Planning Board Meetings - Regular Meeting

Okay, so we are live. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on October 1st, 2025 at 7:03 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. And the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/spartwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new business will be conducted after 9:30 p.m. and and the meeting will end at 10:30, sorry, 10, excuse me, 10 p.m. Let's begin with a salute to our flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Dory, would you please call the role? Pepper here. Ernie Ridag here. Brian Zimmerman. Ron Day here. Chairwoman Luciano here. Vice Chairman Robert Otto here. Councilman Mark Scott Bogler here. Christine Dunar here. And Joan Ferman here.

Okay, great. We're going to move into the approval of minutes. We had tabled two sets of minutes from our last meeting, June 7th, 2023 and July 16th, 2025. For the June 7th minutes uh for 2023, eligible to vote are Janette Burke, Ron Day, Christine Dunar, Celeste Luciano, and Ernie Ragstad. Um I will open it to the board. Any questions or comments regarding these minutes? Here. Okay. Okay, hearing none, we'll bring it to a vote. Make a motion. Oh, go ahead. I'll make a motion to

Yes. Ronda, yes. Christine Dunar, yes. Luciano, yes. And Ernie Rex, yes. Okay, moving on to our minutes for July 16th, 2025. Eligible to vote are Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, Brian Zimmerman, Ron Day, Joan Ferman, Mark Scott, Robert Otto, Celeste Luciano, and Christine Dunar. Uh, open to the board. Any questions or comments regarding these minutes? Hearing none. May I have a motion? Like to move to accept the minutes, please. I'll second. Janette Burke, yes. Bernie, yes. Ronda, yes. Done Furman. Yes. Robert Otto. Yes. Celeste Luciano. Yes.

And Christine Dunar. Yes. Um this is not um pertaining to the minutes. Minutes are accurate, but I know in here I I think it was in these that I had asked about the bylaws that were posted as a draft online and I had asked them to be taken down. Have they been taken down? I'll have to double check. I don't know. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We're now moving into our public hearing. That's PB number 25-736, Sparta Smoke Shop and Mediterranean Cuisine, 514 Lafayette Road, block 120008, lot 17, PCED zone, formerly minor site plan. This was carried from what was the date, Dory? September 3rd.

Thank you. Hello. Hello. Hello. Good evening. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Daniel Benador from the law firm of Askin and Hooker. Uh, representing the applicant this evening, 514 Lafayette Road LLC. Dr. Mary Jane Negri is here as a managing member of the LLC. Also, Alan Campbell. I'd like to have them sworn in. And uh Allan can be uh classified as an expert in engineer.

You have the Islamic sort of tell the truth, hold truth, and nothing but the truth help. Yes, I do. And uh your professional address, please. Yes. And for the records, Alan Campbell, AL Len. If you don't mind using the microphone, please for the people. C PB E L. I'm a licensed professional engineer. My firm is Robert Campbell Associates located at 9 Cook Road, Branchville, New Jersey. Mr. Campbell, you've been accepted. You've been accepted as an expert before this board many times. I've been qualified as an expert before this board over the past 30 plus years and my license are in still good standing with the state. I'd recommend Mr. Campbell as an expert in the area professional. So, accepted. Great hand. Mr. Poro, if you swear in my client, please. Oh, sorry. Hi there.

Saw me swear to tell the truth. Whole truth and nothing but the truth. You got I do. Uh name and address, business address for the record, please. I know you testified at the prior hearing, but just for the record, uh Mary Gene Negri, uh 23 Route 15, Lafayette, New Jersey 07848.

All right. Um good evening everyone. Uh we're here to discuss 514 Lafayette Road, a block 12008, lot 17. Uh it's a 1.753 acre lot in the planned commercial economic development zone. It's currently developed with three separate buildings and two ancillary sheds. Um all uses on the property currently are uh permitted uses. Um and they've all been approved um and seen before the board in one way or another. Um so the applicant is before the board this e evening by application for a minor site plan approval. Essentially, what we're looking to do is take two tenants from one of the buildings, both in the same building, and we're swapping them out for two new tenants. Um, now, uh, Megan Ward was the original attorney for this application. U Megan was unable to appear before the board at the last hearing. Um, so Frank McGovern filled in for her. Um, and since that time, she's decided to pass the torch to me. Um she did provide a very adequate background of this property showing all of the previous resolutions um sign information and a number of other things. Unfortunately, at the last hearing, there were still a lot of questions that the board had that couldn't be answered. Now, whether or not that has to do with the fact that Miss Ward couldn't be here and Frank had to step in, I don't know. But we're here this evening to try to answer all of those questions. I know some of the primary concerns were parking, septic, the signs. Um there were some questions about ingress, egress. Um and uh additionally, there were some questions about lighting. Um so I'm just going to kind of go through everything that I can and then I'm going to pass it over to Allan who has a very intimate connection with this property because he was part of the initial

design back in the 90s. So he'll be able to talk to you guys with a lot of knowledge on this property. Um, so I'd like to start off by explaining there are three separate buildings and Alan's going to go through this, but I just want to make it very clear so everybody gets it. There's building A, B, and C. That's how they're going to be demonstrated. That's how they've been offered to the board through exhibits that have already been submitted. Building A is the uh restaurant, it is the smoke shop, and it is the massage studio. Building B is physical therapy. Um it is the owner occupied unit which Allan will get into this evening. Um and it is uh the uh medical transport uh offices. And then there's building C which is a repurposed single family residential looking building but it's been repurposed for commercial use. Um, and again, all the uses, all the buildings variances were obtained for these buildings uh, prior to tonight's meeting and previous applications. So, without further ado, I'd like to let Allan take it from here and go through the layout of this property. Alan?

Yes. Good evening and thank you. What I want to refer to on the easel is the plan that's been submitted to the board. It is titled facilities plan lot 17 and block 12008 514 Lafayette Road LLC. Has an original date of September 2025. Is prepared by myself and our office and it has a revision date of 924 2025. Again, this is the plan as it's beened to the board. So, I don't believe at this time it needs to be identified as an exhibit. Just why don't we mark it A1 just for the sake if you don't mind. By all means. Thank you. Appreciate it. have a A1 please with today's 10125. Yes.

And what I just described on the usual is now identified as A1 101 125. Thank you.

And so this plan was originally developed in a preliminary stage as a planning tool for Dr. Mary in order for her to manage the site and facility. So as we now use it to demonstrate a change in tenant and occupancy which is the objective tonight i.e. a restaurant owner of one type going to a restaurant operator of another type and what was previously a computer urgent care facility i.e. computer store and computer um guru type of person to address the computer needs. That particular store is going to a smoke shop. So, as we look at the site, this lot 17, u as it's been seen by all Beller members over the past many years, back in the mid 90s, this site first had a restaurant open as Paparonis. And since the mid 90s, my first involvement with this property somewhere's 95 thereabouts, was working with Mr. Negri, Frank Negri, and dealing with certain aspects when he had site improvements that were brought before the board over history. And we must have been back and forth before the zoning board from the mid 90s till up until about five or six years ago when the zone changed at which time we had numerous site plans over the history of this property. I note that we have an entrance and exit coming off of 15 which had predated any of the current road configurations that are on large route 15. Uh initially it was a center lines typical double yellow with brakes in it for what is an access drive. This access drive facilitates access to the property to the north, lot 16, formerly known as the Amar property. It also goes to the rear of the property and services the lot 18 property which was known as the Wilson complex as Mr. Wilson had developed this and had a site plan back

some 10 or 15 years ago that we had done. Ultimately, this driveway had a bigger plan with a future type of expansion into the circulation of the area, which not necessarily an issue for tonight unless there's reasons to go further into that dialogue. But surrounding the property then you had the last 16 identified that use the same driveway on the restaurant north end of the property. The property to the rear which are predominantly tradesman units for rental purposes lot 18 and then to the south which was known as the I refer to it as the west southern portion of the Sanford farm over the years. And that is also portion of uh what was the parent tract lot 19 which is to the south of the property. These properties are currently the agricultural fields and open space that you see when you look at the restaurant from Route 15 looking forward. That gives you a good description of the northerly portion where that driveway comes in. Has various circulation patterns, parking stalls. It has parking directly in front of the restaurant. It has parking directly behind the restaurant and then the parking lot to the rear which is shared by all parties of the complex. There's also a loading zone for the restaurant that goes through that main access way through the parking lot, backs up to the walk-in freezer, services delivery to the restaurant, and then pulls out and comes out through the primary access quarter on the southerntherly portion of the property. The driveway that comes into the former home location, which is the house on the left, that was a residential house that some 10 to 15 years ago was approved by the board to become a real estate office and since additionally approved as a general office. I emphasize the real estate office because in the day when we got the real estate approval, there were uh different parking requirements for real estate offices versus general office space. and a real estate office was

required to have more parking space than a standard office would. On the north side of that access quarter coming in, you have various parking stalls for the urgent care and or the units in the back or the building. All this parking is interchangeable with the exception of a few selective designated parking stalls which we can get into detail if necessary but put it that certain aspects of the parking lot lend itself to certain tenants and therefore those certain tenants have signs reserving a space for themselves. As we come in that property there's parking stalls to the right there's a parking field to the back left i.e the the southernly side and these parking stalls service all of the tenant space as well as portion of the lot for the restaurant servicing the tenant space. The primary aspects that I've been asked to address in conjunction with this application for a change in occupancy was first the septic for the restaurant. the septic for the restaurant. I believe there was a document that I reviewed via Zoom or the uh YouTube hearing and there was a discussion regarding a correspondence from the health department. I believe that correspondence from the health department was incorrect in that it did not and was not identifying the components at this site. The septic for the restaurant is fully independent of all other facilities on this facility. The design was done in the early 90s and it was a design that provided for up to 60 seats and three turnovers in the restaurant. I believe that the comment from the health department was clarified since that time. And I want to put on the record though 52 seat restaurant being less than the 60 that it was originally designed for. It was designed post 90s. So it's in more or less the current code. And there's been no evidence of the septic having any current malfunction as it has been vacant for so long. And news say when

the septic is put into use, it will be monitored and the maintenance and everything else that goes along with care of a septic for a restaurant will be taken into play. Uh one other comment about the restaurant septic system. It was initially designed to have a reserve area as Sparta Township had previously required in their health ordinance. Sometime maybe 15 20 years ago, I put it in my response regarding the septic. I was involved with the construction of a duplicate field. So this septic fist system that was built in the 90s also had an upgrade and a completely identicative duplicate field put in the rear of the property which was in accordance with the plans from the original 90s. That septic alteration or a duplication of the field area was regulated through the Sparta Township Health Department at the time. It was oversaw by myself when it was being constructed. And I recall that Mr. Wilson, Wilson Escavating, was the contractor that did the septic field. Um, which now the septic system has two fields which can be switched back and forth if there is ever a need to. um that I believe covered the septic issue and I don't know that there's anything more that needs to be put on the record regarding that. Um just quickly on from my own knowledge so the health the local health department signs off on it is that subject to the any county or state regulations is how do they mesh

so back I don't recall exactly the date perhaps 8 to 10 years ago you have the state septic regulation which controls the entire state municipalities may be more stringent in their regulations and adopt ordinance within the health department to be more stringent but not less than the state requirements sparta township ship at the time was their own health agent. So the authorized agent to implement the septic code for the state was Sparta Township Health Department. Sometime 10 12 years ago, I'm not exactly sure the date. Sparta Township Health Department no longer existed and many of those members went to the county health department. and Sparta Township currently has Sussex County Health Department as their authorized agent for the regulation and the overview of septics. This was when Sparta Township was the authorized agent. Ralph Dier was the boss of the health department. Lee Daly was out for the inspections and Denise Webb, I believe, was also involved at the time. Um, renamed Sparta Health Department. I guess that gives you the history of where Sparta used to regulate their own septic systems as opposed to the county. that clarify your answer.

Thank you. Very good. Um the next issue was actually I have a qu Let's just stay on the septic for a second. Sorry. Um how many gallons is the restaurant septic designed for? You said 60 seats, but how many gallons is that? There's a design volume of 1890 gallons a day. And how long has the restaurant been vacant? I believe coming into October, it's almost a year. Uh, who is responsible for pumping the septic? Is it the restaurant or is it the owner of the property?

I don't know the terms of the lease contract for the restaurant. I do know in past times, Dr. Negri Mary Negri had reached out to me when she was signing contracts in the past and I believe at those times the contract was specifically on the owner of the property the landlord and yet there was some arrangement in the lease. Um, currently, uh, if the either way, the lawyer, the owner, the the landlord is going to be a conscious person making sure that it takes place because it's her physical property that's being compromised if it's not maintained properly. Um, the grease tanks are pumped separately than the septic tanks. Um, if there's a preference to municipality, um, I would have to defer to council and the owner as to how the lease agreement would be structured um if there was a preference of the board.

Okay. I'm not sure if you know the answer to this or if uh Dr. Negri would, but do you know when the septic was last pumped? No, I don't, but we can certainly get pumping records and provide. Okay. My recommendation will be that before the tenant moves in to have the septic tanks if they have not recently been pumped since the vacancy to have them pumped and inspected for the integrity. Thank you. Please continue.

Very good. Uh the the second item I was asked to um more or less document for lack of better description is that of the parking of the site. I make comment to the circulation and the parking bays throughout. And something I would like to emphasize is we we have numerous parking locations spread throughout the property and because of that we also have numerous handicap schools including in the overall handicap parking count versus the required parking count. So if this was one single bay, we might be required to have one parking for handicap accessible, which being an advanced space. In the current configuration, as you come in the entryway, the parking lot directly in front of the restaurant to the left has three stalls, including one van ready stall. These stalls during COVID had some alterations done to them that have been since corrected and those stalls are now back to conforming stall size with an eight and an eight for the handicap space. And the patio that was built during CO has been removed and the original curb exposed. And these parking stalls are back to their original condition as what they've been in since the restaurant was first built. Additionally, as we go in the southern entrance and we go to the west on the right hand side up against building B, there's again another handicap stall with a fully conforming. And then as we go to the south, the former house, former real estate office has again another handicap stall fully conforming and access for the handicap ramp. So there's actually three handicap parking stalls throughout this parking complex and all of them have ready access to the facilities that are requiring them to be a service law.

