Open public meeting statement: The meeting was called to order by Chairman, George Zitone, and a statement was made that the meeting was duly advertised and met all of the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. Those present were: Jason Dunn, Charles Teufert, Sharon Tufaro, Glenn Barbagallo, Darren Ponce, Richard Innella, Ron Ruberto, Katherine Snyder, Glen Plotsky, George Zitone, Michael O'Krepky, the board engineer, William Haggerty, Esq., the board attorney, and Fred Suljic, the board Planner.Those absent were: Gene Crawford.

FLAG SALUTE

MINUTES

The Minutes of February 14, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Teufert and seconded by Mr. Dunn to approve the Minutes of the February 14, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, abstain; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, abstain; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

The Minutes of April 10, 2008 Land Use Board meeting were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the Minutes of the April 10, 2008 Land Use Board Meeting. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, abstain; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

RESOLUTIONS

Debra Youngman - LU-2-05-1 - Block 47, Lot 14 - Red Hill Road - Preliminary Major Subdivision - Extension:

The Resolution was reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to approve the Resolution for Debra Youngman for a 1 year extension of her Preliminary Major Subdivision. Roll Call: Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

EXTENSIONS

Frances Biccum - LUB 06-22 - Block 5, Lot 50 - Steenykill Road - Variance:

Appearing before the board was the applicant, Frances Biccum. She indicated that she is appearing before the board for an extension for obtaining the easement from her neighbor and an extension for the condition of the Resolution to cut down her fence. She indicated that she is in communications with the adjacent land owner and they are willing to give her the easement and she did research forms off the Internet and will fill them out to have her neighbor sign them. Mr. Haggerty indicated that she should have him look over the easement before having the neighbor sign it. Mrs. Biccum gave Mr. Haggerty the form easement that she prepared for his review. Mrs. Biccum asked the board to reconsider their decision on the last variance, which is the reduction of the fence height. She indicated that she has already paid $5,000 for this project. The County Board of Appeals has recommended that she hire an architect, which she has done. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board does not have the discretion when they have already made a decision for an applicant to come back and ask for relief. The reason is that this application required notice to adjoining owners and the newspaper at the original hearing and none of these individuals who were notified are aware that the applicant would be coming back this evening to make this request. Therefore, the board does not have the authority to make any changes this evening. He further informed the applicant that she has the right to appeal the decision of this board, however, this has to be filed within 45 days of the date that the decision was memorialized, which has already passed. He indicated to the applicant that she could, on notice to the surrounding owners and newspaper, ask for some relief from some of the conditions of the Resolution.

Ms. Biccum indicated that she has to hire a contractor to make some repairs as suggested by the architect and she has to hire an electrician to have the electric brought up to code. She also stated that this is a big financial burden on her at this time. She would wish that the board would empathize with her for her sense of security to keep the height of the existing fence. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the board could not at this time make a decision until the notice has been done.

Ms. Biccum requested that the board grant her a 90 day extension of time to comply with the conditions of the Resolution.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Teufert to grant the applicant a 30 day extension from the conditions of the Resolution to reduce the size of the fence, the easement and to obtain the building permits and to have the applicant appear at the next meeting to give the board an update on the progress of the work and the conditions of the Resolution. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, abstain. The Motion was carried.

APPLICATIONS CARRIED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless - LUB 07-07 - Block 18.42, Lot 7 - Clove Road
Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Variance:

A letter was received from the applicant's attorney requesting that this matter be carried to the July 10, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice.

A Motion was made by Mr. Barbagallo and seconded by Mr. Innella to carry this application without further notice to the July 10, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice. Roll Call: Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; and Mr. Plotsky, yes. The Motion was carried.

ADPP Enterprises, Inc. - LUB 08-01 - Block 2, Lot 6 - Route 23 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan:

Appearing on behalf of the applicant was Louis D'Arminio, their attorney, and Mr. Calisto Bertin, the applicant's engineer, who was previously sworn at the last meeting.

Mr. D'Arminio indicated that the variances for the lot depth and the lot size are existing. He did reemphasize that this a conforming use and they are replacing 2 non-conforming residential structures. He indicated that he will have Mr. Bertin present to the board a revised plan with the changes that were requested and also Mr. Bahman Izadmehr, who is the applicant's traffic expert who prepared a report to the board on March 26, 2008 and he will also respond to Ms. Dolan's report dated May 2, 2008, who is the traffic expert hired on behalf of the township.

