Municipal Land Use Board - Special Meeting

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 31, 2022 – Special Meeting Meeting called order at 7:30 – Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Stinley made the required announcement concerning the Executive Orders 103 and 104 Open Public Meetings Act and N.J.A.C. 5-39-1.1 to 1.7: Adequate notice of this meeting has been displayed on both the bulletin board at Borough Hall and published in the Record and Ridgewood News for the people who are interested in this meeting. a link to the meeting will also be posted on the Borough web site at https://www.riveredgenj.org/. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Excused Chairman Caslin – Excused Mr. Mehrman – Present James Arakelian - Present Ryan Gibbons – Present Eileen Boland – Present Michael Krey – Present Gary Esposito – Excused Dario Chinigo – Excused Colin Busteed - Present Bruce Feffer – Present ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Thomas Behrens, Planner, Robet Costa, Engineer, Police Chief, Michael Walker Approval of 8/10/22 – Motion – So moved – Ms. Boland; Second – Feffer. Minutes approved. MEMORIALIZATIONS: Chen Luo 910 Willow Avenue Block 105, Lot 13 1 The installation of a new 575.25 s.f. patio. Maximum improved lot coverage, side and rear yard and setback variance relief required. Motion to approve – Mr. Feffer; Second – Ms. Boland. Roll Call – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes. Motion passes. OLD BUSINESS 915 Kinderkamack LLC a/k/a Dunkin Donuts – Block 206 Lot 4 -Seeking approvals for a new Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru. Continued from 7/13/22. This meeting was noticed as a special meeting. Mr. DelVecchio goes over some housekeeping. He introduces some new documents to be marked as follows: A31- L2A response letter dated July 13, 2022; A32 – L2A sign exhibit dated August 11, 2022; A33 – Revised site plan and minor subdivision set prepared by L2A – bearing a last revision date of August 11, 2022. Mr. Voght is on his way and will go over the changes. These changes were made due to the suggestions of the Board regarding electrical vehicle charging location, additional landscaping, reducing the lighting, the addition of a fence along the top of the rear retaining wall in hopes of providing another measure to control any concerns regarding sound that may ignite from the site and street scape was added to the site as was suggested. Mr. Arakelian wanted the Shade Tree letter the Board received into the exhibits. The applicants traffic expert is sworn in. Elizabeth Dolan of Dolan & Dean Consulting Engineers, 181 West High Street, Somerville, New Jersey. Mr. DelVecchio speaks to Ms. Dolan regarding a traffic report marked A25 and bears a last revision date of June 20, 2022, by Dolan and Dean. Ms. Dolan states that she has studied and visited the site and watched the traffic patterns. She prepared a traffic impact statement concerning the proposed project which is now labeled a mixed-use project having both a Dunkin Donuts and a music studio/school and bank in the balance of the property. She gives the Board an overview of the site as to a traffic standpoint. She surveyed the existing conditions of the site itself with three driveways which are not generating much traffic at the moment and surrounding roadway system whereon on County Rt 503 Kinderkamack Road 30 mph and right in front of the site is a New Jersey Transit bus stop. There is no stopping or standing permitted across the site frontage and parking not permitted directly across the street. Immediately north is/was an existing Dunkin Donuts which is the subject of the proposed relocation so drive thru services can be provided. The existing Dunkin has an ingress driveway off of Kinderkamack and exiting movement onto Midland and that intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The purpose of the traffic study that was submitted was to review the traffic characteristics of now proposed mixed-use development combined with the existing activity at the Dunkin. Dunkin sites are busy during the weekday morning peak hours, so she performed counts to identify the volumes associated with the existing Dunkin. She also provided for the purpose of both the local and County site plan applications traditional trip generation estimates for the Dunklin and the bank based on the recognized trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation and Engineers. So, if there wasn’t a Dunkin there to count, she 2 would project about 117 vehicles during the busiest morning peak hour, that being one hour in the morning were the site would generate its highest volume and then all other hours it would be less. So, 117 is the projection based on published data. In the evening 45vehicles in and out for a total of 90 trips and on a mid-day Saturday between 9:00 -10:00 a.m. about 100 vehicles entering and exiting. The bank is quiet with a total of 9 vehicles in the morning: 5 in 4 out. A little bit busier in the evening with 13 in and 14 out again the one busiest hour contingent with the peak rush hour somewhere between 4:00 and 6:30 and then Saturday about 14 vehicles entering and