River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 25, 2022 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 Lou Grasso – Absent Ryan Gibbons – Present Michael Krey – Present Eileen Boland – Present Dario Chinigo – Excused Gary Esposito – Present Bruce Feffer – Excused Colin Busteed - Present Mr. Esposito and Mr. Busteed are seated to vote this evening ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Mr. Behrens and Mr. Costa Approval of 5/11/22 Minutes – Motion; So made- Mr. Gibbons; Second Ms. Boland – Minutes approved. Public Hearing on amendment to 2020 Periodic Re-examination Report of the Master Plan & Development Regulations, Borough of River Edge - Mr. Behrens addresses the Board regarding ordinance amendments to modernize and update the current ordinances as certain provisions are dated. An overview of the topics are: taking a look at the current improved lot coverage requirements pertaining 1 to single family homes; current fence and wall requirements; electric charging station requirements; definitions; permitted uses in certain zones; and generally a number of topics that are not currently regulated and the ordinance being slightly dated. Certain policies updates have occurred at the state level since the adoption of the last plan in 2020 which includes the legalization of marijuana as well as a new state requirement for any land use plan element that has to conduct a climate change hazard vulnerability assessment. So, the next time the Borough adopts a new land use plan element that will be a requirement that will have to be conducted at that time. Finally, a statement has been provided that is required by the state regarding public electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which states that the Borough will consider a number of town owned properties as required by the state. Mr. Mehrman addresses language regarding billboards, free standing stanchions and neon signs. Ms. Stinley advises that pursuant to state law the Borough cannot prohibit billboards outright. Mr. Behrens explains that there has been a change at the Federal level whereby for reasons of freedom of speech there cannot be an explicit prohibition outlawing billboards. It doesn’t mean you have to permit them in the ordinance, but you can’t specifically prohibit them either. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Krey. No questions from the public. Motion to close to the public; So, made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. Mr. Arakelian – Motion from the Board to adopt (inaudible) as read. Roll – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons -yes; Mr. Esposito -yes; Mr. Busteed – abstained. Mr. Arakelian sets a curfew for tonight’s meeting 10:30 p.m. but advises that if the presenter is in the mist of his presentation, he will not stop him at 10:30 p.m. but the Board will not go onto the next professional until the next meeting. Mr. Mehrman wants the 2020 census situation addressed. Old Business 915 Kinderkamack LLC – AKA Dunkin Donuts, 915 Kinderkamack Rd., Block 206, Lot 4 - (Carried from 5/11/22) Constructing a new Dunkin Donuts with a drive-thru (bank building will remain). Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Subdivision required “D” (use) variance is required. Andy Del Vecchio, Esq. appearing for the applicant. He has two professionals appearing this evening, the architect and the engineer who have both previously testified. Revised plans have been resubmitted. Mr. Del Vecchio refreshes the Board regarding previously testimony. Mr. Del Vecchio starts with Exhibit A9 minor subdivision Platt consisting of 1 sheet, prepared by Lakeland Survey dated April 8, 2022; Exhibit A10- preliminary and final site plan and minor subdivision plan consisting of 13 sheets prepared by L2A revised April 8, 2022; A11 updated storm water management report prepared by L2A last revision date of April 8, 2022; A12 – soil moving plan prepared by L2A, revised April 8, 2022; A13 – updated traffic impact statement 2 prepared Dolan and Dean dated April 6, 2022; A14 – proposed alterations for the bank building and music school consisting of 2 sheets prepared by GK&A Architects dated April 11, 2022; A15 – proposed floor plan, proposed elevation, site signage detail for the Dunkin Donuts consisting of 4 sheets prepared by GK&A Architect revised April 6, 2022; A16 – landscape architect plans prepared by L2A, consisting of 2 sheets. Mr. Del Vecchio recalls the project architect. He testifies as to the current changes to the plans. (Impossible to hear as he is too far from the microphone and everyone is shuffling papers) Mr. Del Vecchio asks the professional to remind everyone where the drive thru service area is both exterior and internally and also where the pedestrian window is proposed. Left hand side is for the drive thru vehicles (?) window in the rear