[0:03] We declare the meeting of the

[0:06] Oxford Township Planning Commission

[0:11] open today, Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

[0:14] Let's stand for

[0:15] greetings.

[0:18] I pledge

[0:18] allegiance to the flag of the

[0:20] United States of

[0:21] America and to the republic for which it

[0:22] stands,

[0:23] one nation under

[0:24] God, indivisible,

[0:25] with liberty and

[0:26] justice for

[0:27] all. Madam Secretary,

[0:32] please conduct a

[0:33] roll call.

[0:34] Ballard is

[0:35] present.

[0:36] Flynn is

[0:36] present.

[0:37] Nok is missing. The dust is

[0:40] present.

[0:40] Schultz is

[0:41] present.

[0:42] I move to

[0:46] approve

[0:46] the absence of Regina

[0:48] Nock. I

[0:49] support.

[0:50] Sorry. Support

[0:52] from Schultz.

[0:53] Everyone for it?

[0:54] I am against it. No. OK. Is

[0:58] there a proposal

[0:59] to approve the agenda

[1:00] for today,

[1:01] September 29?

[1:02] I propose

[1:03] to approve the agenda

[1:04] for today,

[1:06] September 15, 2026. Mr.

[1:07] Chairman, let me

[1:08] interrupt briefly,

[1:10] I wanted to know if

[1:12] you have seen the

[1:13] 10,000 Industrial case review, the

[1:14] submitted plan, the response,

[1:15] and

[1:16] the comments sent by

[1:17] Commissioner

[1:18] Pilak.

[1:20] I wanted to know if

[1:21] you would like to discuss

[1:22] this in more

[1:23] detail today. So, I

[1:24] think we are on the

[1:25] right track. I

[1:27] have printouts of what

[1:28] they printed

[1:29] on a large scale,

[1:30] and another possible

[1:31] option that might

[1:33] go with or

[1:34] complement this.

[1:36] Otherwise, we

[1:37] decide for ourselves how to

[1:38] act, guided by

[1:39] your instructions and

[1:41] resolutions. But

[1:44] at the risk of

[1:44] repeating myself, is

[1:46] this the

[1:47] chairman's sole decision

[1:48] or should the

[1:49] other commissioners be consulted?

[1:50] You decide.

[1:51] Do you want to add this? Yes.

[1:53] And then Yes. Mario

[1:54] saw it, and he also

[1:56] saw the response from

[1:57] Leslie.

[1:58] What are your thoughts?

[2:01] I noticed that. But

[2:02] I didn't have the

[2:03] opportunity to

[2:04] look into it in detail.

[2:06] Therefore, I now propose to

[2:07] put this on the agenda for the

[2:08] next

[2:09] meeting.

[2:11] Of course? And they

[2:13] can continue

[2:14] building without

[2:15] it. Some things

[2:17] may not happen near the end of the year

[2:18] due to timing and

[2:19] circumstances. In the

[2:20] worst case scenario,

[2:21] they will build everything, and the

[2:22] landscaping

[2:23] will be postponed until

[2:24] spring, if that works out.

[2:25] But there's no

[2:26] need to rush. However,

[2:27] the consequence of the delay

[2:28] may be that this will not

[2:29] happen until spring.

[2:31] Yes. Besides, it

[2:32] seems Mario

[2:33] had additional

[2:34] offers. So

[2:35] the situation is a bit more

[2:36] complicated.

[2:36] OK.

[2:37] I like the

[2:38] idea of putting this issue aside

[2:40] so everyone has a

[2:41] chance to

[2:42] realize what's

[2:42] going on.

[2:43] OK. Very good. I've

[2:45] prepared just in case

[2:47] you need

[2:47] printouts.

[2:48] But when we get

[2:49] to the

[2:50] commissioners' comments at the end

[2:51] , we could formally

[2:52] record this

[2:53] to add

[2:54] this consideration to the

[2:54] agenda for the

[2:55] next meeting

[2:56] .

[2:58] Now there is a motion

[3:00] to approve the

[3:01] agenda. The

[3:03] agenda

[3:04] is dated September 15.

[3:06] Yes, for some reason I didn't

[3:07] create a new one, but

[3:08] the one I posted on the

[3:09] site is from the 29th, but I

[3:10] didn't

[3:11] reprint yours

[3:12] because I already gave them to

[3:13] you. So for

[3:14] the vote, we will

[3:15] use the agenda

[3:17] dated

[3:18] tonight

[3:19] . Yes.

[3:20] For voting.

[3:21] Yes. Justin's

[3:23] probably from the 29th, and so are

[3:24] you.

[3:25] Yes.

[3:26] I just handed them over

[3:27] last week. So

[3:28] they usually

[3:29] get outdated ones.

[3:30] So, we have a

[3:31] motion

[3:32] to approve the agenda

[3:33] for

[3:33] tonight,

[3:35] September 29th.

[3:36] Second. Who is for it?

[3:39] I.

[3:40] Who is against?

[3:42] OK. Is there

[3:43] a motion

[3:43] to approve the minutes of

[3:45] the meeting of

[3:46] September 1, 2026?

[3:48] I propose to

[3:49] approve the minutes

[3:50] of September 1, 2026. I

[3:52] support.