exiting the bank. There was no data available for a music school, but it would not generate any traffic in the morning when the Dunkin Donuts is its busiest and maybe at about 11:00 – 12:00 noon inbound and outbound movements during its busiest evening peak hours afternoon and on a weekend and 11:00 to 12:00 entering and exiting vehicles for a total of 23-24 trips during the Saturday peak hour. When the Dunkin was operating back in January, she counted 51 vehicles visiting Dunkin during the busiest peak hour and during the 51 existing so that is 102 versus 134 that would be estimated using ITE data. She did note that people going to Dunkin would use the bank parking lot and driveways particularly if they wanted to go south, turning left onto Kinderkamack. She doesn’t see a larger existence of traffic with the new Dunkin Donuts as ITE states of 134. That traffic is there and had been existing (100 -102 trips in and out) and that would simply be relocated. They met with the County and went through a few iterations as to the driveway on Kinderkamack. Approval for the access from Kinderkamack is with the County. There are separate ingress and egress diveways to accommodate the one-way counterclockwise design which is conventional for most uses with a drive thru and the historic bank use. The County did not require any turning restrictions. The site design creates two different sites, whereas the bank is currently one site. There is a variance for the parking requirement. It was 40 spaces based on one per two seats and one per two employees. So, she feels that a 40-space requirement with a drive thru is excessive in her experience. The expert feels 13 is sufficient. Stacking is shown for 16 vehicles in the double drive thru lanes. Ms. Doland feels this is a very comfortable design. There are no parking variances associated with the bank or music school. There’s 24 required and there are 29 propose. So, from a traffic perspective there is a combination of uses with some trips being historically generated most likely by a busier bank and the Dunkin and the new use for the area would be the music school. Overall, the traffic characteristics of this area are not expected to change. The driveways are essentially reworked to accommodate bank and music school activities separated from the Dunkin activities and both sites have been designed in accordance with recognized design criteria to promote safe and efficient vehicular flow. There is sidewalk across the frontage; there’s the proximity to the bus stop; they have looked to maintain the appropriate connection with the pedestrians in the area as well as the vehicles expected to use the site. There will not be a negative impact from this redevelopment, and she believes the traffic is manageable. The recommendations made by the County will be in the final plans. The County had no concerns with the traffic volumes or the trip generations that are projected at the site. The County is also comfortable with the turning movements into and out of the site as it has been proposed. Mr. Costa conferred that the County has looked at this site plan and from his understanding the County is on board with the 3 location of the driveways and the ingress and egress coming off of Kinderkamack. (Mr. Krey joins the meeting at 7:28) Mr. Klein (Borough’s traffic expert) is sworn in. Lee Klein of Klein Traffic Consulting. Mr. Klein asked Ms. Dolan about the alignment of the proposed exit driveway and Bloomfield Avenue, across the street and the way the left turns are going to operate. Ms. Doland explains that right across the street from the Dunkin where they have the Dunkin entrance is Bloomfield Avenue and they aligned that entrance opposite Bloomfield Avenue such that if a person is traveling north bound on Kinderkamack and they want to turn left into Dunkin and someone is travelling south bound on Kinderkamack and wants to turn into Bloomfield they won’t lock up. (Mr. Behrens joins the meeting at 7:32). Mr. Klein speaks about his comment number 14 – he states Ms. Dolan spoke of the number of parking spots being proposed and the number on queueing vehicle capacity of the drive thru lane and he states that it seems Ms. Doland added them up and they got to that 40. Mr. Klein wanted Ms. Doland to talk about the difference between the parking generation of the coffee shop without a drive thru as opposed to a drive thru. Ms. Doland explains that the ordinance requires 40 parking spaces, and they have 13 striped stalls, and they have room for at least 16 vehicles within the queueing area bringing it to a total of 29. Mr. Klein had no further comments. Questions are opened to the Board. Mr. Krey has questions regarding peak time and is concern about the left-hand turn. He basically needed a recap of her testimony as he came in late, (there was a time change for this meeting) and Ms. Dolan accommodated that request. She again reiterates the fact that it is a very comfortable design. Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Klein if he saw an issue with the setup if it gets to the IT number of 117 at 9:00 on a Tuesday. Mr. Klein reiterated what the drive thru expert spoke about regarding the capacity of the drive thru along being able to handle 117. He believes it’s a very good design also. Mr. Busteed also spoke to the volume on the site. He wondered if there would be enough parking spaces for the employees. Ms. Dolan states that there are 13 spaces which is comparable to what is provided in other Dunkin sites throughout New Jersey. He wanted to know of parking would be allowed at the bank. Mr. DelVecchio stated that, that is something they did not consider but if it is something the Board wishes them to consider they would consider that since there are extra spaces at the bank location. Mr. Busteed also addresses the Dunkin App. as to being on the line in the drive thru of walking in to pick up. He also questioned the conflict with the left turn, right turn situation. The entrance to Dunkin is opposite to Bloomfield Avenue so they don’t create any conflicts. So, if someone who wants to turn left into Bloomfield, they won’t be blocked by somebody turning left into Dunkin. Her comments are specific to Bloomfield Avenue. Mr. Feffer asked if there had been any study on the impact of snow or flooding on the road as that might affect traffic. He wanted to know if there was any data on that. Mr. Mehrman asks Ms. Dolan if she sees any conflicts with all of the driveways. Ms. Doland explains that the Dunkin is the furthest from the traffic signals, so the interference from the activity at the signal is not going to be interfering with the Dunkin driveways. The Dunkin entrance and exit is at the southern end of the property furthest from the signalized intersection, so she does not see that as being a conflict. The bank and music school are lower generators, so they are lower volume driveways. She believes in the morning there will likely be some peak activity but based on traffic volumes they looked at and looked at the County they don’t need a left turn lane at the Dunkin driveway. Mr. Mehrman asks that if traffic becomes a problem can the Board come back and restrict the left-hand turn. Ms. Doland states that sometime Boards will condition approvals that include a post 4 opening traffic study to determine if the projections come to reality. Maybe six months after the CO is granted you can perform an actual count to determine whether a left turn lane or a left turn probation is warranted. The Board could also require the applicant study the accidents for a certain number of months after the site opens. Mr. Kelin confers with Ms. Dolan. Mr. Mehrman addresses a comment that Mr. Klein left open – (continuing comment) regarding fire truck circulation. Mr. Mehrman wanted to know if he had heard anything about that. Mr. Klein could not recall if an exhibit was presented or not. Mr. Voght will be speaking about that. Mr. Krey spoke to future tenants at the site which might increase volume. Mr. Arakelian states that if there is a change they would have to come back before the Board for a variance. The Chief did not see any concerns. He addressed the Board with his comments. Overall, he sees no issues with the application in front of the Board. Mr. Arakelian doesn’t believe this new project will generate anymore traffic then other previous project have generated. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Feffer. Mr. Barrett speaks on behalf of Five Flowers, Inc. There is objection between Mr. Barrett and Mr. DelVecchio of Mr. Barrett’s stating that Ms. Doland called Kinderkamack Road a beau colic country road (low traffic roadway). She stated yes in has less traffic if compared to Rt. 4 and 17 the highways in the area. She states that morning peak hour, (8:00 am. to 9:00 a.m.) a two-way flow on Kinderkamack is low 1,500 up to 1,670. He had questions about how many people used what driveways. Ms. Dolan relayed what she had observed to Mr. Barrett. He asks about the parking needs for the music school. Ms. Dolan responds that she spoke with the applicant, and it is reported that there will be a maximum of five students and three teachers on site at any one time during peak operating hours. Mr. Barrett challenges the previous testimony of the individual of the music school indicating that she testified to the fact there would not be parties, group classes, camps all based on a flyer that he obtained regarding the franchise Bach to Rock. Mr. DelVecchio objects. Inappropriate for cross examination. All franchises run differently. The flyer Mr. Barrett was referring to was from a different town. He suggests the Franchisee come back and retestify as to her plans for her location. Mr. Arakelian interrupts Mr. Barrett stating his line of questioning is inappropriate and he asks Mr. Barrett to stop. Mr. Arakelian states should the Franchisee go against what she testified to, he will have a zoning officer go to the music school and address it then. Mr. Barrett asks Ms. Dolan what happens when someone gets into the queues and then decides they do not want to wait too long. Ms. Dolan explains that if they are in the outside lane of the queue they can drive around, if they are on the inside of the queue which there would be room for four vehicles on the north side of the Dunkin building, they would have to wait until they have the opportunity to use the by pass lane that’s around the queue lane. She once again explained self-policing to Mr. Barrett. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. Mr. DelVecchio recalls Mr. Voght. Mr. DelVecchio goes through the exhibits he marked at the beginning of the meeting with Mr. Voght. Mr. Voght confirms that those documents were either prepared by him or prepared under his supervision. They go through the changes to the signage for the Dunkin Donuts regarding some of the ancillary directional signs. (Exhibit A32 – 8/11/22). He prepared a comprehensive sign plan, one sheet per the Board’s request. They removed the pylon sign and two of the directional signs. They are down to one directional sign which is the drive thru only in for the Dunkin site. When 5 you come in from the northern most ingress driveway there is a drive thru directional sign just along the curb line which takes you into the site. All remaining signage remains the same. Wall mounted signs are east facing Kinderkamack. There is the walk-up window, the Dunkin text which is above that window and then along the east facing side of the building above the corner of the building there is the Dunkin text. On the north portion of the building another sign (inaudible) by the entrance above the doorway. All the signage is for the drive thru. The preview board, you come into the double stack, the clearance bar, order canopy, ordering menus on both the inside and outside lanes. That is all the signage for the Dunkin building. Mr. DelVecchio confirms with Mr. Voght that the first directional sign states Dunkin drive thru and the rest of the directional signs have been removed of the DD logo or Dunkin language on them. By the bank and music school there are two directional signs. At the northern most ingress driveway there is an enter only sign and bank drive thru sign and as you exit there is an exit only sign to differentiate the two driveways for egress and ingress. Main site plan – changes and updates. (Exhibit A34) Color rendering of the site plan that was submitted as part of the revised site plan. They only added color and added landscaping. The new plan shows the entire street scape along the frontage of Kinderkamack. In lieu of additional trees along the right-of-way they added landscaping within the subject site behind the property line out of all of the site triangles and they enhanced the entire frontage of both properties. They have been working with the Shade Tree Commission to enhance the landscaping. They added solid privacy fence, three feet back from the top of the retaining wall, added screening as well as fall protection. The retaining wall in the back behind the Dunkin measures 4’ x 3’ in height at its lowest and then goes all the way to almost about 11 feet. Mr. Voght speaks about adding additional trees. There is one electrical vehicle parking spot at the most western parking lot. They lowered the light fixtures from 20 feet in height to 15 feet. Mr. DelVecchio confirms that the plans will be resubmitted to the County to get their final comments. They have addressed all of the County’s comments. Mr. DelVecchio confirms that Mr. Voght addressed Mr. Costa’s review letter and that there are a few clean up items that he has no problems addressing. Those issues can be addressed as part of Resolution should the application be granted. Questions are opened to the Board. Mr. Behrens – had a question with regard to the fall protection fence on the retaining wall. Mr. Behrens wanted to know if the 3 feet adequate for the proposed planting and is the 3 feet measured from the back of the retaining wall to the face of the fence or the front of the wall. Mr. Voght said he did a full 3 feet of green space. Mr. Behrens wanted to know if there was a reason it could not be pushed back further. Mr. Voght stated that since it is a segmental block wall that is an adequate amount of room. Mr. Behrens confirms that if the Board were to find the application favorable whether or not they wanted to retain jurisdiction over screening particularly in the rear so the residents are impacted so that if the landscaping being proposed is insufficient the Board will have the opportunity to request or require an additional tree and the same pertaining to lighting. Mr. Costa interjects regarding lights. Mr. Arakelian asks Mr. DelVecchio that if the approval is based following the street scape that the Borough Engineer puts forward is the applicant all right with that. Mr. DelVechio states yes if it’s a standard plan. Mr. Arakelian states that it’s a standard plan that everyone else follows in town. Mr. Gibbons wants to clarify parking on the bank parking lot – the trees that are on the property line between the two 6 new properties, what is actually going there. Mr. Voght states that they are eastern red cedar trees as suggested by the Shade Tree Commission. Patrons will have to walk around and not be able to cut through the trees. Mr. Gibbons asks because there is an 11-foot-high retaining wall and then another fence on top of that – does that require a variance. Mr. Behrens responds that it depends on how the code is interpreted. The technical