River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 13, 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 – Present Chairman Caslin – Excused Mr. Mehrman – Present James Arakelian - Present Ryan Gibbons – Present Eileen Boland – Present Michael Krey – Present Gary Esposito – Present Dario Chinigo – Excused Colin Busteed - Present Bruce Feffer – Present Mr. Esposito and Mr. Busteed are seated to vote this evening ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Mr. Behrens, Mr. Costa, Mr. Klein Approval of 5/25/22 Minutes – Motion; So, made- Mr. Feffer; Second Mr. Esposito – (Ineligible to vote – Mayor Papaleo, Mr. Caslin; Chairman Chinigo and Mr. Feffer) - Minutes approved. MEMORIALIZATIONS: Yeshiva of North Jersey 666 Kinderkamack Rd. Block 616, Lot 9 Installation of solar panels and 2 car ports. Variances approved Motion to approve – So, made – Mr. Gibbons; Second - Ms. Boland. Roll call (only those eligible to vote) Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. Master Plan Revisions and regulations - Motion to adopt the update to the Master Plan – So made – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Gibbons. Roll call (only those eligible to vote) Mr. Merhman – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. COMPLETENESS REVIEW: 1 Tower Management 680 Kinderkamack Rd. Block 616, Lot 20 Installation of an emergency generator. Setback variances required. Appearing Kevin Kelly, Esq. on behalf of the applicant. David Dublirer, a principal of Tower Management. Ms. Stinley has reviewed the proofs provided by the applicant and notice provided to the newspaper and has found them complete and acceptable for the Board to have jurisdiction over the application. Mr. Behrens has reviewed the proofs provided by the applicant and they appear to be complete for the applicant to proceed. Motion to accept the application – So Made – Mr. Feffer; Second – Ms. Boland. Roll call – Mr. Mayor – yes; Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. (Mr. Esposito is seated to vote) Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed – yes. Mr. Kelly addresses the Board and provides some background as to applicant. Three variances are needed. (1) There is a 15-foot setback required in the side yard; there is 9.7 feet existing, the generator the applicant is looking to install is 7.5’ x 2.8’. It will be located within the setback. The accessory structure setback from the building should be 18 feet under the ordinance and the applicant is proposing 3 feet. The accessory structure from the lot line is supposed to be 15 feet under the ordinance and the applicant is proposing 3.7 feet. (something about the negative criteria inaudible) – C1 and arguably a C2 variance. David Dublirer, 680 Kinderkamack Road, River Edge, NJ, a principal of Tower Management is sworn in. Mr. Dublirer explains to the Board that his company owns and manages residential apartment communities. Normal business hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. but because of residential clients its basically 24/7 – 365. They need to be in constant contact with the residents if needed. i.e. a fire, storm damage, inclement weather conditions, etc. The applicant decided based upon the configuration of the property, it is a tight piece of land, the Yeshiva is on their right and Chase Bank on the left, so based upon topography and the location of their gas service and electrical service the best place the generator would fit and be accessible would be the side of the building where there are no open windows and all brick so as a fire concern there would be done. Mr. Kelly advises that as submitted with the applicants application is D.W. Smith engineering survey, dated November 25, 2019 but D.W. marked in the exact location of the generator. The generator is needed the following reasons: power failures, climate change, bad winters and they loose power and they cannot operate and tend to their clients during these times, thereby causing hardship. The applicant picked the site on the right because of the commercial establishment – Chase Bank believing that would be minimal disruption to the community and it is out of sight line to Kinderkamack Road. They would also do any screening that is necessary. It is a Kohler, model number 60RCLA. This generator would power the applicants entire building, building both HVHC, sewage pumps and heating systems. It’s an 8-cylinder unit which means it will run much quieter than other generators. The size is 7.5’ x 2.8’. They go over Mr. Costa’s report regarding the decibels in terms of sound levels as per the specs the applicants have submitted are at 57 decibels during the weekly engine exercise and 61 during normal operation. Weekly testing is necessary, and they would take the recommendation of the community and the Board and whatever hours are chosen to do the exercise they would comply. The exercise period usually lasts 10 minutes. This generator is only a backup for the building and during an emergency it runs at 61 decibels. There are 12 to 14 employees in the company along with a single tenant who rents a room in the building. Hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Costa recommended screening around the generator and the applicants will comply with that request. Mr. Costa states that the 2 applicant must meet the state codes regarding the noise. Mr. Behrens wanted clarification regarding usage during the winter months. The generator will be used only during power outages during the winter months. The Borough does not regulate generators, so it defaults to the Borough’s accessory structure requirements in a non-residential zone which this is in, and it requires a minimum 15-foot setback and rear yard being proposed is 3. 