20260609_SPRAB Meeting Notes

TO: Kenneth McPherson III, Esq., Applicant’s Attorney CC: Genice Gary-Adams, Zoning Official Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary Ryan McNeil, Planning Board Engineer FROM: Malvika Apte, PP, AICP, Planning Board Planner Langley Oudemans, Associate Planner RE: SPRAB Meeting Summary PB Application 26-04 111 Prospect Avenue DATE: June 9, 2026 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ SPRAB Meeting Summary: PB 26-04 Meeting Date: June 9, 2026, at 8:30AM The SPRAB Meeting for the proposed project at 111 Prospect Avenue (Planning Board Application # 26-04) was conducted on June 9, 2026. Below is a summary of the items discussed, organized by topic. 1. Project Proposal • Applicant began the meeting by summarizing the amended project proposal and giving a description of the areas of the site which are included in this application. Questions followed. 2. Apartment Unit • Planner raised questions about the permitted use of a residential apartment in this zone. o Applicant noted that historically there have been multiple apartments (2- 3) in the subject building, and the units have been occupied by employees of the restaurant. This application is reducing the number of apartments to one unit, and it is the intention that the unit will continue to only be for an employee of the restaurant, such as the chef. o Applicant’s attorney indicated that prior resolutions show approval of these units, and Applicant will send this resolution to the planner.

3. Gazebo • Planner brought up that the new location of the gazebo is within the 50 ft buffer zone and will require a variance. o Applicant indicated that they will apply for a variance and include it in their application. 4. Parking • Planner questioned what standards the parking is based on. o Applicant indicated that it is based on maximum occupancy rather than “seats.” The ratio being utilized is 1 parking space per 3 people (towards maximum occupancy.) • Planner also brought up the need for a variance for the multiple areas of the property which have parking rows longer than 20 spaces in Lots B and C. The rows include parking stalls which are being reconfigured. o Applicant indicated that they would request a variance for whatever is needed for the parking rows. 5. Stormwater • Engineer brought up concerns about Applicant meeting new stormwater regulations. o Applicant indicated that they are reducing impervious coverage. There are issues with comment two of the engineering report, and the Engineer suggested a separate meeting to discuss some of these more technical items. 6. Tree Replacement • Applicant brought up that it has been difficult to find trees which meet the caliper requirements of the larger trees required in the ordinance. Because of the availability issues and concerns over potential damage to these trees during construction, they are requesting a time extension for replanting the trees after construction. • Township Forester responded that he had no problem with this request. He also indicated that he would send the information of nurseries in New Jersey that provide larger caliper trees. 7. Zoning Questions (from former Zoning Board member)

• It was noted that the application was missing prior resolution #13-09 for a second story addition and other improvements. o Applicant will provide • Question raised about the outdoor covered patio including if it will be used for parties and what the occupancy is. o Applicant responded that the space would be a companion space to other events, not to be used for separate dual parties. There will be no outdoor music, the operation of the space will comply with noise ordinances, and it will be used for short cocktail hours during events. 8. Current Construction Activities • Thomas Biondi questioned whether any work had been started on the Chapel yet, to which the Applicant indicated that it had started even though the approvals had not been granted. Thomas stressed that the Applicant’s contractors and Project Manager have been difficult to communicate with and the communication and cooperation needs to be improved. o The Applicant agreed that the proper process needs to be followed and made statements indicating that they would be monitoring the situation to ensure that communication is improved and work will be done only after approvals have been granted. They also included that compliance with this could be made a condition of approval Conclusion: The application has been deemed capable of being complete per May 29, 2026 letter from HGA.