Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Yeah, Dan said he'll be here in a minute, so we can start this.

Mayor, would you mind? That's why you're here. I'm done. Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this May 26th meeting of the Hillsdale Borough Planning and Land Use Board to order. We'll begin with the open public meeting statement read by our Deputy Secretary Tanya, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

This meeting is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice that this meeting was published in two newspapers according to law, and time and place of this meeting have been posted in a prominent location in Borough Hall. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And when you're ready, Tanya will have a roll call.

Chairwoman Cates?

Here.

Vice Chair Reardon? Here. Secretary Raymond? Here. Mr. Alter? Here. Mr. Friedman? That could be him. Is that Mr. Friedman?

Okay. Mr. Friedman? Mr. Grebe?

Dr. Weinberg? Here. Mr. Hipp? Here. Council Liaison Coletti? Here. Mayor Sheinfield?

Here.

Also present, Board Attorney Mr. Liebman, Board Engineer Ms. Distantio, and Board Planner Mr. Novak.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open the meeting to the public, but this is only for items that are not listed on our agenda this evening or that may come before the board on another evening. Is there anyone that would like to approach the board about any issues not on the agenda this evening? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public. I just want to let the board know that it was said that our recording was very hard to hear last meeting. So please make sure you're speaking into the mic when you speak.

And that's for professionals too.

Okay, thank you. So we'll move on to our invoices. First we have CSG law for invoices totaling $1,916.50. Any questions or do I have a motion?

I've got the opportunity to review, and I motion for acceptance. Mr. Hipp.

And we'll announce Mr. Hipp is now here. Thank you, Mr. Hipp. No, we appreciate it. We have a motion to approve the CSU board, and I'll alter second. Scott and Ed. Chairwoman Kates.

Yes. Vice Chair Reardon.

Yes. Secretary Raymond. Yes.

Mr. Alter. Yes. Mr. Friedman. Yes. Dr. Weinberg. Yes. Mr. Hick.

Do you need my vote?

Actually. For this? I don't need it. You don't have it. Council liaison Coletti.

Yes.

And Mayor Scheindel. Yes. Motion to pass.

Thank you. Moving on to Burgess Associates, two bills totaling $1,480. When you're ready, I'll take a motion.

Reviewed and motion to approve.

Scott Raymond?

Second.

Ed Alter?

Chairwoman Pates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter? Yes. Mr. Friedman? Yes. Dr. Weinberg? Yes. You can skip them.

Yes, I did review them. Okay, thank you.

And Council Lee is on Coletti? Yes. Mayor Sheinfield? Yes. Motion's passed.

Thank you. And one more bill from Harwood-Lloyd, LLP, $2,000 and 70, sorry, $2,072. Do I have a motion?

Reviewed and motioned to approve.

Thank you, Mr. Alter. Do I have a second? I'm sorry. Thank you, Scott Raymond. Do I have a second? Okay.

Second.

Thank you, Mayor Sheinfield.

I have to do something while I get excused.

I did have a question about this one, actually.

Okay, so we'll wait on the motion.

Go ahead. So we still cover this when they're dealing with the borough engineer and not the planning board engineer for the developer's agreements?

Okay. It gets paid through us, Rob. Okay. It's the applicant's obligation. Okay.

Thank you. So we have a motion from Scott. Do we have a second?

Thank you. Chairman McKee? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter? Yes. Mr. Friedman? Yes. Dr. Weinberg? Yes. Mr. Hipp? Yes. Council Liaison Colletti? Yes. Mayor Sheinfield? Yes. Motion's passed. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to our meeting minutes, May 14th, 2026.

We found like a very slight. Lighting instead of lightning. All right, lightning instead of lighting.

A slight edit. Page three. Page three, so we did change that. Please review, and when you're ready, I'll take a motion.

Motion.

Mr. Reardon?

Second.

Scott Raymond?

Chairwoman Kates? Yes. Vice Chair Reardon? Yes. Secretary Raymond? Yes. Mr. Alter?

Yes.

Dr. Weinberg?

Yes.

I'm not sure Council Lady Zancoletti and Mayor Sheffield, I know you both were not at the whole meeting. I don't know, do you want to say anything?

Whatever is official. Yes for the portion of the meeting.

Yes for the portion attended. Mayor?

Sure. Yeah.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Before we move on to our hearing, our mayor and council liaison are going to recuse themselves because they're devariances. Mayor, you didn't have any updates for the board before you go tonight, did you?

There's no update.

Okay. Thank you both. We appreciate that you're here. And we're going to move on. We have two continuing applications tonight. The first is PZ 1425, block 15, 22, lot 11, 276 through 282 Broadway, RGN Residential Incorporated. Welcome back. How are you?

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Matt Capizzi on behalf of the applicants. This was a project that was before the board on March 24th of this year. It concerns a piece of property on the easterly side of broadway and the northerly side of wilts in the borough c zone it's currently a vacant piece of property that the applicant is proposing to develop with three townhouse units one two bedroom unit and two three bedroom units when we were 41 march we presented testimony to our civil engineer our architect and planner there were some comments made by members of the board as far as housekeeping items related to design documents We submitted a revised set of architecture and engineering drawings that principally changed the driveway grade. Mr. Sotile asked us to regrade the driveway and a certain amount of that has been done. The patios previously required a variance. The patios have been adjusted so as not to require any variance relief. The landscaping was updated in accordance with boards comments made in March. that the electric is to be provided by way of underground service, and the facade material was changed to Marty Plank's site. Those are the revisions that were made, Madam Chair. I certainly have Mr. Bruno and Mr. Vince here this evening. They can verify that, but other than those revisions, nothing else has been modified by way of the application.

Okay, thank you. And, Mark, I see members of the public are here. Are they allowed to ask questions if they didn't hear any testimony tonight?

So if they would have questions for the witnesses that previously testified. We would bring them back up. Yeah, I would bring them back up.

Okay. Just so we can gauge, are the people from the public here about this application tonight? You didn't happen to watch earlier meetings, did you? We had an earlier meeting. Were you able to watch that, or this is your first time here? Because we're at a later stage of the project, so you can ask questions, but we'd have to bring professionals back up that already gave testimony. So do you know, like, do you have to ask a question at this point?

Okay.

or you can just comment you don't have to ask a question at this point in the hearing you can come up with comments for the board as well we'll tell you when that time is unless you have a question about something that's being presented thank you for clarifying so chris do you want to comment on the amendments no i want to thank the applicant for taking care of all of our review comments um we're satisfied with the amendments that he's made OK. Dave, any thoughts you guys have?

Good evening, everybody. Covering for Tom Behrens tonight, I was able to speak with Mr. Behrens beforehand and confirm that the need for the C variants was eliminated with the revised plans. Applicant still requires the B1 use variants, but that C variant has been eliminated.

Thank you. So board, are you clear on that change?

I just have one question, Chris. The various changes that were requested, both of you, I'm sorry, the requested changes and the variances that were originally required or requested by Matt, what has changed and what has deviated from the original

to where we are now so uh originally there was a there were a series of patios pardon me a series of patios that were proposed behind the building uh the applicant and those patios have required a variance for the setback since that time the applicant has basically incorporated these we'll call it almost like inserted patio areas um so push it away from that property line and kind of internalize it towards the building a little bit more that was in the rear yes in the rear okay You can see it a little bit easier on the architectural plan. You look at the side-to-side.

Okay. Thank you. So that's just the one?

That was the one that they required a bulk variance previously.

Okay. So that's been eliminated?

From our review, yes. That's the C. Yes, that was the C variance for the patio setback. They still require the D1 use variance. It is located in the C commercial zone. Poundhouse is not permitted in the C commercial zone. Understood. Chris, any?

No, I don't think so.

So just for the public, we asked the applicant to make some changes to the original application, and they're commenting on those changes for the board tonight. Any other board members have a question? Because if it needs to be directed to Mr. Capizzi or a professional. At this time, members of the public can come forward with comments about this application. If you have a question for someone that present already like your architect, who's here tonight, architect, your planner?

The architect and engineer.

Architect and engineer. If you've got specifically an architecture question, engineering question, you can ask those. Otherwise, you'd be coming forward just to make comments for the board. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment at this time? Yeah, please come forward. And when you come forward, just going to ask you to state your name and address for the record.

Jeff Schmoyer, 55 Welts Avenue.

Just one moment. Just one moment. Can you spell your last name for me, please?

Yes, S-C-H-M-O-Y-E-R. And your address is 55?

Wilkes. Wilkes? Correct. I'm going to swear you in because if you're going to make a statement that you want the board to consider, it has to be testimony, it has to be sworn. If I have a question and I have a statement, what sequence? If you have a question, start with your question. If you're going to make a statement, we'll swear you in.

Okay, I'll start with the question. My question, and I don't know whom to address it to, would be, would the D1 use variance still be required if the project omitted the central dwelling in the plan?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Same variance. No deviation in the variance?

I can confirm, yes, it would still require a D1 use variance.

Okay, thank you.

Do swear from testimony about the gives the truth the truth nothing but the truth something God I did go ahead sir.

My comment is very is twofold Point number one. I'm strongly against the plan as proposed I'm not against this site being developed Not against the site being developed with a reasonable number of use units and density I think appropriate to this block and this way of life in our town would be two units and not three. I am also concerned for the general welfare of the town. There's no high density housing east of Broadway in Hillsdale, with the exception of age restricted far to the east. um this is setting a dangerous precedent for the town look at what has happened in park ridge do we want this for our town there's a lot of properties along the eastern margin of broadway this is setting a precedent of density i don't think i certainly don't want it myself i'm just going to remind the board that every application stands on its own nobody can point to any prior approval for any separate property and claim precedent somehow has an impact Thank you for hearing.

Can I mention at the prior hearing, we did discuss, asked about two versus three units, and there was some comment from the applicant about why it is three units.

I do recall an answer, just that they hadn't considered.