Um in addition to that then we have a combination of standardized parking stalls 10 and 20s a mix of 9 and 18 being 9 foot by 18 foot in some cases 10 foot by 20 foot in various so there is a variation of different sizes throughout the whole complex. The complex also has designated loading zones which restricts the parking so that when you have a UPS truck showing up and the like, it's not an issue clogging up the parking lot andor obstructing the egress. The overall parking is 50 parking spaces that are shown on the plan and are available on the site. Included in that 50 parking spaces are three stacked spaces. I emphasized the real estate office and how the real estate office required additional parking. At that time, we were approved to provide three stacked parking, which is more or less dead center on this property in the lot coming in from the south entrance. And these stacked parking spaces are in a configuration that do not obstruct the circulation or corridor ways of the rest of the parking. So in this particular layout that has been in use for in excess of 10 years plus there are three stacked parking stalls that are included in that 50 numbers of 50 parking spaces. The task of defining the uses and defining the required parking spaces. We then took portions of architectural plans that had been done by Mr. Mr. Schaefer's Charles Schaefer's office and uh with permission of Mr. Schaefer, I was using them as exhibits in order to regulate the way the tenant spaces are used in order to identify what tenant is in what location and how many parking spaces that tenant needs.

With that type of tool, the landlord can manage the tenant spaces. And if a tenant use is in necessity of more parking than what the ordinance would call for, we bring that to the board's attention tonight. And we also note it as we go to tenants. As an example of that is if a tenant is leasing 1 point uh 147 square ft of office space, that's one parking space. But if that tenant also is anticipated to have a visitor, well, one parking space doesn't cut it. So we say in our summary that requires two or in our summary if we have a parking calculation that is 4.2 as an example by the math of the square footage by the use office space 200 square ft. Well at that point the 4.2 we don't round down in our calculation. We round up because each of these are independent tenants. So in that case we're not sharing customers coming in cars. So we take the conservative approach in having our parking summary rounded up which is a very conservative u approach to it and it is more stringent than the ordinance requirements. I do know in the planners report uh the 2028 planners report I believe um she had done a miss had done a parking chart and the summary and in that summary if you add up her calculations which is done per the ordinance I would believe you find out that she had calculated 43 spaces. Now, on the following page of that report, she said 47. But if you add the numbers up in her chart, and perhaps we should go to this date. If we go to page five of eight on your

planners report that was dated, September 24th. And if you go to the required permitted in her spaces, I believe if you add these up, you'll find that her total by the ordinance to the square footage, rounding up or down, whichever was applicable, came to a total of 43 spaces. Now, since she had done this calculation, I had also addressed that I did not include the basement of the house initially in my summary that she was relying on. And that basement of the house had some changes over history and my 2025 summary would have taken that use up two additional spaces, three additional spaces to if it was her 43, we would still be only at 46 at a max based on straight up on the ordinance. In my scenario of 50 parking spaces required and 50 parking spaces provided, we are taking those rounding them up taking each user and I note and again I probably need to identify this sir.

Yeah, please. Yeah, I'm going to go to what I'm identifying is A25. What's on the easel with A2 are the floor plans and parking summary that was submitted to the board in our updated 925. That summary in the center basically breaks down what I just described in a narrative and describes how the restaurant is at the 18 spaces based on both the 52 seats or the square footage of actual usage inside. It then goes through each of the users and as we look at the easel, the colored and blue floor plans with various different identifications talks to an example building A, unit one, the restaurant and the number of spaces. Unit A, building A, unit two, the massage therapy. Unit three, the smoke shop. And when you look at the summary on the chart as an example, the massage therapy, you'll see a subnote where there the massage therapy business, two additional spaces were added. So the square footage said you only needed two. Got two persons doing massages and you got two people ain't getting massage, you need four spaces. So we crank it up in my summary and we take a very conservative approach to generating based on the ordinance and based on what would be a logical use of each of those tenants what the parking requirement is at the end of the day with the various different locations we would have the 50 spaces required and 50 spaces are provided as I described earlier each one of these uses the smoke shop the restaurant that we're currently

talking about the smoke shop in square footage actually was reduced over years when the rear of the building was used for the massage tables and an office for the massage tables where there was change in occupants and change in tenency over the past five to six years. Each one of these buildings is broken out and described in the reports to the the board in their submission. Your board's professionals have had these for their review. Um, I can expand on this further or I can simply go right to board questions and see if there's any more questions the board would need for clarification. Is there another exhibit down below you want to mark?

Um, this one is more of a contingency plan. If the board has issues that we need to correct, I would defer to council and No, we don't need to mark it. You're submitting uh A1 and A2. A A1 and A2. Um but there is something that if necessary we can entertain the idea of and we can have further discussion with the board if it's necessary. I think we can we can continue. We we'll we'll come to questions at the end of your testimony unless unless you're done.

Okay. So we will first send it to the professionals. Yes, Madam Chair. Uh just referring to the report I last prepared dated September 25th, 2025. The first two pages uh basically in the top of page three are a reference to all the uh information and exhibits that had been submitted by Megan Ward as Mr. Campbell indicated earlier. Uh with regards to completeness, there's a lot of history on this application and again uh based on the information that's been submitted and I think the testimony that's been provided uh after Mr. Campbell and I spoke after the last meeting I hope is helpful for the board to give them the background history and the information on the application. Uh with regards to zoning, I would point out that they are not proposing to change any of the existing uh site configurations, but I did note in the bottom of page three that there are certain pre-existing non-conforming conditions. Uh for example, for buildings A and C where 100 foot minimum setback is required, uh they have 36.2 and 68.8 respectively for buildings A and C. Sideyards 30 foot minimum 21.8 and 15.4 feet are provided. With regards to parking setback where 25 foot minimum is required uh from the rightway they do have parking in one case right up to the uh rightway line and by the same p token on the parking step back for the sideyard 10- foot minimums required. And for building C, you've only got approximately 1.5 ft more or less. Again, they're not doing anything or proposing anything under this application to change that, but I pointed it out because it was noted on the facility plan and if there's any sort of relief that the board deems

appropriate to grant that you be aware of it just as part of any decision you make on the application. And as I point out in the top of page four, restaurants and retail uses, as Mr. Campbell indicated before, are permitted in the PCED zone. Uh with regards to the site plan, the buildings and all the existing parking facilities uh on the site are existing. Then as far as parking and loading goes, as Mr. Campbell pointed out uh it is a situation where based on his analysis and I believe the conservative approach as he and I discussed since the last meeting of adding some parking spaces here and there because of the reality if you've got a client, you've got a a staff member in the office and a principal, you might need an additional parking space or two versus what the ordinance actually calls for. So that's the rounding up that he was referring to. Um, one of the things that perhaps he could elaborate a little bit further when we get to it on the days and hours of operation for the various facilities just so the board can see if there is any overlap or if there's a sufficient gap between the operating hours of the businesses so that even though 50 parking spaces by his calculations are provided and 50 are needed, uh, an added bonus and conservative approach to it would be they're not all coincidental at the same time. So I think that would be something they could elaborate on a little bit further with as regards to storm water management. Again, there's no change in the impervious. So there's no change greater than 500 square ft. So additional mitigation for storm water isn't required. The lighting on the site is existing. Uh there is an existing well as far as utilities that serves the site. And one of the things Mr. Campbell and I discussed again before this meeting was to provide background

information on the septic systems which he provided some documentation and I realize it was from decades ago but he wanted to give that history and I thought that would be helpful for the board just so you know where it's been as far as the construction of the septic systems especially for the restaurant which is the heaviest user on the property that way. no change in the landscaping. The buildings buildings are existing and again I think in it was spoken about at one of the earlier hearings uh this facilities plan was designed I believe not only for this application but I think in the future for Dr. Negri to be able to program how she's going to handle her parking and her tenants and what areas are devoted to each particular tenant and the areas involved because I explained to Mr. Campbell that one of the things my understanding is that the board was concerned about was to have some quantitative documentation as far as what was being dedicated for each tenant so that the areas were consistent and basically up to date with regards to the signage that they're proposing tonight. Uh my review was basically uh I remember when there was an application before the Sparta zoning board for the electronic display sign was one of the first ones in the township and there were certain restrictions granted as far as what color u how intense it could be uh how often it could change etc. And my understanding and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong is that they're willing to abide by those requirements that were requirements of that zoning board application and also that basically the size of the sign plates that they're proposing basically mimic what was there before for the previous uh restaurants and businesses. And by the same token at the smoke shop uh that's basically uh in kind for inind as far as the overall size and what have

you uh on that particular building. Uh they did not provide an EIS basically the basic information that would be needed. It was brought up uh before regarding the septic system and Mr. Campbell addressed it, I think, by saying that they would pump the septic system before the first tenant moved in if the board were to grant the application and also to adhere by any pumping regularity and maintenance requirements that would be uh required by the county health department since they absorb Sparta health department. And then finally, obviously, they're have to get uh approval from the township construction official uh the necessary permits and fire protection from the fire prevention bureau. And that's an update on my report. Madam Chair,

you um so I just want to thank Mr. Campbell for getting that site plan together. I know that it was kind of a rush job, but it really helped clarify a lot of questions that we had from the original submission. Um specifically the parking and making sure that all of the uses on site were accounted for. Um that really helped clear up a lot of questions that we had specifically for myself. Um could you just confirm? I know there are two two ADA spaces. um just confirmed that one is van accessible. I believe one is based on the dimensions, but there's actually three three ADA van access.

Okay, great. Yeah, that was the one thing that I had a question about. And then the second piece, although I didn't update my letter because it only came in on Monday. Um the applicant did submit a sign plan which shows the um main freestanding sign and the proposed signs which will all be um the same colors, same look, and the same size of what was previously approved and uh by the board. So, um, just from my opinion, I believe that this would be a cohesive design for a sign. It's all blue, white, um, besides the one electronic messaging center.

Any questions? Yeah, just quickly and thank you on the sign langage issue. My understanding is that uh, when the stores are closed, the operation that the uh, lights will be turned off counts as that. Yes. Okay. And then my understanding is there'll be no flashing on the sign. There will not. It's uh as the planner and the engineer pointed out the same color and look. I think that's fine. Uh one issue that uh just from my notes, will the lighting be a down lighting? You know, not a a box out. Can we downlight the you know, we're still going to provide testimony on the signs? Okay. So you guys will get all of those answers.

Good. Okay. Um, unfortunately our sign expert couldn't be here, but we do have our client and I do have a board specifically prepared for the signs so we can show you exactly what they're going to look like. We just couldn't get them to you in time. I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay. Uh, questions to the board for this witness? I have a quick question. Um, regarding the restaurant septic, I know they said um you guys said that um you would have it pumped prior to the new tenant coming on. When was the last time it was uh inspected? I don't know when the last time it was inspected. What I had commented to is that we would have it pumped and evaluate the function before tenant got operational. So that will be fully operational effective then. Yes.

Okay. Y that'll be a condition of approval. Pumped and inspected. And inspected. Yeah.

Any other questions? Do you know the distance of uh the restaurant and the businesses from the nearest well? Yes, the well is on site. And as we look at A1 and we are on Route 15 looking at the property on the left hand side behind building C, you'll see the well is identified in the back left corner of the building on the left on the back left corner by the handicap ramp that accesses the septic for the restaurant is well scale it from the restaurant septic it's about a 160 ft to the restaurant septic there are other septics that facilitate the other ones all of these have been in over history um and at this point the water service for facility still by that V other sites around it are done by the Sparta water company that would make the the need to take care of the septic very important since there's the close proximity plus you're compounding that with a lot of imperous surface there which leads me to my next question. Is there any plan to perhaps um do something with landscaping because I think that would serve uh the businesses well in terms of being attractive and it would also help you know with with the water situation and protecting the well.

So I do emphasize to that restaurant which is a heavy user the 160 ft where classically we have 100 foot minimum which is to be maintained. Um recognizing that we are in a very sensitive area with the water conditions of this region of Sparta. Um we're more or less keeping the status quo and at this point simply looking for one restaurant type to go and another restaurant type to take its place. We're not proposing any site changes other than fixing what was done during COVID for those three spaces that were non-compliant. We made them compliant. In regards to recharge or other aspects of that nature, this whole region is predominantly a coarse sand and gravel. There are several infiltration chambers that the roof lines go to that were installed some 30 plus years ago. They're actually there prior to my involvement with the property. And in one of the applications, there was something that was brought forth with a seepage pit for one of the roofs that would have just that, manage the roof water in to get it back in for recharge. Um, in this application, we're looking for a change in occupancy. We're trying to make sure our septics are good and that the users have that septic capacity and we're making sure that our parking is adequate. If there's a future site plan that is probably in the works for this property at that time, we would address all the other associated aspects of a site that would involve whether it's applicable to put additional sept uh landscape in and where it could be done. Keeping in mind that these septic systems are significantly large for the restaurant. By the time you take the field of septic times two, which could be somewhere's around 3,000 plus square feet each, and put a 10-ft circle around them, you're not planting trees or shrubs near those.

With the rest of the property, it's wellmaintained. The driveway and the grass up to it is edged perfectly. So, I'm sure the board members went. It's one of the sites in Sparta that is actually manicured with the edging down the driveway and well-maintained in order to have the curb appeal. If there's areas to do planting, I think that the landlord would entertain that, but not by a planting plan or a requirement, but because she maintains the property and has the desire to make the property look that appealing, so she has good tenants. So to answer your question, none is planned, none is proposed. And for a change in occupancy, I don't know that any is really appropriate at this time. A future site plan would be an ideal time to revamp the whole site if that should take place, at which point we would evaluate it and have a landscape plan available.

Thank you, sir. Excuse me. My my main questions in the last meeting were about parking and you've satisfied those so good. Thank you. Uh nothing at this time.

Um yeah, I have questions about the traffic control into the parking spots because Route 15 at that juncture uh is very busy now. It's busier than it was when um you first became involved with the site. It's busier now than it was when it was uh Paparon's restaurant. It's just gotten busier and busier. Um what is the traffic flow? What where is the northern driveway the ent going to be the entrance only or is that also going to be exit? There's no change there's no proposed changes in the traffic circulation on this site from what it's been since the 1990s.

Okay. Can you entrance is an entrance exit on the north end. So that entrance and exit it's got no choice. Has no place to go at this time.

And then on the lower section there's a curb cut that goes into the parking bays in close proximity to the computer um smoke shop. And then the other curb cut goes into the primary area in the back parking lot. So there's open curb cuts, curb lines that have been installed by the DOT over the years or by whatever road improvements. So we are not looking to and not able to change any of the circulation in or out of the site. It's just not viable. It's there's no plausible way of making a curbcut difference in the current times. So right now people enter through the northern driveway.

Correct. Okay. And if they drive around the building, they they can't drive around the building. They they can't there's no that drives around the building. Okay. So the delivery trucks, for example, they would come in through the north. Yes. They would go behind the restaurant. They go into the main parking lot. Uhhuh. They back up to the loading zone at the freezer and then they pull out to the end of the parking lot and come back out the entryway the way they came in.

Okay. Uh and as of right now, um they can choose people going into that site can choose to either go left or right into traffic on 15. Well, at this point, that's what they have to do if they want to. There's no no destination on 15. that provides adequate U-turn jug handle or the like in order to have a um restricted access at this point.

