Present are Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Reorganization Meeting of January 23, 2013 Present are Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Also present are Marc Leckstein, Esq., Leckstein & Leckstein, Anthony Abbonizio, CME Associates, John Maczucka and Anthony Rodriguez of T&M Associates. Absent are Mrs. Gotell and Mrs. Williams for personal reasons. Prior to the start of the Reorganization Meeting, Mr. Leckstein swears in Joseph Ciaglia to a four year term on the Zoning Board of Adjustment, commencing January 1, 2013, and expiring on December 31, Mr. Leckstein opens the Reorganization Meeting by asking for nominations for Chair for the year Mr. Bucco nominates Lyle Phelps, seconded by Mr. Ciaglia. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps assumes control of the Board and asks for nominations for Vice Chair for the calendar year Mr. Phelps nominates Joseph Ciaglia, seconded by Mr. Phillips. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps asks for appointment of Board Secretary for the calendar year Mr. Ciaglia moves Maxine Rescorl, seconded by Mrs. Camillary. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps asks for appointment of the Zoning Board of Adjustment attorney for the calendar year Mr. Bucco moves Marc Leckstein, Esq., seconded by Mr. Falco. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps asks for appointment of the Zoning Board of Adjustment engineer for the calendar year Mrs. Camillary moves CME Associates, seconded by Mr. Bucco. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman

2 Page 2 Mr. Phelps asks for appointment of the Zoning Board of Adjustment planner for the calendar year Mr. Phelps moves T&M Associates, seconded by Mr. Ciaglia. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps asks for approval of Resolution Z-7, setting forth meeting days and times, and noticing newspapers and the 2013 meeting schedule for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Falco moves to accept Resolution Z-7, seconded by Mrs. Camillary. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Mr. Phelps asks for approval of Resolution Z-8, need for continuity in attendance of Zoning Board of Adjustment members. Mr. Phillips moves to accept Resolution Z-8, seconded by Mr. Bucco. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Reorganization Meeting adjourned. Reorganization012313

3 Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Public Meeting of January 23, 2013 Present are Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Ciaglia, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Also present are Marc Leckstein, Esq., Leckstein & Leckstein, Anthony Abbonizio, CME Associates, Anthony Rodriguez and John Maczuga, T&M Associates. Absent is Mrs. Gotell for personal reasons. Mr. Bucco moves to accept the minutes of the December 12, 2012 public meeting, seconded by Mr. Ciaglia, and on voice vote all eligible members agree. Continued Business V /Chong Ok Yu, Applicant and Property Owner: Chong Ok Yu, 1 Atlantic Avenue, Block 256, Lot 6, Request for Certificate of Nonconformity for existing two story and one story building with apartment rentals and store, and detached garage, in the Neighborhood Commercial ( NC ) zone. Note that this applicant was previously before the Board under Application V that was withdrawn. This application is carried from the October 24 and December 12, 2012 public meetings for the applicant s attorney to obtain additional information, and due to Hurricane Sandy, with time waived thru February 28, James Tarantella, Esq., attorney for the applicant, asks to carry this application to the February 27 public meeting, with time waived through March 31, 2013, since his client is not present tonight. Mrs. Camillary moves to carry the meeting, seconded by Mr. Falco, and on voice vote all members agree. New Business, SP /McDonald s Real Estate Company, Applicant and Property Owner: McDonald s Real Estate Company, 1108 Highway 34, Block 89, Lots 2.02 and 3, Request for preliminary and final major site plan, use variance and bulk variances to demolish an existing McDonald s restaurant with a drive thru facility, and construct a new 4,252 sq. ft. +/- McDonald s restaurant with two drive thru ordering points, signage, and related improvements, on business located in the HC (Highway Commercial) Zone. Use Variance required for drive thru facilities; Variances required for Side Yard Setback for Accessory Buildings 20 ft. required, 11.8 ft. existing and 10.7 ft. proposed (design waivers requested); Landscape Buffer Along Street 20 ft. required, 12.3 ft. existing and proposed; Landscape Buffer along Property Line 10 ft. minimum required, 9.1 ft. proposed, Cross Access Aisles maximum 1 permitted, 3 existing and proposed; Maximum Parking Lot Coverage 35% permitted, 50.8% existing and 49.4% proposed. Design Exceptions for Signage: Number of Attached Signs maximum 2 permitted, existing and proposed 3; Area of Attached Signs-East Frontage maximum 50 sq. ft. permitted, existing, 91.1 sq. ft. and proposed 55.4 sq. ft.; Area of Attached Signs North Frontage maximum 25 sq. ft. permitted, existing 67.1 sq. ft. and proposed 14 sq. ft.; Number of Free Standing Signs 1 permitted, 4 existing, 4 proposed; Area of Directional Signs Maximum 2 sq. ft. permitted, proposed 4 signs, each 4 sq. ft.; Promotional Banners not permitted except on temporary basis with prior zoning approvals for two weeks each quarter, 7 promotional banners proposed at 36 sq. ft. each. Mr. Leckstein explains to the Board that via a telephone call to the Board Secretary this afternoon, she informed a person interested in this application as an objector that it would start around 8:30 p.m., not 7:30 or after reorganization, because there is another application before this one that has been carried to tonight s agenda. Since the other application was not heard, this meeting cannot begin until 8:30 p.m.

