike is picking up everything you're saying and also everybody here can hear everything you're saying. So if you could speak up a little bit we can provide testimony questions and answers.

Are you experienc currently have you been experienced any problems with lack of parking or shortage of parking? There has not been a problem. No. Uh just uh one last question on 73. How is trash disposal handled for the restaurant? We have two dumpsters in the back of the restaurant. One for the cardboard and one for the trash. Okay. And how frequently are they picked up by the card company? Twice a week each. And has that been suspicion? Yes. Yes.

All right. Let's talk about the subject property. 60 mbrook 69 mine Brook Road. Uh what does that building currently contain? Yeah, two tenants upstairs, one in one, two apartments. Then you have the u the laundromat cafe. Then you have the typewondo and also uh the haircut shop [clears throat] as well. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the architectural plan. It's been submitted. I understand you didn't prepare it, but I'm not going to ask you anything technical. If you just take a look at the plan of these, by the way, for the record, this has not been changed at all since it was submitted. I will just know for the record, there are actually two versions of this sheet. They have no substantive difference, but they are labeled differently. One says electrical, one says proposed seating plan. Other than labeling, the only difference is the electrical shows the wiring. uh just to do a photo copy for the record this May 2125.

That is correct. Thank you. But yeah, both plans show the same seating area. We apologize. It's just we ended up with two different varians. So you each have one of those two. But again, other than showing wires in the electrical plan, there's no difference with um Mr. Bisha, if you're looking at the plan now, showing seating in the rear of the building, bathroom facilities, correct? And then in the front, there's an indication on the proposed seating plan, it's labeled existing tenant, misspelled, but existing tenant. I just want to make sure.

So, these are the architectural plans. bottom right if it says proposed seating plan the area I'm asking about says existing tenant spelled t n t the electrical version I think it says what the midnight salon yes I think that's will that space continue to be occupied by a tenant or will you be taking that space over as well it will be continued as a tenant that it will continue right now currently it's what kind of salon is a barber two chairs there and for the foreseeable future it would say that. Yes.

Okay. Looking now at the area in the rear uh showing seating for 40. Am I correct in assuming that because this is a event type space this configuration is conceptual um depending on the event you might have table set up horseshoes formations or what have you. configuration will be different at times according to what's going on parties or all the cart but for the record there will never be more than 40 in that space that is correct and continuing on with the rest of the building what is upstairs there are two tenants is one tenant um on each apartment so two resident two residence apartments

are they single bedroom or two bedroom I think they're I think one's a studio one is a single bedroom okay and you have no plans plans for changing that. I do not. Okay. Access to those are the stairs or what's how do the tenants get access to their There's one staircase that goes uh to the salon and also the tenants have the same staircase that the upstairs the residential tenants and that's the only there's only one staircase. There's only one staircase upstairs. Now I'm going to ask you to go to the next plan. Unless board members have questions about this plan to do that. Let's flip and go.

I had do you know what the fire capacity limits on each of the two? Well, I guess certainly you know where it is. Do you know that? I don't. I don't. Quick question on the new door into the the new space. Is that going to be handicap accessibility? You have a different leveling from the patio. It will be. It will be handicap accessible. And I actually meant to call that out. So, um, is that as I understand it is the only physical construction you intend to do as part of this project is adding that door. Is that correct? A doorway from the patio into 69 Brook. Yes. And it's side entry into between the patio and the atrium.

That's correct. And that is shown on the plan labeled area of new opening verified field. Is that right? That's correct. And that well we'll get into questions about that. Any other questions about the actual plan at the moment? Go ahead. So the main the new side entrance the main entrance though will be from the street uh that's sort of the top there. Yeah. The main entrance from 202. Yeah. Yes. That's like cuz that there is a double door there. Entrance. That is the main entrance here. Yes. And then that between your double door entrance till you get back to the tables, that's going to be kind of like a waiting area.

It is waiting, you know, no bar obviously, but waiting or uh perhaps service station of some sort, you know, but no one will be seated there. Yeah, that's where the the the front desk is studio now. That's correct. That's correct. So, would there be like a code there? Is that Yeah, definitely. definitely be a problem, a service area of some sort at the rear of the new, you know, 69. Those steps up to the back of the

They are up there to the outdoor area. And did you say that the patio exists or does not exist today? The outdoor patio between them? Yes, the outdoor patio behind There is uh let's just be fair. You ask about behind 69. Yes. I think he he use that for storage. What I see is he has storage that that he uses out there, but I didn't use anything else. Yes. You have no intention to use the patio for any part of the restaurant? No. No intention. No one's going to sit in the back patio. Absolutely not.

You're not going to open it up and utilize it at any time. No. Smoking. Nothing. That's what they wanted to hear. [laughter] We're not even utilizing an X-ray. Is that primarily for emergency? Yes. Regress? I guess it is. And where's the trash pickup for this building? So, [sighs and gasps] he had uh Jim Khan has he doesn't have a dumpster back there. He has like multiple garbages, right? And it's directly behind the building where that patio is, right? How will you be handling trash removal for the Bankford Museum?

Well, that will be continue using where it's currently behind BTO 73, right? Thumpers. So, your staff will be removing trash from the building, taking it over to 73 and putting those down. Absolutely. There will be no individual trash cans behind 69 m. It's going to be all dumpsters away from the building. Will the uh trash disposal for the tenants upstairs and for the barber shop continue to be on 69? Will we incorporate those over to 73 as well? I'll incorporate those behind 73. Okay. Yes. All one area.

Are the are the So I see the two restrooms. Are those shared with the barber shop? I see that there's a door that you're in the bathroom. I noticed that as well. So, uh they whoever t the customers or the barers themselves, they use those bathrooms. Yes. Or the bathroom. They were there already. Yes. Will there just uh wonder will there be uh a door or something to keep anybody from going from the barber shop through that restroom area back to your space? There'll be some sort of separation. Yes. So you mentioned um the 40 seats.

Yes. And I understand you're you have referenced globally 90 seats in all those different spaces. So do you mean to say you would never have more than 40 people in here? I mean is that Well 90 people total like 90 people entirely in this dining area. That's Yes. That's the goal. If if you're not seating, if you can fit 90 people in there and everything else is closed, your lawyer said you're not going to have more than 40. No, and it's not that large. Just more, but yes, no more than 40. There's still That is correct. That is correct.