That is true. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to approach the board, either with a question or a comment? Please come up.

We're going to have to identify you first. Anthony Garofalo. Wait, slow down. Spell your last name for me.

39 Wilkes Avenue.

Can you spell your last name for me?

G-A-R-O-F-A-L-O.

Got it. Thank you. Do you have a question or a statement? Question first.

Start with your question. Is there anything that the planning board can do to address the parking situation that this would create on melts?

We already have a tense situation with temporary no parking signs in front of 55 wilts, and they're lightly respected. So the concern is that, well, okay, so that's not the question.

All right. So, um, your question is sort of misdirected towards the board because the board does not provide testimony at the hearings. That would be a question that would be better directed to the engineer for the project, or perhaps the board's planner board engineer. But I can tell you that the project complies with what we call a residential site improvement standards. These are state mandated standards. The board is not allowed to impose a more stringent parking requirement than what's set forth in the RS is.

So then the concern is that the laws on the books aren't being enforced.

I think the concern is that the state regulation is not sufficient to your liking.

That would be accurate.

Yeah.

Okay. So the comment...

But the board was still considering your... The board considers your comments. We hear your comments and your concerns.

It's already dense...

three potentially six townhomes which i know we're considering separate but this is the precedent that my neighbor expressed in the previous comment thank you do you have any comments do you swear from the testimony about the ways of truth to all true government the truth shall be god my comment is i'm also

Thank you Thank you Is there anyone else from the public that has a comment or a question about come forward? Thank you It's gonna have you state your name and spell it into the record as well In your dress, please

Are you going to make a comment or a statement or a question? You said comment.

I said that wrong, didn't I?

You have your hand raised for the record. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so I'll be gone. I do. All right, so it's one guard. Go ahead, Mr. Chair.

I just want to comment that I agree that it seems like the density housing right on our block, right there on the corner. Broadway is getting a little high. We already have a building which was re-zoned. It was a commercial property, essentially re-zoned with residential multiple units sitting on the opposite corner of that intersection. And that's been OK. That property sort of had pre-existing parking, which was good. It hasn't been a big issue. This development does seem like parking is going to be an issue for guests, for residents, et cetera. We already have a lot of people who park in the day from the commercial properties across the street. There's like a hair salon and a renovation place. So we're really concerned during the day for the safety of the kids who are playing on the street with all the cars parked. And also overnight. It just seems like...

we appreciate your comments thank you is there anyone else from the public that would like to approach the board on this application welcome questions or statements

I guess I have to swear.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so I'll be gone? Yes. You're a smoker.

Yeah, just making the same comment. Just parking is always an issue. Just saying the same thing. From the businesses across the street and also from the two developments, that they built recently, one on the south corner and then one across the street of Broadway from the Wilts where Wilts enters onto Broadway. But it'll just add to more cars, more congestion onto our quiet little street. That's it.

Okay. Thank you. And thank you, members of the public. We appreciate that you're here and paying attention to what's going on. OK. Would you like to make a closing statement, Mr. ?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick recap. As Mr. Graviano had testified to when he was here in March, this application serves both the positive and negative criteria in order for the board to grant a D1 use variance. With regard to the positive criteria, we typically satisfy special reasons by establishing appropriate use and appropriate location. Mr. Graviano had summarized the testimony of both our engineer and architect, as well as the planning benefits associated with this project to help support the positive criteria that this, in fact, is an appropriate use and appropriate location by fostering the general welfare through varied housing stock. These units will be relatively modest in nature, but certainly provide a resident within the borough to reside here in a manner that's somewhat smaller than a single-family house. Not as large as some of the other units that have come online recently in the borough, so it's a nice entry-level unit for someone to either welcome themselves into Hillsdale or stay here in this capacity. In addition, the site has been undeveloped since its creation in the 70s when it was originally subdivided. By bringing on this development, we'll create a desirable visual environment by providing an architectural design that is in keeping with this transition piece of property. We recognize that we're in a commercial neighborhood, and two lots over to the east, we transition to a residential neighborhood, and I think this project pays respect to both zones and is a compromised development. considering its location on a block where we are in a commercial district, but two lots over is a residential district. Mr. Graviano, I'd also highlight some aspects of the master plan that were being fostered by this project, and I believe that that still remains true here this evening. As far as the negative criteria is concerned, all of the Concerns that our neighbors have raised this evening, which I acknowledge are concerns of merit to be taken into consideration, but traffic would be less under the proposed condition if we were to develop the property commercially. As Mr. Vince had testified to during March, he had given us two samples of two different types of commercial buildings. The massing of that building would be much larger than what we're proposing this evening. the trip generation will be much larger the parking requirements would be much higher so as far as disturbances along the local roadway network make permitted use versus what's proposed what we're proposing here this evening is much more diluted much less trips much less traffic much less parking required for the three residential units in addition the spatial buffers that we're proposing along wilts and along the easterly property line are in keeping with what you would see in a residential neighborhood so while we are developing it in a slightly altered manner certainly not a single family dwelling when we are melding ourselves into the single family neighborhood as you head easterly we are providing a side yard setback that will be found in that adjacent residential district and the step back along both wilts and broadway canada i think from a spatial perspective we are providing a sufficient amount of light air and open space especially when you consider the fact that we have modified our design so that the patios are conforming no longer require variance relief in addition to the fencing and the landscaping that's been proposed I think all in all, this is a very good project for this location, and the applicant has satisfied both the positive and negative criteria and has asked that the board vote favorably on the application. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Capuzzi. So, Board, do you feel like you have any last questions you need to ask, or are we ready? Mr.

Chair, I think there's one question in the field. Well, are we close to the public? Yeah, you're close to the public.

We're closed to the public currently, so.

I just have a quick question. Yeah. And I'll just make sure. I believe this goes to Mr. Vince. It says four foot high vinyl fence on top of wall. At no point that wall will be higher than two feet, correct? So that you will not exceed six foot fence height, including wall, correct?

We need you in the mic. Thank you.

There'd be a stipulation of the fence of the walk and not exceed six feet.

Yeah, just so it's conforming and it will not exceed the front yard of the structure.

We'll make sure that the combined height does not exceed six feet. So if we had to adjust the fence, we'll do that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for

I have a question. Okay.

Is it for a professional?

Yeah, I guess I would pose it to the engineer. It may be our planner. What is the building coverage for the adjacent residential district? What is the requirement for that? I guess I'm just, part of my concern is that we're looking at this application as residential, but we're not

basing it on residential requirements it certainly doesn't meet the adjacent residential zone one for one it's it has a larger building coverage and what's allowed in that zone i'm just trying to find my bulk table here

I'm just trying to nip it in the bud. You can't do it on a different zoning analysis because they're all for a use variance. We're not here for it.

Steve, could you say that into the mic so we all can hear? Sorry. That's okay.

I'll do Mr. Capizzi's job. Yeah, please do. It is a commercial zone. Therefore, you cannot view it and make any judgment based upon an adjacent zone or residential because they're here for a use variance and no means or way do they need a bulk variance in their commercial zone. So they're looking to change the use. That does not mean they're changing their zone. So we can't make any judgment on them in a positive or negative way because of the adjacent zone. I know what you're getting at. And we have nothing but a lot of applications that are commercial lots trying to put multifamily housing on it because it's a great move, because there are much more forgiving bulk standards.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay.

All right.

That's what we have to do. Yes. Okay.

Dave, did you want to add anything? No.

No, I was still looking for that impervious coverage calculation. Oh, OK. It's a moot point. It would technically be a moot point, right? Because that is a district that's here.

And I think we did address that with our planner at the last meeting. The same question came up. No, no, that's a good question.

Yeah, no, I agree with the comments from the board. It's it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison. You know, this lot is a commercial lot, and the testimony we heard regarding the uses that could go on this lot would be far more intense, far more impervious coverage, far more traffic, all permitted uses. while the neighbors have of course legitimate concerns about increased traffic that's because the property has been vacant for over 55 years and people grow accustomed to that and want that to continue but nobody has a right to compel their neighbor to maintain a park-like atmosphere on property that they own so the board has to decide the applicants met its burden and this particular suitability argument for the proposed three unit townhouses I hope that's helpful thank you

Yes, Dr. Weintraub.

I'm going to bring back the comment that the chairwoman brought up when we had the first discussion. And I'm still not convinced that this couldn't have been two apartments rather than three. And I believe it's on you to prove to us me that it is I have no problem with the variance change I'm telling you right now but I don't think that chairwoman and I were convinced that three is better than two and that's what I'm asking for a little more clarification so okay I'll let you fit I'll let him answer

I mean, I believe he gave a reason. I don't know if you're comfortable restating the reason why you went for three rather than two.

Well, again, my job is to defend the project, which is a three-unit project, not to argue why an alternate may not be just as good or inferior to what I'm proposing. The testimony that's been provided to the board on this application has been in support of a three-unit development. While two units, again, we don't know what two units looks like. Is it two units with the same footprint? Is it so it has the same mass effect? What is the concern that would be addressed by going from three units to two units?

Are you thinking traffic?

Just as one of the comments of a neighbor said.

But his point is if it's two and it's the same footprint, so would that be satisfying? That's what he's having you think about.

Because then you end up with two units that have driveways that are two cars wide, that have four bedrooms instead of two or three bedrooms. You end up with a structure that's the same size. If you're okay with the use, then you're okay with the use. But you're concerned about traffic? well then the rest of it the rest of it really are bulk concerns setbacks etc um i have no problem with that because well there you that's good because there are no bulk variances required so when you say you're okay with the use that sounds to me like you're okay with the project

you the applicant did what it could to compromise as far as landscaping fencing modification of the driveway grades enhancing the facade material or dwelling so certain steps were taken to to really do what the applicant could with regard to the project and as we've discussed through our witnesses this these three units will generate much less traffic than any permitted use

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Weinberg. Board, any other questions? I just want to announce that although Dan Friedman was not present on our last hearing, he did certify that he listened to the entire recording for the March 24th meeting, so he is eligible to vote tonight. So if the board is ready, we'll take a motion.