[3:53] Who is for it?

[3:54] I.

[3:55] Who is against?

[3:56] OK. Do we have

[3:58] any correspondence

[3:59] ?

[3:59] OK.

[4:02] We invite

[4:02] the public to

[4:03] discuss issues

[4:05] not included on the

[4:05] agenda. No.

[4:08] OK. And

[4:10] we have no

[4:12] public hearings tonight,

[4:13] which brings us to the

[4:14] main event in the

[4:15] new business—

[4:16] the review of the

[4:17] site plan at

[4:18] 18 South Washington.

[4:19] Marie, I would ask you to

[4:22] first give

[4:23] us your assessment,

[4:25] and then we will give the

[4:28] gentleman present the opportunity to speak, if

[4:29] necessary.

[4:32] OK. Very good,

[4:33] Mr. Chairman. Good

[4:35] evening everyone.

[4:37] We are here today to

[4:37] discuss the

[4:38] proposed

[4:39] development of a new

[4:40] two-story

[4:41] building at

[4:42] 18 South Washington Street.

[4:43] It's on the east

[4:46] side of

[4:47] South Washington Street,

[4:48] south of

[4:49] Burdick.

[4:54] The site was previously occupied by a

[4:55] two-story

[4:56] building, which is

[4:57] located

[4:58] directly next

[4:59] to other buildings in the

[5:02] city's central business district. And the site itself

[5:06] was actually

[5:07] completely occupied by

[5:08] the building, since

[5:09] it is located in

[5:10] our center. So there

[5:14] were no natural features.

[5:17] The applicant proposes

[5:18] to construct a new

[5:19] two-story building

[5:20] with a partial basement,

[5:22] having approximately 2,300

[5:23] square feet on

[5:24] each level. The

[5:27] proposed

[5:28] use of the first

[5:29] floor is a restaurant, and

[5:31] the second floor is office

[5:32] space.

[5:35] Restaurant and office use is a

[5:36] permitted

[5:37] activity and

[5:38] building type in the C1 district,

[5:40] based on

[5:41] zoning regulations.

[5:43] We note that,

[5:44] technically, according to

[5:46] zoning regulations,

[5:47] this is also a

[5:49] demolition restriction zone. On May 19 of

[5:52] this year, the

[5:53] planning commission granted

[5:54] its final

[5:55] approval to demolish the

[5:57] original building

[5:58] and construct a new one.

[6:01] And, as most people

[6:02] know, this building has

[6:04] now been demolished.

[6:06] So today we are here to

[6:07] discuss

[6:08] the construction of a new

[6:09] facility. As I have already

[6:11] noted, I want

[6:12] to emphasize that

[6:13] the site

[6:14] was almost entirely

[6:15] occupied by a previous

[6:16] building, and the applicant

[6:17] proposes to build on

[6:18] most of it with a

[6:19] new structure in the

[6:21] city center. So

[6:26] most

[6:28] zoning requirements that are

[6:28] usually

[6:29] applied

[6:30] independently are not

[6:31] entirely appropriate here,

[6:32] since we are in the

[6:33] city center, and it is

[6:34] designed

[6:35] to provide

[6:36] parking, transportation, and

[6:37] other services in a

[6:38] shared format.

[6:47] But regarding the intended

[6:48] purpose and

[6:49] dimensional

[6:50] standards of the C1 zone and the

[6:51] form of development, the

[6:52] use

[6:53] of the facility itself is permitted by

[6:55] law, as is the type of

[6:56] two-story

[6:56] building in this

[6:57] area. So a

[7:01] two-story building

[7:02] meets these

[7:04] building form standards. It's worth

[7:06] noting that

[7:07] technically the maximum

[7:08] building height in this

[7:10] zone is 64 feet

[7:11] , but there is a minimum of

[7:13] 30 feet. The proposed

[7:14] building, as shown

[7:15] on the current plans

[7:17] before you, is

[7:18] 27 feet 8

[7:19] inches high. So we are

[7:20] asking the applicant

[7:21] to indicate how they

[7:22] plan to adjust

[7:24] the building to

[7:24] meet

[7:25] the standard, as there are

[7:27] several options,

[7:28] including changing

[7:29] the height of the parapet

[7:30] wall to 30 feet. This is

[7:35] mainly to

[7:37] ensure that

[7:38] the appearance of the building is

[7:38] consistent with the scale of

[7:40] Washington Street and in

[7:41] harmony with the

[7:41] neighboring structures.

[7:47] One aspect of the

[7:48] building code that we

[7:49] look at is that

[7:51] in addition to the

[7:52] use standards, we

[7:53] have form standards

[7:54] to ensure that the

[7:55] massing

[7:56] and scale of the building is appropriate to the

[7:58] downtown area, and they

[7:59] address

[8:00] things like the width of the

[8:01] building; as I

[8:02] said,

[8:03] off-

[8:04] street parking requirements do not

[8:05] apply here.

[8:13] A feature of

[8:14] the building standards

[8:15] is the requirement to

[8:16] ensure at least

[8:17] 70% transparency of the facade

[8:19] on the first floor of

[8:20] this building. This

[8:26] purpose

[8:26] involves

[8:27] the use of glass

[8:28] doors and windows.