and a pickup/walk up window in the front. The architect goes through all the revisions with the Board. Maximum size sign is 20 feet, proposed is 17.31. He is speaking as to signage. (Impossible to hear too much shuffling of papers) Lowered 20’ ½” it’s still variance as 18 feet to the top of the sign is the maximum. East elevation has been corrected to north elevation; River Edge does Dunkin has been removed; DD letters on side they are proposing to maintain and they are in compliance with the size and height restrictions; added full screening to HVAC units with colored acoustic screens to match the coloring of the building; eliminated the pylon sign and created monument sign; (inaudible shuffling) South elevation by the drive thru portion of the building DD sign has been removed eliminating another variance for that. He is speaking about directional signs (welcome back, drive thru with an arrow). No indication that there is a Dunkin sentry, but it keeps trucks from ripping the awning off the building; border boards and menus facing behind the building on the side. Color of the assigns is noted on plans. DD sign is magenta, channel cut illuminated letters with the exception of the lettering on the orange overhang for the walkup window in front of the building. The professional now speaks about the existing bank building but he is inaudible. Proposing to split vestibule right down the middle – one side will become another bank and the other a music school. The only real changes are the egress and entry doors to the rear parking lot and then a secondary egress door out of the multipurpose room. Mr. Del Vecchio explains that the floor plan as described is essentially a repurposing and reuse of the existing space and it is not being enlarged by way of footprint or otherwise. The proposed back is 19, 036 S.F. and the music school 2,221 S.F. Roof, HVAC units all that will remain the same. New signs on the buildings, the bank and the music school. Both signs will comply with the Borough ordinance. 12 ½’ height. Drive thru is not being enlarged. There is a window that is boarded up and that will be reinstalled. Hours of operation – 8:30- 4:30 Monday through Friday and Saturday 8:30 to 1:00 p.m. and The ATM on the exterior will be open 24/7. Approximately 4 to 5 employees during peak hours. The music school, 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and Sunday 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. Teachers and staff will be 5 at any given time, students will be 4 at any given time. Board member comments: Mr. Esposito – none; Mr. Krey wanted to know if the bank and music school were identified tenants or are they going. Mr. Del Vecchio confirmed that they are. Signage -three different signs a monument sign, Dunkin 3 Donuts sign and the DD sign. All three signs need some type of variance. Mr. Del Vecchio responds, the short answer is yes. The DD sign on the one sign was the first sign complies but because of the existence of the other signs depending on which one you call the first sign triggers a variance. Ms. Boland states that she is not of the opinion that Welcome Back and See You Soon are directional signs. She is not sure why they are even needed. The architect explains that because of the variance for the drive thru window and everything associated with it is automatically considered a variance. She requested clarification as to some of the signage which was given by the architect. Mr. Gibbons – Asks about the music school wanted to clarify that it is an established business, to which the professional responded – yes. He has questions regarding the numbers the architect is talking about. Mr. Gibbons is counting 8 spaces. The architect explains that on what instruments are being played at the time etc. Mr. Gibbons feels the number 4 is low and that there will be more students than that. Mr. Mehrman – Signs. He addresses a monument sign that says Dunkin driver thru. Then the architect goes into the fact that the site plan replicates (4/8/22) it is the same only difference being it is colorized and the added the proposed landscaping. Drive In and Exit for the Dunkin Donuts, there is the walkway that leads you across the pedestrian area that is striped – Mr. Mehrman wants to know what purpose does it serve? The architect explains that it aids in vehicles going down Kinderkamack to see where the entrance is. Mr. Mehrman thinks it should be eliminated. The architect and Mr. Del Vecchio will take Mr. Mehrman’s comment back to corporate for an answer. They proceed to go through all the signage once again for Ms. Stinley. Mr. Mehrman is still speaking to the signage. He speaks about the walk-up window. Mr. Del Vecchio advises that this professional cannot speak regarding pedestrian movement to and from the window. Mr. Arakelian speaks regarding the signage also. He asks if