Is there any way to put up a sign that you can only make a right-hand turn upon exit? Because what I'm concerned about is people holding up north and southbound traffic trying to get in and out of this site. and I understand your concerns. Yet, if there's a person that is in this facility and wants to go north, but they have to go south, where are they going to go to go north? And this has been an issue since 2007. So, part of my history should keep going. Yes. Yes, please. Yes,

part of my history on this project was also a year to two years of meetings during the year 2007208 at which time there was a single center line here and at that time the state of New Jersey started to put in the crosshatch. Mr. Negri and myself and whichever attorney at the time had numerous meetings with the DOT for just that reason that when they do this it makes the site access unusable to go north or south. And if you're going north and you can't make a left turn in here, you've got no place to go. You're going to go down to Lafayette. There is no jug handle down to Lafayette. You don't have a jug handle in an intersection at White Lake Road. you go in, turn around on Wilson Drive. It doesn't work. What works is what had been there historically. And if it creates a need that they have to make a left turn, people are going to do that. And to burden this site with something that occurred on Route 15 because they're trying to put a restaurant where a restaurant is without increasing the intensity of use should not have an adverse impact because of the restriction of the highway. There were plans that had this access quarter because it's not just the restaurant. It's also the commercial buildings to the north. I mentioned the former Amaraph was the property to the north on lot 16 who shared that driveway. Mr. Wilson in the back. I intentionally emphasized those adjoiners because they share this driveway. All three of these properties have that same situation. All three of these properties have had that situation over history. If we go to 2007, that's when they had the taper where the end of the crosshatch. That taper just went past the entrance. And then sometime five to 10 years ago when more traffic lights came in, the turning lanes came

in, they extended the crosshatch past this, which would suggest that you don't make the left in, you don't make the left out and it simply shuts down the site and makes one of the properties, well, three of the properties more or less unusable pieces of real estate. I do note that this corridor has a bigger plan and should the properties to the south of Paparoni site or the application tonight that would be the lot 19 and the lot 20. As you look at the tax map you had lot 19, 20 and 21. Lot 19 and 20 were taken out as a minor subdivision as part of the Sanford Farm West. There's the traffic light. You got curb returns on these lots. This entire area was intended to have a parallel access road similar to what you have across the street. So this driveway could be restricted in a future time when the traffic light that exists there now and the interior road network that was on the planning tables of Mr. Wilson, of Mr. Trost, of the planners in Sparta back 20, 30 years ago. You'll notice on lot 18, if you look carefully at the plan, you'll notice that there's a strange radius here with curbing that goes to lawn. You'll notice there's two inter there's two inlets and a cross trainin that's in the middle of nowhere. This infrastructure is built here with the anticipation that this driveway will access a road along the property line of 18, come through the development of whatever complex built on lot 20 Sanford Farm and come right out to the traffic light. So when lot 20 21 or 19 are developed

within a type of use that warrants a roadway that interconnection road is on the planning tables of this whole region. I don't know that the municipality knows that that at this time, but they still have it. But this has an integral parallel access road that ultimately was going to try to get out to Wilson Drive, which would solve a lot of your traffic congestion problems today if something like that occurred. At that point, there would be no left turn in. There would be no left turnout. It would simply be going out to the traffic light through an access drive, through a development on the adjacent property. These are aspects that were in this plan 20 plus years ago. And I on this plan I recalled this whole aspect when I recall this curb that we staked out and built on the property to the rear. It's a curb return for a road that goes nowhere. It's catch basins in a pipe for a road anticipating going down to that property. So in future planning once something takes place on these properties to the south that will then have a remedy coming out to the traffic light. Until that time we need to have a functioning site making left turns in and out as we need to in order to have our customer base and a tenant.

Ron questions. Thank you. um like to talk about the six sacks stack spaces. I believe the resolution that approved those approved those as employee parking spaces. So is there any signage to that effect that's these are for employees and um Dr. Negri or anyone out there assigned to any specific business and those employees? Yes. And one more further question is is is this could this be a place that maybe the transport buses are used for? Exactly. Yes. Yes. And yes. Perfect.

So, as we look at on the easel here, you have A1 and we come in the southern access and you see where we have three stacked parking spaces. Currently, the sign here is identified to the physical therapist. So, the physical therapist parks in one of the stacked parking and if her assistant or if a customer that comes that knows, they stack right behind her. Next to that are the other two which are going to be designated specifically for the medical transport. So the medical transport vehicle can be stacked. The employee and the manager can park in the stack next to it and they can self-regulate. One pulls in, van goes out, the other pulls in, the van pulls out and it does not obstruct the use of the other lots in the other areas.

Thank you. Um, Sergeant Smith uh submitted a memo dated September 3rd. I'm not sure that we addressed that. Can we address that? His comments there? Yeah. Honestly, I don't Yeah, I don't have that. Uh, let me give you a copy.

I think for the most part, you may have addressed these already, but I just want to make sure clarifications. Kevin, while I were looking at that, just from my notes on the stacking, we have the transport company. What was the other company? The physical therapist. Physical therapy.

Thank you. I believe the correspondence from Sergeant Smith has been addressed with the parking summary that we provided. Questions are relating to current basis 37 parking spaces and he needed information support

that was what did we say was 50 spaces. We have total of 50. and his letter refers to 37 which could be from there are no apartments.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um and then the last question I had and I believe uh Miss Knight addressed this her memo in terms of um the hours of operation. Is there any staggering between the businesses that would help um free up parking spaces? Are they all operating at the same time? Are they different hours or any testimony you want to give to that regard?

We can testify to that regard, but I do know I thought in the planner report that there was prior testimony summarizing that report. So I don't know the history. I defer back to the planners report that says there was prior documentation not you're satis you satisfied yeah at the previous meeting they talked about the hours of operation between the incoming uses and the existing uses so for example like the restaurant would be open on weekends as opposed to the office uses would not be okay right that's it thank you

hi um I know you say 50 spaces I just want to go back to our planner for a second though because I'm I'm still a little confused on that. On page six of your report, it says total required spaces 49. And then on page five, there were two that you rounded down, which I'm not sure why, but if you round them up, what is the required space that you come up with? I believe that I came up with 49 and there's just a typo within the table.

So 840 square feet divided by 200 it has 4.2 and you said four spaces but that should be five. Say that again. Uh building B physical therapy. Okay. 840 ft divided by 200 comes to 4.2 spaces. But you round it down to four. If you round it up to five, does that affect the 49? Yeah, I think I there's a typo within the table. So, I think when I did the original accounting it was 49, but within the table it's only adding up to 43. So, like I said, there is a typo. I would have to So, I'm disregarding the table and I'm looking at your total of 49. Yes. Okay. Um

I mean, if we could also refer to Mr. Simmons report as well if we feel more comfortable looking at his parking calculations. I just wanted to Mr. Simmons, you agree it's 49 based on the calculations that Mr. Campbell did and the meeting we had at our office where uh we discussed how he rounded up andor from a practical standpoint added an additional parking space uh based on the number of tenants or uh office personnel and owners that were going to be on site. He rounded up to 50. I agree with the 50. So 50 would be the required 50 would be the number. Yes. Okay. In my opinion. Um,

and just for the record, I was not included in that meeting, so I would not have known this information. That's okay. So, the three stacked that you're counting them as one stack, two stack, three stack. So, three spaces. So, you you have on your chart 47 spaces plus three stacked equals 50. Take the stack away. I still have three spaces. Okay. trying to understand it. Okay. How um what is the size of those spaces? They are 9 by 18.

I'm asking about the stacked the size of the stacked. Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure to Yeah. I didn't know if they were regular size and you were just backing out longer. Not by design for my picture, but they were there.

Okay. Um, I'm also concerned about the circulation and uh the turning and we talked about the north entrance, but you said there are two other curveouts. So, if you're going to the smoke shop, you cannot go out the north entrance. You have to go out a different um exit. Yes, I should have said exit. And then there there's a third one where you so three left turns curve cuts the ones that are on the right. Um forget the north for a minute. So you've got the other two.

Can is there a circulation where you can come in one and go out the other? That doesn't matter to me. We're not in the 90s anymore.

And sometimes when you change what I don't believe in the high entrance only, exit only. How is that confusing? We're no left turn on some of them.

Comment on drivers today. It's simply that people are creatures of habit. They have done things for so many years coming into the sun. I personally been out of here since the I drive in the back. I go to which one's the most conveniently available. If I'm parking over by the smoke shop, I'm using the one in the north. If I'm coming out of the former real estate office, I'm going to the one to the south. Changing an egress on state highway is a significant task that is applicable if we have a site application that would lead us to that. But when we're looking at a change in occupancy, It would burn this application to go through the DOT and have sign.

So you're unwilling to request it? I don't believe it's a reasonable application request at this point. I think you might consider if the access come through, you'll have a different circulation at this point. going to the DOT to alter the signage bar access points that existed there for 70 years is problematic. But it's not like it was 30 years ago. Not like it was 20 years ago. It's not like it was 10 years ago. It's very very different road right now. So I know I have concerns about that.

My concern would be that they did the road the way they did without consideration of the road. Same point. Yes, we have concerns there. Yes. the future plan yet to try to alter an access and a curb cut in the state of New Jersey on a highway not something you can do. We'll see you next year basically what we would have to tell you. So doing something at that point through the DOT is a my opinion unreasonable burden to pass for a change in the other properties you were referring to I think lots 18 or something where you say

um Is that going out through what is now the sunflower fields? Is that what you're saying? Ultimately in the future. Yeah.

Yes. That would be going to the south there on design by concept and future plan more or less a regional plan. Mr. Wilson, I don't know if you knew Mr. Wilson senior. He was the developer of the Thomas Park Wilson Drive. Mr. Wilson had a plan through all the commercial parks on that side of his development and it included ultimately coming through a roadway between the back rear building on loting the back of lot 17 and then this driveway would come out to the right and then there was a whole development scheme on the property he had a plan to try to get which would be through the back of that former office 16 and it would also have to work out something with what is now 14 at the time of the plan at the time of the plan that's reason shop right on one side this side was done the interchange was put in the lights there was waiting for some development on this property in order to incorporate the road instructor no such time well it's been 30 years so I'm not holding my breath on that one but Um, two other questions. The unit two, the massage therapy medical and the chiropractic office in um, unit 2B medical. Those are both vacant.

That's correct.

Okay. Um, when you do an asbuilt plan, will you put them down as vacant so that we know that uh, new tenant has to come back for approvals? and we should talk about what the approval process will be tonight. So we know what the process is. As you see on the plan, the anticipation is that Dr. Megan who is semi-retired and also the owner of the real estate here is looking to have her own facility in that unit whether it's the office for administration of this complex or whether it's on a retirement basis have future office tonight what the applicable process is for the occupancy of

that's all I have for now I have a followup question um I'm looking at the revised parking summary from September 24 2025 is the Okay. So, the restaurant is required to have 18 spaces. Okay. And are those 18 spaces all Can you put the site plan map back up, please? Uh, are those 18 spaces all located off of the northern driveway?

That's the predominant use. Yes. So, that there's the three spaces in the front, the five spaces, and then there's the eight wheelchair needs for accessibility. They have store in front of the restaurant. They have five yard in the front door of the restaurant and then they have 17 in the field in the back which is not solely for the restaurant but is used for the restaurant. Okay. And the three spaces in the front, all three are handicapped accessible or no, just one. One handicap stall at the restaurant, one handicap at building, and one handicap building.

Okay. Each of these buildings are providing a handicap space. Technically, we can say we need one pick up, but we have it designed this way so that all Okay. And the smoke shop uh which is a little further down to the south has its own curb cut and five parking spaces.

Well, there's six parking spaces in that proximity and the smoke shop can use one in the front of the restaurant if they choose to seen vehicles in this store. These three spaces can be used for building C or building. It's ideal that the three spaces stop will be the customers of the smoke shop operator. It's not regulated by any signage for these units other than I described. So these are open stations throughout all the building. to a certain user. Specifically, the user is the one I pump up. So, the parking requirement that massage therapy requires two spaces because the square footage is a number that's less than practical that would actually happen. So, as you look at these spaces, certain ones are designated because of that type of when we bump them up and have the extra stalls applied to the tenant that's there. We also then have the signage.

So there will be signage saying uh parking for smoke shop. There's park signage that says for the therapist in the back where she stack parks and there'll be provided for the medical transport. Okay. So there so those parking spaces will be off limits to people going to the smoke shop and people going to the restaurant. That's correct.

Okay. I am more concerned with people who are customers of the smoke shop and of the restaurant not wandering around the entire property looking for parking because that is going to create additional problems for people getting in and people getting out. So, is it possible to put up signage in front of the smoke shop saying parking for smoke shop? I would think Well, first of all, let me back up smoke shop and see what the anticipated I have five here.

That's five on the summary of the chart. There was testimony as to the number of employees and the number of customers that smoke shop. And from last time that said number of employees is one and number of patrons is one to two at a time. So that would be three

using that scenario. If we put these three spaces right in front of smoke shop and designated them for smoke shop customers and we could find a way of providing adequate signage. We would do that if that's the board say that's what we're going to talk and we had the three on the use as opposed to trying to take the requirement and have signage that would actually restrict one from parking a spot that was convenient to use should they need smoking the first three years ideal a great idea we'll make it happen that's the three for what did we say we needed in the smoke shop

five at which point if there was a need for additional smoke shop they would use what's available readily available 15t away that are not necessarily ideal for building C or building D to use but they're available for them should they get the lot full sign but I would hate to restrict an area that doesn't get used confused. So, can you mark the area of the three curb cuts?

Three curve cuts are these areas that say depressed curve. Depressed curve. So, it's the black curve instead of the outline curve. It's labeled press curve. Okay. Council, can I just get from my notes now? Uh because we had some discussion on shared parking. The hours of the smoke shop. Maybe the we can get that. Uh I'll have my next witness can testify to the hours.

Just with the parking again though, you have 17 on the um restaurant side plus five plus three Oh, it's heavily on that side. Um, and there's no way to go around. So, if somebody is in the lower lot, as I'll, you know, down. Yeah. Um, and there's not enough parking because some of their spots that they need are on the other side of the building and that's 17. How do they get there? They have to pull out, make a left, and in that's

Wow. here. So, one quick question, not to beat a dead horse. The one spot that you were saying that was on on the other side of the smoke shop, right? So, you've got the three that in front that you're saying that that you can sign and there was the other one on the other side, right? Yes. So, you're saying if if you would potentially sign one specifically for the smoke shop, um would it be possible, I know you'd said that you didn't want to to segregate something for um that could be used for other use, but right now one of the requirements is an employee spot. Is it possible to take that spot and make that not one of the three in front of the smoke shop because that would be for customers, but the other one on the on the other side that we were talking about and making that an employee parking spot so that it doesn't take up one of the three that are in front of the smoke shop customers. Is is that possible?