[8:31] Two

[8:32] aluminum garage

[8:34] doors are offered, which will

[8:35] not provide

[8:36] full access

[8:37] to the building. They

[8:40] will be installed

[8:42] on a foundation

[8:43] wall

[8:44] about 2.5 feet high. So

[8:45] , in the end,

[8:46] it seems like everything should be

[8:47] compliant,

[8:48] but we ask

[8:49] the applicant to provide

[8:50] specific percentages

[8:51] to prove

[8:52] compliance.

[8:54] There are other

[8:54] standards that do not

[8:55] necessarily

[8:56] apply to

[8:57] this use.

[8:58] Another point

[9:00] I want to point out:

[9:01] all first-

[9:02] floor windows facing the

[9:03] street must be

[9:05] transparent. So they

[9:07] should not have the

[9:09] type of mirrored

[9:10] glazing that could

[9:11] cause glare

[9:12] or other aspects that

[9:18] distract drivers.

[9:20] Therefore, we must

[9:21] make sure that

[9:22] we can see through the glass

[9:23] freely. We

[9:24] simply ask

[9:25] to clarify what kind of glass

[9:26] will be used on the

[9:27] facade. Additionally,

[9:34] continuing the theme of

[9:35] discussing the

[9:36] architectural

[9:37] design and style of the

[9:38] building, they provided

[9:39] drawings of the facades. This

[9:42] will be a very attractive

[9:44] building. We believe

[9:45] that it is made in a

[9:46] modern style.

[9:47] More

[9:48] current materials are used here,

[9:49] as well as a variety of

[9:51] materials in

[9:51] contrasting

[9:52] combinations. So it's not a

[9:53] monotonous building.

[9:58] The only thing worth

[9:58] noting is that the

[10:00] horizontal and

[10:01] vertical walls

[10:02] create a very

[10:03] massive and

[10:03] uniform look.

[10:08] Another feature of

[10:09] the ordinance

[10:10] is that

[10:11] buildings must be

[10:17] compatible with

[10:17] adjacent structures

[10:19] . However, you know, in

[10:22] the north, it's red-

[10:24] orange brick.

[10:25] One building to

[10:26] the south is

[10:28] beige-painted brick with

[10:29] black accents.

[10:31] So, trying to

[10:34] stick to this

[10:35] particular style,

[10:36] to be very rigid

[10:38] and uniform, has

[10:39] its advantages and

[10:40] disadvantages. But ultimately

[10:44] , we just want the

[10:45] applicant to now

[10:46] consider the

[10:47] color scheme that

[10:49] is being proposed and

[10:49] make sure that

[10:51] any masonry

[10:51] used on the

[10:52] facade has an

[10:53] integrated color.

[10:56] This is simply a sign of

[10:58] high quality

[10:58] building

[10:59] materials. So, these are the

[11:01] main questions

[11:01] focused on

[11:02] the design of the building. As I

[11:04] said, this is one of the

[11:05] points of our

[11:06] comments regarding

[11:06] additional

[11:07] information: the

[11:08] proposed

[11:09] lighting does not

[11:09] require any

[11:10] special

[11:11] standards. If

[11:12] the applicant chooses

[11:13] to install additional

[11:14] lighting, we want

[11:16] to make sure it is

[11:17] fully shielded

[11:18] and directed downwards

[11:19] to avoid creating

[11:20] glare. And regarding

[11:26] other aspects of

[11:27] the site that may

[11:28] arise and that

[11:29] the applicant may

[11:30] wish to discuss

[11:31] regarding signage:

[11:32] technically the applicant will

[11:34] need to submit a

[11:35] separate application for

[11:36] the installation of the sign

[11:37] . Therefore, the fact that

[11:40] there are no

[11:41] details of signage on the site plan and facades is not

[11:42] unusual.

[11:46] Any

[11:46] regulations in

[11:48] effect at the time of

[11:48] application will

[11:50] apply to the

[11:51] facility. So,

[11:56] ultimately, this project

[11:57] will provide a new

[11:58] restaurant alternative for

[11:59] residents and

[12:00] visitors, and we

[12:01] believe it

[12:02] will complement the surrounding

[12:03] downtown facilities

[12:04] in this core area

[12:05] while meeting

[12:07] ordinance standards. Several

[12:08] points need to be

[12:09] addressed, as well as

[12:10] additional information

[12:11] . Therefore, we

[12:13] recommend that the

[12:14] Planning Commission grant

[12:16] approval for the

[12:16] site plan subject to a

[12:17] review of the plans that

[12:19] includes addressing the

[12:20] issue, specifying

[12:21] window type and

[12:22] transparency, providing

[12:23] building colors,

[12:24] and any other

[12:25] issues raised by the

[12:26] Village Engineer or

[12:28] Fire Chief

[12:29] . So, I am

[12:32] ready to answer

[12:33] any questions

[12:34] or comments.