If I may, Mr. Chair, just to I just wanted to point out a question related because if I read the addendum to the planning board application correctly, it said when the venue would be in use, no more than 50 seats would be in use on lot 8, which I mean then it would just max out at 40 elsewhere. Um, but that was a little bit different than what was just answered to board member Geller's question. So maybe we can clarify that. No. 50 for eight. Then did they ever intend to take that 90?

Yes. Take take the 90 and have 60 people because lawyers limiting. So we basically we have there's two limitations. One is 40 for this building period. No exceptions to it. And then 90 globally. 90 overall. on the overall with the 50 spread out the different line. So, so in theory, if they were maxed out on on 69 Mine Brook, they could have 50 seats spread across the other four venues, the two indoor, two outdoor, probably not likely to be spread out like that, but possibly. I mean, you stretch out the staff

and then which is not good. and also the kitchen cannot handle. And just to to restate your kitchen capacity that you were comfortable with operated with even though you've had more than 90 seats available to you, your kitchen could never really service that at the level. It's it's really difficult. You know what it they get to a point where we know what we can handle and that is the maximum capacity. But you know we do a couple seings too. you're coming in customers earlier early time they're leaving no one's coming in so we know what we can do we can accommodate including the front of the house staff as well

but I'm saying I just for comfort of everyone right even though there's available space yes the kitchen makes the size of the kitchen and the type of restaurant you run make it impossible to take advantage of that excess space that is correct we don't take advantage even if you wanted to even wanted is always going to happen. Okay. Is it always going to happen? Just wanted to say a different way. Yes, Mr. Brian. I think this goes without saying, but the reason that we say seating is because 90 seated at any given time, we're not suggesting that you're capped off at 90 people to go through your doors between opening and closing. Understood. Yeah. Just making sure the board understand. Yes. Yes. Yes. Of course.

I would I mean, I'm listening to your testimony and and obviously going to trust it. I'm I'm also cognizant that in the area that in the new area because it's an event space there is the potential to have buffets you know buffet which increases the capacity of the kitchen by serving in a buffet format. So listening to you you say they're only going to be 40. They're saying the kitchen's the limit. That's the testimony. that were that were like why cap it at 40.

You know, it's really the service issue between our servers on the floor where it's impossible to cover all the space. We have 95% of our servers are full-time. We have a couple part-times. So, we know that what our capacity is as far as we can what we can handle properly. If we fill up not even all the space, 60 70% of all total seats that we have, it's impossible to handle it. It can't do it. But why not just say the total capacity is 90?

Yeah, it is total capacity is 90. But why why say there's 40 in this new space? Well, I noticed I noticed I noticed space size also for you know I mean stop have you looked at I went there a couple times and see and I saw the room. I mean right now it's kind of really wide open so it's hard to grasp exactly but stretching the staff as far as we can and also the kitchen can only handle so many seats covers. No, I yeah I

this new room at 69 from your perspective is the comfort level of people enjoying themselves. So the type of things you have is that 40 person limit. It's a 40 person 40 person quality. If you want to do quality, yes, if you want to do quality, good. If you don't, then it doesn't make sense. But that's what we want to do. The capacity 40 there. Just to double down, the 40 capacity is more based on the actual seating arrangement. Sit down people seated in there, right? That's why it's 40. You couldn't fit any more tables in there if you wanted.

That's right. And also, it it can be in different configurations as well, not just like these individual. Uh but the capacity [clears throat] of five room from what I've seen if you do more than 40 it not is you're not going to be comfortable it will you will not be comfortable in the front lobby I've said it many times at a tight one health test [laughter] so you're bringing food in through the new side door is that accurate is that correct so one other note too right um you' said that the the front double doors of the current taekwond do would be an entrance as well as well. There are stairs as soon as you walk in there too which I don't believe are handicap accessible.

No, that one is not. And honestly looking at it because our clientele is so familiar with our restaurant. The vast majority come through our front door. They see the hostess and then we take him wherever we take him patio or the atrium or the back room. Uh so that side door off the patio say proposed new entrance the vast majority is going through there. I don't think you know it's that's the way to to get into our restaurant you have to come see the hostess then we're going to seat you accordingly. So that front door is probably hardly ever going to be used. So even event folks coming for the events are going to go through 73 initially.

They do. Everyone comes inside because that's where the entrance the main entrance is. So everyone comes through there then we just just shoot them where like it will be through through the patio door if you want to go outside. So for for events like let's use weddings as an example. Let's say that the wedding party wants to book your entire facility and they might say this space in question here is the dance floor but other people are going to be eating in the other. So you're never going to see 90 but hypothetically as the night goes on 90 people will wind up going this space on the dance floor. Is that

No, that won't happen because when we design an event, they have one space and they have a room fee that they pay for that and that's how we do. We do whatever venue you choose, whatever venue you use, that's where your party is. You can't do scallop different. You can't find the place out and then everybody filters into one end. Yep. We don't do that. We don't do that. The door seems to be too conservative for the what you're going to send through it all the people and your food as well. Just just reconsider that. Um you got a lot of it's really a critical door. Got a lot of stuff going through. So make sure it's white.

Yeah. Make sure it's or whatever. That's my intent. They don't because they came and I told them what I wanted what I wanted. But it has to make sense. Absolutely comfortable. as possible. Say, you know, you know, you got to deal with the the level of the door, right? Remember your big patio you had was just a couple inches. Yes. You got to think about that. That's true. All right. That's correct. So you're saying that the hair salon or the barber shop that that door that's there would be used exclusively by the barberh shop staff not by the patron

and the tenants the tenants have a little no initially coming off the street I'm referring to if you're coming off the street you're not going into the the door that's the little door that's connected to the bar shop the You see where the bathrooms are, right? You'll see where the hair salon is. Correct. Mhm. There's a door right there. That door is only going to be used by the barber shop.