there will be a signage for the bank and music school to which Mr. Del Vecchio advises yes, there will be one sign for the bank and one sign for the music school. Mr. Del Vecchio states that they are not proposing anything other than what is shown on the plans now. Mr. Beherns opinion is that drive thrus require a use D1 but the question of the music school. The ordinance is very particular, and it explicitly states that dance studio and music studios are permitted, and Mr. Behrens just wanted to make sure that there was some testimony that qualified that use as permitted or not. Mr. Behrens advises that the Borough ordinance as written does not define music studio so Mr. Behrens offers to the Board if they have enough information to qualify it as a music studio or perhaps a subsequent expert of the applicant will be able to do that. Mr. Arakelian asks if the Sunday hours violate any ordinances in the Borough. Mr. Behrens stated – not to his knowledge. Mr. Behrens goes into the technical aspects of the application. He wanted to know of the screening on the Dunkin Donut building are going to be screened on all four sides, to which the architect responds – yes. Mr. Behrens speaks to signage – the front sign is one thing, the northerly DD sign – its not a corner lot he believes the Board will need some testimony to justify that. He states that although there are monument signs up and down Kinderkamack Road there is an explicit policy, and he believes that the Board has made a conscious effort to not permit free standing signs. Mr. Behrens speaks to the design of the Dunkin Donuts building fitting in with other surrounding buildings. He spoke of a possible pitched roof. Mr. Behrens moves onto the music school asking if there is a rear entrance because that is where the parking is. The architect responds that there is a rear entrance. Mr. Busteed asks about the sign on top of the building. He wanted to know if it would be illuminated and if so, would that be on 24/7. The architect was not sure 4 and will get back to the Board on that question. Mr. Costa is not sure whether it’s a music studio of or not (he sees Mr. Barrett ready to pounce) if it is a use variance and it hasn’t been properly noticed – does the Board make a decision as to whether or not it’s a music studio or not, is it permitted or not permitted. Ms. Stinley advises that the applicant did notice for a use variance D2 variance and a D1 variance. Mr. Del Vecchio believes that what Mr. Costa is alluding to is, does the notice need to have a separate provision specifically calling out the bank as maybe a use variance. Mr. Del Vecchio does not believe that it is a use variance. He believes Mr. Behrens answered the questions himself when he stated that the Borough does not have a definition of what a music studio is, so how can it be a use variance if we don’t know what the use is defined as. To a lay person this is a music studio/music school they are interchangeable terms. Music instruction is being provided and music is being played within the space. If someone has a different definition, its not codified in the Code and it doesn’t exist anywhere, so he does not know how they can be at variance with it if its not contained in the Code in the first place. Ms. Stinley asked if the applicant’s Planner will provide testimony. Mr. Del Vecchio responds – yes. Mr. Costa asks about the noise levels on the music school. The professional advises that there will not be any external noise. Mr. Arakelian has a question as to external noise at the Dunkin Donuts relating to the drive up window where there is a speaker for customers to ask what they want – what kind of disturbance will that be for the residents that live right there? There are sensors in the speaker that control the volume levels. The professional goes on to explain how the sensors pick up sound and how it works. Mr. Arakelian asks Mr. Behrens to look into the sound issue further. Mr. Del Vecchio responds stating that of the Board decides to act favorably on the application they are prepared post construction to demonstrate that the speakers comply with the state noise Code which is the regulating source – he believes that at 5:00 a.m. the noise level is less that 50 to 60 decibels. Mr. Costa suggests going to a nearby Dunkin Donuts that has this smart system Mr. Del Vecchio speaks about. There is lengthy discussion as to noise. Mr. Arakelian is concerned about the noise levels at 5:00 a.m. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Esposito; Second – Mr. Krey. Public Comments: Joanne Basile – 78 Bloomfield Ave. Her concern is the traffic and noise. Mr. Arakelian tells her she will need to bring the traffic issue and noise up at the next meeting. Matthew Corwin, 57 Bloomfield Ave. He generally endorses the concept of the project. His concern is about the traffic, and he will wait to ask his questions for when the traffic expert is there. He had some comments about the monument signs. In the case that the monument sign at DD remain is it possible from a casement standpoint that it be placed at he southern most portion of the property. He assumes it will be illuminated and it faces Bloomfield Avenue so if they put it in the southern portion of the property there are all commercial buildings there so residents will not have to see it from their front porches. His next questions are about the music school. Hours of operation for similar Dunkin Donuts in the area are 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 6:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. This new Dunkin Donuts hours of operation are 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Debra Powell, 69 Christy Avenue. She does believe this 5 Dunkin Donuts is suitable for this location. It’s a residential area and this is an upscale area. She is concerned about the lighting as she is on the East side of Kinderkamack Road, the noise and long hours. Mr. Barret – He speaks about previous testimony regarding the percentage of customers that will use the drive thru as opposed to the walk up or even into the store itself. He inquires as to an increase in business. He has comments regarding the architect’s testimony on had the music school will be run – shouldn’t the individual running the music school come to a meeting and testify as to what they intend to do with the space? He states that everything the architect states is hearsay. He believes that whoever will be running the school should come before he Board and testify. Mr. Behrens concurs. Motion to close to the public – So moved- Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gibbons. The engineer is sworn in. William R. Vogt, Jr., L2A Land Design, LLC, 66 Grand Avenue, Englewood, NJ. Mr. Del Vecchio asks about previous testimony with the County regarding access to and from the County Road of this site. The engineer confirms that testimony. The engineer took the concerns of the county and incorporated them into the revised plan to which he will speak of this evening. (Very difficult to hear this professional, much shuffling of plans) He is speaking about Exhibit A19 – which is a Google aerial map pulled from 5/25/22. The existing property has three driveways which provide ingress and egress to the property. Driveway in the center is an egress only and that is after the bank customers go through the drive thru. The southernmost driveway (inaudible). Asphalt parking pretty much to the rear and south of the site. Ms. Stinley request that a copy of this exhibit be given to the Board Clerk. They are basically going to subdivide the property creating two lots. One being plat 4.01 which will be the home of the new Dunkin Donuts building to the south and the existing bank to the with the music school to the north will be proposed lot 4.02. The applicant will be keeping the northern most ingress driveway to the bank and music studio as an ingress to the property, they are going to preserve the parking lot that is towards the rear with some improvements, and they are also going to preserve the egress driveway for the banks drive thru. What they are changing on the proposal of the bank is to provide two drive thru lanes and a third bypass lane which does not exist in their first submission that is why they revised the plans. They provided a shift of that subdivision line to accommodate a 12 ½ foot bypass lane for the bank and the music studio. Under the proposed revisions to the Dunkin Donuts, they are reserving the southernmost driveway that currently exists (inaudible – too much shuffling) The County for the most part is satisfied with the revisions. There will be a full movement driveway at the southern most access point that will bring customers into the site in a counterclockwise fashion to loop around the building. What the applicant did in this scenario to accommodate the drive thru bypass lane for the bank is they switched the parking the parking stalls for the Dunkin Donuts to angle parking that way they can get a larger backup isle for the angled parking spaces while providing a drive thru lane within the facility. He speaks of additional queuing vehicles on site, as they order and go through, they merge together then they come around to the southern section of the building where they hit the pay window first and then about two cars up they pick up their order at the eastern portion of 6 the building where they are again facing egress lane back out onto Kinderkamack Road. The county was to create a separation at this driveway -they are providing two 12-foot lanes, so there is a 12 foot lane that comes in and a 12 foot lane that goes out and in the middle there will be a 6 foot wide painted four striped island to separate