Yeah. just to ease the circulation this way because because an employee is going to come in and stay all day whereas you know make all employees I saw him the other day. Make all employees go on the side where you have the extra spots on the 17 no matter who they are. I don't believe that's viable. I believe that what you're suggesting is a good idea because I observed that that's where he parked the other day. Okay. Yeah. Because that honestly I think that this one would be the employee for the smoke shop. And then these would have smoke shop signs to regulate it. Correct. Which would take one of the demand on this end and put it to the upper lot. Right.

And I think that'll help a little bit with the, you know, confusion potentially of driving around out and over. I emphasize too that the current use of building C is two employees, right?

And the two employees filling up this lot by comparison to the building requirement of building C, which was currently tense spaces. So under current uses as a concern, well that are daytime employees, they're not there at night, etc., not eating a restaurant. And those two employees are back here. So this lot of

where there's a heavy loading in here that by ordinance is a large number. By reality of use, new employees don't park, right? But the the eventuality is going to be that that that's going to change, right? So, you know, I mean, I understand that that right now we're dealing with a change in tendency for a specific spot, but why numbers inflated round?

No, I I I get that. I recognize the nature of the distribution of the parking as brought forth yet it's been an operation that has functioned that way if the smoke shop was open and crowded there was computer urgent at which point there was a larger facility of sectioning itself to the rear of that building smoke has a good spot. Your employee has a great spot because it takes one off top surplus, right?

I think that's all I have at this point. Thank you. And uh we are going to right now open it up to the public for any questions for this witness relative to this hearing. Name and address for the

Mike Divine Sparta. I have an annoying question and which I raised last time and it's come up again this time. I don't see this as a reason to stop the restaurant, but the turning situation on 15 is really bad. I go to the physical therapist regularly. I have to go to the crosshatch area, wait there, and make a left. Long time waiting. It's not comfortable being in that crosshatch. It's not unique to your location. You go down towards the medical building. It's an alligate situation there. You go over to Anderson Farms. It's a mirror problem. I'm hearing tonight a little bit about there was when you say on the books, I don't even mean Mr. Wilson had intentions to find a way out to Wilson Avenue and up to the light. Is it is it his plan that you said is on the books?

Mr. Wilson ceased, but this was the overall plan for the development of the Commerce Park. Yeah. these properties and the Sanford Farm portion that was more of a conceptual plan that when the properties were built was working into that plan. Mr. Trost at the time, I believe Mr. Simmons may have been involved with some of that development of the Commerce Park, whether it was specifically to this end or whether it was the subdivision I made reference to on Sanford Farm where they actually have a traffic light and a curb cut which you would connect into that curb return I to on the top to remedy that problem. You point out this is not an only situation in this town. If we're going to look at every restaurant,

I'm not suggesting it's a restaurant, but every time we talk about this, we say it's the DOT and that's impossible. We can't do anything about it. But it's only going to get worse, especially if we have other developments. They're going to be adding trucks and everything else to 15. Somebody, I hope, is going to say, "Okay, enough already. We're going to try to do something about it." with new construction, new development that addresses those problems. So the future development of that lot 19, 2021 would be the remedy to incorporate a road structure that would fix these three properties problems they bring to the table.

1920 and 21 is that south properties to the south what we refer to I refer to as the Sanford Farm West. Is that where the sunflower thing is? So is that I thought that was not going to be developed. Does that Well, what's going on with the current plan and zoning? I don't have any comment to I know what history was planning that property to address. And quite frankly, that property in its original plan was to provide a solution to something that would remedy a good portion of the complex you have on Route 15. Now,

that was the big plan 20, 30 years ago. and the development of that property takes place and if it takes place for development purposes as it was originally zoned, it will have that road corridor and these will become restricted access. They will have a traffic light to get to. They'll have a traffic light to get into and eventually they may or may not connect to uh Wilson Drive, but it's designed to go through this driveway south through the Sanford Farm and come out to the traffic light. Those roads have to be built. Those roads get built with development of that land.

Okay. So there's no way that maybe not a question for you. There's no way the town could make that happen. It has to really wait for a development to occur. It's probably not for me to answer to. Um but you could encourage the developer of the land to make sure it happens that way.

Okay. Can I just add something on the record, Mike, because I think it bears on this. I keep we keep talking about it. So 18-4.31A PCED zone required standards F under 15. Uh all planned commercial economic development district zone uses shall meet the following minimum standards and when you get to scroll through 15 I think it speaks to what you're talking about. Plan commercial developments shall have either a minimum of 20 acres subject to the following standards with 200 feet of frontage on Route 15 or access to an access road connecting the property to the new road at the traffic light on Route 15 or access to Wilson Drive. The access to Wilson Drive may be a public or private street or driveway. There shall be only one roadway from the planned commercial economic development district to route 15 for primary ingress and egress of the planned new traffic light. Existing operating driveways existing as of August 2017 may continue to operate. All driveways shall connect to the new the one new road to Route 15. Um then it goes on to suggest unified architectural and design scheme. Um, and it doesn't allow for any left turn onto Route 15 for new developments, but this is pre-existing. So, it kind of just it's something worth looking at as far as what the plan was.

Does that mean that if there is another development, they're constrained to do what you said, get this other way. Well, it it just I thought it was just worth

people consulting because it it goes along with uh what what was being mentioned for 192021 that uh there's there is there was a plan that would tie into Wilson Drive and a shared access road. So I would just urge people to look at 18-4.31A 15 EF and related uh as they relate but they relate to new um and some pre-existing um but yeah there's a common access between parking lots. Um there's you know there's a developer agreement section. There's quite a lot of stuff there.

Okay. Thank you. Well, maybe Ernie knows the answer to this. To make the left going north on 15 to make a left into the physical therapist and I assume to this site as well, you have to pull into a crosshatch area and wait. Is that legal to even do that? I don't know. Well, but I mean people do it. People make illegal turns all the time. Yeah. You know, I mean I mean it's not If you get in an accident, you get a ticket. If if you don't it's not I mean it's you know it's crossing a you know a a safety zone you know you have no option line

you know but um I mean truth you know I know myself when you were talking about some of those areas Sanford Farms or I'm sorry the uh Anderson farms I know I don't ever make a left out of there to come back into I make a right I go to houses corner road turn around in the church parking lot and come out to the light I do the same thing. Y if I'm leaving this place here, um went I think it was one was the Mexican place. I I went there one time. I I but I was going north. I made a right. I went into the stop the shop right complex, spun myself around, came out and used the light, you know. I mean, there's plenty of safe ways to

uh to get around in the area, you know. Um and and it depends on the level of traffic. There's times when Route 15 is ridiculously packed. It's also times when it's fairly empty and you could safely make a left. You know, people do the same thing coming back coming from the north to go into the car wash. Just visualize it's going to get a whole lot worse potentially. So the other point I was going to bring up later I heard I fellow from Negri I forget his name at a meeting we were at with a subcommittee about two or three months ago. Brian Inendola.

Yeah. He he made two points and one of them's at least relevant to this. He said something like, uh, there's $11 million in the state budget dedicated to improving Route 15. I've mentioned that at the planning board. I've mentioned that to town council. Nobody seems to like react and say, "Yeah, let's find out about that." Does anybody know anything about that or is there any reason to kind of find out what it means? I

I can tell you that the state moves very slowly on our projects. The the bridge that goes over the railroad tracks I was a rookie cop when they uh proposed that the whole the whole thing was designed and then what I think it was 25 years later they had to come back in and reshoot the whole project because back in the mid 80s they did the whole project in metric had to reshoot it in in uh in but if there is a plan in in any state of development wouldn't we like to be aware of it and try to maybe influence it or something? Yeah. I would think I don't know whose responsibility that is, but it would seem to me probably our pol our politicians whether it be the assembly, you know,

yeah, senator assembly would probably be the most knowledgeable on any of that stuff and getting that funding coming this way. It's something our council can probably request from them. Are we allowed to ask Nickree to tell us more about what that is? I don't know if Lindsay knows, but I don't know. And I wouldn't I would assume nothing would happen until the election's over as well. So, probably nothing until January would be a safe assumption. Okay. Thanks.

All right. Name and address for the record. Beth Broadick, Northshore Sparta. I actually have um a couple of questions. You mentioned Foos and the traffic there. Back

back in Ernie, I'm going to rely on you for the dates. Late 90s, early 2000s, that section of Sparta Sparta Avenue was reconfigured. They put in left turn lanes to go into Lake Mohawk on Pine Terrace and re re by Foos like that whole area because of Foos, the physical therapy place, Kitty Academy, people coming from Our Lady of the Lake. I live it every day. They've already done that because people were getting rearended making left turns on that road right in that general area. So, I don't think that was a good example for you to use. But anyway, the re what I'm wanted to bring up is from tw January 1 of 2021 to the end of June 2024, Sparta Police Department did an accident study, report, whatever you want to call it. That section of area from like White Lake to roughly where Sparta Urgent Care is, there were over 300 accidents. That is one of the top three accidentprone areas in Sparta documented by the Sparta Police Department. You have an opportunity now to to address a safety concern right in that area. Why would you not want to do that now given that nothing is really going on with the former Sanford Farms since Mr. Wilson, I believe, sued the town or one of the boards. Why would you not take this opportunity now to improve the safety of your patrons or possible patrons while you have the opportunity? Because who knows what's going to go in at the cornfield basically or sunflowers now

and you may may wind up getting re reconfigured. It's I if I were you, I would look into doing addressing that now and look at the safety of the people possibly going in and out of there as well as the people in the community. I mean, I can tell you right now as somebody that's lived here since 1979, I'm not I'm afraid to go on that road as it is, even with Shopright there. I'm not interested in sitting in the traffic during r evening rush hour to drive up try to make a left turn into a parking lot in a documented unsafe zone or have to go through the shop right parking lot to go up to the light to make a left and come back just to go to a restaurant and I'm not

and I'd like to know a competent driver recognizing they're not supposed to make left turn may find a way to get there so We are looking at a regulation that crossed the crosshatch. It was expressed that a person with a lot of knowledge regarding traffic and traffic patterns and the controls of the road. You're saying that there is an avenue you can drive through another commercial facility through the shop light parking lots through the access quarters through that whole complex of Ryan homes and go out to White Lake Road and come out to light. And if that's what persons are going to do, then we hope they do that. But we can't regulate and make them.

But what I'm asking is you I don't think you understood my comment. You have three you said it was what three oper three spaces for entrance and exit. Why not take advantage of that now before the restaurant opens? Because you're you said it's been like this for 20 30 years. I know it was pepperonis in 99 when my sister was still in high school. But how many? A lot has changed since the late 90s, including the volume of traffic. We saw the traffic go from double digits to over 300 and something right there.

Alter the access points along a state highway is one a costly venture. Two, if we're lucky to get acknowledged within the year of a request to make traffic circulation changes along State Highway for curving changes, at which point we've been in the second year of the restaurant vacancy, and there would be a bankrupt sign on the side because it's an unreasonable request, in my opinion, to force a change in occupancy of a restaurant to a restaurant to fix a problem that was not created by this property owner. We recognize it's a safety issue. Individuals that drive prudently may go past it, go through the complex. Now, what are we doing to the traffic in the complex? Because there's no other state highway interchange available to us. And we're driving through a complex of other properties intended to get to a road to turn around and come back. And if that's the way you travel and that's the way is prudent to travel, then people do that. But we can't force them to do it. And to change something in a access point is, in my opinion, an unreasonable request for a change in occupancy of a restaurant to a restaurant that's been existing. My example to Foods was just that. I know Food's Driveway very well. I lived very close in proximity to that location my entire 65 years. And this situation has grown in this county repeatedly. But to hinder a property owner with the burden of fixing a traffic solution for a global problem, as you pointed out, how many accidents occur on this Route 15 is an unreasonable burden to put on that person trying to get.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate because that's what I do when traffic is involved and I appreciate that because hopefully that same pressure will put the development of the roads that are necessary.

Okay, hang on. You didn't let me finish. I'm a prudent driver. I have no accidents, no tickets, no anything. Not even a speeding ticket on my license. Okay. I think since I've been driving since the early 90s, that's that's pretty damn good. That's like over 30 years without anything on my license. So, I think I'm a prudent driver. I can also tell you as a long-term resident that when it was pepperonis and something else and a Mexican place that there was a lot of downtime in between also when it was pepperonis there was no shop there was no Starbucks which ironically the parking that all had to be reconfigured for safety issues they did not have the congestion in 1999 or in 2002 or even during as recently as co they did not have the congestion. You keep saying that it's restaurant to restaurant. If you're going to make that kind of comparison for the span of roughly 26 years, 30 years, whatever you want to use, I don't care. But you have to do the comparison across the board. You have to keep it equal. You are not keeping it equal. I could go ahead and say, "Hey, guess what? I've lived on Northshore. My family has been on Northshore for 25, 27 years, whatever the math is. So, I want Northshore to be left turn in and out on Northshore, not Pine Terrace, because you know what? That's how it always was. People adjusted to the traffic changes with the left turn only lane to go on to Pine Terrace down by Foos. We adapted when they put in the daycare. They put in the building the little place with the jeweler and the physical therapy place. We've rolled with it when Ivy Rehab expanded to three of the storefronts.

You deal. And I don't think that it's unreasonable to say, "Hey, let's get ahead of a safety issue so that way, as you say, people are used to a certain way." People have not been dining in that building for a while. So, to support the hangar. Okay. I'm not opposed to small business. I support a lot of the small businesses. Well, you want to explain my wid tomia yesterday. Okay. I think we're we need to bring it back. So, what I'm saying is because it's been over a year and this is not the only downtime in that building.

People adjusted to it. People haven't been doing this every single day is what I'm getting at. It's not like stop and shop where it's, hey, for the last 15 years or however long they've been there, this is what the traffic pattern has been. Now we're going to rearrange it. You have not had consistent traffic like you just pointed out in and out of that parking lot for at least a year. So why not take the opportunity before there's an established client base for everybody in there to adjust this, make it safer for the people that are going there? Because honestly, if people are afraid that they are going to get hit or they can't make the turn or they don't want to go up to Shopright and turn around and come back to go in, why not do it now? Adjust the plans. It Yes, I know that the state drags its feet. I'm well aware of that, but down the road you may have to adjust it anyway. Why not get ahead of the game? Before you even answer that, can I just bring something up that I think is important before we go further every if it's okay. Um, as you're talking, I'm looking at this and the in the reports it has um the uses in that zone, they are the old uses. The new uses for the PCED zone do not allow for restaurants. So, it allows for planned um commercial economic developments. It allows for office, banks, retail uses in single use or multi-tenant buildings. So, restaurants are no longer a permitted use in that zone. So, I think we've been talking about it, but it's not allowed. And I think I brought this up last time and at the time I kind of asked and and it was incomplete. So I'm not sure because I think there was a mention of when was the application

received as kind of did it predate the change in PCED. Oh yeah. Well, this was beforehand but I think it took a while maybe for the code to update but this was done beforehand. So um we shouldn't even be looking at restaurant. I think you know maybe a retail use or something else or well what was the date that the ordinance was changed and when was their first submission to the minor site plan subcommittee uh it's also the use to the planning board it's a different application it's reconfigured um it was noticed and it wasn't really deemed complete deferred to Mr. porro because if they already had an application in and while the application was being reviewed by

the township and then you changed the ordinance.