75 feet because of the current layout of the building. A separate provision that requires an 18-foot setback of an accessary structure from the principal building. The applicant has testified to a hardship due to the layout of the property as well as the location of the existing utilities and that there is a possible public benefit of locating the generator away from the residential properties in the rear. The one condition Mr. Behrens would like to see happen that it be suitably screened. There may be some building code issues, so he believes they will have to work with the borough’s construction official because there may be some exhaust that emits from generators so whatever the solution is it must be code compliant. Mr. Behrens recommends that it be either a solid fence or landscaping or both. And the other recommendation is that it be exercised during regular business hours. There is a suggestion by Board that the Fire Department also take a look at it. Mr. Arakelian will instruct the Clerk to have the Fire Department review the plans. Motion to open to the public-So made-Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gibbons -All in favor – Nothing from the public. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Caslin. Motion for approval on the application. Mr. Mehrman makes a motion that the Board grant approval of variances required. Ms. Stinley runs through the conditions. They are as follows: the generator must meet state code regarding noise; the applicant will work with the Building Department to install a solid fence or landscaping or both with approval from the Borough Engineer and Planner; the generator will be exercised during normal business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; the Fire Department will provide a review and comment and the applicant will accept and work with the Fire Department to resolve any issues should they have any and the applicant will work with the Board Planner to determine the monitoring of the generator. Second – Mr. Caslin. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed – yes. The Motion passes and the application is approved. Old Business 915 Kinderkamack LLC – AKA Dunkin Donuts 915 Kinderkamack Road Block 206 Lot 4 (Continuation) Construction of a new Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru Mr. Arakelian addresses Mr. DelVecchio regarding a previous meeting wherein the Board had decided because of the variances that were needed that this application would become a D1 variance. He asked Mr. DelVecchio if he was in agreeance with that. Mr. DelVecchio responded said that as part of their application they have filed an Appeal of that determination they will handle it in the due course of their Planner’s testimony which will be forthcoming at a later point in the proceedings. Mayor and Mr. Caslin are recused at this point. Mr. DelVecchio starts with a few housekeeping items. They have re-noticed for the proceedings, filing a new Affidavit of Notice (marked Exhibit A21) ; A22 – L2A prepared site 3 plan drawings consisting of 15 sheets, last revision date of 6/28/22; A23 – L2A prepared minor subdivision plan, last revision date 6/28/22; A24- L2A prepared soil movement plan consisting of 1 sheet, last revised 6/28/22; A25 – Updated traffic report prepared by Dolan and Dean dated June 24, 2022; A26 letter prepared by L2A providing a summary of plan changes from the last set of drawings that the Board had, dated June 28, 2022. Mr. DelVecchio starts testimony addressing the Board regarding their concerns with the music school that they had during the May 25, 2022, meeting. He has brought a representative of the proposed tenant with him this evening. The name of the music school is Rock to Bach. The witness is sworn in – Lorena Evans, 915 Kinderkamack Road (business address). She is the music studio operator. Ms. Evans states this is a franchise music school for children. They will teach the children how to play an instrument and also play together as a team. There are no large-scale performances at the school. She explains that every room will have soundproofing and the process on how they achieve that soundproofing. There is a small stage where the students can get acclimated to performing. Usually with five students together on stage. Business hours are – closed Sundays and Mondays, Tuesday through Friday the hours will be 2:00 p.m. through 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. There will be 3 instructors and as the business builds possibly 6 to 7 instructors. Mr. DelVecchio opens up questioning to Board. Mr. Behrens believes this fits within the definition of a music school. Mr. Busteed inquired as to where the school wants to go in regard to growth