4 Page 2 Jennifer Smith, Esq., attorney for the applicant, says the public notice did say 7:30 p.m. but if there is an objector, she would prefer to wait until the objector shows. Mr. Leckstein advises the Board to adjourn the meeting until 8:30 p.m. or until the objector shows up. Mrs. Camillary moves to adjourn the meeting until 8:30 p.m., seconded by Mrs. Friedman, and on voice vote all members agree. The meeting is called to order at 8:34 p.m. All members originally present are present at this time, as are the Board s professionals. Mr. Leckstein swears in the Board s professionals. Ms. Smith says McDonald s is the owner of the property known as Block 89, Lots 2.02 and 3, 1108 Highway 34. They are seeking preliminary and final major site plan, use variance and bulk variances and design waivers. Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit A-1 the application packet and other information; Exhibit A-2 the preliminary and final site plan application dated September 21, 2012, prepared by Dynamic Engineering; Exhibit A-3 as the elevations dated July 11, 2012 prepared by Core States Group; Exhibit A-4 a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Staigar & Peregoy, LLC, dated September 21, 2012; Exhibit A-5 an Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Dynamic Engineering dated August, 2012; Exhibit A-6 a Storm Water Management Report prepared by Dynamic Engineering dated September, Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit B-1 a review letter by Coppola & Coppola Associates dated December 27, 2012; Exhibit B-2 a review letter by CME Associates dated December 7, 2012; Exhibit B-3 comments from the Aberdeen Township Fire District One that has been presented to the applicant. Ms. Smith says the property has an existing McDonald s for the last thirty years. They are looking to demolish the building and have made a substantial investment to replace with a smaller McDonald s with drive thru facilities. Although they have drive thru now, they want to upgrade to more efficient two lane drive thru. Under our code drive thru restaurants are not permitted. They also need some bulk variances, although the existing building does not meet all the code requirements, they are making the building more conforming but still need variances. Joseph Jaworski, a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey, employed by Dynamic Engineering, is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, Under questioning from Ms. Smith, Mr. Jaworski refers to Sheet 4, Sheet 1 of 1 of Exhibit A-2, showing the survey of the property located on Highway 34. Access to the site is via a traffic light coming off Route 34, a main access driveway with parking field behind and in the rear of the site a large slop drop, elevation 96 to about 83 and wooded in back. The adjacent use is Bank of America and retail plazas to the north. The existing McDonald s is 4,848 sq. ft. The entire parcel is about 1.6 acres. Marked as Exhibit A-7 is a colorized version of the site plan provided the Board, Sheet C4, colorized version of the site plan with landscaping. Mr. Jaworski says the plan is to demo the existing building and build a new building in pretty much the exact location, rectangular round building on the plan, the red area will be the parking area, the green is the landscaping. The new building will be 4,252 sq. ft., about 600 ft. less than the existing building. The access points to the site will be

5 Page 3 somewhat modified. There is an access point now that is an exit only; there is a central exit only driveway, and the rear two way driveway. All three access points will become ingress and egress. They have designed the site to be more conventional where you have a one way counter clock wise pattern around the building, come around and come out on the side to Bank of America as it exists today and proposed to be the same except the aisle..note: there is rustling of papers and noise on the dais so that Mr. Jaworski s testimony cannot be heard clearly.will be one way, the drive thru will be converted to a side by side There are basically two order..you access the drive thru..and then it will split, one inner and one outer lane with a menu board. McDonald s has found this to be very efficient and successful way of dealing with the drive thru traffic. It came from the higher demand of volume at the drive thru, where the existing was designed 25 years ago when they dealt with about 40% of the business thru the drive thru lane. That percentage is a lot higher today, near 60 to 70%, so in response to the demand of people using the drive thru, McDonald s came up with this concept, which allows two cars to order at the same time. More importantly, there is often a gap between the order point and where you pay for the food. The person who has gone thru the line and picked up his food is now gone. This plan allows two order points to operate and alternate, filling the gap, so the back up or tiering at the drive thru facility is less. All of the sites that have been built operate this way and has shown very few times do you have a queuing that goes into the parking lot. That is the efficiency part of this plan. It operates well and is successful in the stores that have had this put in already. There is a rear parking area that has been designed as a two way aisles and parking in the rear portion. The new store will have up to 84 seats, but they are planning on 78. Per our Ordinance, one parking space for every four seats is required, so for 84 seats they need 21 parking spaces. The plan proposes 45 parking spaces, which is about right or a little more than needed for this operation. What McDonald s has seen over the years is more people going thru the drive thru than sitting in the restaurant. Other elements existing today and will remain is the loading zone behind the building. This is one of the few McDonald s that has a designated loading zone, and deliveries will be the same as they are today. The main delivery is via tractor trailer and three times a week deliveries are on smaller trucks. Trucks come in the main drive and back into the space, staying for about 25 minutes while unloading and then pull out. The trash enclosure in the rear will be enclosed in a fully masonry structure with gates for both trash and recycling. Grease is stored inside the building, not outside in the trash. It is taken from the building for recycling. Referring to the rear buffer area, and the curved line along the rear on the exhibit, Mr. Jaworski says the way it is today is the way it will be with the new building; they are not getting any closer to the residential area behind; the curve line and fence will remain. There is 86.7 ft. at one end and 84.9 ft. at the other. He notes his plan was mislabeled as to the zone in the rear, which is an R 75/PC, not a commercial zone. The required buffer is 50 ft. Mr. Jaworski, answering Mr. Leckstein s question about providing revised plans showing the correct zone, says the applicant will provide revised plans.