[12:37] Mario, I had

[12:39] one question that

[12:40] was raised during

[12:41] your summary regarding

[12:42] height requirements. In

[12:44] my notes I

[12:45] used

[12:46] the term "facade". You

[12:47] used the term "

[12:48] parapet", which I

[12:49] believe is just

[12:50] the height above the

[12:51] roofline that they can

[12:52] adjust to

[12:53] maintain the

[12:54] maximum height.

[12:55] Right. That's right.

[12:57] Good.

[12:57] This is one option

[12:59] if they want to

[13:00] raise the roof, raise the

[13:01] ceiling height to

[13:02] have more

[13:04] space inside

[13:06] the structure. They

[13:07] can do it

[13:08] too. The simple solution

[13:09] is this,

[13:12] but a

[13:13] 5-foot-tall fake chimney won't

[13:14] solve the

[13:15] fundamental

[13:16] problem.

[13:18] No, things like a

[13:19] chimney or, for example, a

[13:21] staircase leading to the

[13:22] roof.

[13:23] Yes.

[13:24] These are permitted projections

[13:25] above the elevation because

[13:27] they are functional,

[13:28] as the goal of the

[13:31] form-based code is to

[13:33] have a wall space of

[13:34] at least 30 feet

[13:35] to ensure

[13:38] compatibility or

[13:39] at least compatibility

[13:41] and cohesion with

[13:42] other facades.

[13:48] Yes. This was a

[13:50] clarification that had already

[13:51] been made. Does Mario have any

[13:53] questions?

[14:02] I'll hold off on

[14:03] my questions for now.

[14:05] Good. because I would like to

[14:07] hear the correct

[14:08] application.

[14:09] Yes. I mean, I

[14:10] guess I have

[14:11] one question. We did not

[14:12] consider

[14:13] engineering issues.

[14:15] During a

[14:16] site plan review

[14:17] by Royal Professional

[14:18] Services, a

[14:20] potential

[14:21] ADA issue was identified. Can you

[14:23] say something about this

[14:24] ?

[14:26] I can say something

[14:27] because I worked with

[14:28] Paul on this. Ahem.

[14:32] The biggest problem

[14:33] occurs during

[14:34] construction when

[14:35] they have scaffolding

[14:36] in front of the building.

[14:37] The question is how

[14:38] people will

[14:39] access and

[14:39] get around this,

[14:40] as there will be

[14:42] very little space left for pedestrians. So

[14:43] they're going to have to

[14:44] build what he

[14:45] calls a sidewalk,

[14:46] or a canopy, or something

[14:47] like that, and that has yet to

[14:48] be determined,

[14:48] designed, and

[14:49] approved, but it's a

[14:50] requirement on their part

[14:51] .

[14:51] I can

[14:52] answer that.

[14:53] Yes.

[14:53] Good. Perfectly. Hmm, another

[14:55] point in his

[14:56] notes—they didn't

[14:57] indicate exactly on the

[14:58] plan where the sewer

[14:59] and water lines would be

[15:00] connected, but the

[15:00] existing networks are already there.

[15:02] They just didn't

[15:02] mark them on the plan

[15:04] , but they're there.

[15:04] So they will

[15:05] reconnect to the same ones

[15:06] .

[15:08] Yes. I thought it would be

[15:10] easy

[15:10] to show on the plan.

[15:12] OK.

[15:16] And I would like to ask

[15:17] if you are considering

[15:18] any garden boxes in the

[15:19] backyard with

[15:24] landscaping or any

[15:25] other

[15:26] vegetation.

[15:28] Well, Leslie, why do

[15:29] n't we use this as a

[15:30] transition?

[15:31] Good.

[15:32] Hmm, to hear

[15:33] the applicant.

[15:36] So if you would

[15:37] please come close

[15:39] enough to the podium,

[15:40] state your

[15:41] name and your connection to the

[15:42] object, and then we

[15:43] will open

[15:44] the discussion.

[15:50] Yes. Sorry, I

[15:53] missed it. So, we are

[15:54] missing a brick here.

[16:03] This is a brick for the

[16:03] exterior

[16:04] decoration of a building.

[16:08] My name is Brian

[16:10] Howard, HF

[16:11] Architecture. I'm based in

[16:13] Roja, I'm an architect, and

[16:14] part of my

[16:16] family is here. Vinnie and Lisa are

[16:19] overseas so

[16:20] they couldn't be

[16:22] here, but we have a great

[16:23] presentation with the rest of the

[16:24] family. So,

[16:29] to answer the

[16:30] questions that

[16:31] Mario raised,

[16:33] just for color.

[16:35] I actually increased

[16:37] the height of the building by 30

[16:38] feet and even have

[16:39] a drawing of the facade to

[16:40] show how that 30

[16:48] feet or that 2 inches

[16:49] was added. Did

[16:54] you just increase the

[16:56] eaves or something else?

[16:57] Yes, I did not increase

[16:58] the height inside

[16:59] the building.

[17:00] Of course.

[17:02] Because, you know, I was

[17:03] a little worried that

[17:05] the equipment on the roof would be visible.

[17:09] This rooftop equipment is

[17:10] set

[17:11] back quite far, but I don't

[17:12] think

[17:13] it would be

[17:14] visible at all from the other side of the street.