and where they would cap off the number of students and instructors. Ms. Evans believes growth will be anywhere from between 5% to 10% yearly but it is rotating. They teach ages 5 through 17. Mr. Gibbons addressed the amount of people coming and going during the course of business hours. Mr. Krey had similar comments as Mr. Gibbons. He also asked if there would be instruction with amps. Mr. Mehrman asked about delivers and Ms. Evans responded that there will be no deliveries. Mr. Arakelian readdresses the soundproofing. Motion to open to the public – So moved – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Mehrman. Mr. Barrett addresses the witness and asks if any retail sales will take place in the school. Ms. Evans responds T-shirt and water bottles. Mr. Barrett asked if it was only one-on-one instruction. Ms. Evans responded -yes. Mr. Barrett asked if they plan on having any private parties, to which Ms. Evans responded – no. Motion to close to the public – So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Mehrman. Discussion starts between the Board and Mr. DelVecchio about the variances needed for quite some time and the possibility of certain things interrupting the business of the music school. He believes that as long as it remains a bank and there are no historical conditions that would tie it down as anything but that, he feels the bank can operate as well. Somewhat hypothetical until you have actual users and real facts to work with. Mr. Del Vecchio recaps Mr. Costa’s comments and concerns at the May 25, 2022, meeting regarding concern for the single entrance/exit configuration for the proposed Dunkin Donuts. They had some reservations about how the County would react to reinstating a two-curb cut configuration, but with the assistance of Mr. Costa the applicant was able to persuade the County to allow a curb cut configuration, an entrance and exit point which allowed the applicant to make other changes to the site. The applicants engineer addresses the Board regarding the changes that have been made. It is referred to the colorized version. He is speaking about page CO3. He goes through the items of concerns which are traffic being tight, the handicapped space was blocked, potential chances of traffic queuing onto Kinderkamack Road, the applicant had the ability to que 13 cars in the site before the one ingress and egress driveway would potentially be blocked and pedestrians traversing across a single driveway to get to the walkup window. The engineer prepared a drawing and 4 forwarded it to Bregen County, they agreed it was acceptable. Changes were the applicant left initial driveway which was a two-way in and out on the western side of the property and turned it into a single egress driveway and then prepared a single ingress driveway closer the eastern side of the property. That allowed a larger driveway to come into the site. There is 20-foot-wide driveway bringing it to a dual que for the drive thru order position. It also allows for circulation or a bypass lane around the double stacking to circulate not only around the building to the exit driveway but to also access all of the perimeter parking space on the property. They eliminated that pen capsule that was up against the building and relocated it out to the perimeter of the site. They reoriented the parking along the easterly side of the property to a 90-degree parking configuration where there was a 650-degree angle parking. He addresses the concerns with the walk-up window. With the two driveways they created a large open space at the front of the building that’s well landscaped, its protected by both the incoming and outgoing traffic and they prepared an outdoor seating area. So, they enhanced the safety of pedestrians coming to the site, they prepared an access point to the right-of-way to Kinderkamack so pedestrians can access safely from the sidewalk into the property and access both interior or exterior of the site. They have provided bike racks and tables in the outdoor area. The bank and music school portion of the property did not change very much. The only change was they reconfigured the egress or by- pass lane slightly to accommodate the existing canopy that goes over the dual drive thru. With the new design they were able to enhance the landscaping. They have reached out to the Shade Tree Committee and the applicant is more than willing to work with them in providing what they request. The ADA spaces for the music school and bank. The ADA spaces are located on the eastern side of the property, access is through the front door for both the music school and the bank. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk along the landscaped islands which would then traverse the entrance driveway with a crosswalk bringing pedestrians safely into the building. It is also the closest position for ADA access. For the drive-thru they had only room for 13 cars to que. With the double configuration, and the duals driveways they have 16 positions currently. He addressed comments raised in Mr. Costa, Mr. Behrens and Mr. Klein’s letters to the applicant. He has no issues with addressing those comments and the applicant would agree, to agree to, all of the remaining comments. The engineer addressed the monument sign. They will be removing that monument sign. Hours of operation have been revised to – in store hours, 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the drive-thru, 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Traffic control signs – all signs have been revised to be only directional signs. Some signage from Bergen County was added to the plan as well. There is a single corporate identification sign facing Kinderkamack Road, there is walk—up window sign facing Kinderkamack Road over the walk-up window and there is a wall mounted sign facing the easterly side. Speakers are facing rear to the property line. Light heights are at 20’they can lower them to 15’ if necessary. All light fixtures are at 3,000 Kelvin. They are all LED fixtures, and they have the ability to be dimmed. Questions are opened to the Board. Mr. Costa advises that this plan is acceptable to the County. Mr. Behrens requested clarification to the following: there has been no architectural changes from the last submission. Mr. DelVecchio answers – no. Mr. Behrens – the only change regarding the signage is the removal of the free-standing sign. Mr. DelVecchio answers – yes. Mr. Behrens suggests should the application be approved that the applicant resolve the landscaping issues as a condition with the Shade Tree Commission. One area of concern he believes should be addressed is behind the Dunkin Donuts on the slope that the applicant make sure that, that landscaping is enhanced with either fencing and/or landscaping. There has to be ample year-round screening. The wall will have a railing on top of it. Mr. Behrens wanted to know what they were proposing in terms of full protection. Mr. Behrens explains that a variance will be needed for 10-foot wall and if you 5 add a fence that increases the height. The professional states that they can move the fencing back and give the Borough the landscaping requested. Mr. Behrens states that it would be preferably to separate it. Mr. Behrens speaks about the pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk to the Dunkin Donuts building it was recommended that the same walkway for pedestrians at the other building. The professional stated that he did implement that new sidewalk from the ADA spaces on the bank side, what they can do is just extend that sidewalk to Kinderkamack and make the connection point. Mr. Lee Klein (Borough’s traffic expert) is sworn in. He is a principal at Klein Traffic Consulting, 156 Walker Road, West Orange, NJ. He is a professional engineer with a current license in New Jersey. He is also a nationally certified professional traffic operations engineer; he provides traffic and parking analysis to Boards. He has testified before this Board before. He has questions regarding the turning templates. The professional for the applicant introduces C-3A which is the passenger vehicle circulation plan. Revised 6/28/22. Marked as Exhibit A28. It shows a standard vehicle turning into the property at two feet off on the curb line on Kinderkamack so, we admitted that circulation pattern both circulating through the property as well as into the drive-thru lane. All deliveries are made with a sprinter van, and he has Exhibit CX-02 showing the sprinter van (Exhibit 29) revision 4 dated 6/28/22. Sprinter van is 24 feet in length and the van does circulate throughout the property. It will circulate through the 24-foot drive isle as well as the 12-foot bypass lane and exit the sit. There is no loading space designated on the property. The van will park in one of the head in parking spaces on the property on off hours for the deliveries. Questions are open up to the Board. Mr. Busteed requested clarification on the removal of the monument sign. He also wanted to know if left hand turn was permitted coming North on Kinderkamack to which the professional answered yes, and that the County has not put any restrictions on any of the driveways. The County did make the applicant move the bus stop. Ms. Boland questioned the width of the drive thru and several signs still listed on the plans. She asks about access to the dumpster also the pickup times for the garbage. Mr. Gibbons is pleased with the ingress and egress. He still has a few issues with the parking labeled number 1 and most of the ones in the back. He feels someone will hit the concrete pillar by the driveway windows. The professional suggests putting bollards there and possibly widening the turning radius coming out of the property as well, but he has to get it past the County, he believes he can improve the design. Mr. Krey wanted clarity as to the bank being a drive thru with also walk in tellers and other business to which then professional responded, yes. He thought the sign stating enter only is somewhat confusing. Mr. Mehrman he’s speaking about the signs listed on the plans being cleaned up (very hard to hear and understand him – lost paper shuffling) Mr. DelVecchio is attempting to explain the sign designations on the plans are in two places; one is the sign table that is on the drawing, the 1’s and 2’s also relate, and you can tell what those signs are on the signage table. He suggests a railing or barrier by the patio along the