6 Page 4 Regarding drainage, Mr. Jaworski says it goes towards the rear from the highway, draining to a gulley inlet thru to a system on Oxford. They are introducing some additional inlets in the parking lot to facilitate the drainage. The impervious area of the site is being decreased as they are adding more green space. The impervious coverage right now is at 60.9%; it will be reduced to 59.3% with the new building. An increase in pavement and landscaping results in less run off from the site than existing. Utilities, water, sewer, gas, all exist, and the demands and the capacities to the existing lines and laterals will not change. The landscape architect will testify about proposed and existing landscape, but there will be additional landscaping and shade trees and plantings throughout the site. There is a buffer area along the drive thru side, pretty much vegetated now, and they will preserve as much of that as they can. They will work with the Board s professionals to supplement landscaping where necessary. There was a comment about tree calculations based on our Ordinance, for how many trees are removed and replaced or the dollar amount to contribute to same. Mr. Abbonizio says when they submit their cost estimates for bonding purposes, his staff found a discrepancy in the pricing which may correlate to less of a value, he asks if the applicant would be willing to supplement the landscaping, and Mr. Jaworski says they would. Mr. Jaworski says our Ordinance has a provision for market value; if they come up with a different value they would certainly supplement, but he thinks it is close enough. Mr. Jaworski says the Ordinance requires a 10 ft. buffer along the lot lines for parking; referring to the green area at the top of the page of his exhibit, Mr. Jaworski says it is required to be 10 ft. The way they designed the parking they vary from 9.1 to 9.6 ft. They feel it meets the intent of the Ordinance; it is what is there today. Mr. Jaworski, pointing to his exhibit, shows where there is a small buffer, some areas none; they are improving that to provide almost a 10 ft. buffer. The other buffer requiring a 20 ft. buffer would be up in front, where they have at the narrowest point about 12 ft. and goes out to 25 ft. It is what is there today. They made the area wider to accommodate the fire truck s turning radius to service the building. The buffer between this site and the PC zone requires a 50 ft. buffer, and they have 85 plus feet, so that meetings the Ordinance. Lighting will be similar to what it is today, 18 ft high poles, two box fixtures.note: paper rattling on dais, cannot make out what applicant is saying..all the fixtures along the perimeter will have house shields to prevent glare from going off site. The lights will have standard foot candles. Signage on the site, one of the building mounted signage, and second the free standing signage and third the temporary signage. The building mounted signage is similar to what is out there today and then the arch logo. On the front of the building will be the McDonald s letters and the logo; on the side of the building will be the logo sign. There is a signage chart submitted. The existing signage totals about 158 sq. ft. The new building signage is proposed to have 69.4 sq. ft. in signage. One sign is on the façade facing the street and one side on the side, an entrance sign. You are permitted one sign in the front, there will be two proposed, the sign and the logo. The Ordinance allows 10% of