Yes. By the barber shop. There's two of them. So one entrance access to the access to the tenant the the patrons of the barber staff will have access to right that that's what I asked Mr. of the law before will the will the final end of it be blocked so people can't get back understand it's essentially for the benefit of the trusted tenant to use for the back door and that's that's access to the basement right that

there is a staircase to go into the basement yes now does the airont ever go to the basement for anything? You know what? I I know her and uh what she told me is just Jim Juan has stories out there. It's never used for Yeah, that's all that's what she told me.

You have more to I have more questions. I think I'll be breezing through a lot of them because we've covered a lot of it already. Uh before I do though, I just want to have him look at the engineering plan really quickly just to confirm for the record the reason for one that's got more detail. What do you got? This is one prepared by a associates the date is May 23rd. I don't see a revision date. Correct. give it as a b or something like it's this is part of your package. So sheet 101 only is 23 correctly.

Yeah. And Mr. Bisha, just to be clear, this plan shows both uh lots eight and n. It shows 73 and 69, right? Yes, it does. It shows the patio area uh in the front closest to the sidewalk and then the atrium behind. Correct. And then shows the proposed um conceptual seating is slightly different, but it shows uh seating area proposed for 16. That's correct.

Okay, that's all. I just want to make a record since we don't have the engineer here. All right. So you've indicated that the event patrons in 69 will not be using the patio or the atrium. That is correct. Okay. You describe this a little bit, but how do you anticipate the staff members getting from the kitchen in 73 to the venue? Same way you go to the patio or the atrium, the same side door. So whether you go um to the patio, depending what's going on, or the atrium or the proposed use. Okay.

Through that door through through the patio and then through the new door into 16. That's correct. Okay. You're not proposing any new landscaping for either property as part of this application. Is that right? No. No landscaping. Okay. Uh other than any safety lighting that might be required in connection with the new door, you're not proposing any new lighting. Is that correct? I'm not on either side. No, I'm not. Okay. How about signage? any types of signs 69 in the front of the building. I have to put a um a sign out for the restaurant. Whatever is required is what we're going to do. So, we'll comply with whatever sign regulations apply. Absolutely.

Okay. I'm just going to confirm just for the record. Uh we are here this evening seeking preliminary and final site plan approval and a parking variance for 69. Um that request is said as I said at the beginning though is effectively to apply the existing parking variance to this building because there's no additional parking on this site and there will be no additional customer count as a result of this site being utilized. Is that is correct?

I have nothing further for Mr. Brerian legal question. If we approve this, it's based on the fact that they will have effectively the same amount, different ownership. But if BR73 is sold or this space is sold, you can't have this travel, this used travel with the the property because it's tied to the requirements and the variances here. So the approval has to say if this is no longer tied to the restaurant, they can't use this as an event space.

We cannot limit the ownership or upkeeping, but we can tie the approval together um and including the parking uh limitation stipulation uh together. So that they would have to function in that way. Um, and if I may, it's tied to the kitchen as well. There's no kitchen facility. We'll have to have the appropriate stipulation. So there's no kitchen facility. I just want to make sure down the road this doesn't have the ability to operate as an event space

separate separate separate apart from because this won't have parking to accommodate it if it's separated from

what once joined they cannot be separated that exists the variance doesn't get bifurcated and broken between the two for the bar it's going to be it's effectively going to be a joint variant. We've been I think it would be appropriate soon approval for either the resolution as a whole or a deep restriction with the appropriate conditions reference to be recorded in the county clerk's office so that every any subsequent purchasers of ether are on notice of the restrictions the parking restrictions etc. also of the restrictions on what I consider coming together if you will

because it'll be grandfathered. There's somebody I I'm not trying to I'm just looking down the road. Um I mean I I've I've personally witnessed I' I've been out and watch the lights go out at 9:00 while people are still sitting there. um that you have been following. But if you separate these, this is someone can argue this is brand five and I don't theoretically they could have an event space without food, what have you. But the the uh that's so we would have to we would as I understand it the representation is being made that these are going to function in combination. parking limitation is tied the two are tied together would be well

what do we clearly have to define a use then because it's this comes up if a new senate new will be a new use and it would it's not a restaurant in other words it's this 69 it's as you say event space or whatever but there would be some usage code for this space as long as it's a permitted use state yeah but it would be there would be a use and we should establish you know that what that use is because if someone were to then say, "Well, I do want to put a restaurant there." You'd say, "Well, if it if it were a split," you'd say, "Well, it's not a restaurant today, so it's it's subject to all of the zoning."

But you can say it's an event space, then I can bring in hot plates and continue and that can happen. If this were to split, that would potentially this doesn't get to continue without we can add a stipulation that I think helps with this overall issue which is that in the event the uh those using the event space were to self-cater bring their own food what have you would still then be reduced to 50 and we could have something in there

this not viable business fantastic comes [clears throat] in and says that Ben space and I 40 people back there and have birthday parties and have pizza delivered and people in there Right. And there is no parking that's separate use. It's a dependent. Right. Language needs to say that it's very permitted provided that it is always part of the nating properly and that should it ever separate that the variance doesn't carry forth. So if they're not right the basics for the variance no longer exist. We we're in full agreement with that and I just got to work with

Can I ask this stupid question? So arguably right now it's currently an event space, right? I mean Taekwond do go on a weekend or you go for the belt things there. I mean what are the parking requirements for that? It could be a 100 people in that room watching the these belt things which will be much less than what they're going to have. Well, I don't have a problem with what what Easter 73 wants to do, right? And and and again, they have complied with the requirements for seating for what they have now. I'm just saying that down the road if the if if they saw this and

in come back to let them know what they're doing as opposed to grand for it and ever got a set. That could certainly be a condition that we would stipulate to and we have no objection to reporting the resolution for this. I'd rather not go into a deed restriction because it's more just recorded by it satisfied, right? I agree.

There has to be that nexus that time. Yeah. Anything else? [clears throat] I'm sorry. Board member questions. I might have had a couple looking after prior revolutions, but uh is there I guess music speakers? I know this is busy. We're not out there, but what's what's planned for the event space as far as speakers or music? Is it just going to be dying or will there be live music or it will not be live music or

speakers just just like we have right now we have a sonar system in the outdoor yeah outdoor and in the atrium as well and uh we will apply that to the same thing as 69 Brook it's the same is goes out through the building so if if uh you're having a wedding reception and they want some kind of live no we don't do that okay we don't do that Okay, I'm just I'm sorry. You said there's speakers in the for the outdoor. There are there are speakers in the back.