Based on testimony. both the other night and tonight uh i'm sorry i feel that this is the best of the best we can get so why would you i think our council just pointed out if you can have one big condo or two smaller condos uh you presented three although that might not be the fit It's allowed based on the testimony we heard, based on what we've been hearing, the information you provided. So my motion is to approve the project in its entirety. Did we have any, council, did we have any provisions or conditions?

Oh, we should go through, yes, thank you. We should go through the conditions.

Yeah, conditions. So the... construction will be in accordance with the plans that have been revised and submitted and reviewed the fence and retaining wall together will not exceed six feet in height there were a number of other concerns that came up at the last meeting but i believe they've been addressed through the revised plans that included the The slope of the driveway, the additional landscaping. The facade is a more attractive hardy plank that's proposed now. The patios are removed. Go through the rest of it. I've got about six pages of notes. Landscaping.

We went through the species or the EC will be involved with that?

Yeah. The applicant will work with the board's professionals and the professionals on species selection.

And that will be prior condition.

Yeah, these are all conditions. The basements will be for mechanical and storage. No parking sign will be put at the corner on welts. Contribution for the sidewalk as determined by the board engineer. The applicant agreed to stipulate to all the conditions in Mr. Stithiel's letter, which included either tree restitution by planting new trees or payment as required by the local ordinance. Those are the conditions that I have.

Well, based on those conditions.

With those conditions, we make a motion to approve.

My motion is to approve.

Okay, we'll need a second.

I'll leave second on that.

Okay. So Mr. Reardon second.

Vice Chair Reardon?

Yes.

Secretary Raymond?

Yes.

Mr. Alter?

Based on the use, and as I see it, we've covered all the ground that we're allowed to cover and limit them to, I'm going to have to say yes.

Mr. Friedman?

Yes.

Dr. Weinberg? Yes. Mr. Hitt?

Yeah, I'll say I guess I disagree with the abilities for like the way we're allowed to move around this. But from my understanding from council, from the vice chair, I agree with the use. I will say yes.

And Chairwoman Cates.

Yes, I think it's the least intense project that we could realistically have there. And they did make the amendments we asked for. So I do vote yes.

Thank you all.

Thank you members of the public that were here. We appreciate that.

And we're going to- Can I spell your name?

We will prepare for our next hearing.

i'm just you see how many typos i have in here like i'm always going back and trying so large

yeah so but to make it legal thank you

The informal is June 11.

Okay, so we will move on to our next hearing board. This is PZ 1525, block 1104, lot 5, 416 through 432 and 424, Hillsdale Avenue, residential apartments on second level of existing retail. Welcome back. Yes, we just need a moment, but.

Yeah, thank you.

We're just prepping, but welcome. Oh, yes. Yes.

It's not a tower, but it's not as tall. It's still tall.

I'm feeling it today.

Thank you. Hi, welcome back.

Chair and members of the board, give me good evening. I'm Robert Faulkenstern from the Walsall-Stevenson Institute on behalf of the applicant 1HWW-LLC. We're back again tonight. We were here approximately a month ago, and we've submitted revised architectural plans, and we plan to recall our architect to walk the board through them. As you will recall, this is an application of the existing Hillsdale Center property at 424 and 432 Hillsdale Avenue. IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITE OF THE EXISTING RETAIL USE OF THE GARDEN CENTER AND EXISTING SECOND FLOOR SPACE. WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING APPROVAL FOR A SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION, INCLUDING THREE TWO-BEDROOM UNITS RELATED TO TREATMENT OF THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR SPACE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENT FOR PARKING, CIRCULATION, LIVING, AND ACCESS, INCLUDING WITH THE GOAL OF MAKING THE BUILDING LOOK BETTER FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. Mr. Schofield previously testified and was qualified as the project architect. We intend to call him first and explain the changes that were made to the submitted revised plans. A principal issue was raised at the prior hearing with the board's concerns with the proposed clock tower. While the feature was not an arbitrary feature, it was included after the applicant met with representatives of the borough and it was intended to respond to the borough's desire for improved architectural treatment at the location. That said, we heard the board's comments. We have modified that feature and reduced the overall cost. The revised submission substantially reduces the cocktail element, removes the clock function, lowers the gable keeps, Brings the main building addition within 30 foot requirement provide plan also addresses several technical issues and site circulation Separation of traffic and storage area fencing refuse location the second floor entry and lighting So we we tend to call mr. Trophy now Okay, no we're ready for you thank you mr trophy welcome back thank you mr trophy you previously appeared and testified before this board in connection with this application and i don't does he need to be re-sworn in or no you remain under okay you didn't lose your license that's enough they hadn't notified me good answer that was my next question Mr. Trophy, after your prior testimony, did you have the opportunity to review and consider the comments and questions raised by the board and the board's professionals at the last hearing?

Yes, I did.

Did you also review the prior engineering comments that were raised during the April 28, 2026 hearing? Yes. And did you discuss those comments with the applicant and project team? Yes. As a result of that review, did the applicant elect to revise its plans?

Yes.

And are those plans, were those the revised plans that were submitted to the board last week, I believe? I forgot about the actual date. Could you please identify those plans?

Plans dated 5-19-26. I think each draw was resubmitted with that date on it.

And you submitted with those plans a letter dated May 19, 2026, together with the further revised plans entitled Second Floor Addition Hillsdale Center Building 424 and 432 Hillsdale Avenue in New Jersey. Is that correct? Yes. And was that letter prepared by you? Yes, it was. And were the revised plans prepared by you?

Yes.

Now, did the revised plans, they consist of five sheets? Yes, they do. And could you please just identify the sheets, or we could walk? As we walk through each of the plans, you could identify the sheet and explain any of the revisions.

Well, the title sheet was T101, which was unchanged with the revisions. site plan sp101 was revised part of the newsletter and i'd like to walk through that i think it makes sense to go through sure thank you the circulation and some of the parking in the rear of the building. And I think one of the discussions that we had was handicapped accessibility, whether that's required or not. And I think the way we left it, because I believe the building code covers that it does not, Mr. Stithiel wanted to see handicapped parking space irrespective and we really had to do it and so we located a handicapped space next to the second floor entrance and a couple of things happened in that area. In the last iteration, we had our trash collection was up against that stair, and that's been relocated, which I'll talk about in a second. I just want to talk about this stair, which I'll get to further in the plan, but we expanded slightly the plan, creating a vestibule, and the idea was to create some more space so my thinking bit of an operational thing for security, but the option is there and the space is there, and I think the security is there to do it. So that expanded out slightly, but we relocated the trash So we ended up with a net gain of some ground space in there. And it's not a van space, it's a regulation 13-foot wide handicapped space. And in addition to that, rather than fanning out spaces 3 through 10, I created straight across parking and probably reduced a little bit of congestion that was happening in that area. I have a 16 foot wide by I think 16 by 6 foot trash enclosure which is going to be shared by the first out of this exterior storage space for the garden shop proposed to do just didn't print out so now it's pretty clear in there where the where the exterior enclosure is there's an existing covered area that's getting cut back slightly where the floor show a little more clearly additionally We're just turning your board a little bit.

thank you oh sorry and please speak into the mic also thank you hold on to the mic

whatever variance that we would have requested for a high fence, that variance would disappear in this iteration. I think that is pretty much what we're trying to do. the revisions were on the site plan.

I know the question came up last time about the refuse. How would it now, is this design, how would it be collected? Just briefly describe it.

Well, it'll be collected in the same manner it is now, but there is actually enough space for a garbage truck to get through, stop, and collect in front. And I think We foresee having trash collection prior to business hours, early morning trash collection. So there shouldn't be any real traffic interaction in there.

And could you just walk the board through the circulation through the site, just so we're clear, so they could see how a car would enter and travel through?

This is the shared easement with the property next door. It is a two-way visit. site circulation will not be using the second part. It's one way as far as we're concerned. The easement is two-way, otherwise this neighboring property can't get in and out of it. But all the traffic to our site that's coming through here, which will consist of only second floor parking, any kind of ancillary traffic that may have to do with the second floor, but none of the commercial traffic will be, it's all segregated from there. So really, this is cars, residential vehicles only, and if the Amazon truck wants to drive through there and get out and do packages, I don't think anybody would really have an issue, but that doesn't have to be allowed either. I think the idea is to keep the traffic in that part of the site minimal, as little as possible.

Now, did you make any revisions to the second floor entry to the building, or does that remain?

I did.

Is that depicted better on another sheet?

Yeah, I'll just have to.

We can go when we get there, then.

It's fine. I'm not sure there's much else for me to say about the revisions to well do you want to finish your you know giving us the updates and then we'll take questions on the floor plans the only um and this is sheet can you identify which is a 101 again predated 519.6 Now could you please just while you're up there just walk the board through again how the residents will access their units on the second floor up the stairs and then there's a it's designed so that the apartments actually have an exterior entrance but the exterior entrance is is made private by from exiting the stair to get into the unit entrance, there's a covered open-air walkway that's covered into each unit's garden and then into the front door of each unit. So there's a lot of light. We have a lot of light coming in from both directions on the units, which is one of the byproducts of the way the plan was conceived. And then, of course, we have three two-bedroom units, and they hadn't changed from what I showed you last meeting. Could you just identify the drawing? 8102, again dated 5-19-26. And simply what I did was lower these four gables so that they are... and just rework it slightly so that I can pull it down and keep the rhythm that I like that was created before. But it used to be basically up here.

And what was the prior height that was proposed on the gables before, Bureau?

This point was at 35 feet prior.

And now it's at 30? Now it's at 30. Okay.