All right. So gang, we're here on a uh uh if you walk out to the site, which I've looked at the site, uh it is a restaurant and and that if a judge was looking at it, it looks like a restaurant and acts like a restaurant. The time period has been closed or not. testimony is it's been less than a year. Uh so now if there's a a zoning change, the zoning department of Sparta has already determined that it is uh permitted by way of like to like. So I'm not going to uh interfere with that. So as far as today uh the Sparta building department by way of through the zoning analysis has determined that uh a restaurant is permitted at that location. the issues that are being raised by uh some of the board members, they uh someone in the public could object and bring let's say a prerogative Rick challenging that determination. But as far as tonight uh we are here on an application, the applicant is proceeding. Council, you've heard the issues. Do you wish to proceed at your risk?

Yes. Yeah. So the issue has been brought to their attention. Again, if a third party was to object, that's so noted. But as my professional opinion, the board should make a determination and support the determination of the zoning department that it is a like forlike exchange.

But even if it's like for like, it was, you know, 20 years ago, so it's going to always always be a restaurant no matter how many times it turns over. That's an interesting uh so let's say uh it's they're called expansion of non-conforming uses. This is really not an expansion of a non-conform use because they're using the exact same footprint in the exact same building. Uh so arguably if they did not uh get the filing before there are certain you hear the term grandfathered rights uh vested rights. So again, the zoning department has made that determination that they have vested rights and I'm going to support that determination and the applicant acknowledges that issue and wishes to proceed.

Okay. So just one more question. So that would mean that anything that is on this list prior it can do. Micro breweries, storage buildings, um hotels, motorins, conference centers, health clubs, churches, houses of worship, they were all taken out of the ordinance.

Correct. but they're not that they're not grandfathered by way of a facility or an existing. So, this is a facility plan of an existing facility. Uh it would get a little more interesting if uh let's say it was a fitness center versus a Pilates versus a gym versus uh pickle ball versus you know, is that like for like uh that's not the case here. We have a pure restaurant to a pure restaurant. So again, uh I'm going to stand by that opinion, but good points, Joan, that you bring up.

How does that just as it related, how does that relate to the pre-existing signage? Um being that sign standards um have changed and we have that, you know, if and when a sign is changed, modified, you know, even minor non-structural changes that they're beholden to the new updated uh code.

Yeah. In my opinion, you have more ability on the signage review on time, place, and manner. Uh, and I'm looking at the submittal of the sign. The new sign is, uh, you know, similar colors as, uh, the board planner brought out. We talked about the, uh, the lighting maybe being down lighting rather than, uh, back lighting. We talked about, uh, the u not flashing. Yeah, the not flashing. So, in my opinion, you do have more influence on the signage versus the building that they four corners of the building are not changing. Let's say the building owner wanted to put on new siding. That's not a zoning requirement. They had the ability to do that. They want to put on a new roof, they can. So, that those type of things here, in my opinion, again, the signage, you do have u public health, safety, and welfare issues. And again, I know I'm repeating myself. no blinking and that kind of stuff is well within your purview. If the operation is closed, the light should be off. Those type of things are well within your power.

And I just wanted to put a pin on that in that, you know, as we're talking about use, which is grandfathered, that that's for a later time in this signage review. Thank you. Um I I would like to piggyback something uh off of something that Miss Broadick brought up. Um if I may.

Yeah, go ahead. Um, you say, Mr. Campbell, that it would be a burden to ask uh you to redirect flow onto a major highway. Okay. But on the property itself, you do have control over where over the flow, right? Like when people come into the restaurant, you could say with pointing arrows, you know, this is the flow of traffic for the restaurant on the property. And you could do the same thing with the smoke shop. Correct.

As in put a sign says smoke shops here. arrows painted on the asphalt that say, you know, one direction only to actually create a safe flow of traffic. So,

if we were to go on site and paint directional arrows, that would encourage the driver to abide by the traffic rules by simply putting arrows on the pavement that's outside the rightway, which would suggest an arrow in. And this arrow, you would think that would be do it as a right arrow out and that would encourage drivers to make the right out only without changing the curve line. We being on the rightway, we would have to confer with lot because the entrance parts and get their cooperation. We would have to consult with 18 and get their consent. I believe your question will be, can we simply paint an arrow on the driveway to encourage drivers to abide by the contract without altering anything that has to do with the entrance that would require us to go through? I believe that's what's on the table as a question and we could consult with the two property owners and see if they would agree with us restriing the one arrow making a right arrow. That would be prudent. We can do that. We can come down on the lower end and we can paint suggestive arrows and force a driver and make sure that every driver abides by traffic. But we can on site provide some directional which would encourage the drivers to do the proper destination. So if someone pulled up to this and there's a painted arrow going right, they chose to make a left. They're already choosing to make that determination, but we're encouraging that suggested

arrows on our property to where it would best land that make the driver follow. I think that's a good solution to helping this. I'm just trying to make it as safe as possible for everyone that is traveling both on 15 and is trying to get in and out of this property because as everyone has pointed out tonight, 15 has changed dramatically and the traffic I mean I me personally I don't go north or at least I try not to go north on 15 after 1:00 because it's already traffic has already started at least during the week and the smoke shop and the restaurant are going to be overlapping in terms of the hours of operation and they are retail establishments. So you have to somehow let the patrons know these are parking spaces for the smoke shop. This is the way to go in and out of the smoke shop and the and the restaurant which is further north. The parking for the restaurant is mostly in the back so that you don't have people just driving every which way around this property coming in through one of three curb cuts, leaving through one of two uh three curb cuts. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yeah. You you Okay. And I recommend that we will paint what we can to help encourage that circular benefit as much as possible with paint on our property without okay if we need to I can come up with some directional painting consult Mr. for his review and make something by that means by all means but to go to D is not something that's viable.

In the interest of time, I'd like to to very quickly bring it back to the public so that they can wrap up. We still have another uh another person who needs to testify. So, if we can bring it back to the public very quickly. One last question. What time would do you anticipate that deliveries would be made to the restaurant? Yeah, we we can have uh our um our client respond to that. Just, you know, in the interest of how tight the parking is and the circulation is just We understand they'll definitely be in off hours. Thank you. Yeah. And that was testified at the previous hearing as well. Yes.

On the record. Hi, Jennifer Derek's tap into Sparta. I just have one question actually. It's for Mr. Pora. Wouldn't it be inappropriate? Wouldn't it be inappropriate for the board to consider an application that was made by an attorney who is not a member who is not certified in New Jersey? And I would ask you to look at the application dated May 1st, 2025.

If an attorney is not licensed uh and makes a representation, they would be uh reprimanded. uh the applications that were submitted here were on attorney's letter head. There was no indication of suspension. Let's say there was some uh unethical issue. I believe it's been cured by way of we have competent counsel uh here tonight. So if an application was submitted by an improper person, I do believe it has been cured by the attorney being here today. So there's no documentation that the board is relying upon this evening or in any subsequent hearing that would have been produced or submitted by that attorney.

I I am not aware of any documentation provided from an unlicensed attorney. Would I I would just ask you to check into that please. So noted.

So going along with that. So is it the um representation that there is no taint associated with prior applications relating to this current application that we're seeing specifically minor site plan subcommittee um in regards to you know if if an attorney who was not actually an attorney put forth the application um we're we're just looking beyond that and saying it it's it's not tainted by virtue of it is still a quasi incomplete or quasa complete application at that time.

In my professional opinion, the uh the applicant and the uh applicant should not be in the current uh tainted by a third party and the third party is the attorney. So you look at the application here on its merit. If it was submitted improperly, shame on that attorney. but it should not flow to the current attorney or the applicant. Thanks. Just wanted to get that on the record. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

Okay. Anyone else from the public? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to move on to the next All right. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, um, I have a plan for you. We're going to mark it, uh, A3. I believe we're on three. Yes.

Okay. And uh you will note that there's a date of 92625. Um and this was provided by EM signs. Um Dr. Negger, do you recognize this document? Okay. Was this provided on your behalf? Yes. Okay. Did you pay EM signs to prepare this document? Yes. Okay. All right. Um now I'm going to look at the uh the top right hand corner of this document. Um what what what is that depicted there? Is this the freestanding sign that sits on the property today? Yes. Okay. But but it doesn't have all of the same signs on it. Correct.

Because we're here tonight to get approval for at least two of those signs. Correct. Okay. And and the first sign on the top, what is that sign depicting? The restaurant Sparta Mediterranean Cuisine. Okay. All right. And um you'll notice down in the bottom right hand corner, you'll see two 2014 revision. I'm sorry. Would you please use the microphones so of course for the people that hear? Sure. No problem. You'll notice the 2014 revision um that revision was that approved in back in 2014? Yes. Okay. And that says Anastasia's on it. Correct. And that's at the top of that sign? That is correct. Okay. And in the exact same location, the Sparta Mediterranean Cuisine is going to be placed. Correct. That is correct. It's the same width. Yes. Same size. Same height, same size.

Correct. Okay. And then below the Mediterranean Cuisine, you'll see another sign. and it says uh Valentine's Day special. What is that sign? That is the LED sign that was approved in 2015 with certain stipulations. Okay. Do you remember those stipulations? I sure do. Three lines, same color. It's not allowed to blink and it should be uh off. I believe it can come back on at 6:00 a.m. or we have those uh those times. And you're not you're not changing any of that. You're keeping it exactly the same. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And then below that there's another sign. What is that sign? That is the sport smoke shop which would replace the computer repair sign.

Okay. And uh the colors depicted on these plans are accurately representing those colors that will exist on the sign. Yes, that is correct. And then below the uh Sparta smoke shop sign, what is that sign? That is the physical therapist. Okay. And that's that's the sign that exists there today. Correct. Okay. All right. And none of those signs are changing in size, height, or width. That is correct. Okay. That's how it's going to appear after we leave this meeting. Should the board look kindly upon our application? Yes. Okay. All right. Now, if you look over to the left hand side of the application, you're going to see another sign. What's that sign? That is the sign that was approved for the side of the building, the same size of where the Casa Capri sign is in the picture.

Okay. So, you're talking about the Kasa Capri sign was approved, correct? Okay. And in that very location, uh, uh, the Mediterranean Cuisine is intending on putting a new sign that is of the same size. That is correct. Okay. And that sign exists there on the sheet. Yes. Okay. And it says part of Mediterranean Cuisine. Yes. Okay. Is that back lit or is that is that going to be lit from the ground or back lit? I believe it's back lit. Uh, okay. Yeah, I believe it's back lit. Okay. Um, and uh and then the down below that there's the Sparta smoke shop. Uh, that sign's going to exist on the side of the building. Is that correct? On the front of the building. Excuse me, the front of the building. Correct. The front of the building. And um on the front of the building where that sign's going to exist, there's there was already a sign there. Correct.

That is correct. And what was that sign? That was the computer urgent care. Okay. And the new sign that's going there is the same size, height, and width. Correct. That is correct. Okay. All right. Um and um I just want to confirm how this specific sign, the freestanding sign, how is that going to be lit? Internally it is lit. Okay. Uh so for example the Sparta Mediterranean cuisine that's lit internally. Yes. Okay. And then for the Sparter smoke shop, how is that lit? I believe that is also lit internally. Okay. And is is the physical therapy lit? Yes, it is lit internally. I believe it is. You know, I'm not sure 100% sure on that.

Okay. So, we will we will make sure that we get that information for the board because we don't know exactly how the physical therapy sign's going to be lit. Um so, if the board has any, you know, um any options that they'd like us to consider, we'd be happy to do that. Um okay. Now, um there there is another sign that exists on the property. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Where's that sign located? That is in front of the home healthc care uh the home and that's building C. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. And that was approved previously. I believe it was back in 2017 by resolution. That is correct.

Okay. All right. Um and then uh there's one sign that's not on this list uh specifically. Um but uh but for right now, because we're kind of tableabling the issue of you as a tenant in the in one of the or one of the three buildings, um we're not making application regarding that sign this evening. That is correct.

Okay. All right. Um, so if the board has questions regarding the signs, now's the great time to ask. Um, I did note too that there were some questions regarding timing um, uh, uh, of openings and closings. If the board has any questions regarding those, again, you can ask the applicant. Um, she has that information and I know it was provided at the last hearing, but you know, if you wanted to, you know, get a little bit more information, you could ask. Okay. So that's the end of the initial testimony. Not yet. I I figure there'll be some questions. I think we probably should proceed to the end of your testimony and then let's do just in the interest of time.

Sure. This would be the end of our testimony then.

Okay. So then I will bring it to the professionals regarding signs if they have any additional comments, questions regarding signage. Uh, Madam Chair and board members, I would just say that uh, what Mr. Beckadorf just summarized is basically what I had in my report. Basically replacing same size to same size. And as I indicated before, I remember being on that application when it was before the zoning board for the electronic messaging uh, signage. And again, in my report, I had reiterated what some of the conditions were of that electronic sign, and my understanding is from the testimony that the applicant's willing to abide by them still.

Okay, that's all I have. Does not anything to add? No, I um just that um if the board was to look favorably upon this, maybe um have a six-month review by the board engineer, sorry, David, um of the lighting to make sure that it is still acceptable and still at a level that is acceptable. Certainly, we would agree to that. Absolutely. Just quick Dave, on the uh number of colors, was that on the prior resolution? Yes. Yes. One color background, one color lettering.

Okay. Good. Uh and as far as uh I guess this is more of what I've seen over there uh in other boards and other municipalities uh a disfavor towards the spray light that comes out and the encouragement of the downlighting uh that it can be lit but it's it's coming any opinion on that?

Well, I I believe based on uh the testimony from uh Dr. Negri and also what I've seen going by just recently because the the sign plates aren't there and you can see the internal bulbs in the light. Uh they're actually internally lit. So it's not a situation. A good point Mr. Porro brings up about downward facing light, but these particular signs to the best of my recollection uh are internally lit. Uh the other thing that I'm fairly confident if it's not listed in my report on this application, I'm fairly confident that it was in the approval from the zoning board that there is a limit on the number of knits that can be produced from the electronic uh messaging board. That's basically an intensity of light. And I'd have to double check the conditions in the zoning board resolution, but it usually was approximately 5,000 knits at night and another uh larger number of knits during the daylight hours. And the reason for that was during the daylight hours uh you have a situation where you've got the sunlight that could wash out some of the electronic messaging text. And at night when you don't have that sunlight washing things out, you have a situation where you don't want the sign glaring at a driver and and causing an issue. So my recollection is uh that that particular application did have some restrictions for the daytime and nighttime nits which is a measure of the intensity of the light uh that I would recommend if the board was going to act favorably also be adopted for this application.