Appearing before the board was Calisto Bertin who presented to the board Exhibit ΑA-9" which is a Landscape Rendering dated February 13, 2008 revised February 25, 2008 prepared by Bertin Engineering. Mr. Bertin indicated that the original plan they submitted did not have new curbs along the entire frontage and the new plan does. The next change is that they have one way signs for the entrance driveway and the exit driveway. They have also changed the location of the underground storage tanks. They were originally position up against the wall which works from a traffic standpoint, but not from a construction standpoint, the tanks have to be further from the wall, therefore, they have moved them towards the middle of the sight. He indicated that the fuel trucks will come in the entrance driveway and park in the middle of the canopy where the new tanks will be located. The board had some discussion at the last meeting about loading zones and a dumpster location and there was a suggestion to put them on the east corner of the building. They were asked to put this area into the hillside. He indicated that the southeasterly property line has a hill and they are cutting into this hill and the wall that is proposed is approximately 6' high. He noted that every foot they go back into this hill, the wall will increase approximately a foot. They did recess the trash enclosures into the hillside, this way there is more movability for a garbage truck. They will still maintain the loading zone along the wall. Therefore, a delivery truck would pull into the site, stay along the wall and pull up into the easterly corner of the site. They have also created a larger buffer. They took the five parking spaces closest to the exit driveway and moved them 10' further into the site. Therefore, they went from 40' to 50' from the bank, to provide more green area. They have added a 6' high fence along the top of the wall. The fence will be 7' back from retaining wall, which will meet the fence ordinance in the township. They have also lined shrubs between the fence and the wall. Therefore, you will not really see the fence. The fence is there for protection.

Mr. Bertin submitted to the board Exhibit ΑA-10" which is a Vehicle Turning Path map dated November 26, 2007, last revised February 25, 2008 prepared by Bertin Engineering. He indicated that the upper plan shows the turning path of the delivery trucks which again will come in the entrance driveway and park in the middle of the canopy where the underground storage tanks are, and will exit through the site to the exit driveway. Mr. Barbagallo questioned as to how wide the southern entrance is. Mr. Bertin indicated that at the curb cut it is 50', which is the maximum allowed. Mr. Barbagallo questioned as to how much distance it is from the back of truck to the entrance when the truck is unloading its cargo. Mr. Bertin indicated it is approximately 35 to 40 feet. He further stated that there is the ability for a car to drive either way around the truck to get to the other islands. He indicated that the applicant will restrict truck deliveries to late evening, which is off peak hours. Mr. Zitone questioned if there is only a right turn at the exit or is it left or right. Mr. Bertin indicated that a car exiting the site can go left or right, there is no turn prohibition proposed. Mr. Bertin indicated that the bottom section of the exhibit shows the garbage truck turning path. He indicated if it is a front loading truck it will pull through the middle of the island to get to the trash receptacles, load, then back up and pull out. There are two receptacles, one for garbage and one for recyclables. He indicated that they do have some control of the trash and they would request that the pick up be early in the morning, which is also off peak hours. Mr. Suljic indicated that Mr. Bertin mentioned there is less traffic at night, he noted that because of the geographic location (near Interstate 84) he believes this area slows down very little at night. Mr. Innella indicated that there are 4 existing gas stations and this is the only one that he would see that the delivery trucks or garbage trucks would impede the flow of traffic anytime that they are there. He further stated that he is not in favor of making deliveries at night. He also stated that no matter what time of day, when there is a truck going into or out of the site, someone will have to slow down or stop to let the trucks in or out. Mr. D'Arminio questioned as to how many deliveries there are during a week. Mr. Bertin indicated 2 to 3 times a week. He further indicated that this site is not set up for tractor trailers to fuel. Mr. Innella questioned if there are any signs stating this. Mr. Bertin indicated that they have not proposed any signs, however, they can if the board requests this. Mr. Innella indicated that he was concerned with the canopy being so close to the highway, even though the township does have this in other locations.

Mr. Bertin referred to Mr. O'Krepky's report dated May 7, 2008 which required some calculations with regard to the retaining wall which he agrees to submit to Mr. O'Krepky for his review.

Mr. D'Arminio asked Mr. Bertin to describe the relationship between the convenience store and the gas service stations. Mr. Bertin indicated that fueling began at the country store, which they called the convenience store, then later on it was more associated with repair garages, and now it is back to the convenience stores again. He indicated that repair garages in certain areas stay, but most gas stations are fuel sales and convenience stores. He further indicated that his firm has not designed a new repair/garage in approximately 15 years.