And I think, again, that would require a variance. I think it was reduced from 50 feet to 39 foot 6, so it still exceeds the allowable height in that zone. And I think the idea was always presence, and I know there was a lot of discussion as to how all that came about. We still believe it's a valid and really nice architectural element, and there really isn't that much opportunity to do that anywhere else. and maybe, you know, call it creating a bit of a landmark on that corner, really in the middle of town, on the corner of the two main streets. And, you know, that's really the genesis and the reason for it. But we understand the idea of trying to get it to be a little less, And that tower is strictly there for for the appearance.

It's not really it's not there for functionality.

And that was a request by the committee, not necessarily the applicant.

Correct.

So the board should know that that was the council committee that recommended that the original town.

Right.

I just wanted to make sure everybody knew. Yeah.

So to be clear, there's no residential space inside of that tower.

But it was designed to be a corner feature right as this building is situated right in the downtown corner. That was really the extent of the revisions to the plans that we submitted.

Now, have you had the opportunity to go through the board's review, engineer's review correspondence of May 22nd, 2026? I actually did not.

I realized that something was sent out and I did not. The engineer wants to cast me in hearing.

Now, there is some lighting. I know you now have updated the plans to include lighting. I don't believe you testified to that. If you could go back to the sheet.

And then we showed some gooseneck lighting where we see signage going on a commercial sign out on Hillside Avenue in Winkler. And that remains as it was in the original submission. Basically, you see on the building elevation, essentially 12-foot signs with a couple of gooseneck fixtures on each one, which is certainly not excessive and very direct.

And the applicant would agree to a look back period if approved of the lighting?

Yeah, absolutely.

Based on the revised plans and speaking from your professional perspective as the project engineer, do you believe the revised proposal is architecturally appropriate for the site?

Yes, absolutely.

Do you believe that the changes you've made have now incorporated and revised the prior plans and now have made a short lower building that also can emphasize the downtown corridor?

Yeah, I would say that the revisions that were made really hasn't changed the goals and the objectives that we set out to do. I don't feel like... Now do you believe the revised elevations improved the appearance of the existing building as proposed I Yeah, definitely. It changes the character completely. All of that, you know, there's a lot of white brick and stuff like that, and that's all coming off, and we're going to have a cohesive, much more earth-tone brick and cedar shapes up in the gables and on the mansard roof. And do you believe this project makes productive use of the existing building envelope in downtown commercial setting?

In your opinion, would the proposed residential units be compatible with the existing commercial uses from an architectural and site layout perspective?

Yeah, I think it's a pretty standard feel for most use of this type. It's three bedroom units. There's a very non-intensive use of that square footage. We only covered, with the building, we probably only covered about half of the existing structure, the half that's out to the street. So there's not a lot of constructed square footage added considering what's sitting on top of it.

And in your opinion, would the revised plans create any material adverse architectural impact on the surrounding area?

I don't see any.

Now, do you believe the project could be constructed in a manner consistent with the revised plans and coordinated with the borough's professionals?

Sorry, say that again?

Do you believe that the project as proposed in coordination with the borough's officials could be constructed as proposed here tonight? Yes. And I have no further questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schofield. We're going to take it to the board to see if they have comments or questions about the revisions.

Bob, you're not on the council committee that met about this project, are you?

OK.

So he can't get testimony about any questions. You can ask whatever question you want of any witnesses. You've got subpoena powers.

I may ask him a question at some point.

OK, Dan, we'll start with you.

uh yeah a few questions first one uh on sp101 uh site plan just had a question the 12 foot maybe this wasn't clear before uh the 12 foot wide uh exit the vehicular exit that seems to go into one of the parking spaces. There's that diagonal space that's stashed in. I guess that's an existing curb cut, right?

No, I'll go back and we talked about that a bit last week. A curb cut that's there now would have to be relocated in order to get it to line into our exit aisle. These dotted spaces, they're existing, which we propose to move where these hatched spaces are. So you're taking those two spaces, putting them on the other side of the proposed curb cut.

OK. Got it. That makes sense. Just about the lighting. So as we go to the lighting plan, that's SP 102. um so i'm guessing that the the lighting drop off is at the end of the the sort of arcs the far side of the arcs is is sort of a zero foot candle yes you're talking about the photometrics yeah is there a concern that parking spaces three four and five have had no lighting

I don't have a concern because there's certainly going to be enough light, I believe there's going to be enough light leakage there from all of these to give enough security to those spaces.

Okay, so it's not like a zero... No, it doesn't go from light to dark.

I mean, it's certainly, like I said, enough light leakage there to make it work.

OK. I guess it just has to meet the half foot candle minimum for egress. Regarding for the tower reduction, Talking about that a little bit. So while I was looking at the site a few times, actually, after the last meeting, and while it is true the trees do tend to overpower that part of the site, I was concerned about the tower there and the trees. you know kind of diminishing the visibility of that um so by cutting it down though i mean if the idea is to create this focal point here you know by cutting it down 15 feet while it does ease some of the height concern it does take a lot of the you know the feature of that space i don't know if there's a

thought that maybe it's it's undoing what the intent which is the as a focal um i don't think it it undoes it it's it's certainly going to be visible i know there was some comments today about you know there's some utility poles and all all of that kind of stuff that's there now and some of the trees are actually there's one of them there that's probably needs to come out. I don't think it's healthy. And it might be the one on the very corner. But I don't... It's kind of an odd thing. It's like when you've got utility poles and things of that nature. And this field One of the things, and I don't want to really speak for, you know, we had prior meetings with the mayor and the county and all of that, but certainly part of their interest in this was because this building was kind of in a pretty key location or an interesting location vis-a-vis the middle of town. And they felt pretty excited about addressing this building because sort of stepping things up a level, aesthetically there. And I think that, I don't know really how to say this. May I come out quite clear? You can say it. Because there's a utility pole there now as if this entire thing starts to become a thing in the middle of Hillsdale and all, you would hope that over time some of those, some of all the wires and all that stuff that's really not very nice in there would start to be dealt with with the utility companies and stuff like that. So I feel like this is like an opportunity to kind of get a foothold into maybe raising the aesthetic level which I think is part

what made appealing in the first place yeah and i i don't think i i'm not disagreeing with that i and i do think the two-story height harkens back to some of the uh the you know the the language on broadway yeah um i guess my question is more you know is a pretty drastic change from last time where you're going from the clock tower 50 feet is this big focal thing that'll kind of be over the the tree line to shrinking it down to a much smaller statement uh i was just curious why that is you know that's a big that's that's the big focal point of this project was uh brought down drastically well i think once you take the function of the clock tower out of it then it becomes an empty an empty shape up there and it looks like it's

So once you get rid of that function, where does it make sense without it looking like we're not sure what to do with it?

And we had the same discussion with the architect of the Patterson, the Piermont, where they had the clock tower and what it was going to be up there.

I think that's the intention, is to tie them together.

Right, and that's why I'm wondering why we took the clock tower out.

I understand your question.

All right. And then I was just going to make a comment. I don't fully know what the style is. It's more of an aesthetic. Of this, I don't know how to quantify this. I don't know that the style necessarily fits with the other buildings in downtown. But that's the style I was to comment.

the whole overall style you're saying yeah yeah you know like the facade style the facade style yeah i don't know it looks somewhat like an aspen kind of thing or you know you have with these uh well i think when they do it in aspen they're trying to make it look like new england so i don't know i don't know if they're successful with that but i think there's not like there's an overriding style on broadway or anywhere um you know it's it's an eclectic organization. I think it's more shape and texture that's going to make this whole thing more decent. That was being created.

I think the board hasn't gotten a copy of the style guide that you saw. And I think that's part of the issue that we're like kind of a step behind.

Is that officially adopted?

It was not adopted by us. It bypassed us.

Oh, so, but it is something that is in the, the bylaws.

I've seen it. I've got a lot of things, but I want to know.

I've seen it. I've seen it. Mark and I, I think you saw it. I'm, you know, I suggested that they look at all zoning laws before writing it. So. if it's something that is part of our adopted not us but we don't adopt it they I think they're guidelines so I'm not sure Mark if you know about that whether do you know or Bob knows if they were ever I don't think they were adopted I'm on the borough website I mean I have a copy of it myself but I don't remember it ever being adopted by the council but I have a copy of it

I mean, such an ordinance, I would think, would be considered to be a land use ordinance and should continue for consistency review. I agree.

And I have a few comments that I'm going to make about that. But that has nothing to do with the applicant. So sorry, you just mentioned foot, foot. So they received some guidelines that may not make sense to us because they were part of this facade guy facade guy.

I guess, I guess as far as we're concerned, it wasn't, it wasn't arbitrary. No.

Um, gotcha.

You know, whether validity of it, I can't speak to, but it definitely wasn't arbitrary.

Understood.

Uh, that's all right.

Thank you. Dr Weinberg.

Yeah, while I'm watching the video of the meeting, I wasn't here, you had talked about the northern property, about moving the propane tank. Is that still involved? Yeah, that's... So the safety is... Yeah, that hasn't changed.

You haven't mentioned anything about it. Yeah, it didn't change from the original testimony. The location of it is still... And the parking for that area? Well, all the parking for the building in the back and all of its functions is done on the street parking now, so that doesn't really change the fact that This thing has been located out front. Does it really change how people will be using this building?

So there's no specific pulling for the propane refill? No. And if the spots in front of it are taken, nobody can get in there, or...?

I just would reiterate that the distances from buildings, it's an underground tank, and the distances from the buildings are all what the safety codes, the fuel gas codes, all that stuff, it's all located there it does comply. We worked it out with the people that actually own the propane company and how that gets distributed.

I think last time there was a question about the size of each parking spot. They are now going to be the correct size?

Yeah, they're all 9 by 17? No, they're 9 by 19. 19, okay. The handicap is not big enough for a van? It's a standard car space. which is an eight-foot parking space and a five-foot.

So will that hinder someone who, well, they'd have to climb upstairs anyway, so I guess that doesn't look wrong.