7 Page 5 the façade or 50 sq. ft. maximum. They will be at 55 sq. ft. for the sign and the logo is 14 sq. ft., for a total of 69 sq. ft. For the side the Ordinance says you can have half of the size of the front signs; they are allowed 25, they propose 14. Mr. Jaworski shows an exhibit of the proposed signage, which is part of Exhibit A-3, Page 2, showing front and side proposed signage. Marked as Exhibit A-8 is a color rendering of the proposed new building, which Mr. Jaworski says is the new prototype for McDonald s. There is the base wall, what is called arcades with canopies on them, and then the top. In the front is a new element called RCE, which is replacing the arches of old buildings. They have gone with a smaller arch logo. He feels the total signage is quite minimal looking at it and it goes with the overall new building, a lot cleaner and leaner looking. The building finish will be probably be an earth tone brown color; the arcades will be tile with stone underneath (pointing to his exhibit Mr. Jaworski explains the elements of the building). This building will have the typical new McDonald s look. In the rear, the COD s, custom order displays, the menu boards, have a little canopy over it to protect from the weather, and matches the front elements. What will appear on the screen is the order you have placed, which cuts down on the confusion of the person taking the order repeating it, you can see the display while you are at that point. This site has a free standing sign in front along Route 34, referring to Exhibit A-7 of the site plan, which will remain exactly as is, same location. There will be menu boards in the rear that will give you key items, those are three additional signs. The number of three will be as it exists now. The applicant is requesting temporary signage, advertising specials. The Ordinance permits temporary signage for a particular period of time. They are proposing seven locations, with six located in the back note there is rustling of paper on the dais and cannot make out what applicant is saying these are temporary signs advertising monthly specials. Ms. Smith says the applicant does not intend to have seven signs all the time, at the same time, but perhaps three or four signs at any given time. Mr. Jaworski confirms there will be seven locations for temporary signage but they will not all be used at the same time. The applicant agrees to a condition of approval that no more than three or four temporary advertising specials signs can be used at any one time. The banners are 36 sq. ft. and will be on the building. The drive thru promo signs are 8 and 6 sq. ft. The gateway temporary sign is 10 sq. ft. Ms. Smith says the Temporary Sign Ordinance requires the applicant to come in every time they want to change the temporary signs. Mr. Leckstein says if they are asking for a variance; Ms. Smith says they are asking for the ability to instead of having two weeks per quarter to have temporary signage throughout the year, rotating every four weeks or so. Each sign would be in one of the approved locations. The signs change based on the specials being offered. The largest banner will be 36 sq. ft., the others 10 sq. ft. Mrs. Rescorl comments that this is not fair to other businesses who have to go by the Ordinance, but if they are asking for a variance and the Board approves it, they should not have to come in every time. Ms. Smith says the goal is to have temporary signage all year vs. two weeks every quarter, the signs will rotate every four weeks with no additional permitting approval required. The signs will be one banner sign at 36 sq. ft. and the remaining temporary signs will be between 6 and 10 sq. ft. Mrs. Rescorl feels the Board and she should see what these temporary signs are going to look like and where they are going to be placed before a final decision is made. Answering Mrs. Friedman, Mr. Leckstein says if the

8 Page 6 applicant wants to put up a larger sign at any time, they would have to come in for approval. Mr. Jaworski says the banner will be in the front of the building, a second similar will be in the back of the building, this will also be a banner of 36 sq. ft. The other five will be: two drive thru signs, back by the order board, one on the gateway at the entrance to the drive thru, but no more than three or four signs at any one time. Mr. Maczuga asks what would be displayed on the 36 sq. ft. sign; Mr. Jaworski passes out an exhibit that is marked A-9, pictures of proposed temporary signage. The location of the banner would be one in front, one is the back. The other signs are 6 to 8 sq. ft. Ms. Smith says the content of the signs will change. Mr. Leckstein clarifies the exhibit to be a colorized version of C-4 and C-7 of the site plan. Mr. Jaworski speaks of the directional signs, similar to what is there today, will be four directional signs proposed to be 4 sq. ft. where the Ordinance permits 2 sq. ft., and they will be internally illuminated. Mr. Jaworski says the 36 sq. ft. banner will be in the front and the back, and cannot be seen from Highway 34. The locations are labeled on the site plan. Once the temporary signs are up the only visible one from the highway will be the front banner. Mr. Bucco says the temporary signs are not really temporary if they are always going to be in place with information on them. Mr. Jaworski says they are temporary but the applicant is asking for a variance to always have the temporary signage in place at the locations and areas designated so that they do not have to apply for a zoning permit every time they want to put up a temporary sign. They could be called temporary permanent signs. Mr. Bucco again says there will be three or four signs up at any one of the seven spots, almost every day. Mr. Jaworski confirms that is correct. Mrs. Rescorl clarifies for the Board that under the temporary sign ordinance, every time a business wants to put up a temporary sign, they have to come in for approval, and the approval is for a two week period. What this applicant is asking for is permanent temporary signs, which the applicant can change whenever they want, which is not the intent and purpose of our temporary sign ordinance and not done by other businesses in the Township. Mr. Maczuga says the applicant is asking for approval for seven locations, and signage will be rotated among those seven locations at any given time. Mr. Jaworski agrees, and Mr. Leckstein says the locations of these proposed temporary permanent signs are very clear on the site plan. Ms. Smith comments on what will be actual lawn signs and their proposed locations. Mr. Jaworski says the traffic configuration is for visibility and ease of use of the drive thru, and the location of any signage will not interfere with the flow of traffic. Mr. Jaworski says there will be no playroom in the proposed new building. Answering Mrs. Friedman s questions about demolishing the current building and the parking lot and entrance, Mr. Jaworski says the parking lots are separate, the driveway is