driveway that would further preclude people from walking across the driveway to obtain access to the walkup window. He speaks about the EV situation. He would like the Board to suggest here that station should be, and he believes it should be in the last space along the north perimeter. The professional explains that there is an EV parking note on C-3 and it states that the applicant is required to install at least one (inaudible) ready parking space if there will be 50 or fewer off street parking spaces. It is in the last space in the row of parking that runs perpendicular to the proposed site (inaudible – shuffling of papers). That space will be reserved for electrical vehicle charging. Mr. Mehrma speaks about a street scape. Mr. Costa states that if they are approved, they must improve the frontage. 6  Motion to open to the public – So made- Mr. Gibbons; second – Mr. Krey. Mr. Barrett asks a question, but it was (inaudible) something about store hours. Joe Bottazzi, 858 Summit Ave., River Edge. His concern is noise. He is lot 26. His concern was the dumpster being emptied during off hours. He wanted to know what those off hours would be. He wanted to know if a study was done regarding the noise during business hours. Mr. DelVecchio stated that the applicant has no issue with garbage pickup being after 8:00 a.m. (Between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) Motion to close to the public - So Moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – (?) Dunkin Donuts representative Connie Justis of 1046 Nicholson Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio is sworn in. She is the drive-thru expert for Dunkin Donuts (Inspire Brands). She is employed by Inspire Brands. She is fully familiar with the dual drive-thru both its operations and improvements that are necessary to operate them, such as, the menu board, the audio systems and the time-of-service calls that are anticipated for these types of operations. Ms. Justis states that it basically from the inside out when you are a drive-thru expert. She is also in charge of signage. She describes the purpose of a dual drive-thru. The objective is to move the traffic from the time of order to pick up more quickly and efficiently. Its about eliminating the order taking time so you can get enough cars through and keep from backing out onto streets. From research that she has done the guest subjectively want to be on and off the property within five minutes or less and that they move at every thirty second clip and that’s the objective in the design of side by side. This not only helps with backup, but it keeps more guests coming doubling hourly capacities. About 65% of business is done through the drive-thru. Dunkin customers order between 1 and 3 items per ticket. The proposed Dunkin site has the newest and most improved dual drive-thru. Mr. Del Vecchio asks about the percentage of drive thru app orders versus traditional counter service. Ms. Justis states about 15%. About 70 to 75% percent of the business will be running through the drive thru as opposed to parking and entering the store walkup location. The expectation of a customer from the time they enter to the time they leave the site (during peak hours) the drive-thru is five minutes. Mr. DelVecchio addresses the noise levels regarding the microphones at the window or on the order boards when ordering with the expert. Ms. Justis states that the volumes are all adjustable based upon geographic area of the extraneous sounds. There is a very sweet spot that they try to do on in bound and outbound and that’s all adjustable. That’s on the headset as well. It also has an internal timer within the system – they can set it for timing at night. When the set the timers up they have a reduction of noise level by 25%. This can bet set up in the morning, so it starts out lower than the peak times when its nosier it automatically increases and then it goes back in the evening recalibrating to go lower. The cars themselves become natural barriers to a lot of the sound also. She states that the 17-car que is sufficient for this location. She states that the lighting on the order boards do not face the homes in the rear. She states that this is one of the biggest and best layouts of a Dunkin store that she has been involved in. Ms. Justis addresses signage with the Board. Dunkin has branded and unbranded signage. The branding has the icon DD on it. Those are no longer even recommended because of the current size of the ingress. However, customer research which was unbranded told them they had to have a sign telling the customer there is a drive thru, potentially not having that could be an issue with cars trying to make a turn when no one realized it was there. She goes on a bit explaining the signs. She approaches the Board showing them on the plans the signs that she is speaking about – the difference between the branded and unbranded. Mr. DelVecchio tells the Board that the applicant will revise the directional signage plan and prepare an enhanced plan that shows a specific sign at that location and bring it back for a look at by the Board. The signs that the expert would propose would say drive thru with an arrow saying this direction would 7 