Yeah, there's some vagaries going on, but our contention is that a three-unit development, the building code, i think it's worded less than four units um not on the first floor does not have to be handicapped accessible according with the ivc do we have to put sprinklers in the building or anything uh yeah they'll be in our residential uh upstairs just upstairs not downstairs yeah that's the intent okay thank you

Thank you. I appreciate how you listened and obviously made these changes. I just have more of a comment. Our attorney had suggested that a planning board member be present on the committee that hears these applications if there is, and I think we're seeing now why it's helpful and important. So I'm going to push for that, and I think it's a recommendation we should make to mayor and council. Certainly it would not so much that we give input as if we're voting on something, but it's just reminders about zoning and what we're looking for. So an applicant is not coming to us and then we're asking them to redesign. It's just not fair to an applicant. I did in July receive a copy of a design guide that Councilwoman Malasa Mazur-Chung was writing and that all I said was to go back please and follow our e-code and referenced where this is already as you said in our code and in our master plan. So I didn't know that this is being shared with applicants yet, but I will ask the whole board to see a copy of it. And I just sent you a copy. I don't know if this is the latest copy, because it's something I had in July. But I appreciate that you've been working with both of us. I guess I kind of, not being an architect, not having architects, I am curious to hear from both of you. I also was not a fan of the original tower on the Paramount project. But I'm wondering aesthetically like if I'm missing something and if we're gonna put a tower there Why wouldn't it be high enough to be seen even though I wasn't a fan of the original tower So I really want to hear Steven and the other members reasons for that because I think a few members Had more of an issue with it than others So that's I I just want to hear the reasons on both sides for it But if it's something that we're not even gonna see kind of like what's the point of it? So this isn't really a question. That's just some things that I'm questioning

steven your turn well let's quit the build-up how you doing um let me start with just a question to chris our engineer uh chris our when it comes to building height and i'm assuming i'm just going to call these spires now you see them on each peak are spires allowed to exceed building height whatever you want to call them. Oh, thank you for playing.

I'm sorry. I actually did look that up. So Section 310-54 of your zoning code does allow for certain exemptions for height. They shall not apply to church spires. Yeah, church spires always across the board. Yeah, belfries, cupolas, chimneys, ventilators, skylights, television, and radio receiving equipment. and transmitting antennas or towers and then it has some additional language after that um so technically not a church spire i've lost that battle close to a coppola but not quite no it's not yeah so it's not quite there but let's just call it lightning prevention system and then we'll just call it okay all right so uh i'll move on i just wanted to see if that was out there for that thing

all right so uh to parlay on what dan was trying to say so basically what we have now is like a witch hat um that is all asphalt roofing it will end up being asphalt i know it says slate or slate like asphalt so what he's saying is you're basically going for a variance for an entire asphalt tower Because you have a two-stage hexagon roof. I see it. But if you simply drew the lines on the lower hexagon, it would be more conforming to the height. So I don't see the focal point with that asphalt, but that's just an opinion. That's not a zoning board comment. I'll move on. So with the front yard setback, the hexagon portion on the corner, you are overextending over the existing first floor footprint, correct? Yes. So therefore, evoking even further exaggeration. You know what I'm saying. uh you're revoking more of a front yard situation uh and then also you're probably have gutters on that roof so therefore the water would be going down off there down to the sidewalk but my problem is that footprint is also the boundary line of your lot therefore you're going over your lot line we are okay um i see that as a problem uh because you are flying this that looks like a brick structure onto property that is not yours you are passing the invisible plane known as your lot so the board doesn't have jurisdiction to give you that is true i would say um

I'm looking at what I did and listening to that. If I were to keep the FAR portion of the structure, in other words, the exterior wall, within the property market, which I see I can do, and allow the roof to overhang, onto the roof is part of the structure to be on the property. I would say I would say square building square footage if we were to keep that within the within the property line. And we overhang roofs in downtown areas all the time.

my stance is we don't have the right to grant you anything because it's not on your lot therefore I think our lawyer is about to say the same thing

How about now? So what I was going to say was the board could approve it if you wanted to and condition it on the applicant obtaining a license from the council to impede it to the right of way. We see this pretty commonly in more urban environments like in Hoboken. Everything's built on the lot line. A lot of people have bay windows on the second and third floors. those are in the public right away and those applications are commonly approved with the condition that the governing body has to sign off on it and issue a license gets recorded instead of getting a title so it can be there so they would have to get approval from the council to do that yeah that's i just want to put it out there so how far is it into the right amount

I mean, it depends on what you're counting. I mean, the second floor flies over the first floor. Chris's review says something about it was like 0.5. Now it's a lot more. If you include the fascia. How far? I don't know. It's not to mention. So I don't even know how big the...

Well, we'd have to be... Yeah, no, and that's all just... As Vincent was saying, he started saying he was going to start falling back, so I didn't want to... What's that?

Okay.

So three foot's a huge flyover on a lot of... And that's fine, because clearly the council's been driving their design anyway. So, all right. And then your testimony is that this tower is strictly aesthetic. There is no purpose for it other than I want to see something a little higher than the rest of the area to bring focus to it. Well, trust me, but that's my job to tell you exactly as I see it.

But are we allowed to grant a height variance based on aesthetics?

No, there's no, whatever. Okay.

I'll ask them later.

That's fine. Just other simple things, but no, it's mostly architectural, so there's no reason to even bring it up. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Alter?

I actually am still confused about the count. It's now 39-6. It was 51-50. It was 51-50. I think I'm perfect for it. Thank you. Thank you. A lot of repeats from what I've heard already. And to echo its comment,

the chicken or the egg, is this still a variance for the height of this?

Yes.

Are we calling it a tower? Are we calling it a clock tower? What are we calling it? It's a roof. A roof. Okay. So either way, we still need a variance. Okay. And we took it down because of comments you heard from the board that it exceeded maybe expectations of the rest of the boards as far as height goes.

Yeah, maybe we can make it taller. You want to make it taller as well?

I wouldn't go there. You mentioned something at the beginning of the meeting that Chris had sent you some various comments from the 15th and the 22nd, but you hadn't had a chance to review them. from, I guess, the most recent review. The review, right. So the 22nd you have not reviewed yet. Is there anything you wouldn't know, I guess? Chris, is there anything that's concerning to you in this review letter that hasn't been addressed at this meeting that should be addressed before we go any further?

we're going to ask for those it doesn't really affect the board as much so these are items that are not concerning to you with them right now more technical issues correct okay i want to make sure there's nothing in there that maybe was overlooked yeah i would just say i wouldn't let utility bills drive designs in this community people tend to people people tend to look around utility if we did that you know nothing What do you think about from since you mentioned vantage point, the higher versus the lower in terms of the tower? Yeah. I'm fine with 39. It gives the corner some access and some presence. I don't think it should be .

I agree with that as well. As far as the tree, you mentioned the tree in the utility pole. The pole is the pole. Can't do anything about that. Like Chris just said, the tree is dead. So that needs to come down. As well as the... Pass you.

Pass you.

the rest of the trees uh need to be addressed as well um i did have one comment regarding last meeting you said or there was a testimony that said that the windows and the doors will all be staying as is so nothing as far as the facade of the front of the building it's all going to remain the same okay well right you know the doors the windows that's going to be staying the same the facade or the change based on the meetings i guess that we were not privy to will be changing yeah aesthetically yeah there's there's going to be a uniform brick throughout this entire project and it's not going to be the white stuff that's there now okay that's coming down

um it's getting stripped off or covered one of the two well it depends on it depends on how we have to do it okay and who decides that uh well when we you know when we start to get into construction drawings and we understand how that brick is um just what the wall how the walls build we'll decide whether we want to do a thin brick which over the top of it which is i mean you now every brick is made with a thin brick as well matching okay so we'll be able to uh to give it an upgrade whether it's just a surface upgrade or whether we actually strip uh wipe the brick off and put the new brick out that remains to be seen that's just a matter of how we want to hold it okay and just two other questions the second story so we have no apartments up top right now is that correct

One is currently being used.

One is currently a studio apartment. The other one is, I guess, an office. Yeah, we have Roger testifying on that.

OK, I remember that from last testimony.

And you're adding three or four? Three. You're adding another three. OK. And again, once that building gets erected, all of that I'm going to say asphalt shingle. Steve would probably know this better. That all comes off, and there's going to be a new material.

A better roof.

The plan is to make the whole thing cohesively appealing as one big building, basically.

Okay. And the parking in the back, there was 10, I think you had 12 or 10?

There's 11 total spaces, including the one here, which exists sort of now. So in this area, you will have ten total spaces, which you're adding. There are. We're adding six.

You're adding six to what's there now.

Yeah. Four exists now. Right. Four exists now. We're at six.

Okay.

No other questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hipp.

The questions I have, the two spaces that are being relocated, is it possible to put in a new parallel parking space there behind the ADA space? Maybe you can get another space back?

You're talking about right here. Yeah, it feels like. Yes. Maybe just investigate. Yeah, I do. I believe the answer is yes.

And then I know we're improving the aesthetics of the bottom floor. I appreciate this was brought up at the last meeting about, you know, HVAC and improvements to the bottom floor. I can't remember what the answer was, but if there's the opportunity, if you're doing this work on the second floor, you're gonna have construction going on, can you improve the conditions for the bottom floor so you don't have, you know, in some of the front windows, like at West Hills, there's an AC unit above the front door. I hope this would be a good time to do that.

Most of the ground floor units have window units above their front door.

If we can figure out a way to do it, that's...

I guess I don't I'm an engineer but I don't know construction super well at least for these types of buildings but it seems like if you're opening up the roof and putting another another floor on you'll have an opportunity to do some sort of maybe central system with the new space it's an idea I would I think it would be nice to do if you're doing all these improvements to the building to make it look nice maybe make the insides nice as well that's i guess it's more of a comment than a question um and i guess i'll echo what some of the other members of the board have said that this has nothing to do with you guys it would be nice to see this style book and some of these things that i guess we're supposed to be using as a guide And then last but not least, I've heard muffin top and witch hat on this board. I think I have both right now, too. I've been around architects a lot and never heard those. That's all I got.