9 Page 7 shared. Referring to his exhibit, Mr. Jaworski says the colored area is a separate lot, and during construction there will be a fence along the line and the adjacent parking lot will have free access, and all work is being done inside McDonald s lot. Referring to the CME review letter of December 7, 2012, Mr. Jaworski, referring to Item 2.1 and 2.2, says they are not changing the access point at all to the State Highway, and they have applied to the DOT, who expressed no interest. Regarding Item 2.5, will the drive thru be open 24 hours, and Mr. Jaworski answers yes. Item 2.6, to do with stacking; Ms. Smith says traditional stacking on the existing driveway is different than it will be on the proposed driveway. Mr. Jaworski says you enter thru a single drive thru lane and with the person ordering, the line could stack up into the parking lot with people waiting to get to the drive thru, as it happens today. With the new configuration of side by side they intend to close the gap between order and window point, with more efficiency, and for all practical purposes should eliminate the stack up into the parking area. Item 2.7, providing a turning radius for garbage and/or fire trucks, Mr. Jaworski shows how the fire truck will enter, circulate around and come out; delivery trucks back in, unload, and pull out. Asked by Mr. Leckstein, Mr. Jaworski says he believes the drive thru will be open 24 hours but the inside may not be open 24 hours. Ms. Smith, referring to Exhibit A-10, Vehicle Circulation Plan Emergency, Mr. Jaworski uses the exhibit to show the circulation plan for emergency vehicles around the perimeter, which coincides with the memo from the fire department. Not shown on the plan but they requested one space in front be striped and sign as emergency vehicle space for police or fire. The applicant agrees to this request, and will submit a final revised plan to them. Mr. Jaworski says they submitted a template to create the plan. Marked as Exhibit A-11 is the Nonemergency Vehicle Circulation Plan, which Mr. Jaworski says shows a delivery truck backing in twice a week delivering product and leaving the site. The garbage truck will pull in and pull out, usually once or twice a week. The trash enclosure will be masonry, matching the building. Looking at the survey, the existing dumpster is behind the building and will be relocated to the corner shown on the exhibit. The location will be slightly closer to the side property line. Item 3.1, Mr. Jaworski says the trash enclosure will have no liquid storage, so there will be no run off from the trash enclosure. There will be no liquid or grease leaking into the parking lot. Mr. Abbonizio says a concern is when the employees put trash out, pull the solids out so they do not wash to the inlets. Mr. Jaworski says there is period employee pick up refuse in the parking lot now and that will continue. This will be a condition of approval. Item 3.2, Mr. Jaworski says the existing site is about 5% in the rear; they will take a look at the rear to try to get it under 5%, although that is not an excessive slope.

10 Page 8 Item 3.5, Mr. Jaworski says there are six spots in the rear with striping against the aisle; talking to the engineer, they will try to make this better to cut it down to four with a striped area. They will eliminate two parking spaces and provide a striped area as a condition of approval. Items 5.1 and 5.2, it is Mr. Jaworksi s understanding that McDonald s agrees to provide a grease trap design. Item 6.4, Ms. Smith says tree calculations will be provided. Item 6.5, to provide additional landscaping along the Route 34 frontage, which is now grass. They testified they will add shrubs but no trees. Item 7.1 hours of operation lighting, Mr. Jaworski says since the drive thru is open 24 hours, lighting will remain on in the lot for safety purposes. Lights are low and down lit, but for security reasons they will be kept on. The current operating hours is 6 a.m. to midnight, Sunday thru Thursday, and Friday and Saturday they are open til 1 a.m. in the interior and 24 hour drive thru. There is a question of what our Ordinance allows as far as hours of operation; Mr. Leckstein is questioning whether these hours of operation create a variance condition. Mrs. Rescorl says there is a noise ordinance, but is not sure there is an ordinance for hours of operation. Any prior hours of operation that may have been approved goes away when they knock down the building. Item 8.2, surface and base course, Mr. Jaworski has done a geotechnical study and will review with the Board engineer. Mr. Abbonizio asks to reserve comment until they see the report, and this is agreed to. Ms. Smith says the applicant agrees to secure any other agency approvals as required by law, a final comment in the CME review letter. Reviewing, Item 2.6 is the only item where they are asking for no increase, otherwise they agree with all review comments. Mr. Maczuga, reviewing the testimony, confirms the island in the western part, the restriping will eliminate two parking spaces, as recommended by the engineer in Item 3.5, and elimination of one space on the north side as recommended by the fire official; this will not be a parking space for the public but for emergency vehicles only. If signage is required here in addition to the striping, they will provide same. Mr. Maczuga says this all goes to lost parking space configuration. He asks regarding the modification of accommodating the loading, are parking spaces lost, and Mr. Jaworski says no, it stays as proposed. Mr. Jaworski refers to the comment in the planner s review letter of the front entrance driveway, which right now is an exit only. To correct the area they propose a small island separating ingress and egress, which will result in the loss of two parking spaces This plan might be better overall, based on discussions with the Board s professionals. They are also considering striping the area. Mr. Bucco comments that little islands tend to get run over, which Mr. Jaworski agrees with. If it is that small, they may just do striping. It will widen the ingress, however.