And 73 there are speakers. We had we had a condition you already we modified our original no shall refrain from installing speakers and shall not provide any outdoor entertainment music. Yeah, because it was outdoor. Oh, the atrium is okay. The I thought you said the patio. Well, it's outdoor. It's connected, but but not on Okay. Not on the pad. Yeah. Where the atrium is outdoor and especially when the the roof is open. I mean, it's not we're not blasting music. It's

back the um cover. We had a uh there was no new lighting, so it was shut off little sand.

Would the hours of operation be the same within the restaurant hours of operation? Same. It would be the same. Yes. All the same. I think just a general all the conditions for the first one apply to the right. Well, that yeah that I would have I wanted to see if there was any changes but uh obviously uh all prior approval conditions we sent out consistent with disapproval. If it is approved, we'll remain full course of that. Agreed. And I think that's all I have. Any other

I did have a couple questions. Um it's on the letter prepared by Bob under planning review. Uh number two there on the plants five parking but the testimony was like that customer parking either trans station on your own street. So indicate that you do not use the lot parking district says lot parking on plan. Oh lot five was an offsite. You're not using that parking lot. This is

page three of the December five report. Correct. Yes, that's section B plan review number two. And you have two slots right now that is in there two units. That is true. That is true. So we have that the plan be revised to eliminate that block by parking lot spaces once signature. I don't think well it was approved. I don't want to it's a practical matter. not use restricted against just another offsite parking, right? It it's it just may not have as much available as as was reported.

It's not put on the other. They may they may choose to do it. You know, people [clears throat] have an event space. They often hire a valet and and to have a valet have a spot nearby to the card. Who knows what the I would just leave it in. Yeah, you don't think you want to lose it. Clarify what you got. It's not quite 69 spaces yet.

You may need less for the parking situation. lot eight versus lot nine bother complexion that concur that if you are reducing martial arts due to this seating or reducing amount of parking do you really need parking burning specifically come I'll defer to our board planner attorney with respect to that I know there was some discussion relative to the parking and then items five uh five I signature B Box is you that as well as [snorts] seven and eight I believe opens there on six copies standard and having a signature open architectural plan. No objection to any technical appointment and test or excuse me condition number six testimony has been provided. So I just defer to our

I guess I'll provide some more information then we can perhaps arrive at a solution there. So um to the point that the uh existing Marco art studio occupies the space in New estimated the floor area to be about 1,800 to 2,000 square ft which dictates the parking requirements of the mart's use is considered a recreationally used part of the code and parking requirement for such use as one space per 250 ft. So I've estimated a parking requirement of eight spaces for the u the space that's being converted to 40 seat event space. So right now that site has if you look at it as as almost an eight space parking spread. I do think the parking variance has to be transferred because when that portion of the building is occupied technically it's occurring on that site and it requires some amount of parking even though globally it's the same number of seats because you're you're tightening the property. I think the variance should be extended to that and specifically tied to the the restaurant use staff who receive seats as the resolution will will reflect and again I think that will alleviate the board's concerns that at some point in time the space is converted into something else that applicant would have to seek conditional relief presumably come back to the board unless it somehow applies probably wouldn't because there's no outside department so in all likelihood any subsequent use would come back to the board so that's probably the I think the way to handle Um, one question that I do have is that the plans indicate that there are nine spaces on site and when I count them they're back. I think I counted 11 probably sounds.

I don't think I was out there this today and I think those two spots behind the atrium are inaccessible. So there is nine if you don't count those two. Fair. But actually, this is just a suggestion, but if you want to squeeze in another parking spot, you switch if you turn those two spots that are behind directly behind the atrium 90 degrees and didn't use the spot next like right the third spot next to them. Yeah. You could actually get, you know, two usable spaces versus one essentially one use. You lose one usable space and pick up two. But it's total recommendation. It's, you know, I think how you stripe it is not how you stripe it. Makes sense. Yeah, it makes sense. Thank you.

Uh, in terms of the parking ratio, the one other recreation and so forth, if this were restaurant space, the the count compared to the count you gave, which is eight, I think, right? If this were restaurant space, it would be it would be 40 / 3, which is 13.3. round it up to 43 and I just wanted the number that's all even to the extent if there's any gray area as to whether parking require just to be conservative we're requesting it

later does I and I suspect not but at least not recently does 67 69 does 69 have um and 67 I guess they're together, right? Do they have any existing parking variances or parking requirements? They may have grandfather predated any of that requirement. But

well, there are requirements. I we don't have a record resolution that indicates prior relief. So, I think you would want to grant that. We have to come up with how we're going to quantify that. So, one way to do that is just to look at the totality of the uses. We could take out the restaurant space. We have to look at the salon use. We don't have all the floor plan, right? Um so that presents a bit of a challenge. Maybe the record can simply recognize the existing uses uh being apartments, the laundromat cafe, what I heard, as well as the salon or barber shop.

Well, the laundromat cafe is that even there anymore? Is it just a barber shop? I know there's barber shops front street barber shop and then you have a cafe laundromat on the 67 67 that's correct but that's not 69 that's a different lot though or is that your building that's 69 is with the laundromat is part of the 69 and is that going to continue it's going to continue so so it's the planner's recommendation that resolution at least calls out the other existing uses that will remain and that you know that's very important within

and demand by eliminating martial arts and saying that's but but that the the salon and the going to cafe are included in this department and they so they'll So it's mostly as we just said to acknowledge that we the fact that's there there is no existing we don't think there are any existing variances in place for 69

but do do we need to specify for the current uses and then if those uses change they have to um come back I'm not sure thank you the change. If there was a change intended, let's say for the laundrom of of what parking requirements they have.