direct them into the lot on one side and the other would be see you soon to the customer – typically they do four two on each side of the drive isle and each side is telling them something differently. Research has told them that when customers see the sign when they turn, and they see a sign that says drive thru with an arrow it tells them automatically to the store and inference to the store on the other side it can still be a drive thru because somebody is there and if they had one on the other side it would say enter only so the guests are seeing everything and being able to react in advance of instead of later. That is the research they have. Their signs have no branding other than the word drive-thru with an arrow and see you soon is a thank you to come back and the back side of that sign would say exit only so as the cars are coming in and they know it’s an exit only. That is what DD’s objectives are for those directionals to give guidance and clearance and clarity for the consumer on the street. The expert approaches the Board and shows them her laptop. The Board requests hard copies of what the expert is showing them in reference to the signage. Mr. DelVecchio states that they will revise the directional signage plan that shows specific signs at that location and bring it back for another look by the Board. Mr. DelVecchio wants to identify what was being shown by the expert and they will provide hard copies. What was shown is the drive thru directional sign, they will provide a sheet which will be marked at the next meeting it shows both sides of the sign as well as a profile view. Ms. Stinley will mark this A30. Mr. Costa suggests that to clarify the record not to have it clouded and to have a street scape that might have an impact on something. Questions are opened to the Board. Mr. Klien wanted to know a range of the number of vehicles an hour that this store will be able to handle. Ms. Justis responds a 7-car stack can get up 200 cars in an hour if they had a continuous flow of cars. Mr. Krey had some questions regarding noise. (Difficult to hear). He asks about staffing. Mr. Feffer also discusses staffing needs. Mr. Arakelian speaks to the noise that may affect the resident on Summit Avenue. He states that he went Chick-fil-A to test the noise level at their order board. Instead of having their order board stop when you go to the one spot, they had two order boards on the side by side where the dual cars are and you were able to do two orders at one time, and as you turned in there was someone there to verify who you were and then when you turned in they gave you your order. So, he asked Mr. DelVecchio if it would be a huge problem if the applicant moved the order board from facing the residential area to facing the bank, where the bank it is a commercial area and there is no one there to be bothered by that noise. Ms. Justis explains that the order boards are place very strategically for the benefit of the store. Mr. Arakelian acknowledged that, but his concern still remains for the residents. Mr. DelVecchio states that the back area is proposed to have a significant wall as a barrier, that coupled with the technology of the ordering system being proposed, leads them to Mr. Costa’s path of being able to say comfortably that we think this is built the way it is designed and operates that there will be no audible noise that you can discern from the property line along the residential area. Mr. DelVecchio has no problem suggesting they post a six-month period where there is a problem, the system s adjustable as they have indicated they will make the required adjustments so there isn’t a problem. Mr. Costa speaks as to ambient sound systems which adjust automatically and not the ability to adjust manually. He believes these systems exist. Mr. DelVecchio states he will go back to DD to see if it is available or could be available at the time of construction the applicant would agree to use it. They will report back to the Board on this matter. Mr. Arakelian stated that he would like Mr. DelVecchio to at least do him the favor of asking his engineer if the order board can be moved away from the residents, it would make it easier for hm to vote on this application. 8  Motion to open to the public – So moved – Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Barrett asks what happens between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Ms. Justis states that the crew will have to wear headsets and the customers have to pull to the window or not operate it at all. They can put up a sign that indicates come to the window for that one hour of time. Mr. Barret asked what the typical increase in visits was to the drive thru versus (inaudible). Ms. Justis states that the national average is somewhere between 25 and 30%. Ms. Powell spoke with regard to a police officer being present for traffic. Motion to close to the public – So moved-Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gibbons. Housekeeping Next meeting will be July 27, 2022. Mr. DelVecchio ask for possible special meeting on this application. DD application is carried to July 27, 2022. Motion to adjourn – So Moved – Mr. Feffer; Second – Mr. Esposito Meeting adjourned 10:50 p.m. 9