11 Page 9 Mr. Maczuga says that will be a loss of four parking spaces. These comments are made in regard to the Coppola & Coppola review letter, Page 7 of 8 under Circulation, 2a. Note.Mrs. Friedman is talking and referring to an aerial, but there is rustling of papers from the dais and her comments cannot be heard Mr. Jaworski responds there is a much longer queue, about 100 ft. back from the window, and can accommodate more cars, where, referring to the survey, there is a much shorter area with existing conditions, so they are lengthening that line and providing two order points. Although it is hard to grasp, he says it works that sometimes two or three cars can go thru one order window while the other window has one car with a large order still there. Experience is the only way to understand that it works. Referring to 2a in the Coppola review letter, Mr. Leckstein.relative safety of such a maneuver and whether in fact it would be safer to bar entry into the subject site via this front connection, and is Mr. Jaworski suggesting striping. He replies the ingress point be shifted over as you come in the highway, and in between the ingress and egress could be an island or striping, whatever makes more sense to make it work. It might be better to align it better with the existing driveway. Mrs. Camillary says the right hand turn from Route 34 is too tight and with an island would be a tight turn in; Mr. Jaworski agrees that it should be striped and not put in an island. Referring to Exhibit E1, Item 2 b has been address, Item 2c has been addressed. Mr. Maczuga asks if at the first entry way would it be appropriate to put a stop sign for those heading out to Highway 34; Mr. Jaworski says that would be done in conjunction with the striping or island. To Section 3, Lighting, Item 3a Mr. Jaworski says he would not be comfortable with a lower average foot candle than proposed. The second part of that the lights will be 18 ft. and are right behind the curb line for the most part. McDonald s has them on a concrete base, and they propose to keep the base as a visual reminder to patrons not to knock over the lights. Mr. Abbonizio and Mr. Maczuga are in agreement. Item 3a and Item 3b will be disregarded according to Mr. Leckstein. Item 3c the applicant agrees to the house side shields. Ms. Smith, referring to Section 4 has been addressed. Bob Sharma, with offices in East Rutherford, NJ, states he is appearing on behalf of, and representing the adjoining lot owner of Block 89, Lot 1. The adjoining property is known as 1100 Route 34;, he is an interested party to the use variance application and party to an easement between the ingress and egress to the site in question. He would like to state the applicant has given him a lot to digest, and he has not had the opportunity to review the material presented to the Board at least ten days prior. He understands the applicant is looking to demolish the site in question. The adjoining land owner is concerned about this request because it will interfere with the adjoining land owner and his tenants use of the property and their businesses. He has not seen evidence depicting how the demolition is going to be staged other than some fencing; he has not seen when it is going to occur; he has not seen the demolition equipment, explosives, heavy duty machinery, or whatever is to be used to accomplish the demolition, and he would like some information about the demolition.

12 Page 10 Mr. Leckstein asks how the demolition going to be done under the purview of this Board; that should be done with the Construction Department of the Township, with appropriate permits. The Board does not deal with the demolition. Mr. Sharma says the Board deals with the entire use variance in its entirety, and part of the sequence of the applicant s desire to create a two lane drive thru involves demolition. Mr. Leckstein, trying to focus the objection, says they could not come to the Board and obtain a demolition permit from the Building Department, demolish the site and never do anything with it, never come to the Board. They do not need a use variance to demolish the property. Mr. Sharma agrees but insists part of the sequence of the use variance involves demolishing the building and how it affects the neighboring lots, and in particular his client s lot, so he needs information on that. Mr. Sharma says the applicant has to demonstrate to the Board and the good citizens of Aberdeen how the Board denying this application would create undue hardship. He understands they want to create a two lane drive thru, but he is not sure why that has to benefit the citizens of Aberdeen, other than creating more traffic, more noise, and diminish of air quality. He is not sure why denying the application creates a hardship. Mr. Sharma says he is not sure how granting the approval would be for the good of the community. He has not heard a lot of discussion other than increasing the applicant s revenue thru the drive thru operation results in public service other than creating more traffic and diminishing air quality, more noise for the adjoining lot, and a hazard concern for people using that ingress and egress to and from Route 34. As a secondary matter, Mr. Sharma would like to talk about the number of variances the applicant is seeking, signage, hours of operation and moving of islands and traffic signals. He has not had time to digest the variances or the master global variance. The signage request, the traffic on the respective shared driveway governed by an easement, which the applicant is contraventional to his client s rights, and for these reasons his client objects to the application in its entirety and he reserves all his rights. Mr. Phelps so notes Mr. Sharma s objections, and asks if Mr. Sharma has any direct questions for the applicant s expert witness. Mr. Sharma would like to understand the phasing of the demolition, where the fence is going to be Mr. Leckstein says the Board cannot talk about the demolition because it does not concern this Board other than being told the existing building is going to be demolished. The demolition is controlled by the Building Department. Mr. Sharma could come up with many reasons why he doesn t like the demolition, but it has nothing to do with this Board. This Board has no power over the demolition. Mr. Sharma then asks how the Board is on signage, which Mr. Leckstein says that is something the Board has power over. Mrs. Rescorl asks the applicant regarding the demolition, are they proposing to fence in their entire site; Mr. Jaworski says the demolition will be done with the Building Department permits and they will comply with all Ordinances of the Township. Mr. Phelps tells Mr. Sharma he can pose his questions to the Building Department, but again he says he reserves his rights in regard to demolition and construction.