Well, I think you have to grant the relief tonight and we can acknowledge there what's there today. Do you have a record moving forward and the owner officer or board moving forward can look at the record and make their decision based on it? I it still tracks back to your whole point that if this were to sever what would what would the situation be and being aware that we thought about what that situation would be but right now to your point this actually provides relief to building 69 it's taking a huge chunk of footprint out and saying you don't have to worry about

parking You said that I think that's however to the word smith that we just something in there reduced parking demand about eight space. So it's beneficial because it reduces inherently reduces parking demand because then type one is not going to be there but if it severs it it doesn't get it doesn't get carried uses. So if you're selling some both

any other I think we've covered everything else. Well just a comment I wonder someone's parking whether or not a loaning barrier has to be acknowledged. Obviously the restaurant's going to operate the same way the kitchen is not going to be relocated but because we're including an additional property abuse is expanding into that property. I just I question it if that bel is technically required even though I don't think the same reason as the parking bar would normally be required for the new for the subject for food loading. the kitchen is staying in the same place. Would that be applicable? I I'm I'm questioning. It might be a basis for the Yeah,

it's it's part of the new requirements for parking if this build a brand new building over here. It can be covered in the catch all for notice purposes. I think maybe be prudent unless we determine it's not required as Tom's looking uh that the applicant amend to ask for that voting states relief presumably if there's an approval if will be granted as part of that and it'll be reflecting the resolution and if I speak any slower maybe Tom will get the answer but he does I keep you know I'll keep going the the but you know they'll only let go for so long. But

there's not a reserved loading space. You know, the parking spaces in front of 69. One of them isn't a loading parking only. They'll relieve to the extent of the board to air on the side conservative will amend and request a loading variance as well.

Got it. And Tom, you had, if I may, you had some benefit for confirmation purposes. So on page two of your report, three of your report confirmation there's no additional landscaping, there's no additional lighting, uh describe the access plan. Steve, this doesn't rise to the point of needing any of those like ABC uh justifications for the

I think I think we might have heard from our planner that in his opinion uh the reduced parking may constitute a benefit public. When I say produce department be the reduced parking demand by virtue of the martial arts coming out and no art apparent additional parking obligation rising as a result of the 90 seat cap. So maybe that others are benefits in a C2 analysis for the board to consider. I can give the fin testimony but

well we're adopting intentionally adopted uh the the prior premise right the reasoning which was aster which was a C2 type approval to begin with but I guess you're going back to the 2015 varants 15 17 22 all three of them yeah back to the 2015 tools which had C2 varants believe granted by the board based That's how you were carrying it basically. But by the way, the planner discovered another beneficial one that didn't apply to the project. That's correct. Correct. But the prior one still exist.

Yes. So presumably if there's an approval I have a basis uh both historically an additional thing testimony and I'll understand from the board decision of which one to approve for purposes of memorializing the decision by resolution and setting forth the C2 basis for the park varant if that's what happened. All right. And so planners, I mean, our professionals are all the way through. Okay. So we can open it to the public. So uh both you want to do

there's only one way to ask, right? So you can do come on down if you have either a question or a comment or that and if you have a question we find if you have a comment we'll swear you just anyone in the public and is there still an X there's an X right door away on the end you anticipate your comment and you add um no actually my questions were addressed by the board in question. So, thank you for that. I just have a comment. Sure. If you could raise your right hand, you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. Sure. Name is Charles Homan. H O T S M A and I live at 26 Essex Avenue. Um I would like to express my concern about noise. Um so the question was asked and answered about live music. and that loud music does not occur. Um it does in fact occur um also DJs um and it is very loud at times when events occur at the atrium. Um and even sir on your website um up your patio you have a live singer and photo

those fine hold for now. No problem.

Consult with your attorney. Absolutely. Uh, also on numerous occasions, uh, the music and the party has gone beyond 10 p.m. Uh, calls to the restaurant have gone without action. The only time we ever had action was when we call the police department, if we burn it. Um, so I'd just like to express my concern about another event space, more live music or DJs, uh, and and the impact that has to the neighbors. That's all. Thank you. If I mad chair there there is for the benefit uh of the public uh they already know this but the state has the NJAC New Jersey Minister of Code section 7 column 29 governs uh noise 50 dBA at night which is after 10 to 6 or seven and then 65 dBA during the day. uh and we have an ordinance that is commensurate with that as it has to be in order to get PBP approval and be a valid noise ordinance at the local level. So those do exist and uh uh they are enforceable through the police or otherwise if need be. Um and so they don't have to stipulate to that they're governed by it's the law whether you stipulate abide by the law or not you're governed by the law. Um, so that just forformational purposes. Um, but other than that, I I leave it to the board as to how to address the concern.

I think it's a concern, you know, but yeah, you may get a sound meter or something. You got to keep making them aware of it. The police and and we we should look in into this. I'll look into it. But the uh because uh as a municipality we might have a noise control officer or someone designated as such or we can do this site. Um and I remember it was complex to actually conduct a sound complaint essentially. So maybe we should look under that. But it ultimately enforc compliance

foundation is there is beyond the jurisdiction of this board but it exists. The foundation exists but belong to sir can I so when you have a lot of noise or it's mainly when there's a party back in atrium which is mainly glass and then and opens up. Yeah. So, be show 73 is the intent of this when you're going to have an event like that to have it indoors in this masonry building first in the glass atrium that opens up.

It makes sense. And again, we do not hire live entertainment. We don't do that. But if that were the case, and it depends on the time, if that was the case, I would suggest definitely to have the party indoors in 69 month. Now, the say you don't do it. So you know there's a No, we do not provide don't have it. Oh, so anything.

Yeah, it's an opportunity. It's an opportunity to bring an event like that in indoors, but you'd say they pick their space in advance. So it's not like they could move on the fly. Um I think you just have to be more careful with the atrium. That's fair. like a speaker box there basically. you've got anything there that's going to you know and it's going to rise probably in the summer months when people are outside and they can hear it more and and the point isn't whether you provide them say if your guests are providing it's still true of any

please raise hand test. And your name and address, please. Anthony, could you please spell your last name, sir? M A R C O N I. And uh you can make a comment and if you want to correct the city, man.

Yeah, absolutely. Uh I'm just looking for a little more clarity on the offsite parking on parking lot 5. You know, that butts up very close to our house and with with venues, right? Some people can't always drive home but car park there overnight. Just trying to understand what the use case is there and is there going to be any way to prohibit more spots being used. It's an open parking lot monitor very lowly as is not taking care of there's track everywhere everywhere. So I'd not see more use help in that situation. So, our the whole point of our application is that our use is not expanding in terms of the number of customers. If there's issues with the parking lot, uh this is a town owned parking lot.