[17:16] But that only helps

[17:17] hide it even

[17:18] better. So this

[17:21] minimum height of 30

[17:22] feet that I

[17:23] increased to actually

[17:25] gives us more...I would

[17:26] call it maybe not a

[17:27] billboard,

[17:29] if that's the correct

[17:30] definition. This rather

[17:34] gives the building a little

[17:35] more visibility,

[17:37] as it is now

[17:38] taller than the neighboring

[17:39] building. So this, in my opinion, is a

[17:43] nice transition

[17:44] from that building to

[17:46] our new facility.

[17:50] So, and I'll just

[17:51] pass this around. This is

[17:54] the color of the window frames, as well

[17:56] as the color of the

[17:56] front awning. This is the

[18:00] limestone that will be the

[18:01] lintels above

[18:02] the windows, as well as

[18:03] the foundation on which

[18:04] the building stands. And this

[18:09] will be a block with an

[18:10] integral

[18:11] color, which will be

[18:12] on the side or

[18:13] northern part of the

[18:14] building's facade. So,

[18:16] we don't have units

[18:18] at the front or

[18:19] back of the

[18:20] building. This

[18:20] only applies to the

[18:21] north facade. I

[18:23] made the

[18:24] brickwork

[18:25] turn at both

[18:26] corners of this

[18:26] north facade. You

[18:28] can see it in

[18:29] the drawing I

[18:30] provided. I made a

[18:33] turn in the brickwork

[18:34] at both corners

[18:35] so that when looking at the

[18:36] building from the north,

[18:37] the brick would set

[18:39] back about four feet. So you won't

[18:42] see the blocks until you get

[18:44] four feet away, and then

[18:45] you'll see them. The same thing

[18:47] happens on the

[18:48] other side, when you're

[18:49] maybe walking down

[18:50] the street and looking at the

[18:51] back of a

[18:52] building. You will also

[18:53] see the brick

[18:54] turning there as well. This

[18:56] was one solution

[18:58] that I think

[18:58] answers your

[19:00] question: no

[19:01] painted blocks,

[19:02] which I think

[19:03] usually doesn't look

[19:04] very good. So I

[19:07] think it probably

[19:08] won't be a chipped block,

[19:09] this is the only sample

[19:10] I had. It

[19:14] will be just a flat

[19:15] block, but the same

[19:16] color with visible

[19:17] filler. So,

[19:21] I have other

[19:21] north facades from the

[19:22] previous

[19:23] drawing.

[19:24] They may not show the

[19:25] same height of the parapet,

[19:26] but they give a good

[19:27] idea of the view from

[19:28] the north.

[19:29] Yes, this parapet

[19:30] also became 8 inches

[19:31] taller as

[19:32] it went up the

[19:33] stairs. So, from

[19:34] back to

[19:36] front it

[19:36] increases by

[19:37] eight inches,

[19:38] gradually

[19:39] rising to a

[19:40] greater height,

[19:41] because I did not want to have a high parapet suddenly when

[19:42] viewed from the north

[19:44] , and then a

[19:45] lower one four feet later;

[19:47] In my opinion, it does

[19:48] n't look very

[19:49] good. So I really

[19:52] tried to

[19:53] integrate this better into the

[19:54] new

[20:03] question about the block:

[20:04] where is it in

[20:05] the front, or just in

[20:06] the back, when you look from

[20:07] above to the south,

[20:08] you can see that this wall

[20:10] juts out over the

[20:10] Charles building,

[20:11] now it's sold,

[20:13] that's the wall that's

[20:16] good,

[20:19] I also did a

[20:20] calculation of the percentage of

[20:22] transparency, and it was

[20:23] 74%. So,

[20:29] thanks to the garage

[20:30] door, my taller

[20:31] door, and the taller windows

[20:33] above the door, I

[20:34] actually exceeded

[20:35] 70%. It's 210 square

[20:43] feet on the first

[20:44] floor. So I think I think that

[20:54] answers all the

[20:56] questions.

[20:58] I think the only thing

[20:59] left is to

[21:01] make sure that the type is

[21:04] clear glass.

[21:06] This will be clear glass.

[21:08] This is insulated

[21:09] clear glass,

[21:10] as the canopy will

[21:11] actually shade it well

[21:12] . The sun

[21:14] will be blocked

[21:16] by this canopy. So we're not

[21:19] too concerned about

[21:20] overheating or anything

[21:21] like that that would bother the

[21:22] visitors

[21:23] inside.

[21:28] As soon as the sun

[21:29] drops lower,

[21:30] it hides behind

[21:32] the buildings on the western

[21:33] side.

[21:35] The canopy protrudes 3

[21:36] feet, right?

[21:37] Yes, that's right. I will be

[21:44] happy to answer

[21:45] questions. Are the bricks

[21:46] you use

[21:48] full-bodied or not?

[21:49] Good. This is a regular

[21:50] brick of standard

[21:51] size.

[21:51] Yes, they simply aren't

[21:52] made because they

[21:53] seem too

[21:54] heavy.

[21:54] Got it.

[21:55] If we made a

[21:55] solid brick. So,

[21:57] I understand. But yes, it's a

[21:58] full layer of masonry.