13 Page 11 Mr. Sharma wants to focus his attention on the effect of the ingress/egress and the situation of the drive thru. He did not comprehend where the drive thru is going to be widened and how it will have an effect on traffic and traffic signals and traffic control devices that are going to be erected moving in to his client s property over the shared easement. Mr. Jaworski, not understanding the question, Mr. Sharma says with his initial discussion the widening of the drive thru he mentioned there would be a modification to the ingress/egress where the customers current egress he would create an ingress and proposed an island that would decimate an ingress/egress, he is not clear how he will rectify the designation of the ingress/egress from the shared driveway. Mr. Jaworski responds that the shared driveway on the site is not the drive thru lane, and he points to the shared driveway. He says they talked about possibly widening the driveway so the ingress lane better aligns with the existing incoming lane in the area he is pointing to, and instead of an island it has been decided striping may be better to demarcate in ingress. Mr. Sharma is not clear how the striping or any other control devices is going to affect his client s easement as well as his landlord rights to the right of that driveway. Mr. Jaworski says it won t. Mr. Sharma asks if there will be no markings, no construction, no interference with the tenants and their customers. How will they do striping without closure of the shared driveway. Mr. Jaworski says the driveway will remain open and functioning during construction, as will the rest of the driveway and his site. Mr. Sharma asks the construction time frame; Mr. Jaworski replies he does not have an exact time frame, but probably four to six months. Mr. Sharma asks if in that four to six months he will have a fence that demarks the adjoining lot, or where is the fence to be erected. Mr. Jaworski does not know the particulars of that, but he stated that demolition and construction will be done in accordance with all the local Ordinances, in conjunction with the Construction Department, but they typically construct a fence along the property line to contain construction materials. It most likely will be along the northerly property line. He cannot answer the height of the fence at this time. Mr. Sharma says we don t know the height of the fence, we don t know if the time is four or six months, we don t know whether or not Mr. Ciaglia interrupts Mr. Sharma and asks Mr. Jaworski if it is fair to say that Mr. Sharma s clients access to their building will not be impeded by this project. Mr. Ciaglia tells Mr. Sharma that he should know by law he cannot block Mr. Sharma s client s access to his property. Mr. Sharma is not concerned about blocking but about visibility and the ability of drivers to view the oncoming traffic from that center. There are customers who make a right hand turn, and if the fence is high they will have to proceed closer to the Route 34 exit area to make a right hand turn, and that is his concern. He is voicing concern about the safety of his client s customers making a right hand turn out of that driveway. Mr. Jaworski again says all demolition and construction will be done in accordance with Township ordinances and codes, and safety is a concern that is taken into consideration. Mr. Leckstein says it is a legitimate question before the Board, sight triangle easements and being able to see, but that question should be directed to a traffic engineer in his testimony. Mr. Sharma will reserve his right to question at that time. It is clarified Mr. Sharma is asking about the erection of the fence to the time it is removed. Mr. Leckstein says the construction department will not permit him to do something that is going to obstruct the sight line,