Thank you. Stephen, I have a question for you. Whoa, did I raise my right hand? Yes. Come on. I could be wrong, but I thought you were the one who made the suggestion about lowering the tower. Am I incorrect? Lowering the tower? Well, you were concerned about the pole and how it would be visual.

Oh, I said the conflicting fact that there's a 60-foot pole in front of this thing.

But was that the impetus for the tower to be lowered?

I just don't want to hear any talk of the tower going back up higher. That's for sure. Okay.

That's what I wanted to ask. Do you think this address, this design addresses what you were seeing visually?

Yeah, I understand. They're absolutely trying to, you know, fulfill the commentary of the board from the previous meeting. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, you know, I'm sure with that two-step process, roof and that is going to be a hell of a roof for your framer to do it's not going to like you but um um you know it could be a single instead and then that could probably i drew the lines you know it's almost 35 feet but that's just that's splitting hairs that's my my world but no do i believe that this should be the focal point it's kind of a buried focal point and i don't see it as a beacon coming into downtown because it's at the middle of it right at the tracks i don't see it i mean i know and it might be planner testimony i don't want to interject but

you know there is an element of a rounded thing at the corner of hillsdale and broadway where the wires are touching the damn building too well i just based on what dan said i just wanted to see if the board you know we have uh agreement on that on that this is it's a height variance so that's that's a big nut to get over it's still a height variance but what they need clarity on yeah exactly so but they still need clarity on the i'm talking about this design and whether

I think part of the comment is also the previous version was very, you know, there's a lot of articulation and, you know, the two height thing added a lot of interest. I think now it's kind of, you know, the various kind of squat and... Push down, but I think you know, maybe if that articulation was brought back that height might work But you know I think if you're trying to connect it back as the intent and the clock tower wants to be there The clock

they now remove and the clock was there. With that gone, the roofline looks perfectly nice as it is at the level as it is to get to that

Dan, we're not talking about height. He was talking about articulation, which is like having more detailing on it, though, for lay people.

Yeah, and also slimming it down. I think the previous version was a lot slimmer than the sort of which is a wider base.

i mean i i'm not saying this out loud but you know somebody might have just showed me like there is a hexagon or octagonal roof on that

little spanish tile roof building at the corner where the uh the traffic thing was the police stop that's at the corner across the street but i'm also not trying to tell ronnie to put spanish tile roof on there because i know that goes crazy okay i just i didn't want to redesign i just wanted to know well you kind of did so i'm just saying what i'm saying is this address you're you're more comfortable with this design that was my question yes yeah that was my question And Dan made a suggestion too. It's just a suggestion. Okay. I just don't want to go back and forth on that. Bob, can I ask you a quick question? Can you come up? Thanks. Thank you. I'm going to have you state your name.

robert coletti yeah so mark before swearing or anything like that obviously i don't want to say anything here no i'm not going to ask you anything you can't say absolutely in absence of the council attorney no it's going to be very this is not anything

Yeah, I do have a question for you. I would have asked the mayor if he was here. Were you present to any conversation where the tower was addressed, or is this your first time hearing about it? That's all I wanted to know.

No, that was discussed in just, I think I'm regurgitating what the mayor said last week. Yeah, I just wanted someone to hear. At the Economic Development Committee, which I was not a part of.

okay so you didn't hear anything about it or the economic development committee right as well as the applicant on parts of those meetings but I was okay and so you you had no direct conversation about like why that tower was preferred for that particular site yeah this isn't about you I just wanted to see if like the mayor can verify that thank you appreciate it okay board any other questions at this time at this time oh well i'm going to open yeah go ahead what is what we decided about this the corner what is what is it going to look like well that's basically what what's presented what's presented yes that's what we concluded

Maybe with some more articulation, but that's up to them.

I'm going to open the meeting to the public. Is there anyone from the public that has any questions about what you heard tonight? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public. Professionals? Dave, is there anything you want to say? You look like maybe you want to say something.

Just a couple questions. Sure. moving away from the the tower too uh although i would say mr novak please raise your right hand oh i'm sorry i do thank you uh sheet a-102 still does identify as a clock tower so i think that would be need to be revised the board approved this application okay um i'm sorry what sheet was that that was sheet a-102.00 thank you it says new hexagonal clock tower And I don't think there's a clock in the tower anymore. Regarding the two studio apartments that are there, it looks like one of them doesn't have a bathroom. Is that correct?

No. I don't understand why that could be framed. It's clearly on my computer screen. Is it exactly a mirror?

That is good to hear. And then finally, regarding space number three, it looks like it's right next to a potential curb area. Is there any concern about vehicles being able to maneuver in that space? When I say parking space number three, it's the one that's like, yeah, identify the number three right there.

It is not coinciding on the property line. It is a little bit off it. But I could give it a little bit more . Yes, that's right. They're all tenant spaces, right?

They're all tenant spaces. OK. They're not retail spaces. So the same version of Barksdale . Yes.

know how parking is going to be made is parking space is going to be assigned or is he just going to first come first serve for the residents uh i have to think they're going to be assigned okay that would be my recommendation that's all i have for now thank you i think that didn't that come up that came up yeah thank you chris any last questions okay board any last questions

Before we go over the conditions, I do want to announce that Arthur Weinberg is certified to watching or listening to the entire recording of the last meeting of April 28th, 2026. So he is eligible to vote as is Dan Friedman, correct?

Thank you.

Do you want to run through?

I only missed a couple minutes.

You missed a couple minutes? He listened to it. You heard it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Don't say it. Okay.

We do have a planner.

oh gosh i'm so sorry she just reminded you could tell i'm like yeah i mean hey i apologize i'm so sorry planner okay i'm so sorry this is important here so he'd like i apologize i'm so sorry you didn't do planning yet i was about to launch into the grass and he was ready to go too can we call mr of course of course my apologies

Mr. Pasolano, can you please raise your hand? Do you swear from the testimony about the truth of God? I do. Please state your name, spell your last name, and give us your business address for the record.

I'll start with a hard question. I'm Michael J. Pasolano. Is this voted?

It should be.

I think if you get closer to it, it'll amplify. Okay.

It's been sounding quiet, though.

We should check that out.

I'm Michael J. Pasolano.

I don't think it's on. Can you check that file? Just tap on it and make sure. Oh, there it goes.

It's like barely on there. Okay.

You could bring his own. Here's yours. Okay, we got you. How is it now? Slow, but we can hear you. Thank you.

Mr. Pasolano, how long have you practiced your profession?

I'm now in my fifth decade.

Fifth decade, that's pretty long.

Despite my youthful appearance.

Is your license in good standing as you appear here tonight? Yes, it is. And your license, that is the state of New Jersey? Correct. And how long have you been licensed?

since 1984.

And have you worked on comparable projects to the one that's here tonight? Yes. Will, I mean, I don't know if the board has any additional questions.

I think you've been here before, too. Yeah, welcome back. That's right. We have no further questions?

Okay.

Now, could you briefly describe your scope of engagement with this project?

Yes, I was hired to evaluate master plan materials and applicable regulations discuss the project on many occasions with the project team. I also touch base with Mr. Cioffi on account of my absence at the opening hearing to learn what the board's concerns were. So with that preparation, I'm here tonight to deliver planning testimony.

Now, could you briefly describe the proposed project as you understand it?

Yes, it requires three types of D variances, special reasons variances, starting with the D1 variance for use not permitted to allow residential use in a mixed-use building. The C zone does not allow residential use, so this is a new item. The second element of relief is for expanding an existing mixed-use building. You are probably aware there are two separate buildings on Hillsdale Avenue on the south side of the site. The smaller building that has two stories in it, that has one permitted dwelling unit on the second floor. expand that with the second dwelling unit. So that's a D2 use variance to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use. The third D element is for height. There's been plenty of awareness and discussion about the tower element requiring that variance, 39 and a half feet, where 30 feet is the maximum permitted for any non-exempted roof element. And then there are several C variances for front setback. Fence transparency prevents openness around propane.

Now, have you prepared for your hearing tonight? Maybe we'll show the planning exhibits to familiarize everybody with that.

I did. So we can distribute that now. Thank you.

I don't think that we have any exhibits.

Everything was submitted, so this is probably A1.

We'll call this A1. I'm just going through my notes. What is the exhibit in here? We did have an exhibit A1. It was elevations and color photos. I think this is going to be A2. A2? Let me just double check.

Just for the record, 8-2 is comprised of five sheets.

The first page is a portion of the tax map, sheet 11.

The second page is another portion Image of the tax map zoomed out.

That's actually a zoning map excerpt.

Is that a zoning map? All right. Okay, great. And then A3 is aerial imagery of the site. A2, page 4 of 5, it's got four photographs. And A2, page 5 of 5, it's got another four photographs, and I'm sure the witness will tell us what all of them are.