Yeah, it's a municipal parking lot at least. So, right. Yeah. So, you're talking about the the parking lot above the one that's municipal. I think that Wells Fargo has that arrangement with the Essex. Yeah. I think that's lot five and that Yeah. So, so that's lot five. Yeah, that's the Wells Fargo Wells Fargo is that non municipal. So we do not have Okay. But either way, we do not have any maintenance responsibilities with regard to that. So that's an issue that would have to come up with the owner of block five. And there's going to be no addition. So what what's the number of parking spots that you you know you guys lease today? I don't we're not leasing any, right? There's no lease anymore. There's going to be no parking up on parking lot.

There could be. We just we don't lease any specifically. And Mr. British's testimony is generally speaking parking is used train station street people. I never do generally use sounds very vague just trying to play. We believe he has the right to look to lock by for numbers of parking spaces. My understanding is there currently it's not really being used but it sounds like it's a lot that's used by other people as well not just be 73

and I I'm trying to pass today it's being used on five is or 73. So the testimony was that he believes his patrons don't use it at all, that they utilize the closer parking at the public train station and on street and at the commercial grade place. They do have right to park there if they wanted there. It was designated as a potential off street parking spot to deal with it as an option. Um

unlimited off. it was designated as a possible option. My understanding would be that [clears throat] that if they needed additional parking, they could then make it right here. So to be fully clear, if they have, you know, if they have 40 people coming for a small venue event and they wanted to park 40 cars on block five, they would have to deal with the owner of lot five to make those arrangements. And you're concerned about who currently uses lot five and the condition of lot are bets lodged with person who owns lot. Yeah, absolutely. So if they wanted to use lot five, will we be having another meeting about that or are they able?

No, they would go to the owner of lot five and to make that first. Okay. Appreciate the information. Y thanks everyone. Mr. Bisha, Mr. Mr. Gisha, just for the record, we do not have any formal agreement with lot 5 at this time. Is that correct? We do not. And you have not seen the need to do so so far? No, it's a far walk to to the restaurant. Just curious what how is the there was Somerset Pete and Grain before which was used either certainly used I don't know whether there was an arrangement that you had but do you have an arrangement with the lieutenant? guests are allowed to park there once once they close the shop at 5:00 p.m. And that's the arrangement. That's the arrangement.

Great. Is that just a verbal agreement with that? Not not during business hours for them. But after 5:00 p.m. when they close? Yes, they allow us to. Nice. Any other questions from the public or comments? What are you doing? I'm fairly 14 Wooden Road. 14 Wooden. Thank you. Could you spell anything, sir? Yes. P E R A L T A

raise your right hand. You swear to God our current testimony about again comments. Ask question. No testimony, but I'm just express my concern about the noise because um at the volume that's already currently is loud. I understand by the testimony tonight that it may be reduced because some of that will be indoor which that could be a good thing. But the um restaurant chosen many times to leave the roof open, doors open so traveling. I think it's a 36 inch shore that goes into that res new portion of the restaurant that um it's automatic closing that remain closed. So perhaps the noise didn't travel. I just want to let the board know that another neighbor concerned that the noise volume could get worse. That would be really something terrible for residents in my area. Um, I'm wondering too is could there be a dueling band effect because would there be um speakers and amplified music in the one venue and then also in the other venue at the same time? I don't know if that's something that's planned, but it's just something I thought of. I I wonder too, not that I I'm concerned or care about it, but I think relief was granted for 56 off-site parking and I wonder if the board had a count of where those parking spaces are. Um because without using lot and the grain and feed the grain and feed as far as I know when I've attempted to park there because I do some business of that area, the new owner comes out and says, "You can't park here." And I said, "But you're closed." Oh, you can't park here anywhere. Anyway, that's when he was moving in. He was very vigilant about not allowing people to park in his spaces. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

here. Summer.

Uh again, we are uh essentially piggybacking on lot 8's approvals uh for the exact same reasons that the board granted those in three consecutive resolutions. Uh there is no parking on lot 9. Uh there's no additional number of customers to be utilizing the new space on lot 9. It'll still be capped at 90. So mathematically, there should be no further demand uh for parking. as your planner has uh brought to our attention, there's actually a benefit of a reduction of required parking because now lot part of lot 9, a good part of lot 9 is being locked in with the uh 90 that's assigned to to lot 8. So for the same reasons uh that you've applied for a C2 variance before, we believe those apply as well if not better to this application. Uh we don't see any uh detriment that would arise as out of this. We are certainly bound by all the original requirements including news uh noise requirements including your ordinances and state law with regard to that. Uh neighbors certainly have every right to enforce those as they would see fit. Uh lot five again we don't at this point we're not really using it. There is no formal agreement with the owner of lot 5 and we don't have any maintenance uh responsibilities with regard to lot 5. So there's not really anything we can do to go about that. So, thank you for hearing us and we'd appreciate a positive vote.

Thank you. Would you wish, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I might be able to give a summary before the board deliberate

again as I understand it by the preliminary and final site plan approval parking varies to the uh fire parking varants granted uh in the fire solutions relating to 70 to 73 uh as as well as to the extent required a loading space variant for the fact that there is no loading space whereas generally one loading space is required for 70 69. Um the uh conditions stipulated to uh include but are not limited to those set forth in the planners and engineers report all fire resolution conditions remaining in effect full force in effect uh to the extent not inconsistent with what might be a new approval as well as the 90 CP remains in effect uh for the two properties uh as well as the 40 seat cap proposed stability to by the applicant with respect to 7 69 RO and the new proposed event space. Uh there's also a stipulation that the Apple would not be using I guess it's patio space to the veh 69 Line Brook Road uh as part of the advanced space for which relief is requested. Uh the applicant will be recording the resolution in the county clerk's office. It's in the chamber of title for notice

purposes to any successes and interest. Uh the language will be worked on extensively. It be much better than the very general language I'm going to say right now, which is tying uh uh the two properties together and two uses together. These are the dep parking variance path uh as well as the uh event space. Uh it must be associated with the restaurant use on adjacent lot uh 88. Thank you. It's easier to go with the address 73. Um, and I I believe that Robert, did you have something for trash?