Council, is that your instinct? Absolutely. Yes, without doubt. Yes. U Mr. Simmons, to your recollection, was there anything in that um initial resolution that stipulated that the signs be turned off at any given point? Can you give us the And if so, can you give us the hours of operations of the sign? I can't remember off the top of my head. Perhaps Lindsay does. Yeah, I have it right here. Um so, it will only operate during business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and will not be lit overnight were both stipulations within that resolution. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Just quickly, doctor, on the um we talked about the shared parking and hours of operation, is there ever a time when the smoke shop would be closed and the restaurant open or vice versa that they can share parking or they open basically the same times? The smoke shop is closed, I believe, at 9 and I believe the restaurant closes at 11:00. So there would be shared uh parking after they close. Thank you. Is the smoke shop open seven days a week? Yes. And the restaurant? Restaurant seven days a week. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

And what time does the smoke shop open versus the the uh restaurant? Smoke shop is 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Restaurant is 10:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. I had approved. Okay, we will bring it up to the deas. John, if you'd like to start. Um Dr. Negri, since you collect the rent on this, you should know um how how long has it been vacant? Uh, like when was the last? I believe it was November. October, November.

Okay. Um, I have concerns about this um blinking light. The um le what is it? The what do we call it? The LED. LED light. Yeah. Um because I just I don't know if you can see this, but I have a video of this thing like blinking like crazy. Yes. And it's very distracting and it's been like that for you know a while. Yes. There was a broken part that we actually had repaired um by ENM signs and we don't know how he's teaching. We need to learn how to uh change that and make it stagnant again. We we've already

because this has been going on for a while and yeah, there's no question it's not going to be flashing or blinking. We absolutely testify to that and it's not going to have date and time or any of that stuff that would be changing. Whatever the screen will be will be. What will it be? It's three lines. Three lines not flashing. I will work on that tomorrow. Not time, not date, not It's three lines not flashing. Changed once a week. Okay, I will work on that tomorrow. I will call ENM signs and have them come fix that. This is back in June. I took this and it's just been going and going. So, and the part was repaired and it's not still not changed.

Or the smoke shop. This is just lighting in general. The light that is coming from there is very bright. C coming from the internal of the building. Can that be dimmed somehow so that that is not distracting at night? Absolutely. They've already um I've already spoken to them and they have taken the LED lights that were towards the front window. They have already taken those out. LED lights. We can make that a condition of of approval if the board looks kindly upon the application that the lights will be dimmed. Absolutely.

And condition of approval, would you accept that no paraphernalia be seen in the window so miners can't go by and see it as they're going to the restaurant? Uh what would the paraphernalia be defined as? I I would assume that that would be along the lines of their glassweares and and anything that that could be misconstrued by youth or or anyone, you know, walking past there toward the toward the restaurant or in the vicinity. I have no problem with that as long as my tenants have no problem with that.

Now, they're talking about some paraphernalia circ. We're just we're just asking whether or not your glasses can be moved beyond the ey line of the front window. Can you come to the mic, please? Yeah, please. And if tinting would do the job and not see anything. Right. If tinting Johan would swear to tell the truth, hold truth and other truth. So I hope we got name and address for the record police. Har Johan, 87 Miller, Serville. And just spell your last name, please. C H A U Han. Thank you. So the question uh and you are the uh tenant at the property in question relative relative. Okay. Uh but you're familiar with the operation.

Yes. Yes. We uh you know I helped set it up set up you know put some work sweat and you can speak on you can speak on behalf of the tenant. Yes.

All right. And the question came up as far as some of the paraphernalia some of the glassware may not be appropriate for young eyes to see. Can that be moved to more the rear of the store? So uh my concern uh is it's a small very small store and there are large windows. What we can do is we have the the glassware in question is noted outside and inside if any of the board members would want to go take a look. It says strictly tobacco use only. Second thing we can accommodate is putting a tint towards that. So that takes away the shine of the store where the too much light is coming out as well as you know where it's not a clear vision of what what's the displayed inside the store but can be seen through the window.

I think tinting would definitely be the a viable option only because from the street you can't see that it says for tobacco use only. Absolutely. We have about I think 30 to 40 signs so it doesn't get misconstrued or the use that uh you know we have uh but absolutely we we we are willing to tint the windows so uh you know people do not take upon their imagination the use John do you think there's anything else that we can possibly do

if I do I'll let you know come back that I'm taking that to the bank Ron Okay. Uh just real quick, um the wall sign for the smoke shop that that is not internally lit. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And um this on the on the restaurant, we see the one wall sign, but I believe that there was another sign on the entrance way that may be covered up right now. So, is that correct or I believe they took that down. Sorry. So, that will not be that will not be there. Okay. Um that's it. Thank you. You're good. No, I'm good.

Um, I was just going through the internally lit. Joan, you didn't have anything to say to say about that. I was leaving it to you. Well, no, I Go ahead. I might jump back in. Okay.

Uh, well, I just want to point out in design standards for the signs. I mean, I I understand. I think we all appreciate that you're relying on uh approvals and and prior uh prior approvals and prior uses dating back um 25 or so years. Um but we also understand that the uh fabric has changed around, you know, disfavoring the applicant. I understand that. Disfavoring the community. Um, so I I think you know you're approaching this with good intentions. I'm taking you at that. Um, so one section in there, signs, whether portable, permanent, or temporary, shall not be displayed or erected within the street right away, nor shall any sign be located so as to interfere with traffic visibility or constitute traffic hazard. So, while I appreciate that you have an approval for the electronic sign, you no doubt recognize that that's atypical for Sparta as well as internally lit signs are atypical for Sparta. And so I would just kind of uh ask that prior to paying more earnest money towards that, perhaps you could maybe explore uh if if there was an alternative that might um still give you the wayinding that I think you're looking for for your tenants, but may uh also integrate more cohesively with your multi- uh tenants. site and just kind of, you know, I understand you care about your property. You want it to look good and so I'm just curious if you'd be willing to explore, you know, for instance, like halo lit backlit um signage that you're proposing in the Spartan Mediterranean cuisine uh

side of the wall that's replacing the Kasa Kasa Capri. It's just we've seen um that in other locations. people seem to respond well to it. So, I understand um and maybe this is a a good time to explore it because you're wrestling with this LED sign. I completely understand that you might have this eagerness to keep that because for the restaurant, of course, you'd want to show kind of daily specials changing, but I'm sure Dory's office could help you. There there is actually a portable sign ordinance which or section in the code which allows for a portable sign to be put out where you could change that you could it's a modest fee and you could put in you know the specials for the day and it's kind of more quaint um than just the LED sign. Um so I don't know I just if if you're willing to explore that is all I'm asking for. Um, I recognize that this is a challenging site. I looked at the history in the PCED and see kind of what has been referenced uh in regards to Wilson Drive and kind of there was this plan a quarter century ago and it didn't come to fruition. So that's it for now.

Right. No questions. No questions. No questions. Okay. One more. what you're saying, Rob. The sign on the uh the wall sign on the restaurant is 24 square ft. 20 square feet is the limit in the PCED zone. So, that would require a variance or going back to 20 square feet. Could you go back to 20 square feet if that's what's in the um zoning? Absolutely. I'm willing to do that. That is the sign on the building, the Mediterranean. No. Uhhuh. I'm willing to do that.

And I think if we're at that point in the planning stage, if there is a way that we can do a ground lit sign at 20 square ft, um, you know, we'd like maybe to leave that open-ended that if we were granted approval this evening that we can explore that option and not have to come back before the board with a ground lit sign if it works. Is that something we can do? So you're talking about ground lit where the old

Yeah. Like you're like you're suggesting Mr. Otto. Um if the sign hasn't already been started or created because we didn't get approval so it wouldn't have been but um but if we can explore that option it turns out to be a cheaper option. Uh can can we instead of having to come back here because we've are currently providing uh uh internally lit sign. Can we can we not have to come back here for a ground lit sign? So, um, I would just the applicant's familiar with her her site, familiar presumably with Route 15, take a look at some of those ground lit options. Um, I assume that she'd be going for kind of a better case scenario than some of the ones I've seen. Yeah, just there's another section of the code which keep your ground lighting neat and clean and all that. So, I would just kind of be careful with that. But I'm I would be okay with it. You know, probably the other thing that I might request if we're if we're having this conversation is just uh to consider the color temperature of closer to 3,000 Kelvin versus the 5,000 daylight. Um, and I think it would work well with the aesthetic of um, kind of your little like mini health and ery village that you have going on here is to kind of have a warmer tinted light. Understanding that uh, when you do go with the lower Kelvin lighting that uh, there is a cost uh, the output being the same in visibility. So, but EM signs could walk you through that. Absolutely.

So, yeah, I mean, I think uh again kind of just trusting the applicant um good faith, I I'm okay with kind of proceed in good faith and will respond accordingly. Rob, if I could if if you uh say as council suggested the 20 foot uh building restaurant sign now conforming that it would be permitted to have a ground lit uh sign as per let's say the board engineers approval. Uh that I think everyone would be comfortable with that. That way they don't have to come back if they use a ground lit sign. Yes.

Yeah. And maybe Mr. Simmons could advise uh as to kind of maybe more permanent ground lighting, best practices, best options. Sounds fine to me. And then I would just add this because it's kind of come to my attention with your with your signage. It sounds like the smoke shop is closing at 9:00 p.m. Correct. Um so just if if you do go with warmer lights, uh and when does your restaurant close? 11.

11. So, you may just consider, again, I think a restaurant, you don't want to be blinding people with daylight. Um, but from the street, if you have the exterior lights being 3,000 Kelvin, if you have stuff that's visible from the roadway, you want to kind of try to approach balance on the lights. I sure will. Um, so, okay. Also, um, Chris, the mic's dead.

Oh, sorry. Um, so also I did speak with uh the tenant for the smoke shop and if the board would rather, they'd be willing to put blinds in as opposed to the tent if you'd rather have blinds there. Um, so it's up to the board which way they choose, but the the tenants do want to accommodate the board's concerns. So they will put blinds in if required. It's definitely a viable option. Um, okay. So we will open it up to public for questions regarding this portion of the testimony.

Jenny Derek's tap into Sparta. I'm sorry, Mr. Pearl, not to beat this to death, but um I haven't been able to find in the files that Mr. Beckandorf or his firm has filed an a new application to cure the 12 uh the one of May 12th, 2025. um referring to rules um rules 121 rules of rules of court 121 and also opinion 13 from the committee of unauthorized practice of a law. Now of course I realize that any anything of of this nature impacts probably possibly unfairly the applicant. I totally understand that. But there are rules for a reason. There are laws for a reason. There are wrote rules of conduct. Unauthorized practice of law which begins with the submission of an application is not cured when a licensed attorney later appears at a hearing and this is of planning or zoning.

Sure. I just like I'm sorry I didn't get your name. Jennifer Derek. Jen. Um thank you. I appreciate that. So generally what happens when an attorney takes over for either an applicant or an attorney that files the original application but doesn't complete the application, the township asks us to submit the second page or the first page of the application depending on which one requires proof of the new council. So we generally do that as a common practice which we did in this application. I started my comments. I said I couldn't find it in the file. Yeah, we we generally do submit that first or second page. You generally do, but did you hear? Yeah, I did. I just couldn't find it. That's a It's common practice.

Okay. Because the most recent um documentation was September 12th of this year, which is very recent. I I unfortunately had the Can you produce a copy of it? A copy of that will be produced. So, it's a retroactive cure essentially.

I I don't know. Again, I this is what we've always we've always done when we stand in for an applicant. Um, generally what happens is an applicant won't will be an LLC. They will file an application. They'll come to the board. The board will be like, "You can't file this application. You're an LLC." So, they'll get an attorney. The attorney will then have to submit either the first or second page depending on what the application requires with the notice of the new council for that meeting um in that in that. But they don't we don't have to provide a new notice. And this I think this matter was carried without further notice, but we'll provide a copy of that.

So, I guess the follow-up question then for me is if we haven't acted on this, we're in time to act, maybe it's carried. Um, but uh then was the to be fair, I wasn't I I didn't know about anything that uh Jen uh is talking about until right now.

Yeah. Um I I board I'm satisfied that council is here. He's a licensed attorney in the state. Um there has been no determination by the board under the old attorney. So uh the ethics cases are pretty clear that you look to the attorney not the applicant. If the applicant was part of some type of conspiracy

my allegation, Mr. Porro, with due respect that it's not that there was any mis misrepresentation by the applicant. I'm saying that the original attorney that was done fraudulently possibly or unethically or whatever the legal term for it is. there are there are um opinions on it and that the application the original application dated May 12th, 2025 was submitted by a different attorney and was has that situation been cured by current attorney. Does it say what year that opinion is? 20 um

the ethics opinion a dash a number maybe the year the the number will help me on what year it is. It doesn't have a year. C opinion 13 committee of unauthorized practice. It is the opinion of the committee examined the application

was it you see the I'm not familiar with that but what I am from my experience if a applicant application with as council said an LLC or corporation needs legal counsel so if that determination was such that the um legal counsel was not certified or or authorized I believe that's what that's speaking to we have here an applicant who has a licensed attorney before a decision has been made and I think that's a I'm not familiar with that opinion. and I'll take a look at it. It seems like a harsh

well right I understand that but the original document for the application upon which everything else is based at this body but let's say let's say like let's step away from it you have an application it can be cured by having current counsel right right I believe and that's my question I believe it's been cured I believe it's been cured okay and I have the document here was submitted September 24th 2025 referencing me as the attorney for to the applicant and I see that but that does that cure the original document

right right but Jenny to your point is the question because I I think we're trying to get the applica the the complete application date because it bears on PCED changes that have been made uses that are disallowed in that site that would be and that's not even what I'm talking about I'm just talking about the nitty-gritty of the legality of the application form okay that was submitted on May 12th, the actual form that you guys have that it's signed by an attorney inappropriately and it can be cured, but certification of an attorney taking over isn't necessarily curing the application,

the entirety of the application

and are and any other documents that have been submitted by the previous attorney witness the documentation submitted on September of this year. And that's why I'm asking is the board relying on any documentation from an attorney who was not licensed. And that's that's not a little thing. I'm not I'm not speaking to the applications qualification, the applicant's qualifications, Mr. Beckendorf's qualifications, none of that. I'm just speaking to the legitimacy of the founding documentation of this application. And I understand it's going to be, you know, a problem for the applicant. That's I'm sorry about that. But there are rules for reason and I'm just asking that they be considered and that they be investigated.

So noted. And I appreciate you bring that up because I do have to rely on this in as much as the restaurant portion of this application and with the PCED use changes. I'm I'm not certain what uh controls that date.