answer would be that the Borough permits a maximum wall height of 6 feet, he believes they are already requesting a variance for the wall height in excess of six feet. The question would be how much space is sufficient. Mr. Gibbons wanted to know what the purpose of the top fence is. Mr. Voght responds it is fall protection and additional screening. Mr. Mehrman speaks about streetlights. He thinks that the two handicapped parking spaces shown on the bank property are quite removed from the entrance. Mr. Voght states that access to the building is to the front of the building so being that all of the spaces are to the back of the site there is no rear entrance of either of the tenant spaces from the back, so the closet accessible route to the accessible entrances to the building on this location to the north, so they divided that sidewalk that continues out to the right-of-way. Then the conversation goes to the retaining wall. Mr. Mehrman wants the plan to state segmental wall. Mr. Mehrman wanted to know if the bus shelter was going to be a new shelter or is it just being moved. They will confirm with the County. Mr. Mehrman further talks about the walkup window. He is concerned with safety. He wants to prevent people from coming across the driveway and directly to the window. He wants a barrier there forcing people to go around. Mr. Voght said he would work with the Town to put something there. Mr. Mehrman talks about a walk-up sign that shown in the table. Mr. Mehrman wants to know where it will be located on the building and what the size of it is. Mr. Voght refers to Exhibit A 15 second sheet, east elevation facing Kinderkamack, there is the walkup window and a small awning above the window, tucked into the front of that awning is the words “walk up” and the dimensions are 4’x 3” in height and 8” in height. That area is 2.84 square feet. The word walkup is on the awning. Mr. Mehrman is going through the sign table once again, just making clarifications. Mr. Arakelian asked if there would be bike racks. There will be a bike rack in the northeasterly corner of the concrete area. Motion to recess for ten minutes. So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Mehrman. (9:13 p.m.) Roll Call – Ms. Boland; Mr. Mehrman; Mr. Feffer; Mr. Krey; Mr. Arakelian; Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Busteed. Also, present Mr. Behrens, Mr. Costa and Mr. Klein. Meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Motion to open to the public – So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Krey. Mr. Barrett says something to do with turning templates, but it is inaudible (delivery vans). Mr. Voght responds to his question. The Owner of the adjacent property approaches the Board. Mr. DelVecchio objects as the owner is represented by counsel. Mr. DelVecchio states that he indicates that he is the owner of the adjacent property which he is not. The corporation is the owner of the adjacent property, not the individual. Therefore, he is not a party. Mr. Isgahani continues. Mr. Arakelian asks Mr. Isgahani if he is going to make a statement or is he going to ask a question, because if he is going to ask a question you can ask the question. If you are going to make a comment, then he will have to be sworn in. He states that every car that makes a right turn in the bank parking lot is blocking his driveway. So, if the bank customer, music school customers and Dunkin Donuts customers take that driveway to the bank will be blocking his ingress. He states that 7 Dunkin currently serves 426 cars per day. He states that between his property and the ingress to the bank is only 6 feet apart and so every car that makes a right in the bank parking lot is blocking his driveway potentially. So, everyone taking that driveway to the bank is blocking his property. Mr. Arakelian explains to Mr. Isgahani that because he is represented by counsel and counsel had a traffic expert appear, what he is saying now about traffic is not relevant because they already have a traffic expert representing them. Ms. Stinley asks the engineer for clarification as to the 6 feet between the property line. The engineer responds they have it at 9.7. Mr. DelVecchio puts a request on the record through the Chair to the extent that any expert testimony is going to be offered through the neighbors Mr. DelVecchio would request that they be held to the same obligations that they were which is they submit their reports in advance of their testimony so that everyone has adequate time to review and consider them. Mr. Barrett states that the request is acceptable. Mr. Costa speaks to try to bring clarity to traffic expert questions going back and forth. The civil engineer needs to finish up (the site plan). Then Mr. DelVecchio will bring up his Planner to testify. Mr. Costa does not have in his possession a Planner’s report from their Planner. (There is no submission- just testimony). So, If Mr. Lugio is now going to submit his traffic report they do not have it in hand, the Board, the professionals nor the public. So that will be another meeting. So, if Mr. DelVecchio would agree to allow that to come into evidence. Mr. DelVecchio was okay with