traffic coming in and the traffic going out. What the striping helps to do is to push all of the customers after they pick up their order into that 12-foot lane which is further way from the cars coming into the sites. The County wanted that separation. The bus stop has also been moved from its initial location on the revised plans. The County does not allow a dropped curve in front of a bus stop with a kneeling bus, so the step is not too high to get passengers into the bus. The County wanted the bus stop moved away from the depressed curve. There is an outdoor seating area. There is a bike rack. ADA stalls are closest to the building which provides ADA access to the facility. Trash enclosure is located at the rear of the site, and it is screened with a wall. They are going to install a retaining wall throughout the rear of the site and down and along the southern side property line. There is roughly a 30-foot grade change from the back of the parking lot to the residential properties to the west. The 30-foot differential puts the Dunkin Donuts in the low position of the differential so it will sit 30 feet lower than the residential property line. The high/low of the retaining wall – at the proposed subdivision line it will start at 2 ½ foot high retaining wall, the Dunkin side being the low side and the high side toward the rear and as you move towards the trash enclosure you are going to come up to 3 feet, 4 ½ feet, 6 feet, almost at 9 feet at the trash enclosure and then as you come around the trash enclosure it is still at 9 feet and then it starts dropping down along that southerly property line 7 feet, 6 ½ feet, 5, 4 then it will meet grade as it comes out to the front. The finished floor of the proposed building is 81.5 so the actual building is about anther 2 ½ feet lower than the grade at the rear of the parking lot. So, the rear of the parking lot elevation is 84 and the building will sit at 81 ½. The reason for the lower building height is because of the County. So, the site as it remains today is very accommodating to the County’s design standards. What is not accommodating to is the height of the proposed retaining wall in the back. So, the applicant had to give up the lower retaining wall height, but they have a compliant acceptable driveway per the Bergen County standards. It will be a masonry retaining wall of some sort. Applicant will provide all new LED lighting throughout the site. A mixture of wall mounted fixtures and parking lot pole mounted fixtures in compliance with the Borough Ordinance. Lighting is timer controlled. The drive-thru ATM has to be a specific LED lighting requirement per Federal law which the applicant has no control over. Walkup faces Kinderkamack Road and the drive thru ATM faces south. This lighting will not affect the residents. New landscaping around the property will be planted. This must conform to the Borough’s street scape ordinance if approved. They will install two underground storm water management systems. They will retain the storm water, control the run-off below the levels that are currently running off of the property. The applicant will try to use the existing utilities as much as they can. They have to get more survey information to pick up more of the utilities within the right-of-way with Kinderkamack. They will work with both the County and Borough police to shut that down. They will update the survey and provide all of the additional survey utility information that was requested both by the County and the Board engineer. (The professional is saying something about the ADA parking, but it is inaudible). He will work with Mr. Costa’s office to make sure the ADA requirements comply. Parking counts – the bank and music school – the bank required one space for every 250 foot of floor 7 area – 9 required spaces; retail store – 1 space for 150 foot of floor area (approximately 2,000 S.F.) plus 1 space per 175 S.F. thereafter. 15 total spaces. 24 paces are required for the dual space building (bank and music school). The applicant is providing 29 spaces. Dunkin Donuts – 1 space per two seats, plus one space for two employees – (there are 18 seats and 4 employees) which requires 11 spaces. Although the breakdown of the building is only requiring 11 spaces, the Borough has a stricter requirement for this type of use having a minimum of 40 spaces. They are proposing the drive thru so in addition to those 15 on site spaces that they have, they are showing a queuing operation for another thirteen cars. Pedestrian movement was discussed – that is why they placed the sidewalk at the location directly from the County right-of-way. They wanted to limit access to the site to this one location which provided a safe distance from the ingress movements off of Kinderkamack as a car could visualize and see the pedestrians along the Kinderkamack