[22:00] Answers. This was

[22:01] one of the questions I

[22:02] had because the description

[22:03] said "facing

[22:04] ". So I sometimes

[22:06] architects

[22:07] do that.

[22:07] Good.

[22:09] Joe asked me the

[22:10] same question

[22:11] today.

[22:12] Yes. After talking to

[22:13] Justin, he

[22:14] asked me, "I think

[22:15] this is a real brick,

[22:16] but let me

[22:17] make sure."

[22:18] Another option that

[22:19] causes problems

[22:20] is called thin

[22:21] brick,

[22:22] but since the brick

[22:24] is not a load-bearing element, that's why

[22:27] Yes, that was my

[22:28] concern, that it would be

[22:29] something like a

[22:31] quarter inch.

[22:31] Yes.

[22:39] Open this building.

[22:48] Mario also had

[22:49] a few comments.

[22:51] One thing about

[22:52] lighting,

[22:54] what are your plans for

[22:55] that?

[22:55] Yes. The front

[22:57] canopy will have

[22:57] built-in

[22:58] lights. They

[22:59] will shine straight

[23:00] down onto the sidewalk. The

[23:04] rear canopy will have a

[23:05] different type of

[23:06] structure near the

[23:07] rear door, near the

[23:08] entrance. These will be

[23:12] ordinary wall

[23:13] sconces mounted on the

[23:14] wall. They also

[23:17] shine exclusively

[23:18] downwards. Actually, I can

[23:21] show you a photo. While

[23:29] you are searching. Uh, I

[23:30] assume you'll have

[23:39] the lighting for it as soon as you get the sign ready

[23:40] .

[23:42] Yes. Yes. I mean,

[23:43] we haven't even

[23:44] gotten to the

[23:45] sign issue yet.

[23:47] So, here is this

[23:48] lamp.

[23:50] This is an LED

[23:52] mounted on a

[23:53] mount. This will be from

[23:54] behind. Right.

[23:55] Yes. And that's

[23:57] just for lighting the

[23:58] back path, right?

[24:01] Uh, not to

[24:01] diffuse the light, but

[24:03] just to direct it downwards.

[24:08] And how will the

[24:09] front door be illuminated?

[24:12] There is a built-in light underneath them

[24:13] , as

[24:14] the doors are

[24:15] in a recess. Good.

[24:19] Um, also regarding the

[24:24] garbage

[24:25] dump. Are you

[24:26] planning

[24:27] to use an

[24:28] existing one? Good. And,

[24:31] Mario, you mentioned

[24:32] removing

[24:33] cooking oils and

[24:34] fats. Is this... We

[24:39] have an internal

[24:40] grease trap in our building, in the basement of the new building, that

[24:41] will be cleaned.

[24:43] Of course.

[24:46] We don't throw it in

[24:47] some

[24:48] grease container by the trash can.

[24:51] This is what

[24:52] everyone else

[24:53] downtown has to do because their

[24:54] buildings are so old.

[24:55] They didn't have it, and now with the

[24:56] new internal

[24:57] grease trap it will be

[24:58] much better.

[25:02] This is not usually

[25:03] regulated by

[25:04] zoning regulations,

[25:05] but if we

[25:06] do it, it will make things

[25:07] a little easier for everyone.

[25:13] Yes, Mr. Schur. If

[25:14] you allow me, I'll go back

[25:15] to what

[25:17] Leslie was talking about earlier. Um, the

[25:18] property line runs

[25:19] right along the

[25:20] back of this building,

[25:22] on the north side.

[25:23] So, most of the

[25:24] territory behind

[25:25] belongs to the village. I

[25:26] mean, there's a

[25:27] little strip that

[25:28] deviates on the

[25:29] southern edge.

[25:30] But the back is

[25:31] a little bit angled.

[25:32] Yes.

[25:32] So I had to

[25:33] change the configuration of

[25:34] the building to

[25:35] get within the boundaries or,

[25:36] in fact, not touch

[25:37] them.

[25:38] Of course. And to

[25:39] answer your

[25:41] question about

[25:41] Paul's comment about the

[25:43] front sidewalk, we

[25:44] took that into account in the

[25:45] last set of

[25:46] permits we submitted

[25:47] .

[25:48] Good.

[25:48] And we discussed this

[25:49] directly with

[25:50] Paul. My civil engineer

[25:52] discussed.

[25:53] We are not

[25:53] required

[25:54] to install a canopy

[25:55] over the sidewalk. Good.

[25:57] Because of our distance,

[25:59] we made a detour

[26:00] around the

[26:01] lamppost.

[26:02] They complied with all

[26:04] ADA requirements around it and

[26:05] moved the sidewalk

[26:06] further away from the building. So

[26:08] when you come in from

[26:09] the south, there will be a

[26:10] gate at the south

[26:12] entrance of this fence,

[26:15] it will be 8

[26:16] feet wide for

[26:17] workers and so on. And

[26:19] you still have the

[26:20] necessary

[26:21] sidewalk width. We didn't

[26:22] have to go into a

[26:23] parking area or

[26:25] anything like that.

[26:25] Very good.

[26:29] So, to be clear:

[26:30] since there is

[26:31] very little space, you are

[26:32] not planning anything

[26:33] along the building?