Thank you, Mr. Levy. The first page is self-evident. I'm familiar with the site and its location. with the aerial imagery, we have an opportunity to see how this relates to its setting, this particular site. I've added for my own field observations and checking with the tax records as well, annotations about the uses that surround it. And one thing you might be missing, in the lower right corner, I believe that building also has apartments above the commercial uses. That was brought to my attention by Mr. Faulkner's family. somebody who lived there, is that correct? Yes. Yeah, so we have several instances of existing mixed uses buried nearby the subject property. Very importantly, the bottom right corner of the yellow shaped point in the center indicating the site boundaries, is in a particular location where I believe excess height is not particularly impactful to anything or anyone. Yes, it is above the 30-foot limit, but I'll come to more detail on that conclusion. But you can see there's the rail line, park, commercial use parking lot, and I took several ground photos of the subject property, and you know very well what this building is, so I'll save a little time and not belabor this exhibit too much, but I'd be happy to turn to any of the images to speak further about them. So this provided me with the opportunity insight about the setting that this analysis takes place in i always do this for my applications this is not something new but i find it particularly useful to look at all of these elements before i reach any conclusion so the the proposal of the properties surrounding to the north and east and southeast was that two story buildings where there's strip style development is the pattern. And so one of my observations is this building we're talking about would be a better fit visually if it were two stories as well. whether you agree or don't agree with that analysis, I think from a community-born perspective, this bumps up the harmony element of this analysis simply by adding a second story, which is not needing a variance per se, but the use that we want to put on the second story does trigger the use relief. So you understand the project pretty well. I don't need to go into The D1 use variance for use not permitted is to be considered under the Medici standard of review, which is a four-part analysis looking at particular suitability of the site, other special reasons, any detriment to the public good, As to the condition, it has ample area to accommodate the required parking and circulation, and the artistic building lends itself to vertical expansion quite easily, as you heard from Mr. Chogan, as well as it being overdue for a visual upgrade. Secondly, the context is particularly suitable. This is a great location for a few extra housing units, by virtue of it being be train riders. A few more footsteps to visit and support the stores in the surrounding area, not just as potential new customers, but perhaps as employees as well. The walkable environment makes this a nice match of compact housing units in a compact downtown type of setting, while very walkable. There are questions being the special reasons part of this. Purpose A being the most important, which is to promote the general welfare. We're in the midst of an ongoing housing shortage. I see no detriment. which is to provide adequate light, air, and open space. I like the way Mr. Chokey designed the units, their access. Nothing says anything's cramped or crowded on this particular proposal to me. Purpose E is advanced, which is to provide for appropriate population densities and appropriate locations. And going back to the reasons I mentioned for the sites It's not only achieved by performing on-site parking for the residential units, but also the ability to utilize the transit resource, both bus and train, again, footsteps away from the doors of these proposed apartments. Purpose I jumps out at me as one of the main items that this will advance, and purpose I is to promote a desirable visual environment. to all of the relief that I'm talking about is the reason for the upgrade to be something in the near future if the board decides to approve the application. So this will improve the appearance, not just of the site, but it will, I believe, have an impact area, the way that the public perceives this area. Purpose J will also be advanced, which is to avoid sprawl. Second floor apartments is the antithesis of sprawl. It's a right thing to do in a downtown setting, footsteps from the train station. And purpose M, for the similar reasons, purpose M is to promote the efficiencies of and damaging no natural hands whatsoever, doing it in a very efficient manner, taking advantage of all the public investment in infrastructure that will serve this project. As to the negative criteria, that's the positive criteria. Now, the negative criteria speaks to public detriment and zone plant impact. As to the public detriment, I see none of the substantial nature, if there's even any measurable detriment at all. Upper level residential is common in the area. It's a modest residential element that's proposed. the parking conforms for the residential use of commercial parking. We'll still use the same on-street supply in the area that has kept this building going for decades as a commercial property. It would not be still happening if it were not able to accommodate customers with available parking. The massing and the visual character I find to be quite in line with the surrounding development. the two-story model being set long ago this property would be tracking with that the minor height deviation is more for public visual benefit I thought it had more benefit when the clock was part of that but the clock is not part of the application but the design element the accent that it gives and prominent near a park, near parking, near stores, near the train station. That's where you expect to see landmark type of structures, in my experience. And the older ones certainly crop up in those sort of locations. So this would be a new element, admittedly, but it will add an element of old world charm, I think, to the particular area that it's proposed to set in. So based on all of that, I see no basis for a finding of a substantial death penalty. the requested relief as to the zone plan impact i see no impairment to the intent purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance from approval of this the 2022 master plan emphasizes the strong existing downtown here we're talking about a proposal that would be supportive of that outcome downtown focuses on is foot traffic. And residential units within walking distance of the stores puts the feet on the street, so to speak, so that there is a symbiotic relationship between the residents' needs and the commercial base. While the master plan, the latest master plan mixes, makes use basically, the second story on this building I think would do more harm, I'm sorry, more good than harm by supporting the overarching desire for desirable construction downtown. the small number of apartment units that are proposed are balanced by the public benefits of the site upgrade, which might not happen with the building expansion too. The project itself I don't think is a sharp departure from the intent to have a vital downtown and certainly is consistent with the intent to have an attractive and inviting downtown. So I see no basis for finding a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. And in conclusion on the D1 part of this, I must say that on balance, the positives of approval I think greatly outweigh any negatives. As to the D2 relief to expand the in the other southern building on the site. It's also a special reasons analysis of special reasons I spoke to at length under the D1 criteria carried forth into the D2 analysis. Specially purposes A, providing new housing in a particularly suitable location and purpose I, by virtue of a better visual and use harmony with the site setting. Buildings in use are in harmony with their surroundings and this achieves exactly that. By tying the two buildings together we have an even more cohesive facade with the upgrade on all of the facades and the new roof. It will be a very substantial improvement in my opinion. I would say that the negative criteria as I spoke to in the D1 carry part into the D2 analysis and on balance, the positives of improving that variance greatly outweigh any negatives. The D6 height variance that seemed to be in focus earlier in the meeting can also be improved by virtually meeting the positive and negative criteria for that type of relief. Because this is bundled with a D1 use variance, the site suitability question comes up again. Normally with height relief it doesn't. But I think that the excess height of 9 1⁄2 feet above the 30-foot minimum with a decorative element proposed because it was suggested to do something special here because of the particularly central location of the property in the downtown area. The site proximity to the train station, as I mentioned before, it's where you might expect to find an accenting element on a building. Sorry. even a nearby neighbor, but as I said earlier, there's nothing around this particular point on the property that would suffer from this little additional height to kind of property which is on Park Avenue behind the site and it might not even be able to see the tower element so cool. It also would not violate any of the purposes of height controls. There's no height that there's no use in the space and no obstruction of anyone's scenic views. So that flows into the public detriment question. Again, I find there's no detriment of a substantial nature if there can even be one defined or described due to its unique location. So in conclusion, I believe that the positives of granting the D6 approval variance, D6 variance, excuse me, substantially outweigh any negatives. As to the state relief, Yes, it is. provides boards to, that decision to look at the project as a whole, not to look at variance relief and isolation. As to part three, we looked at public detriment. Again, none of a substantial nature from any of the relief that's requested. We're talking about an upgrade that benefits the greater community, generally speaking. So, As to the front setback, what would be detrimental about those minor additional encroachments of the facade? The building is imperceptibly already sitting on a property line, as one might think of it. The sidewalk ends and there's the building. I don't see any measurable way to say this is more detrimental by a few more inches It's really a de minimis change in that setback area. The resulting uniformity and visual quality of the entire facade, though, will mitigate any measurable detriment, in my opinion. As to the parking for commercial uses, there's no change proposed in this long-standing circuit. As to the solid fence or wall, as it's proposed, not being 50% open at the propane station, I think absolute screening of the propane area is a superior planning outcome versus open fencing in this particular location. I would not say that about other properties, perhaps. It is, again, not impactful to any occupied property. The fourth part is to look at the zone plan impact. This site is part of what the master plan defined as a strong downtown. The technically deficient setbacks and parking are not a new condition, nor impactful to the overall planning. The master plan recommends design guidelines for non-residential. I believe the board discussed that a little earlier. The board here in this application has the highest degree of control over what an expansion project looks like, even more than in permitted use in a way, because the specific conditions in that regard to make the measure during an ongoing acute housing shortage in a highly appropriate location. And this also is, this proposal is highly supportive of sustaining a strong downtown and the public investment in transit infrastructure. Going back to the strong downtown thing, we hear, we see headlines about the dilution keeps going up, the online sales. So it's really important to do what can be done reasonably to support the bricks and mortar's part of the communities of downtown. The visual upgrade to an ancient downtown mainstay building that's well utilized is another benefit. Two stories with nice facades were visually harmonized with an upgraded site and surrounding area. and finally conforming screened parking for the existing residential uses of very much a plus in this particular area. It avoids the prospect of congestion by people, the residents looking for parking. As to the detriments, to guide the design of the project, I think is wonderful. And I appreciate that the board spoke up as it did to make these design tweaks to the project. So in conclusion, I find that all required relief meets the statutory criteria for approval. The applicant has worked in good faith with borough officials to design the right fit proposal, in my opinion, and I submit to your respect Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Pestelano. That was a very thorough presentation. Dave, we'll turn it over to you. I know Tom had like a number of points in there. I think some of them have been addressed. Like the site uses, you know, propane, all those things.

I've been having trouble with the microphone all night. Oh.

What's with the, is the other one working? I've got it working. Okay.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I am looking at Mr. Barron's review memo, which is dated April 22nd, 2026. I believe Mr. Pasolano did touch upon all the variances in there. I just wanted to confirm, though. I believe, though, that we might need to, I just want to confirm, is there still a variance required for the number of loading spaces as well as an exception structure set back with the propane fueling station?

That's a very good question. I'm going to turn to Mr. Chokey for his guidance on that propane siting. I don't recall how that was determined to play out. Are all front yards or is one of them a side yard?

I believe that in the case of the corner lot, they're all front yards.

Okay. So if accessory structures are not permitted in the front yard, then that would seem to apply. The other one you stated?

Yeah, loading spaces. I believe you did touch upon that the parking and loading will essentially operate as is with the existing retail spaces there.

Yes.

Okay. No additional questions at this time. I can certainly answer any questions that the board may have. Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah? So the definition section in... And the code defines, including the definition of structure, as a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground, which I just kind of find to be interesting.

That's included in the definition?

Of structure.

Interesting. Usually structure, we just go back to the municipal land use law, which is anything that's above, accurate, or below ground use for use ornamentation or any purpose, which is basically almost everything on the planet.