right-of-way walking on the new sidewalk that will be coming into the facility and they can be seen from both the north and south directions. Delivery to the site and turning movements at the site are safely accommodated. The County had the applicant do a scenario showing a customer vehicle, standard car or SUV they modeled a 19 foot long vehicle. It had to make that turning movement from Kinderkamack into the site to make that 180 degree turn into the site starting at only two feet off of the Kinderkamack curb line. Deliveries are made off hours and the County found their truck turning templates acceptable for both the customers and the deliveries. There will be private trash pickup at the site. Mr. Voght has reviewed the letters issued from Mr. Costa, Mr. Behrens and Mr. Klein. There is nothing in the letters that the applicant cannot disagrees with or accommodate in the next addition of the drawings, and they will make the necessary changes to the best of their ability. Questions from the Board Mr. Costa ask if the driveway location is complete by the County to which the professional responds it is pretty much complete. They want the depressed curb to be wider. That want it 34 foot. Mr. Costa goes through his list; sanitary sewer; lighting; landscaping. He states the County has jurisdiction on the driveway and the Board has jurisdiction on internal circulation. He believes fencing might be necessary to keep pedestrians from falling off the curb in the front area by the walkup window. He does not believe they can stop people from cutting across that driveway to get to the window. Mr. Behrens – regarding the parallel parking – he felt the 18 feet seemed a bit undersized recognizing that there is striping between the spaces. The professional explains that what they do for some parallel parking scenarios is they keep the actual space at the 18 foot but they provide that 4 feet of striping in between so it gives the person parallel parking there to have the benefit of a 22 foot long space so when the neighboring car parks in, they are within the 18 foot section and the next car that comes in has its 18 foot section plus the 4 foot. Mr. Behrens still thinks the applicant needs some form of relief technically. He believes the Borough has a standard for parallel parking spaces. Mr. Behrens is still questioning the double lanes of ordering. The retaining wall of 9 feet in height typically requires variance relief. Mr. Behrens asks about glare from the automobiles reaching the residential homes. Mr. Voght states no, as there will be the retaining wall in the back which will act as screening. Mr. Behrens 8 wants zero glare going to the residents. Mr. Behrens feels that 20-foot light poles are a bit antiquated, and he fells 15 feet is better for this site to avoid glare. The applicant must comply with the street scape. The bus stop will have a shelter. Mr. Behrens asks if in the northerly section of the site, do they have to provide electric charging stations. Mr. Vogt states that there will be at last one. Ms. Boland had some issues with circulation. In the event the drive thru backs up and you are coming off of Kinderkamack, you will not even be able to get through to the parking. She suggested moving the DD building to the right. In other words, switch the parking with the building. She speaks about the depressed curb. She addresses the lighting under the canopy – she ask if they can verify that they will not go above the standards. Mr. Vogt states that they will abide by the Borough’s lighting ordinance. Mr. Gibbons – He wanted clarification as to the applicant speaking with the County about having both ingress and egress driveways on this property and they flat out are not in agreement? Mr. Del Vecchio tells the Board that, that conversation took place in the presence of the Board’s traffic consultant Lee Klein also. Mr. Gibbons feels having the two driveways would be much safer. Mr. Gibbons brings up the handicapped spot being blocked by a car, he wanted to know if there was some other spot for that parking space so it can be used if the line is long. Mr. Vogt said they did look at other locations. He is speaking but it is very hard to hear him (schuffling). Mr. Gibbons feels that the handicapped space is useless of the Dunkin Donuts is very busy. He also feels that some of the parallel spots are un-useable. The one the left of number 4 by the trash – he finds that very difficult for anyone to pull into. He doesn’t see anyone using the spots in the back so if the applicant is calculating those as the applicant’s allowable spots what you need to have to be compliant, those are very difficult to use especially the one next to he trash dumpster. Mr. Vogt suggests dropping down to three parallel spaces and make them compliant - he just tried to maximize the amount of on site parking spaces. He wanted