Mr. Costa’s narrative until he used the term “allow it in evidence” that is a decision to be made at a later time subject to testimony going in to support it and Mr. DelVecchio seeing what the document is. That document needs to be submitted on a date prior to the next meeting (at least ten days) and Mr. DelVecchio is prepared to call h is next witness who is their Planner. (Everyone is going back and forth as to dates, who is available, what is available etc.) It was agreed traffic will go on September 28th and the Planner on the 14th. Mr. Arakelian stated that he will allow the objector’s Planner to testify after that traffic report on September 28th. Motion to close to the public – So moved - Mr. Krey; Second – (?) Mr. Del Vecchio calls Mr. Keenan Hughes, Planner who is sworn in. Mr. Hughes states that he has reviewed the plans that are before the Board. He has attended a number of hearings regarding this application. He has visited the site which is the subject of this application as well as the neighborhood in which the property exists. Mr. Hughes states that he reviewed all documents, ordinances, Master Plan and visited the site. He reviewed all correspondence from the professionals in addition to all the application materials. He states that the site is located in a C1 zone. He states that from a land use prospective its located in what he would consider a mix used area. The Borough has identified the need for a D1 use variance in connection with this application. As to positive criteria starting with the D1 focusing on the drive thru aspect of the proposed use. There are three aspects to that; one, the site is suitable for the drive through aspect of the Dunkin Donuts, second it advances purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, and third he will demonstrate the granting of the variance for the drive thru to facilitate this Dunkin Donuts and the overall intent of the Borough’s Master Plan. He states that drive thru’s have become much more common especially during the Pandemic. He points out that the site already has a drive thru already albeit the bank. He further states that the size and shape of the proposed lot 4.01 ideal. Where 100 feet is required in terms of depth in the C1 zone, 180 feet is 8 proposed. Likewise, 10,000 square feet is required, 27,000square feet is proposed. So, what this means is this site is sufficiently large to accommodate a drive thru facility with a very significant queueing capacity. It meets and exceeds all the specifications that Dunkin Donuts is looking for in terms of drive thru capacity. It further allows for a buffer to the R1 zone directly to the rear of the property of approximately 44 feet, whereas 27 feet is required. He states that the size and shape of the property helps mitigate the potential impacts arising from the drive thru facility. As to the typography of the site, to the rear of the site there is roughly a 25 to 30 foot grade difference between our site and the homes in the rear, so where the operations of the site, the drive thru, the trash enclosure, the rear parking area, the circulation area where that terminates then begins the extensive buffer area which is densely vegetated and buffered there is also a change in grade. So that is another factor that helps to mitigate the potential negative impacts raising from the drive thru facility. Mr. Keenan also speaks to the location to Kinderkamack Road. This application will advance the goal of the Borough’s Master Plan in maintaining and upgrading commercial areas. Mr. Hughes goes through the bulk variances. Mr. Del Vecchio interjects to state that there is no traditional free-standing sign being proposed for this site. Mr. Hughes then goes through all the signs and their locations. Mr. Hughes finishes with the maximum retaining wall height. They are enhancing landscaping. This use will not have an adverse impact to the surrounding roadway network and egress and ingress has been worked out with the County and the Borough’s professionals. He speaks to noise and how they are in compliance with the Noise Control Act. There are no environmental concerns with regard to the site. He states that there are no substantial detriments to the public good. Mr. Behrens concurs with Mr. Hughes that the ordinance is silent if you do a search for the term drive thru’s its nowhere in the ordinance at all. Mr. Behrens reiterates what the Board’s task is with respect to the statutory criteria for the D1 use variance. He speaks of the test established by the Medici case. Mr. Arakelian states that this application has open the Board’s eyes that the Board s going to have to send a referral to the Mayor and Council to address drive thru’s in the future for the Master Plan. Motion to open to the public - So moved – Mr. Krey; Second - (?). Motion to close to the public – So moved – (?) Second – (?) The application will be carried to Wednesday September 14, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Klein, Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Costa will no be available on September 14, 2022. Motion to adjourn – So Moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – (?). Meeting adjourned. 9