And then there's another definition for accessory structure. This is in the definition section, 154-53, also referred to as a permanent structure, as an accessory structure, a structure which is on the same parcel as a principal structure, which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. So I think the propane tank would fall into that category with the use there. for example a residential structure may have an attached garage or storage shed for garden tools as accessory structures other examples of accessory structures include gazebos picnic pavilions boat houses small pole barn storage sheds and similar buildings but it's interesting that struck your definition of structure includes a propane type bypass

Yeah, I mean, in some communities, asphalt counts as a structure.

I had to do an application for a friend who put a swing set in his side yard in Tenafly, and the zoning officer told him that was a structure. go to the zoning boards.

I hear the planner there is awful, too.

Yeah. This was 20 years ago. I don't know who the planner was then, but I wasn't so much bothered by that as the threatening letter that my friend got from the zoning officer. All right. That's interesting. But these are all flexible C variances that you could easily say are what we call subsumed into the use variance, the D variances.

Okay, we'll start with Stark this time.

Before you vote, I have some commentary.

Oh, yeah, you know, I just met with that one. Sorry, Stark, go ahead.

No worries. I do, I guess, I do feel like, what is it, going off of Tom's, off of the Burge Associates letter from April 22nd, Um, you know, three of the C variances are based on the propane tank structure. And, um, I don't know if I got an answer in the planner testimony. I don't know if the planner testimony is going to have an answer to them because it comes down to the design of the structure, like the height of the structure and the fencing around it. Um, I don't want to hamstring the project as we try to figure out how you're supposed to build a structure for a propane tank. answers and maybe we can revise how this is being built or designed.

They did mention, I don't know if this is going to answer your question, I think they did mention that they were lowering the wall height that's going to be surrounding that propane tank to six feet. So that will address that. So I guess let me ask this, and this might be more of an engineering question. I apologize. Is that six-foot wall height going to block the view of the propane tanks, or at least buffer the view of those propane tanks from the street?

The propane tanks are completely underground. I guess the filling then. The filling equipment, perhaps, is the visible element, and that's diminutive.

Yeah, he did a test. It will be, it's not nearly. Okay.

And it's required that it be a 100% surface. You cannot see through it at all. It cannot meet the 50% coverage.

In terms of the opening of the wall, yeah. I just thought it was probably more, it can be whatever. What I'm trying to do is, is there a way to get rid of some of the variances? I thought having a brick mass there six feet high would probably be a lot nicer rather than seeing through it. There's no code that I'm aware of that says that it has to be solid. It certainly doesn't have to be as far as I'm concerned.

I guess the only comment I have is I do agree with the use variance. I think it's appropriate what you're asking for as far as the use goes. I guess there's just some of these design comments that I guess I have thoughts on. And the only other one was in the testimony you mentioned a few inches of overhang for the front yard setback. think we had the engineer testimonies that was actually three feet and it's just i don't yeah i don't want to say a few inches and actually it's 36 inches i was speaking to the facade material not the overhead okay in that few inch increment okay does the important distinction does the 36 inches count as a part of the setback or encroachment into the setback yeah

we're looking at the building is really the facade. In my experience, when I look at buildings, I'm not going right up to the E and say, is that in or off the property? It's just the way I think that element is perceived.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Scott Raymond.

Thank you. Now that I just heard about that overhang, is this one of the variances that we're deciding about, or is this a condition that the council has to now?

take the order we would approve it so the board has the ability to approve that variant with the condition being approved by the governor's body okay very good no other questions thanks okay yep nothing i missed you and no questions no okay steven

On page three of your handout, you're pointing out in the proximity of two other mixed-use buildings, one being at the corner of Broadway and Hillsdale, the other one on the corner of Park Ave. And in looking at those, I know you have photos of those. looking at those on Google Street they both are flat roof and seem to be conforming I obviously cannot testify to that they are within the the building height but they are mixed-use solutions within the height variance so that's looks like I did my job

Thank you. I apologize, but I have a question that's more related to engineering architecture, just because I didn't see the referral before. And I just want to bring it up because it was mentioned. The Environmental Commission says they, you might have brought this up, Scott. They did recommend the use of pavers in parking spots. Did we discuss that option at all? I don't think we did. Is that something that anyone's open to? In pervious favor? Yeah, it was recommended.

Yeah, we're not proposing in pervious favor.

So you're not in favor of that. Okay. You did say it was a recommendation, correct? All right. That's it. Mr. Weinberg? Dr. Weinberg?

My only question is, did we finalize with the vice chair talked about the water coming from the roof going on to the public public property? Did we the roof drain?

Yeah, we talked about that. The roof drains are going to be tied into the catch basements directly.

That's going to be a condition no matter what. Yes, I appreciate the both presentations and they were totally thorough.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Freeman.

I have no comments. Thank you for your very thorough presentation.

thank you anyone have any last questions yes you also a planner should recognize there are two bus routes in hillsdale actually um a bus we actually have a busted stops within the lot by the train station plus another bus that stops across the street in the cutout so in addition to the trains we also have bus service there as well i appreciate you pointing that out it's another element of hillsdale yes

Thanks. Okay, at this time I'll open the meeting to the public. Is there anyone that has questions about Mr. Pesolano's testimony?

Seeing none, I'll close the meeting to the public.

Okay, now I'll remind everybody that our full board is voting tonight. Mark, do you want to go through conditions?

All right, so the first condition is that the project will be constructed in accordance with the plans that have been submitted and revised to remove the clock tower, to adjust the parking, to add the package room. Those were items that the board felt were important. um the propane tank is going to be screened by a fence that's no taller than six feet as shown on the plans no it's a wall a wall a wall excuse me a brick veneered wall a brick veneer a brick veneered wall correct yes right mr falcon sir yeah yes all right parking is going to be assigned the applicant must obtain a license from the council for any projection into the public right away. A failure to obtain that license will constitute a failure of the approval. Our residential sprinkler system on the second floor. Trash pickup private hauler before business hours.

If it does go in their favor, only the tower portion could exceed the height variance, not an all-encompassing 39.6?

Sure, yeah. Let me go back to that section. Only for the corner feature.

Yes.

Okay. A six month look back on the lighting. Signage for the parking.

Yeah, that's in our report. There's a number of items that have to be revised for their submission to the building department. Page 8 of my report, which covers that as well, Mark.

Okay. And just in my notes, which I'll put into the resolution, new brick materials, gooseneck lighting, existing storefront windows to remain. We're in the same location. No stormwater to discharge onto sidewalks is the last condition I have. guess i'd like to add investigating that parking the additional parking space yeah i can throw a condition that the applicant will you know work with the governing body regarding adjusting the street parking on the side straight is that acceptable that's acceptable yeah i think we have to do it anyway so okay yeah oh you're back perfect timing So those are the conditions I have. The only thing that I wanted to just draw the board's attention to is a little bit of board education. Sorry to be doing this so late. I think the board planners report was honestly a little bit thin on the proofs necessary for a height variance. You guys don't get a lot of D6 height variances, and I just want to make clear that this is one area of the MLUL that sort of precedence does actually have an impact. If you look at height variances a little bit differently than other variances in particular, other D variances, the idea being that you don't want to approve something that's out of scale with the neighborhood. But in the meantime, if your zoning is out of scale with what's actually happening on the street, that would be a reason to consider a height variance. So if you've got tall structures that are, say, 15 feet taller than your zoning allows, and you have one lot in the middle that doesn't match that, but it complies, if that person comes in and asks for a height variance, you are supposed to look at the context of the neighborhood and consider that. So just like Mr. Postolano was saying, this thing two stories two and a half stories it's not really out of character with what's going on in the community like you have other nearby two-story structures some that have elements that have peaks that go up and you can have that in your downtown area those are all some things that you can consider and the board's planner letter talks about this case grasso versus spring lake heights and there's a couple key provisions in that that i'll just share with you just to edify everybody a little bit You know, talk and it talks about like why do we have height restrictions? Like why those even exist? Why is that lawful? And the idea is that it really started in the 1800s as a tool to limit density, to limit the bulk of a building size, to limit its use. And this was before floor area ratio started to come into effect. And the idea was you wanted to provide adequate light, air, and open space, and provide a desirable visual environment. So if you were going to block a view of the lake, a view of the mountains, a view of the forest, those might be reasons to to enforce a height variance or a height restriction rather. So I just share that for your edification. That's all.

And also sight lines sometimes.

Yep, sight lines, absolutely. It's too late to do a full-on seminar on hyperanswers.

Thank you. I've had a few going on.

Yeah, you've had a few, yeah.

Thank you. That was helpful. So, Board, any last questions for professionals? And we went through our conditions. Are they clear to everyone? Yes? Okay. So then we'll take a motion from the board this time.

I'll make a motion to approve the site plan as we've seen it in architectural plans as we've seen it tonight with no clock on the tower. No clock.

I'll second that. We're watching.

Including the all the conditions, including all the conditions as right into the record by our attorney.

OK, so we have a. Scott guys, she can't hear.

I'm sorry who seconded Scott, yes. OK, vice chair Reardon.

Although I'm a big stickler on the height, I do not see any detriment because of its location and being adjacent to the train tracks causing any direct impact to any properties in which would be a negative. So I do approve it.

Secretary Raymond?

Yes, I approve.

I'm sorry. Yes, I approve.

Mr. Alter?

Yes.

Mr. Friedman?

Yes.

Mr. Hitt?

Yes.

And Chairwoman Gates.

Yeah, I'd say the positive criteria were definitely proven. This is an improvement once there, and I think the owner's flexibility and openness to working with our community. So thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

All right. so at this time i'm going to open the meeting one less time to the public to see if there's anyone that wants to approach the board on any issues this evening seeing none i'll close the meeting to the public um our next public hearing is scheduled for thursday june 11th 7 30 right here for our hall council chambers do i have a motion to adjourn motion mr rear second second mr hip thank you everybody have a good evening thank you i think i forgot something