Did you cover a point for trash? Well, a separate condition of approval. They testify they were using the doctors behind 73 for everything. But did you need to include that? That could be Well, okay. Yeah. I mean, if the board wishes it to be a condition that they only use this the the dumpster behind 73, I'm not quite sure I would.

Well, normally we'd ask if they were putting a facility in 69, we'd say, "Where's your parking?" And say, "Where's your trash? Where's your loading zone?" That is right. I think they've answered it. We might as well in 61 69. They could, right? No, they couldn't. It could not. Okay. No, they could put some garbage bales there temporarily and then drag the garbage bales out, but there's no access to a dumpster. So they they successfully I just think it should be captured as it will be discussed and they're amenable to it being a condition disposal

from this space not from all of 69 from this space or event space. event special right behind it's he put everything back that's one behind so we care about the events right and it'll actually be a condition I was reflecting that that's and any other conditions that I might have missed I sure would

he said it was there but just the door widening I think that you Now, we've mentioned that and I don't know that it has to be a condition, but a simple width door is not going to be sufficient for them to accomplish the activities they're expecting to do, which I think he's aware of. Mr.

We will stipulate to widening the door subject to approval by the burrow engineer andor construction. We don't need a quantification of the widening. That's good enough. We can't stipulate to that because we don't know where the structural members might be. So, I wouldn't suggest that you want to quantify. I just want to make sure that Got it. and and do we need to say anything about the um discussion of uh ADA access to this space being as as described being in the path that you know they we're not requesting that they do ADA through the front door for instance that we're we're

accepting the ADA path as they presented [clears throat] and that'll be reflected in the resolution again if you condition very much. So that that's why I understand if it's a motion to approve the motion to deny or have to worry. I always use that one conditioning and denial. I'll come up with new material. Is that that was the end of your That's the end discussion the board inclinations

positive positive positive okay so I'll take a motion for Steve's uh magic maybe I'll also reflect the the addition of compliance with noise statute ordinance notwithstanding the fact that it's implicit we'll make explicit and I'll assume it's a motion. Was there anything in the U prior approval that spoke to noise and that could be whatever reaffirmed

condition? Yeah. So, do do we need to say more or No. Oh, no. I don't need to say more than I did. saying you don't need to say anything at all, right? And I think so so no is okay. So that is yeah available. Yeah. At that point, I would move to approve the application the variance that was suggested and with the condition stated by board attorney and be approved. Second.

Roll call. Mr. DeMarco. Yes. Miss Geller? Yes. Mr. Graham? Yes. Mr. Malia? Yes. Mr. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Mr. Yes. Mr. Trainer. Yes. And Mr. Yes. Thank you all. Have a wonderful evening. Um there's a second second chance for any visitors to discuss stuff that's not on the agenda.

Okay. There are no longer funding applications, right? We have nothing. Not going to know. What What about the Walters restaurant? What's that? What's this? Just waiting for So that would be a status, right? When you say they're still going through compliance, what does that mean? Sewer or something or

No. No. So well it it could be a number of things. So once uh we leave this grant that they have to comply with all the resident conditions in the resolution whatever they may be whether it's out agency or advising plan whatever um and then they have to submit that plan to the board engineer for review and then once they complied with everything. Is there any do we know do you know like what in particular is is slowing it down? I don't know rightly. Yeah. Is there extended to them? I know

that could be part of they didn't talked about that they needed extended that may be what's slowing it they're just inquiring they had to go back to brand with NJ transit they had to simplute because well they should have they were encroaching on NJ transit property but that's more like courtesy You can lift up those guys now.

Okay. Well, so we don't know but just wondering it's still there. Okay. Uh recreation open space master plan. So you should have received um I took section 8. Great. Section 8 button. Um and um got in the word. Um Aaron Beth actually helped pull that in. Um and also I updated the spreadsheet for it um which summarizes the major thoughts on each of the different public parks areas and um I need you to look at it. I need you to um there are two things uh for that that I need you to look at. One is the text is sort of the original text. The rep committee looked at it and um downgraded a number of the projects. Okay. So the kind of the question is should we go back to the text and have it more accurately reflect what's in the spreadsheet or not? And I didn't want to do it because I didn't have a chance to have you guys weigh in on whether to do it or not. you know, to say, well, like don't say in the text if it's if it says don't do it in the, you know, you could have strikethroughs. We could have whatever you want in in the text. It needs to sync up with what's in the spreadsheet. The the other thing that has to be done is section nine, which I did not look at, did not I mean I looked at it, but I did not do anything to it. Section nine is and this is how you do it. And it's a list, an extensive list of you need this, you need to do this, here's its priority, here's the order that you need to do it, and so forth. It's very substantial

uh table. And um I I really kind of want your feedback on generally on the high level stuff in section 8 before we kind of go in and knock section N up, you know, make it consistent. So it sounds like you're saying that so the rec committee is is sort of these notes are sort of like w committees recommendation.

Well I captured those in yeah that rec committee the the wording that you'd see in the rec committee stuff that's those those were just words that were in this the spreadsheet for the most part they kind of just dumped the spreadsheet into word. So what you have from Denise behind me is me right Denise view you is the word document which is the beginning of section 8 and you have the table that's in section 8 that repaired and got it ship shaped and you can look at section 8 and say okay you have other suggestions you know we can it's our plan you know it's our plan so we we could you could look at it and say hey you know you We think the rec committee ought to reconsider something or or um as an example one of my things is I always felt that marine press should that the park um should just look better you know as an entry part and they that's sort of what it says now clean up the brush you know work with the work with the county it's a county road things like that but it's it's not really making into a gateway park. So, but but whatever you have if you think if you know of something that hey that would be good that

I would also recommend that the environmental commission take a look at this even though it's technically a recreational master plan. a lot of this overlaps get to look at this until later and I sent I sent it this afternoon to Rob Wilson and said can you forward it in wonderful sort of like half of it is playing fields and half of it is like trails and stuff that the environmental commission is is interested in. sits in a shoe but I didn't know I didn't remember seeing it through the environmental commission so I wanted to make sure that it wasn't something they had looked at that I hadn't

good so hopefully next meeting I'll have feedback from then so yeah next meeting or the key is I'll need to progress into section nine I think and we got to get all this stuff done before we have a public waiting that lets us memorialize this thing. And is this limited just to existing recreational open space or is it also um kind of identifying potential um open space spaces? Um you can read the whole thing. It starts talking about systemwide stuff. You know what should we be doing? I mean there's a philosophy. Should we should we there systemwide things? Should we have more fields?