Appearing before the board was Bahman Izadmehr, the applicant's traffic engineer, who was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Izadmehr gave his qualifications to the board and was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he prepared a traffic report for the subject property dated March 26, 2008, which report was marked as Exhibit ΑA-11". He prepared this report because of the concerns of the board of the safety of this site. In review of the property, they have established that traffic basically comes from the North by the Route 84 Interstate on Route 23 which will make a left turn into the site and exiting onto Route 23 making a right turn back to Route 84. Mr. D'Arminio questioned in terms of the frequency of the turns would he consider them similar. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that they are very similar in size. He also stated if you look at the ITE charts trip generation rates, the existing Gulf Station has a similar traffic generation. Mr. Izadmehr also referred to the site circulation in his report. He indicated that the site is not designed to handle any truck fueling. Basically they will have the garbage truck and the delivery truck for fuel. There are two driveways off of Route 23. In reference to the trucks unloading fuel, there is sufficient distances on either side of the truck to get to the parking spaces for the convenience store or operate any of the available fueling stations. The board was also concerned about site distance coming from the North entering or existing the site. The fact that they are proposing the first driveway on the southerly side of Route23 that would clear some of the shrubs and trees, so this will improve the site distance. In terms of number of parking spaces, this application actually exceeds the required parking spaces by the township ordinances. The applicant is proposing 11 spaces by the convenience store and an additional 10 fueling stations for a total of 21 spaces. He indicated that they have submitted an application to the NJDOT for an access permit. He stated that it has been his experience that they will receive a favorable response for this application. Mr. D'Arminio asked Mr. Izadmehr to comment on the sign variance requested by the applicant. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that basically it is easier on the driver so that they can see the sign, comprehend what is on the sign and make a decision to utilize the subject gas station or not. The sign that is being proposed for the subject site meets the national standards. This is the minimum size that could be used, which is half the size of the surrounding gas stations.

Mr. Izadmehr reviewed the report submitted on behalf of the township by Elizabeth Dolan, Traffic expert, dated May 2, 2008. He referred to paragraph Α4" which states that ΑThe subject site is Αconforming≅ as defined in the State Highway Access Management Code, and the application has filed a Major Access Permit Application. In our experience, NJDOT has not permitted separate ingress and egress driveways for gas stations on undivided highways. Has NJDOT issued comments regarding the submitted plan?≅ Mr. Izadmehr indicated as mentioned in earlier testimony he does not see a problem with this NJDOT application and also the Gulf gas station has a similar circulation. He also indicated that he just recently received an approval on a similar site in North Brunswick on Route 27. He further indicated as of this date there has been no comments from the NJDOT expressing concerns about this application.

Mr. Izadmehr referred to paragraph 5 of Ms. Dolan's report which states in part ΑThe board may wish to restrict diesel sales....≅ He indicated that the applicant has agreed to restrict these vehicles from the site because this site is not designed to handle large truck traffic.

Mr. Izadmehr referred to paragraph 6 of Ms. Dolan's report which comments about the overall site circulation and a request to perhaps move the building and the wall approximately 5 feet further back. He indicated that what the applicant is proposing on the site works, but obviously they could move the wall 5 feet further back just to make it operate better.

Mr. Izadmehr referred to paragraph 7 of Ms. Dolan's report which states ΑThe site plans include an exhibit showing vehicle turning paths. Can the fuel delivery truck position itself over the tanks for a passenger-side fuel drop? When the fuel truck is delivering product, will the entrance driveway be blocked? Mr. D'Arminio indicated that the applicant's engineer did show the fuel truck delivery. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that cars will not have any problem accessing any of the pumps when a fuel delivery is taking place. He further indicated as to the rest of the site there is sufficient room for the cars to maneuver the site.

Mr. Zitone questioned Mr. Izadmehr if they could move the wall back in the location of the dumpsters so that the garbage truck can pull in parallel to the wall to pick the dumpster's up. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that this can be done. Mr. Zitone further stated that the underground storage tanks could then be moved by the retaining wall. Mr. Bertin indicated that this could be done.