We also have relied on it because right in the report um from Neglia and listing all of the and probably Dave's too. I just happen to have this one in front of me. all the things that they have looked at and it says attorney's memo for Sparta Mediterranean crisis prepared by Kevin Kelly and Megan A Ward Esquire dated April 10th 2025. Then another one prepared by them March 19th 2025. Um and a few other things that go through here several of them. So that to answer the question, it is in here.

I guess I can I mean on my letter I just put a list of all the documents that were submitted. So at that time that was the attorney, but I believe since then we've established that they have a new attorney through their transmitt. Right. I was just This isn't the criticism of of you. I think it's simply just noting. Yeah. No, I'm just explaining my letter and what it means. And in addition, this is correct. And then I think Mr. Poro also said it's an existing non-conforming use that's not being expanded upon. So for the use, it's a continued existing non-conforming use that Mr. Porro said that it's been essentially grandfathered in

1975. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So from a legal standpoint, how do we All right. So very interesting issues and as I said before if someone in the audience wanted to challenge this and bring a prerogative writ they could uh raise these issues. The applicant has already stated they wish to proceed at their own risk and council as far as the issue of uh defective counsel in the past. Are you also willing to proceed at your own risk?

Yes, we are. And you know, I would say to the board that there there are ethics opinions that say that you should not blame the client for the sins of the attorney. If you look at the four corners of the application that was submitted and let's say there's 99 lines and let's say there's a hundred lines that uh are filled out by an applicant, the attorney name submitting may be one of the 99 uh and that would be cured by the new attorney stepping in. So, the substantive issues that you heard tonight by way of the three witnesses uh and the exhibits are and the testimony would control on this application. And again, if someone was to challenge it, I could be wrong. Uh but I'm satisfied the board has jurisdiction. Thank you.

I I have one follow-up question. I'm sorry. uh in regards to just as we're talking about um the planner had said that it's uh non-expanded use of a pre-existing that's what Mr. Porro had stated okay you yeah you restated Mr. pro point, right?

Um, so I guess my question then would be for the smoke shop. Uh, that's retail that we're we're calling it and I believe it was a cell cellular phone uh shop and then it was computer repair and maybe there were some changes in between. Is is there a presumed expansion of use? So, I understand it was a larger uh operating space when it was a computer um facility. Uh but I I guess there's no way to know like you it's not so granular that you would say you would just it's just retail, right? But the use changed from office. Well, that's to retail. Okay.

But the use is already existing on the site. They're already in the they already have their approvals from the zoning department. All right. So, we're relying on they it's an establishment.

It's my understanding that the uh zoning department has granted uh a zoning certificate. The applicant is up and running based upon that. Whether that was an error that would be that same third party could have a prerogative writ. Uh but before you here today is an application by Sparta Smoke Shop and the Mediterranean Cuisine. Uh you have before you three uh exhibits A1 the facilities plan A2 the floor plan A3 the uh signage you have numerous uh testimony uh that is here that I would go through if you were uh uh on the conditions. So, as far as uh and the applicant already said their engineer, if there was some larger expansion uh that changes the footprints of the pre-existing buildings, that would be a formal site plan that they'd have to come back. But again, today, if you look on your public notice of planning board number 25-736, it says smoke uh Sparta Smoke Shop and Mediterranean Cuisine minor site plan. That's what we're here today to review.

And within the packet, there's a zoning permit from November 20th, 2024 saying that the smoke shop was getting approval to be located there. And if you look at the ordinance, I was able to find it was memorialized in February of 2025. So, this approval would predate the change in the ordinance for the smoke shop. For the smoke shop, yes. for the restaurant for the restaurant's like motion. Do we have the

uh Yeah. So given given the legal advice that we've heard and the fact that the applicant is willing to to proceed at their own risk, I think we are capable at this point um of bringing it back to the DAS for a motion and a vote. So Mr. Pora, if you wouldn't mind crafting that motion. Before you do, I'd like to recommend that we break this into two parts because they're very different. Um, the smoke shop is going to have certain conditions attached to it. The um, and I am very concerned about the traffic that is going in and out of a restaurant, 52 seats, turning over, 52 more, 52 more. It's a it's a totally different animal. Um, so I have concerns about that one. So I'd like to treat each one separately. Can we do that?

Don't know if we have the facility to do that given one application. In my opinion, you could you could there's it's could be run resolution with two different conditions. So I do the resolution and I say the conditions as to smarter smoke shop and the resolution as to Mediterranean. So it's it's could be one resolution with two separate parts. So that's it's it's not a problem. Okay. Are we are we okay with separating Okay, then I you can Okay. So, Mr. Pearl, if you wouldn't mind crafting the motions accordingly.

Sure. Uh, group, what you have before you is an application of PB number 25-736, Sparta Smoke Shop and Mediterranean Cuisine for 514 Lafayette Road, block 120008, lot 17, located in the PCED zone. Request for minor site plan approval. In support of the application, the uh uh applicant had three witnesses, their engineer, the property owner, and the smoke shop owner. In further support, they had three exhibits. A1, the facilities plan, A2, the floor plan with parking calculations, and A3 the signage plan. Uh the board discussed the uh if minor site plan approval was granted. There are certain conditions that are separate and distinct with regard to the smoke shop and to the Mediterranean cuisine which I'm just going to list all of the conditions we discussed and then in the resolution I will break them out accordingly. But from my notes uh if you were to approve the first condition would be subject to the facilities plan A1 subject to the floor plan A2 and subject to the uh signage plan A3. uh also subject to the testimony that was given by their three witnesses. Uh in addition uh there would be the septic tank uh shall be uh pumped and inspected for integrity prior to a CFO being uh granted. In addition, uh signed lighting, uh lighting shall be as per the testimony and there was a recommendation of a 3,000 Kelvin versus 5,000 Kelvin uh preference, but that is not a uh a condition, but there is a condition that uh compliance with the prior uh site resolution signage u and that was discussed. In addition, fire protection bureau approval and that

would be any other local, state or county uh regulatory agency. Uh in addition, a condition of the six parking spaces, three of which are stacked, would be dedicated to the employees and the operation of the transport company and the physical uh therapy uh location. In addition, uh there was a discussion on the smoke shop whether there'd be three designated spaces. Uh I did not put that as a condition just in that if people driving in um the restaurant uh owner or operator would be prohibited then from parking there. But if you want me to put that as a condition, three designated spaces uh at the smoke shop, I will. There was an agreement on the smoke shop though that one of the parking spaces would be designated for the smoke shop employee as set forth on the site plan. I think the chairperson brought that. Uh in addition uh the uh confirmation that there required 50 spaces has been conformed with uh that's not really a condition but it is uh set forth on the testimony. There was discussion that uh prior to a CO being uh certificate of occupancy, an asbuilt plan would be submitted to the board engineer for his approval. And there was discussion the asbuilt plan would reflect the current tenencies and the dedicated parking spaces as reflected on the record such as the handicap spaces, employee parking, and the like. Uh there was testimony as to deliveries that I'll uh make reference to and the uh off-hour delivery requirement. There was testimony also that there would be traffic flow painting directional arrows as per the board engineers

recommendation. We also had uh testimony as far as the um uh uh the 20 square foot building uh signage uh that it could have ground lighting if as per the board engineers approval. In addition, the smoke shop uh would be approved to have uh tinted windows uh as to not uh as to not have a clear vision of the glassware uh paraphernalia paraphernalia as discussed on the record and then u um again the the lighting of the signage as per the plan and prior approvals. That's what I have in my notes.

And I'm sorry, did you mention that there was either going to be tint on that window or or blinds? Uh tint or I will add or blinds. Could I Thank you. Blinds you can open and close. Tinted I think would be tinted all the time for for and just for you guys at the spoke shop from a security point of view. I mean I have that way your employee can see if someone's outside up to no good as opposed to blinds which doesn't let you know cuts off their view. They're going to have a better vision of outside than someone seeing in. So I would I would say to stick with the tinted. Great great point.

I just want to include that for the tinting that the purpose is to obscure the glassware. So, I know it's silly to point it out, but if it's just tinted and looks cool, um, then that's not really serving the purpose. So, the the it's a purpose- driven um condition to tinted to a darkness that obscures. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion then to approve the smoke shop with these conditions. I'll second. Now, just just Joan, you're saying smoke shop alone? Yes. And then you want a separate vote for the correct. There's nothing wrong with that.

Okay. So that was Joan and then correct Bobler. Can we get a discussion? I'm just trying to understand why do separate as opposed to as one because my feelings are different on both.

Okay. There's nothing vote. Yes. Burke. Yes. Ron Day. Yes. Joan Ferman. Yes. Ernie Rox. Yes. Dean Dunar. Yes. Vice Chairman Robert Otto. Yes. And Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. Yes. Okay. Now it would be proper if someone move approval on the Mediterranean uh cuisine restaurant with the conditions I set forth. Yes. I'll make a motion. I'll second the motion. Bogler discussion.

Oh discussion I just like you know I am concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the traffic there and of the people um trying to turn in and out of there. I don't think that the restaurant is the best use for that particularly since the uses have changed. Um, and I think as I said with the health, safety and welfare, that's my priority. Question. Anyone else?

I think that Joan makes an excellent point and I have very similar concerns. Um, I think that these concerns hopefully will be addressed by the conditions that we will be setting forth in the resolution. Um and looking forward, hopefully those conditions um make for safe entry and exit both onto uh the property as well as keep drivers on 15 north and south safe. Um, but I think that we I think it's worth a try and uh time will tell whether or not it's sufficient. Anyone else?

Nope. I guess we're ready for a roll call. Gary Bogler, yes. Amber, yes. Ron Day, yes. Joan Ferman, no. Ernie Rinstead, yes. Christine Dunvar. Yes. Vice Chairman Robert Otto. No. Celeste. Yes. Yes. Congratulations. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good evening. Thank you.

Okay. In the interest of uh moving forward, thank you everyone. In the interest of moving forward, we have a few resolutions that um we need to address. I know I'm modifying the agenda slightly, but I'd like to get these addressed, especially since um the board hasn't really had a good opportunity. Hey, Dan, can you just wait a couple minutes? Just wait a couple minutes. Don't leave to review everything um appropriately.

Yes. Uh board, and I apologize for the lateness of the resolutions. Uh the two resol if you call Alpine was pretty straightforward. That's the uh public uh school. Uh it's not one of my best uh resolutions. Uh but to be candid with you, we're merely stating that uh we supported it. I made reference to the uh board planner and board engineers recommendations and the uh uh it is obviously subject to the referendum. So, if you look at the that resolution, I put specifically at the end of the resolution that um the final plans continue to encourage environmental initiatives such as the rain gardens, the green roof, solar panels. The board appreciated the proposed overall school educational facility improvements, heightened security, and fostering of sound public health, safety, and welfare surrounding our Sparta students. And the board did express the prerequisite understanding and need for public referendum approval and uh and but prior to that I said that the board engineer and board planner that the report should be incorporated in the applicant's final plans. So if uh it's pretty straightforward if uh someone would move that and second.

I'll make a motion to I'll the motion. Chris, yes. Bernie right? Yes. Ronda. Yes. Joan Ferman. Yes. Rob Otto. Yes. Bogler. Yes. Luciano. Yes.

And then other resolution gang that was the taekwond do uh another pretty straightforward one and that we're dealing with the tenant on a pre-existing building. Uh so I went through on that and if we go towards the end the conditions uh strictly uh built in accordance with the plan was number one. Number two, that the amended site plan is going to continue with the pre-existing 2003 site plan controlling approvals because again, this is just one con uh tenant and that compliance with our engineer and planners reports and that the taxes are current and subject to any other governmental approvals. So again, this is just a tenant uh approval subject. Also, the hours I attached to the resolution, I think that was of importance and the number of employees. So, that's also a condition of the approval.

Can I just ask you a question, Ken? Um, I agree with you. Um, and thank you for putting in the hours here. Um, but is there a reason that is not part of the resolution before the signature lines? Because to me, that's a very important part if they they can't just change hours. You're you're absolutely correct. I ran out of time for tonight's meeting, but I did incorporate number five. The tenant, Mr. explained the proposed concurrent hours and customer parking as a condition of approval and I put C attached hours of operation submitted to the board. So I kind of kind of slipped it in but you are correct. Uh if I had more time I would put it line by line. So could could we I'm comfortable the way it is. It's a tenant.

You don't want to include at the table any things get scanned and then no one finds I specifically recited and referred to it. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Bogler. Yes. Nber. Yes. Don Ferman. Yes. Ernie Rad. Yes. Christine Dunar. Yes. Robato. Yes. And chairwoman Luciano. Yes. All right. Gang. Okay.

Moving right along. I know we've got some uh brief updates. We won't have anything from town council um as Councilman Scott is not here. Uh Chris, do you have anything for environmental?

Well, I've been away, but I do have an announcement to make. We're having the very first um ever baseline salt snapshot event and that's on October 12th from anytime from 10 to 2. You could stop by. And what we're trying to get a handle on is the health of our groundwater and our aquifer in terms of the salt concentration. And so we're going to give you if you stop by with your kids or friends, we're going to give you two bottles. We're going to give you a location to drive out to. It's kind of like a scavenger hunt.

Hopefully the creek will be running at that point and that water will all be coming from the aquifer. And so you'll um fill your bottles and then come back to us at the library and we'll test the water with a conductivity meter and with um a little um you know tab

for the concentration and then we're this is a project that's in coalition with um the Straoud Research Institute and it's being done uh regionally regionally wide. That's on for us. It's on Sunday um the 12th of October. Anytime stop by in front of the library, Sparta Library from 10 to 2 2 p.m.

There's a rain date, right? Because if it rains, that's not a baseline. Well, if it's if it's really raining and the water is diluted and the rivers start to flow, then um it is what it is. We do have a rain date that we can inform you and you can go right on the EC uh website under events and you can register yourself so we can make sure we have enough bottles for you and

and you know uh we have a site for everyone that comes. Great. Christine, could you put a notice? Could you send something to the Sparta Independent because that way it'll get out in the Thursday edition. I don't know if it'll be in time for next week. Well, I think it could be. It'll get out to Jen, too. Yes. Oh, yes. Well, we have Jen here, so we're covered, right? Well, the SP but the Sparta Independent co goes into the mailboxes. It's the saturation newspaper, so people actually have a physical copy of it. Environmental the environmental commission doesn't really appreciate the paper waste. Maybe I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.

All right. But so we're just, you know, with these, so we've had so many great events and everything. We're just right now, I think, um, in the process of developing, um, a marketing strategy. So, thank you for your suggestions. Hopefully um you know we can even get it perhaps on the town board you know. Yeah. Or there is there's also the RAB system that we used for the uh the survey for the master plan. All right. Um that's all that's all I have. I have to turn it over to uh to Rob who's been at the environmental comm. No, I think you you covered it.