Okay. Should we have more half deals is the one I would add. It's like what's the deal? People need to practice really practice on a half deal. They do it all the time. I mean, there are spaces available to acquire that could support that field, but it comes back to the fundamental thing is is the recommendation and the plan that we should be looking at more fields because that's really where people are polarized. like should we have more and the people that need them and that pay have to pay drop outside they care a lot that there be more fields and there are other people said no no no it should be open biking trails and I mean there are different camps but if you see something speak up and you know say well this this looks like it would be worth the board putting in to the plan um I haven't looked in detail at nine just because this is the kind of top pyramid and And that gets into the much more detail and prioritization. There was even at one point there was even a capital budget estimate you know which was removed. So um and personally I have one other item that I'm concerned about is and I'm concerned about how we spend our capital on these objects. I think it's a limited budget to wreck and we need to get as much bang for the buck as we can. So I'm in like I've been proposing not building building for the pavilion for instance but just provide the facilities which you can do for one half the price or less. And so um we we have the opportunity to to say that in this plan that that we believe there should be mobile facilities as opposed to permanent structures um as as a strategy or as a planning objective. Um that just

so you know that will dubtail into our emergency preparedness section which we have to do in the master plan this year as well. We have to look at u it's going to be busy year for our planners. Um, but uh we have to look at emergency preparedness and that has a lot that has a lot to do with you know when it's a fan or whatever you've got where do you put all the people and um these facilities are prime opportunity to to

multit to put people be multi-purpose. So, uh, anyway, if you want to take a peek at nine, I'm welcome to hear anything you want to say about it, like, oh boy, that one, that one's obviously not supposed to be there anymore. Anyone who's gotten for punishment, but please take a look at and we'll try to that along. Anything else? I know we want to get get through that planning process. It's uh been a long time. So

just more of an administrative question I guess for section 8 because it sounds like one of the annoyances is that you have to update the copy to reflect what's in the table. Why not just make the table the same of truth for that whole section? It could be that the table the the um obviously the words have more explanation than a cell has you know so it provides more context so it's it's there it's just there's you'll see it when you look at it you say you know and should we just strike you know as as this port strike through it you know because it's still on the table it's in the table and it's like don't do it you know or do it way down the road you know that kind of thing so if it's if It's one of those. Then do we want it to be in the front or do we only want you could say, "Well, we only want things in the front to be short and medium term." Then people say, "Well, what about this?" And then they'll see in the table what they wouldn't see in the words. Um, it it could be answered by just in each bullet just putting the side, you know, short, longer, never.

I agree. Well, can you make that closely just just okay to go in with that expectation and then see that with the if you find justification for the works and you go in with that and you say I still don't think there's justification for the words and they certainly could consider just there we also add words to the cell that say that have we overcome the PDF issue

it's uh brutal but um uh Actually, uh, Aaron Duck was able to do some extracts for me. I we did not have to go through, uh, Denise and to, um, Nancy to get, uh, the the extract. It does a really bad job extracting. It's quite a mess. There's a lot of editing when it it's not like it's beautiful. I'm sure there's probably a better way. It's probably to scan it and they're probably scanning programs. So they'll scan it in and put it in the right fonts, you know, the word better than the Adobe does. Adobe doesn't really want you kind of going in that direction first place. I found that I could copy stuff out actually and say translate this to English. It was English. Okay, here there it is. Right there it out. you know, it's like, oh, okay, that's interesting. Something they forgot about. Um, anyway, um, okay. Any any other comments on it? It'd be nice. When's our next meeting?

Our next meeting is February 12th. Yeah, definitely. And you can always send me any comments you want, especially about 9 cuz I probably want to get started on nine. So if everyone would just sort of take a quick look at nine and say take a take a quick look try to get back to me by the end of next week you know what what your suggestions are nine or eight well suggestions for eight of course but also take a look at nine and just I need to go forward with um oh nine available no um okay I'll work on trying to get nine to

it's in the Yeah, I can get you the whole is available in the building. Okay, I think that's it guys. So, thank you. And now we'll move we'll take a motion to go in executive session.

Sure. I can speed read resolution because we should always do our resolution best practice. Whereas the public meeting act permits the exclusion of the public from certain uh from the meeting in certain circumstances be considering matters authorized by section 10 calling 4-127. Uh now they're resolved by the planning board. Then we will go into close session. The general nature of the subject matter to be discussed is litigation entitled AR at Burnville LLP versus planning board from Bur Burnsville someday county superior court docket SOM-L-191-25 and also pending litigation entitled Aaron Duck versus Planning Board of Burough Burn to Equin property currently pending in some state county board division document numbers soom-l L-546-25. It's anticipated that the deliberations conducted in close act may be disclosed to the public upon the determination of the board that the public interest will no longer be served by such confidentiality. Immediately, we would need as always a motion to go to post second. Motion to go into resermenting session.

Second roll call, please. Mr. DeMarco, yes. Miss, yes. Mr. Graham, yes. Mr. Malia, yes. Mr. Morrison, yes. Mr. Sassa, yes. Mr. Trainer, yes. Mr.

Yeah. And before we go, shut off. Good evening. if I can with the chair's permission for members of the public. My understanding when we're done with closed session, we're going to come back into open simply the move to ajourn. Uh so people are waiting for further business. There is going to be no formal further formal action taken after close session will just be journeying. We don't have to necessarily go all the way back on to the live stream or people prefer that we can just to say motion and then turn it on. Whatever you prefer. Okay. When normal shows for the public, the show's over. Yeah.

Show's over for the public. Yes. We just said hello manager. That's all folks and Denise. What? Still keep recording. We don't record. Just keep minutes. schedules.