Mr. Haggerty questioned if the applicant could just get rid of the diesel gas all together since they are not serving trucks. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that it has become more common for passenger vehicles to have diesel cars because of the efficiency and it is cleaner. Mr. Barbagallo indicated that he was also concerned with the RV traffic and the stacking that would occur. Mr. Innella indicated that the applicant refers to the Gulf Station and that it is similar to this site. However, the Gulf station has a totally different situation with the fuel storage tanks and delivery trucks which has no interference with the car traffic on the site. Mr. Dunn questioned if the applicant could move the building to make the access isle 24'. Mr. Bertin indicated that they have kept the building where it is because they have a setback line. He referred to Exhibit ΑA-1" which shows a 24' backup isle and there is still another 10' before you get to the dispenser, therefore they have a 34' back up isle. He stated that 24' is standard. He feels this is sufficient and if they moved the building they would need another variance.

Mr. Izadmehr referred to Exhibit ΑA-9" to respond to the concern of Ms. Dolan's comment Α9" of her report with regard to site distance from the north. He indicated that there are bushes and trees south of the proposed driveway. As indicated earlier, during the construction of this driveway some of these trees and bushes will have to be removed to create the space for the driveway and they will remove any other trees or bushes to obtain the proper site distance for the driveway. Mr. Haggerty questioned if they will provide a site easement on the south side of the property. Mr. D'Arminio agreed.

Mr. Barbagallo indicated he was concerned with the additional traffic going northbound out of the this site and making it more difficult for the traffic coming out of the Tri State Mall trying to make a left going southbound on Route 23. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that this gas station will not increase the traffic that currently exists in this area, the traffic is already there. The do not feel there will be any new trips initiated.

Mr. Plotsky questioned if there are signs directing one way in and one way out of this site. Mr. D'Arminio indicated that there is ground signage and other signage which is shown on the site plan. Mr. Plotsky stated that the applicant indicated that there would not be any deliveries by tractor trailers, that there would be smaller trucks that do the delivery. He stated that he is an attorney in New York State and it is customary to put up signs with hours of operation which can include hours of delivery, nature of delivery, restrictions relative to these tractor trailers. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to put notes to that affect or include language of that in the Resolution of approval that the board might issue. So that, in fact, if tractor trailers are used for delivery, if the hours of delivery are different than that represented this evening, there is an enforcement mechanism to insure that essentially the applicant does what it says it is going to do. Mr. D'Arminio indicated that they would be willing to put this on the plan as well.

Mr. Suljic indicated that it is his recommendation that the board not even consider the application unless the applicant moves back the wall 5' and the building back 5'. He questioned Mr. Izadmehr if this would make the site a safer site. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he feels the site is safe with the proposed design. By moving the wall back 5' could make it better in terms of circulation.

Appearing before the board was Elizabeth Dolan, Traffic Engineer on behalf of the Township. Ms. Dolan was sworn in by the board attorney. Ms. Dolan gave her qualifications to the board and was accepted as an expert witness by the board and the applicant's attorney. Ms. Dolan indicated that the applicant has addressed the majority of the comments in her report dated May 2, 2008. She feels that moving the underground storage tanks is a very wise suggestion. What she did not like about the current underground tank location is that a tanker truck coming is going to be generally in the middle of the property and the cars would have to go either to the right or left of the truck. She indicated that it is always a good idea to try and locate those underground tanks in a more remote area so that the hoses are protected coming off the passenger side of the truck. She also agrees with the relocation of the wall and also the building re-location will help the circulation on the site. She indicated that the concerns that were remaining had to deal with DOT. There was testimony about the trucks entering as a left turn maneuver from the North and she had put a template on the plan and she does not see it working with the existing driveway configuration. She feels the applicant needs to take a look at this, however, when they move the wall, this will help. She indicated that the driveway design with the 50' opening certainly complies with the DOT criteria, however, the angle of the driveway may need to be looked at so that they can accommodate the left turn inbound maneuver of that larger tractor trailer. With regard to DOT, she is very interested in how DOT responds to this submission and she was encouraged to hear that there was an approval on an undivided portion of Route 27 in North Brunswick as testified by Mr. Izadmehr. It has been her experience that DOT will not approve separate gas station driveways on an undivided highway. The reasoning that they have told her, because you can not enforce one way flow and their concerns have been in the past that vehicles will enter, in this case, the northern driveway, even though it is going to be signed and striped for exiting movement, DOT's opinion is that on an undivided highway separate ingress and egress driveways don't typically work. She is very interested in the outcome of this particular application. She has tried to suggest to DOT the areas between the inbound and outbound driveways be considered an island and in her experience DOT has not bought it. She feels the configuration of the property lends itself to the separate driveways and she is hoping that DOT will approve it that way.