[26:36] Simply because we do

[26:38] n't have space.

[26:39] Yeah, I just...

[26:40] Yeah. No, I think that,

[26:43] you know, maybe when

[26:45] they occupy the

[26:45] building and

[26:46] open up, they'll

[26:47] put some

[26:48] flower pots in there or something,

[26:49] but in terms of

[26:50] landscaping

[26:51] , it won't survive there.

[26:55] You know, there's nothing

[26:56] left there.

[26:57] Yes. I just wanted to

[26:58] clarify.

[26:59] Yes. So, I guess

[27:01] they're going to

[27:02] do something with

[27:03] seasonal things, I think

[27:04] .

[27:05] Yes. I mean, I'm

[27:06] sure you will

[27:07] . This is a very

[27:08] beautiful project,

[27:09] designed with

[27:10] great attention to

[27:11] detail. I'm sure

[27:13] you'll consider all the

[27:23] pretty Last

[27:31] question. Joe, did the

[27:34] DEA check this?

[27:35] They saw the plan.

[27:36] They're not really...

[27:37] yeah. I mean,

[27:38] they support...

[27:39] yeah.

[27:39] concerns

[27:40] they had, or

[27:41] No, I have one

[27:50] question. So, on

[27:53] your

[27:53] administrative

[27:54] side, we heard from

[27:55] Brian how they

[27:56] addressed these points

[27:58] in your letter in the

[27:59] recommendations section

[28:00] . However, uh, based on what

[28:03] we've

[28:04] been presented with,

[28:05] there remains a requirement

[28:06] for formal

[28:07] filing of documents

[28:08] to, say,

[28:12] confirm what

[28:13] Brian told us today

[28:14] . Right.

[28:15] Yes. So, this would be a uh-uh

[28:18] application.

[28:26] Yes. OK.

[28:33] Uh, does anyone have any other

[28:37] comments,

[28:38] questions, or

[28:38] concerns?

[28:40] Good. I am satisfied.

[28:41] All my questions and

[28:43] everything else were

[28:44] answered thanks to

[28:45] everything that

[28:46] was resolved for me. Uh,

[28:48] so I think if no

[28:50] one else has any

[28:51] questions, comments,

[28:53] or statements, uh, I'll make a

[28:54] suggestion. Uh, I am

[28:57] making a motion

[28:58] to approve the

[28:59] development plan for

[29:00] 18 South Washington Street.

[29:04] The development plan is

[29:05] subject to the

[29:06] recommendations and

[29:07] requirements set forth in

[29:09] McKenna's letter of

[29:10] September 9, 2026.

[29:18] OK. Uh, and also

[29:21] yeah,

[29:21] we need to,

[29:23] you know, include Row in

[29:25] this uh

[29:27] yeah, and and a letter from the uh

[29:28] fire department

[29:32] well yeah, theirs is there,

[29:34] regarding the

[29:36] efforts supported this.

[29:42] OK. Uh, Madam

[29:43] Secretary, then a

[29:44] roll call vote

[29:46] on the motion to

[29:48] yes.

[29:48] Wagner,

[29:49] yes.

[29:51] Schultz,

[29:52] yes.

[29:54] Flynn,

[29:55] yes.

[29:56] And

[29:57] yes,

[29:59] thank you. Congratulations.

[30:01] Thank you.

[30:04] We rejoice. Congratulations. I'm

[30:07] very happy for the building

[30:08] , happy that this is

[30:09] happening, and happy

[30:10] for this business. So, oh,

[30:12] welcome. This is

[30:14] disappointing.

[30:17] OK. Fantastically.

[30:18] OK. Perfectly.

[30:20] If all goes well,

[30:21] when is the

[30:22] opening time?

[30:23] We're just

[30:24] trying to move

[30:26] as quickly as possible right now,

[30:28] but we want to do

[30:29] everything right because we're

[30:30] focused on the

[30:31] long

[30:32] term. This is not

[30:34] just a job. We

[30:37] put

[30:39] our whole heart and soul into it. We

[30:41] all work as a family

[30:43] and there are about 15 of us on

[30:44] Mile Road. So now

[30:46] we have to

[30:47] split up. This is

[30:48] too much.

[30:48] Who will move to the new

[30:50] place—that is the question.

[30:51] These two.

[30:53] Perfectly.

[30:55] Thank you. I appreciate it.

[30:57] And we, we love,

[30:58] you know, we women

[31:00] love to decorate, and

[31:01] chefs

[31:02] come up with new ideas every season.

[31:07] We change our

[31:08] specials every

[31:09] four months, and that's what I was

[31:10] telling

[31:12] our customers at work today

[31:13] : when you

[31:14] come to our

[31:15] restaurant, you're home.

[31:16] So even if you

[31:17] break a plate, it's okay

[31:18] . You are

[31:20] at home.