the opportunity to get as many onsite parking spaces as possible. He goes on to say that this type of four foot shared spacing is in the RSIS manual. Mr. Gibbons asks a question regarding the bank – so you are coming through the drive thru, you have the bypass lane to the south of that, he is concerned about being able to use that bypass lane. Mr. Vogt explains the dichotomy of the lane to Mr. Gibbons (difficult to hear as he is speaking away from the microphone). Mr. Gibbons had concerns that a driver might hit the concrete support for the canopy. Mr. Esposito – no questions. Mr. Krey – The bus stop currently becomes a pool when it rains. He suggests when the bus stop is moved that they pay attention to the grading. Mr. Krey wants to know what the off hours are when the trash will be picked up from the site. Mr. Vogt stated that the traffic professional would be more equipped to answer that question. Mr. Arakelian would like the owners/applicants to come to a meeting and testify as to hours of operation, etc. Mr. Krey finds the “enter only” sign by the drive thru confusing. Mr. Vogt said they will look at that. Mr. Mehrman – Clarification next to the outdoor dinning there are two barbells, he wants to know of that is the bike rack. Mr. Vogt answers – yes. Mr. Mehrman asks if outdoor dining is allowed and Mr. Behrens states that his understanding at the moment it would be allowed without pa permit. There is a separate permitting process for outdoor dinning on sidewalks and within parking areas during seasonable use. This is on private property and in designated areas so he believes this would be permitted. Mr. Mehrman suggests that the EV parking go in the northwest corner of the property by the Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Mehrman now speaks about the retaining walls. He believes segmental walls are ideal for this site rather than a 9 masonry block wall. At the higher level of the wall, he suggests terracing that area with some nice landscaping. Mr. Vogt said he can look into that, but he doesn’t know if he will have the room for the tieback on terrace wall. He addresses water coming over the wall in heavy rain and suggests a gulley be placed there. He is still very concerned about the walk-up window. He suggests the bike rack go opposite the walkup window at the Dunkin Donuts on the lawn area. Mr. Vogt does not agree. He believes where they have it now is the safest location. Mr. Mehran also spoke about street scape. Mr. Vogt states it will be provided. Mr. Busteed (I cannot hear his questions at all) He seems to have concerns about the kids cutting through the parking lot. He also is concerned about congestion in the parking lot. Mr. Vogt is speaking to Mr. Busteed off to the side (inaudible). Mr. Arakelian is having a rough time wrapping his arms around the drive thru. Its creating parking issues, noise issues and he is having a big problem with it. He is looking forward to hearing from the traffic expert to try to alleviate some of the concerns that he has. He further states that everything the Board has brought up this evening leads to the drive thru whether its parking, handicapped parking being blocked, parallel parking being stuffed in a corner, huge parking deficiency. This is why Mr. Arakelian asked for the operators to come and testify before the Board. Motion to open to the public – So Moved- Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Esposito. Marilyn Benson, she neighbors the Dunkin Donuts on Midland Avenue – her concern is the retaining wall and drainage of the water, ponding of water. Mr. Vogt states that they will fix that as part of the improvements. She is not a fan of the 11:00 p.m. closing time. Debra Powell, 69 Christy Ave., she lives by the bank. She asks if ever a bus bay was considered for alleviating some of the traffic congestion on Kinderkamack Road for vehicles going south. Mr. Arakelian suggests she speak with Mr. Costa. Mr. Costa states that they don ‘t have the land to do that. Mr. Costa and Mr. Behrens suggest that they regroup ad figure things out. Mr. Costa suggests maybe the solution is to come through the bank and that gives you the queuing. Main entry at the north end to make it more like a strip mall and you would que in the back of the other. Mr. Costa states that you cannot use Kinderkamack Road as their que. It will not work. Mr. Barrett states that the current ingress on the northerly side is only 9. 7 feet from the ingress to the current Dunkin Donuts, if that were to back up (inaudible) would block the ingress to the current Dunkin Donuts and that is a major concern to Mr. Barret. Mr. Del Vecchio makes his objection known. Motion to close to the public - So Made – (?) Second (?)- The applicant will extend to the June 8th meeting. Motion to close (too much activity, shuffling) (?) Second (?) Meeting adjourned. 10 11