Ms. Dolan referred to the traffic impact. She indicated that this is a little bit different area in terms of looking at the gas station activity. Usually you see right in right out because it is convenient. At this location there is the activity from New York and the Interchange, therefore, you are seeing the turning movement. She would agree with the applicant, she would not expect there to be a change in the overall traffic, but they are adding more driveways which will result in more conflicting turning movement in the general area. However, the driveways are spaced sufficiently from the end of the property to meet the DOT criteria and ultimately that design does lie with the state in terms of the review and approval. She would not expect to see any change in the overall traffic activities. This site is one more opportunity for the drivers of the area to purchase gas. She further indicated that this is a smaller site than any other site in the area. When the delivery trucks are there, or the tanker is there or the gas station is selling at a lower price than the others and they are really getting a lot of activity there, the experience is that there is other opportunities in the area. Therefore, if they can't get into the site there are other opportunities on other sites. She feels that the queuing concerns will also be looked at by DOT. She feels with the relocation of the underground storage tanks, the big safety issue that she had is going to be addressed.

Mr. Innella questioned as to what solution would she have with the problem of the trucks entering from the north as she mentioned in her testimony. Ms. Dolan indicated that it has been her experience that DOT would require an ingress and egress driveway to be brought together, separated by a smaller island.

This matter was opened to the public.

Appearing before the board was Reginald R. Cole. He was concerned with the amount of accidents at this location. Mr. Bertin indicated that they have not looked at the accident data. Mr. Cole indicated that there have been 8 accidents in the past year. He was concerned that the same applicant's agreed to put a sign up ΑNo Left Turns≅ at the gas station across the street which was never done. He was also concerned that they agreed to put shields up on the lights, which was also never done. He also feels the center access should be eliminated at this sight and possibly a traffic light installed. He feels that anything agreed to on this particular application should all be put in writing to hold the applicant to their word.

Appearing before the board was Ursula Leo of Laddey, Clark & Ryan on behalf of an objector, Petrozino, Inc. She questioned Mr. Bertin if they are willing to move the tanks back near the retaining wall. Mr. Bertin indicated that they are willing to move the tanks and the retaining wall. She further questioned if he testified that they are moving parking spaces. Mr. Bertin indicated that there are 5 parking spaces between the building and the highway. They have moved those parking spaces 10' further south to create more distance between the parking spaces and the bank. She questioned if this decreased the circulation area by moving these parking spaces. Mr. Bertin indicated that it reduced the pavement some, but there is plenty of circulation on this site, they did not need this area. Ms. Leo questioned that assuming the tanks are moved closer to the retaining wall, when the trucks are delivering the fuel, are cars going to be able to utilize every single fueling station at that time. Mr. Bertin indicated that the cars will be restricted to the highway side of the truck so they will be using the first two rows. They could get the truck to drive around the outside of the island or the east side of the canopy so that they can use the third row as well. She questioned if there was only one row of pumps, would they be able to dispense the fuel while all pumps were being operated by clientele. Mr. Bertin indicated that they would all be able to be utilized if they eliminate the second row of pumps. Ms. Leo indicated that in Mr. Bertin's testimony he indicated that there would be 35 feet between the truck and the entrance driveway. She questioned as to how many cars could fit into that 35 feet. Mr. Bertin indicated that the truck is now going to be positioned further away from the road, therefore, it is not going to impose a restriction on vehicles entering the site. Ms. Leo asked as to how many feet is the applicant going to move the retaining wall. Mr. Bertin indicated that the request was for 5 feet, but he indicated that they are willing to move the wall 10' back. He indicated that one of the board members made a comment about the canopy being too close to the road. Therefore, by moving it 5 additional feet would allow them to move the canopy back too. This would put the canopy back 14'. He indicated that McDonald's across the street is setback 15'. Ms. Leo questioned as to how tall the retaining wall will be. Mr. Bertin indicated it will be 12' tall from the back of the trash enclosure.