[31:23] Put it in

[31:33] our environment, you

[31:36] know. We are very

[31:40] detailed

[31:41] about everything because we like

[31:43] to be impeccable,

[31:44] because if the customer is

[31:45] happy, then we are

[31:46] happy, and it's just,

[31:47] you know, we like to

[31:48] create a great

[31:49] community around

[31:50] us, and

[31:51] when people

[31:51] come back, it

[31:52] makes us feel like

[31:54] we are all one big

[31:55] happy family. That's what

[31:56] we're saying, uh, we're one

[31:58] big happy

[32:00] family. We just

[32:01] love it. And my

[32:02] brother and I will continue to

[32:04] do this for the

[32:05] next, hopefully,

[32:06] 30-40 years, as long as

[32:07] we live.

[32:08] This is what we love to

[32:10] do. We've been working since we were

[32:12] 11-12 years old, and even though we

[32:13] both graduated from

[32:14] college, we still

[32:15] stayed with our

[32:16] parents because we

[32:18] just love our

[32:19] jobs.

[32:22] Fantasy.

[32:23] We started with this.

[32:24] We tried to get out of

[32:25] this.

[32:28] They are back again.

[32:29] Something simple. Thank you,

[32:35] Brian. Good job.

[32:42] Okay, we have no

[32:43] old cases, no

[32:44] comments from

[32:45] the public, just

[32:47] comments from

[32:47] consultants and

[32:48] administration.

[32:50] I just want to

[32:50] thank all of you

[32:51] for changing

[32:52] your schedules and being able to

[32:53] come tonight

[32:54] . And as I

[32:55] mentioned earlier, this

[32:56] will replace

[32:57] next week's meeting.

[32:59] We won't have anything next week.

[33:00] So thank you for doing

[33:02] this for them. Let's give them another

[33:03] week.

[33:04] Of course. Of course. Both that and

[33:06] our schedule.

[33:07] This was important. And I

[33:08] will take this opportunity,

[33:09] for the record, to

[33:11] thank Joe for

[33:12] preparing the package of

[33:13] documents and

[33:14] submitting it to the

[33:15] commissioners.

[33:16] Personally delivered.

[33:18] I don't know where

[33:19] Dave lives. We had to

[33:19] come and pick

[33:20] him up. So,

[33:21] sorry. I didn't stop by

[33:22] .

[33:23] This is intentional.

[33:25] I am happy to do this.

[33:27] Especially when there are such

[33:28] printouts, and

[33:28] printing them on

[33:29] larger

[33:30] format paper is exactly what is

[33:31] needed. Uh, and that

[33:32] gives you, you know, you

[33:34] can get a chance to

[33:35] review them.

[33:36] We will ensure this

[33:37] when such

[33:38] printouts are available.

[33:39] Yes.

[33:41] Dave, any news

[33:42] from the

[33:43] township planning commission?

[33:44] Yes. So, we are deeply

[33:46] immersed in drafting an

[33:49] ADA center ordinance. We held a

[33:50] large public

[33:51] hearing, attended by

[33:52] about 400 people.

[33:54] Um, we're planning

[33:55] another public

[33:56] hearing, probably

[33:58] in early November,

[33:59] to come to some sort of

[34:00] decision. Yes, I think

[34:02] we're about 80% done

[34:03] with the

[34:04] resolution. We are now

[34:06] reviewing

[34:07] public comments and

[34:08] working to

[34:09] incorporate their

[34:10] concerns. And just so

[34:12] you know, to make it

[34:13] clear: no one

[34:16] contacted us, the village administration,

[34:17] about building a

[34:18] data center.

[34:20] We introduced a

[34:21] regulation, uh,

[34:22] postponing the

[34:25] moratorium, uh, for a year

[34:26] last November.

[34:28] So we have time between now

[34:29] and

[34:30] mid-November

[34:31] to finalize

[34:32] the resolution, and there

[34:35] are no non-disclosure agreements here. Nobody communicates with anyone

[34:37] . So

[34:38] at the moment,

[34:39] nothing is happening behind the scenes

[34:40] . We are

[34:41] simply focused

[34:42] on this resolution.

[34:45] OK. Thank you ZBA or DD. Are

[34:49] there any other

[34:49] comments from the

[34:51] committee members?

[34:53] Uh, I just want to

[34:55] say that it's really

[34:56] nice when the

[34:57] document packages and

[34:58] site plans are as

[34:59] complete as they were

[35:00] today, because there

[35:01] were times when

[35:02] they were incomplete

[35:04] and people had to

[35:05] keep coming back

[35:06] , they didn't have

[35:07] the answers, and they

[35:08] weren't ready. So

[35:11] thank you, uh, you know,

[35:12] for the administrative

[35:14] part, and thank you to

[35:15] Mario for

[35:16] preparing such a

[35:17] well-

[35:17] rounded

[35:18] package of documents. It makes

[35:21] our job a lot easier

[35:22] , so that we can,

[35:24] uh, so that we can

[35:25] and that they

[35:26] invited

[35:27] an architect here with

[35:27] ready-made answers

[35:28] .

[35:29] Yes, that's great.

[35:30] Yes.

[35:30] So thank you.

[35:31] Please.

[35:32] This is the best part.

[35:34] Good. Then, uh, with

[35:36] that, I

[35:39] propose to adjourn the

[35:41] meeting at 7:35.

[35:42] I support this

[35:43] proposal.

[35:43] OK. Accepted.

Village of Oxford Planning Commission Special Meeting: September 29th, 2026

Transcript