Rob, anything for my site plan? Yeah, I wanted to say a little something. It's It's not going back to 1845 and it's large font, but I just looks so uh and because I'm not good on my feet. Uh but all right, I'll just start. While I may be relatively new, I very quickly saw how how complex the process of planning in Sparta is. And all due respect, I do not think many members of this committee or even of the governing body appreciate or understand the time, effort, and diligence undertaken during proper and complete planning or minor site plan application review both as evidenced by the unprecedented removal of a prior chair and in deference to our professionals and employees. So my own background does not allow me to approach important things in the superficial way. So I I kind of need to understand why and how in order to feel comfortable making determinations which have consequence and weight in this community. Um when I joined this body in January and then uh minor site plan I got kind of snookered into that. I tried to learn the process and understand the roles of those involved from applicants, volunteers, employees and I observed and after a month in it was pretty apparent that there were issues where normally I'd recommend basic corrective actions. Um I tried expressing my observations as simple concerns then frame these as requests and then settled into kind of a variation of this frustrated but impotent refrain like you're hearing now. Um, and so I've also found myself the subject of mis mischaracterizations. Um, so you know, I feel that I'm careful to operate within the bounds of my role as a volunteer. I'm seeking to pro preserve a valuable pathway for an applicant which serves the business community. That's the minor site plan subcommittee. However, I do not feel that these efforts are supported by the governing body directly or indirectly

based on some recent comments. um if we remain guided by the code. In fact, the role of planning board members is to quote assemble data on a continuing basis as part of a continuous planning process in this chapter 18-3.2G6. There's many other related things in that section, but I feel that we should seek out new information and improve our processes. We are beholdened to the rules codified within our town from prior master plan, prior ordinances, and subject New Jersey municipal land use law. So, we desperately need these updates in order to properly carry out and efficiently actually carry out our role as a planning board rather than as a board that simply reacts. We owe it to the community that we serve to learn the code, take our guidance from the code, and where appropriate, update the code to improve our process and in light of the natural process of, you know, iterative improvement. So, we've heard from our governing body, from the chamber of commerce, from the business development group, from the community that we're not business friendly. Yet, when we seek to make small common sense changes to evolve or streamline or simply update the process, when we take lessons learned from literally the front lines, minor site plan subcommittee, when we directly engaging with applicants to in effect plan, we are observed as not filling the narrow extremely limited definition of our roles that we should be simply voting. Instead, we're just simply reacting to applications and accepting whatever may come our way and not asking important questions. So many moons ago, I begged a prior town council that we need to stay a breast of the current guidance. We need to research national region regional development pressures. We need to check in with our local business owners, our property owners, our stakeholders to figure out the best use of their land and balance with our community and help them make mutually beneficial decisions in full view of the public. And hearing that, I realize now that I should have been begging the

planning board at this time since that's actually their purview. I understand planning is a balancing act of a community in constant flux. And then just one related final point. We're talking about cancelling an upcoming meeting due to no application. So Ergo, at this time we are only utilizing our professionals and our volunteer time and our taxpayers money to review applications. If we're able to meet and work through our processes, great. But obviously I've not had the opportunity to do that. If time is money, businesses, and I've talked to business owners, why shouldn't we get a little bit more money in escrow to allow us to involve professionals earlier in the process before we we just simply react with our local knowledge? This might reduce the time to review, which would probably end up being actually businessfriendly. Thanks.

I appreciate that. Well said. Yeah. And you're not the only one who's been I couldn't sleep a couple nights ago after I finally watched something and uh I just jotted that down. You should consider that sending that as a letter to the editor. I think it would be very valuable for for that to get a wider spread. So I think that hopefully the result and this is not me going on another tirade. It's just that you know with the master plan update it'll be sorely needed and so hopefully we'll resolve that if we're really done with that in June 2026. And we will find that out. Bringing me to the master plan subcommittee update. We will find out the subcommittee since we're still on the minor site plan subcommittee.

Sure. Um we have minutes in front of us. Um at the last meeting I specifically asked um if these uh and Ron brought it up first, but I specifically asked um if they are included somewhere. And Dory, you said they're included attached to the minutes. I went on the agenda center and I went through everything in 2025 and 2024 and I could not find them attached. Is there another place because there is not we've attached them in our book in in our office but it's not for the public to see and you know if we're doing minutes

anybody from the public can come on in and they can request to see anything that we have in our office under Oprah but we will have to go back and and upload them. They're not all there. That's correct. So for the times at the end of the month when we do approve them, if you go back and you attach them to the actual minutes that are on the agenda center, then people will know what is happening. And I know you had a concern. So if you want to just add anything,

I I missed a time. My fault. I I thought when we did the July 16th, we're going to have something attached, but you know, maybe don't want to go back and and undo that. But if we can get a set set of minutes next at the next meeting and have the minus site plan subcommittees attached to that and that way we can put it out to the public at the next meeting. I think that would be a good option. I believe the reason why there wasn't anything attached to the July 16th is because the July 4th meeting we didn't have one. Okay. It was canled. So then the July 16th would have bumped to the first meeting in August. So that makes sense. So I I think I think the the goal is at the next set of minutes there will be a a set of minutes from the monetary plan subcommittee attached to it that we can post as part of the public site.

That was actually one of the things I was going to bring up under other board business. Yeah, I hadn't I hadn't hit that yet, but thank you. But I think you also suggested that December at the end of the year, so December 2024, if we can attach the subcommittee minutes to the December minutes, then we have at least a year that we can see in full for 2024. 2024, right? Yes.

Yes. Since we're on minor site plan, um I was not informed that tonight's minor site plan subcommittee meeting was cancelled and I was standing outside the building at 5 minutes to 6 and the building was dark. It was locked. I thought that was strange. I gave it a few minutes. Uh, at 10 after 6, I called the chairwoman, Celeste Luchiano, and I asked her whether or not tonight was planning board. And that's when she informed me that Rob had cancelled the meeting at some time after 5:00, at which point I was already on my way here. Uh the last time that I had checked the email that I use for planning board, uh it was stated that Alex Bardi was supposed to be at minor site plan tonight at 6:30. Um so I was here, I was waiting. And to say that I was annoyed that I had wasted my time is an understatement. So going forward, I would appreciate that everyone's time is valuable. We are all volunteers. We all have places to be. We all rearrange our schedules in order to do this work that we have volunteered to do. And if a meeting is going to be cancelled, I would appreciate it that if it is outside of business hours, which

this was, that a phone call be made so that people aren't, you know, wasting wasting their time. Um, it was it was discourteous and unprofessional in my opinion the way that it was handled, right? And uh I I

was running late on something. I have since I joined this board in back in 2024. I have not missed a single planning board meeting. I have not missed a minor site plan subcommittee meeting. I have not missed a master plan sub subcommittee meeting. I was running very late today and I couldn't make it. There was no quorum and Rayisha should have called you because it was that late. So I I don't have Excuse me, but it happened after hours. We leave. No, it was 4:00. It happened after hours. We leave four o'clock. Uh Rob, did you

when I notified Raisha and she Okay, she got to hold Can you hold on a second, please? Sorry. Um, so an email went out at 4:31 based on when I saw um a message. Okay, we're gone by then. We shut down and we leave. So we didn't get that message.

Okay, but if I could. So, I received um a message and Raisha received a message at 4:04 from Joan indicating that she was running late and Risha was presumably aware that Brian was not here. So, two people is not a quorum. So then there was a question as to what the statute

actually read and said. So the statute was unclear on whether or not a meeting could be held with two people. So I actually had contacted Ken um to ask him whether or not the meeting could still continue. And since I had I had texted you earlier in the day and had mentioned that since there wasn't going to be a quorum that I was I was intending on kind of you know coming in and observing and trying to you know um get a little bit more informed on on what the disconnects were so that I could potentially help. So when having had that conversation with Ken, he had said that there was an opportunity at that point for me to have been the third. So until that information was acquired, which actually was acquired shortly after you had sent your cancellation email.

So there was a there was a cross in in that information and so we we actually could have um moved forward. But Celeste, you could not have voted. You didn't look at the Hold on a second. Can if I could that's why I had spoken. So So first of all again I talked about corrective actions. So, if Burgett would like to provide her phone number, I sent an email at 4:31 uh to everyone after I had a chance to get what I got from Joan, which was that she was running late and so it had to be cancelled. So, with CC to Raya,

right? So um and so I believe that we had established I I thought it was understood that there was no quorum and clearly we've found out with no with no quorum we cannot take action if there was technically potential for a quorum had Celeste joined us respectfully we had a lot of applications to go through and the people have the people that are part of m minor site plan subcommittee had already looked looked at those applications, were familiar with them, and we had um an applicant who was scheduled to attend. I didn't even schedule as chair. It was just the applicant was going to come in halfway through our meeting. So, uh I made a call to cancel it. 4:31 email and that is the only way that I can let someone know. Celeste, I let you know. I don't know if you have Burgett's phone number. No. And and I and I appreciate that. I'm just saying that for for and for your in your defense, it was a cross in information. It wasn't a it you know, so that's that's where I'm going with that. It was it was just a disconnect and a cross in information. It was late.

I get that. But beerget, so you said you were here at 5 and and so did you receive the 4:30 email? 4:31. Do I have your email correctly? Could you check? Hey guys, right now if I can. this may be better served at the next minor site plan subcommittee says hey if this happens again here's what we're going to do this and everyone agrees this is extremely rare we were rather than point fingers here and who which I know we're not doing right when I joined this board when I when I joined this board I was given a list of names and addresses and phone numbers for every single member of this board so everyone here does have my phone number all right well

okay I'm not in the habit of calling people anymore from minor site plan. We're doing stuff in person. We got something from the We got something from uh our secretary here about a half like at 5:00 that was breaking news. Stuff happens last minute. There are changes that happen last minute. I'm sorry that you didn't get the email, but I have a copy that the email was sent to you. So I I don't know what to tell you, but I'm not comfortable. All I'm asking for is that you I provided you notification. So if you didn't get it, I'm happy to talk to you offline about it in regards to I don't think that's actually a good idea.

In in regards to having a quorum with Celeste, that's a separate disc issue and that and that was the information that I had gotten from Ken. So we can we can talk about I don't think an hour would have been sufficient to do what we needed to do with minor site plan. quite honestly, not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm saying that that it might have been an option or it's an option we can explore going. I don't think it's an option because we didn't have another member of the we could potentially explore going forward, but the intent is to review the applications prior to

attending the meeting. So, I'm not sure how you would have done that sitting in, not a member. Respectfully, I I got your email or your message at 2:30 on the day of saying, "Hey, I'm going to be stopping by minor site plan subcommittee meeting tonight." That's not a bad idea, but it wasn't much time. And then I got this and so, you know, we're just doing the best we can. Yeah. My schedule changed and allowed me to actually help you based on the conversation we had previously. Okay. Well, based on the conversation we had previously, you see that I went in a different direction out of frustration. I completely understand. So all of that you're free to form a whole new subcommittee. So guys, if if I can You're free to form a whole new subcommittee.

No, that wasn't the point. Rob and I had a Yeah, Ron made a good point. So let's just table this. Exactly. Ron and I Rob and I had a conversation that that was completely separate from from anything. Nobody was looking to make any changes. So, I just want you to understand that it was it was to move forward and and help things move forward, not well, if we make changes, would you have enough people to form a new subcommittee? So, it's getting my gosh. Okay. Well, so we'll discuss this at a different Janette, but you don't sit on anything and never have to be fair. That's not true. Wait, wait. How many here? Let's finish.

I think we're finished on this subject. I'm sorry. So moving forward on on uh subcommittees, master plan subcommittee, which actually is important information, we thank goodness have secured the uh Sparta High School cafeteria for October 29th for a largescale stakeholder meeting. Our next meeting for the subcommittee is on October 6th on Monday where we will be discussing the outline of that meeting, how that meeting will um will work for stakeholders. I would like the public to stay tuned and please be um be mindful that this is this is upcoming. This is your opportunity to become educated on what the master plan is is intending to do. give your opinion in detail um in terms of of where where you'd like to see Sparta be in in now and 20 years from now. Um so yes, also on the 6th we will be working toward not just uh outlining the that meeting in particular, we're also going to be looking at the schedule, the Gant chart for um work going forward and how that intends to proceed. We were also going to be um starting to revisit the goals and objectives for for the master plan work. Um so hopefully by the end of that meeting we will have an outline as term in terms of a great timeline um for for completion of the work and uh and a good leanin to goals and objectives moving excuse me moving forward. Uh and that is everything that needs to be discussed for master plan subcommittee. Now we are going to move to the open to the public session for matters that are not on the agenda or related to a hearing

or an application. Yeah, I think we've gotten past that because in in the interest of time, the unfortunate circumstances, we we would like to at least have the public or what's left of them have the opportunity to speak or ask questions for matters that are not on the agenda.

Sorry, you probably don't want to hear about this anymore. Um but this this issue is I think it's important to discuss um because every part of an application needs to be scrutinized properly and needs to be proper from the very beginning which when most things flow from the legal notice. If the legal notice is not filed properly that's an issue for the entire application going forward. I'm just going to leave it at that. take a look at who filed the uh legal notice and everything that flowed from that needs to be considered.

I I sent an email, but it hasn't been 24 hours, so I'm not going to ask my question again. Okay. But in the interest of time, I'll give you guys 24 hours. I appreciate that. Okay. So, Joan, now that that's been taken care of, if you'd like to move to other board business. Well, actually, I am looking at the clock. I didn't realize and you know, I would just uh it got late and save everything for the next meeting and just make a motion to adjurnn. Yes, we also have an item on for executive session that but in the interest of time and it's late and people have to work tomorrow get up early

and we'll t if we can table the other one as well. So it was seconded so we need a roll call. So what what I was trying to do was say that for the record on the agenda we have an executive session that will be tabled for our next scheduled meeting and we will move on to adjournment. May I have just so it's just so it's uh clear. I I said unfortunately I have a conflict on the next board meeting. I don't think we have any applications uh on that meeting but again uh I could possibly get someone to cover. I prefer not to. We told that one applicant so it's been carried to the other. So if they have a discussion whether you want to have a meeting um in the

Well, Ken, you and I actually had that conversation. So, I'm I'm not available either. So, um I I think you to your point um as to whether or not you wanted to to encumber a someone to try to get put on the schedule. Um I think it's probably in our best interest to cancel.

I'm I'm not available uh but I don't vote and and again I can't make that meeting. Thank you. So, all that having been said, let's move to an adjournment. There'll be there'll be a notification as to whether or not that that meeting on the 15th will be cancelled in upcoming days. Motion in a second for journment, please. I made a motion. Great. Second. Rob was a second. No, I Okay, thank you. All in favor? I Thank you. Are we offline?