14 Page 12 but it is an issue for the Construction Department, although Mr. Sharma feels there is some overlapping issues with some traffic but he will reserve his rights for the traffic engineer. Mr. Sharma asks if during the four to six month phasing of the demolition and construction, will signage be up, the temporary signage, and any signage to be open or anything else to be in place. Mr. Jaworski, not understanding Mr. Sharma, says he went thru the details of the signage package. Mr. Sharma clarifies he is referring to signage that would be erected during the demolition/construction process. Mr. Jaworski replies that he does not know, but if there is, it will be done according to the Township requirements. Mr. Sharma again asks about signage during the construction process. Mr. Phelps asks if he is talking about signage regarding the construction or signage for advertisements and their building signage. Mr. Sharma replies he is talking about signage related to the applicant s operation. Mr. Leckstein asks if he is basically asking about the future site of McDonald s signage. Mr. Sharma asks if that is part of the signage request. Mr. Phelps says that would be under the Construction Department. Mr. Leckstein says we would deal with that at the Board, and if it is a temporary sign they would have to go to the zoning officer for permitting, and we do have a temporary sign ordinance. The Ordinance does provide for temporary signs, the Board does not have to deal with it. Mr. Sharma now is dealing with after construction, there was discussion about temporary signs and rotation of seven signs, and he is not clear how those signs will work, where they are going to be placed. He did not see any actual signage, any depiction of signs, and he would like the Board to give some thought to this. Mr. Jaworski replies they have delineated seven locations that are marked on the site plan, and the temporary signs were marked in as an exhibit. Mr. Sharma asks for a copy of the temporary signage; Mr. Leckstein says it is Exhibit A-9, and it is on the site plan and was testified to. Mr. Sharma asks with the site plan to clarify where the signs are going to be placed. Mr. Jaworski replies the banner sign is to be 36 sq. ft. as testified to, and to be located on the front and rear sides of the building, and Mr. Jaworski orients him to the location of Route 34 on the exhibit. Mr. Sharma asks with the site plan he is being shown, where are the traffic signals; Mr.Jaworski says they are located to the north. Note..there is additional discussion on signage and location of same between the witness and Mr. Sharma that cannot be picked up because of talking on the dais, hitting the mic and rustling of papers. Mr. Sharma asks if that kind of signage is on the existing McDonald s; Mr. Jaworski replies that he does not know. Mr. Sharma says the signage they envision is 30 ft. wide and 3 ft. long; Mr. Jaworski corrects him that it is 3 ft. high. Mr. Sharma asks if that will be one of two signs; Mr. Jaworski says these are the temporary banner signs that will be placed on the front facing 34 and the other on the back facing the rear of the center. Mr. Leckstein tells Mr. Sharma that all of this was testified to, and we are now going back over the testimony the applicant already gave, and Mr. Sharma was here for the testimony. Mr. Sharma replies he has not had the opportunity to look at the site plan.

15 Page 13 Mr. Leckstein tells Mr. Sharma these plans were on file; the point of having the plans on file is to give him or his client the time to come in and review the file and the plans, and we are now sitting here with Mr. Sharma asking questions that have already been testified to, and he is asking the exact same questions that he was sitting here for as testimony was being given. Mr. Sharma says he is not being given the opportunity to ask questions.mr. Bucco tells Mr. Sharma he should study the plans on his own time and then come to the meeting. Mr. Phelps says the hour is late and we will have to carry this application, which will give Mr. Sharma the opportunity to come in and look at the file, look at the proposed signage, he can look at the signage on the existing site, which will be gone and so will that signage. Mr. Sharma says it is his intent to review and study all plans and exhibits and he reserves his rights to question at the next meeting. Mr. Leckstein says the Board does have a rule that meetings end at 10:30 p.m. Ms. Smith does have other witnesses to testify, including the traffic engineer; Mr. Leckstein says Mr. Sharma is not done with this witness for the applicant. Mrs. Rescorl requests since this application is going to be carried the applicant provide copies of the proposed temporary permanent signage that will be rotating, because that is not what the temporary sign ordinance is about. There is also a question about the fencing, phasing that should be resolved and approved. Mrs. Camillary moves to carry the application to the February 27 public meeting with no further notice, seconded by, and on voice vote all members agree. Memorialization of Resolution V (rev)/Opuszynski, Applicant and Property Owner: James Opuszynski, 40 Willow Avenue, Block 136, Lot 13, Variance to construct an 18 ft. x 16 ft. one story rear addition with zero clearance fireplace, and place 7 ft. x 7 ft. shed on property. Variances required for Lot Area 40,000 sq. ft. required, 10,000 sq. ft. provided and existing; Lot Frontage and Lot Width 150 ft. required, 100 ft. provided and existing, Side Yard Set Back 20 ft. required, 5 ft.+/- provided; Lot Depth 150 ft. required, 100 ft. providing and existing, Rear yard Setback 50 ft. required, 10 ft. provided from addition, 7 ft. from fireplace; proposed shed 7 ft. +/- to rear property line where 15 ft. minimum required and 9 ft.+/- to house where 20 ft. minimum required, on property located in the R100 zone without sanitary sewer, is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Falco moves to memorialize, seconded by Mrs. Camillary. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman No:: None Abstain: none Memorialization of Resolution V /Romano, Applicant and Property Owner: Jodie Romano, 547 South Atlantic Avenue, Block 66, Lot 11, Use Variance to construct second story addition 26.3 ft. x 36.2 ft. to single family home located in the APT/TH zone and expansion of a nonconforming structure, is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Falco moves to memorialize, seconded by Mrs. Camillary. Yes: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bucco, Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman Meeting adjourned. Zbmin012313

16