Ms. Leo questioned Mr. Izadmehr if he has any information with regard to the seasonally produced traffic in this area. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that he did not, this was a traffic count back in March, 2008. She questioned if he is familiar with the seasonal increase. He indicated that he was. She questioned as to how this would affect the traffic pattern. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that this gas station will not change the character of the traffic make up. Therefore, with the seasonal traffic included, it will remain the same. Ms. Leo indicated that there was a lot of discussion that you can not stop trucks from coming into the site and a sign will be installed, however, they are still going to dispense diesel. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that the diesel will only be for the cars. She questioned him as what will prohibit the RV's coming into this site. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that it will be self imposed by the clientele and by the operator of the gas station. Ms. Leo questioned him given the traffic pattern and the seasonal traffic of the area, how many of those individuals will be one time customers. Mr. Izadmehr did not know. She questioned him if the site did not have a vehicle diesel pump, would this stop these types of customers form coming in. Mr. Izadmehr indicated it may not, it may help. Mr. Zitone questioned as to how many diesel pumps are they proposing. Mr. Izadmehr indicated 2 fueling stations. Mr. Izadmehr indicated that they can service RV's on the site, it will just take up two spaces.

There being no further public, this matter was closed to the public.

Appearing before the board was Fred Suljic, the township planner. Mr. Suljic was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Suljic gave his qualifications to the board and was accepted as a expert. Mr. Suljic indicated that he reviewed the plans and the revised plans submitted by the applicant. He referred to his report dated March 12, 2008. He indicated that his concern about the site is the size, it is very small. In his report he recommended moving the retaining wall back 5', and now the applicant is proposing to move the retaining wall back 10'. He also recommended moving the building back even though this may create a variance. His opinion as a planner, with regard to the site to have more flexibility and movability, just makes the site more safe. He referred to the freestanding sign which is 82.75 square feet. He feels there is enough signs on Route 23, and another big sign on Route 23 is going to make very little difference. He was also concerned about the truck entrance, which was brought to the boards attention by Ms. Dolan. He feels that the applicant should double the amount of landscaping that they have proposed. He indicated that there is 11 parking spaces which is above what is required in the ordinance. Although, he does not count the spaces where cars park at the fueling stations. He feels the overall site configuration is very tight. He would only recommend to the board that they consider granting the variances if the applicant moves the retaining wall 5' back and move the building back 5'. He suggested that the dumpster be turned at a 90 degree angle which is also a better design. The applicant agreed

Mr. D'Arminio indicated that in terms of the additional landscaping as proposed by Mr. Suljic, the applicant would agree to this.

Mr. Zitone summarized that the applicant agreed to the following: Low landscaping on the island, moving the building 5' towards the bank northeast, the wall will be moved back 10', the canopy will be moved back 5', the tanks are being moved closer to the wall, turn the dumpsters 90 degrees and leave the retaining wall going back in towards the building, signage to be added with restrictions on trucks, deliveries, garbage pick up. Mr. Bertin indicated that the fuel delivery they can restrict from 7:00 at night to 6:00 in the morning, but the delivery trucks during the day for the convenience store there is a loading and unloading zone. There will be a sight triangle easement on the south corner for traffic.

A Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to carry this application to the June 12, 2008 Land Use Board meeting without further notice so the applicant can prepare a modified plan with all the changes requested by the board this evening. Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, abstain, Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, abstain, and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

VOUCHERS

The vouchers were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Ponce and seconded by Mr. Barbagallo to approve the following vouchers:

1) Dolan & Dolan regarding Red Hill Road (Escrow) in the amount of $102.38; and

2) Dolan & Dolan regarding ADPP (Escrow) in the amount of $361.73; and

3) Dolan & Dolan regarding Cellco (Escrow) in the amount of $197.93; and

4) Dolan & Dolan regarding General Administration (March) in the amount of $371.40; and

5) KSM Engineering regarding Red Hill Road (Escrow) in the amount of $112.50; and

6) KSM Engineering regarding Rosenfeld (Escrow) in the amount of $125.00.

Roll Call: Mr. Dunn, yes; Mr. Teufert, yes; Mrs. Tufaro, yes; Mr. Barbagallo, yes; Mr. Ponce, yes; Mr. Innella, yes; Mr. Ruberto, yes; Mrs. Snyder, yes; Mr. Plotsky, yes; and Mr. Zitone, yes. The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence was reviewed. No formal action was taken.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The meeting was opened to the public. There being no public participation, the meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, a Motion was made by Mr. Innella and seconded by Mrs. Snyder to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Minutes prepared by:

SHARON M. YAROSZ
Land Use Administrator