Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to our March 9th, 2026 regular meeting of the Township of Montlair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to the newspaper designated by the township for notices. Attorney Nice, now that it's March, do we have new requirements for uh public notice? We do. And uh we've already started already started that process.

Yes. Do I need to read a different introduction? No. No. Okay. Um I I I don't recall what your introduction says, but there continue to be posted on the township website. It's also Okay. It's also posted on the township website in accordance with Yes. with the requirements of the open public meeting.

In accordance with the new requirements. Yes. Okay. That's what I was looking for. Uh, this meeting is also being broadcast live on channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube. This meeting is a quasi judicial proceeding, meaning that the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law and we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. The fire exits are to my right, which is your left, and also the back of the room where you likely entered. And as to the order of this evening, each application hearing begins with the applicant or their attorney giving an overview of the application and the variances that are required, if any. We then hear from any expert witness the applicant may have to help explain the application and why variances are required. The board members may ask questions of the applicant, the attorney, and their expert witnesses. And if you're a member of the interested public, but are not a witness in the case, you'll have two opportunities to speak. At the end of each witness's testimony, you'll be given the opportunity to ask the witness questions about his or her testimony. And that's not the time to tell the board what you think of the application. That'll come later. And then to ask questions, you'll have to come to the front of the room, give us your name and address, and then ask your questions related to the witness's testimony only. After the applicant's witnesses, any objector and objector witnesses have been heard, members of the audience will then have their second opportunity to step forward. And at that time, you may express your opinions, positive or negative, about the application, and comments are generally limited to three minutes per person. And at the end of the applicant's case, the objector case if any, and public comment, the public hearing is then closed and the board members discuss and discuss the case and vote. At that time, you'll be able to listen to our discussion, but you will

not be able to participate. Next up is roll call. Mayor Baskerville present. Mr. Boris is excused. Mr. Campbell is present. Councelor Damato here. Vice Chair Graham here. Mr. Ian Wallally here. Mr. Files here. Miss Willis is excused. Uh, Mr. Orba present. And Chair Brod, I'm here. Okay. Next up, we have the swearing in of our board professionals. And I assume we should also swear in Miss Casm as well since she'll be giving testimony later as well. Yes, she's actually not. She's just giving a report. Okay. No, she's she signed the report. She's giving testimony. This is a public hearing.

Yes. for for an era. Get that hand up. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you may give tonight or in your case you will give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is the we have minutes from the meeting of February 9th of this year. Okay. And I have uh changes from the uh from the minutes from Chair Brod. Are there any additional changes? They just have on page two for one. Is your mic on tone?

I'm sorry. Yeah, page two for um 161 167. I um I agree with Keith's changes. Um so the property was reszoned in 216. Should we say that the whole area was the zoning in the area was changed, not just it wasn't specifically the property. We could say the property was zoned was reszoned in 2016 as part of a larger reszoning. Something like that. Yeah. So it doesn't sound like spot zoning. And then um the so instead of saying that the approved building impairs the plan, it just doesn't comply with the zoning that was put in place or something like that because it says here that the approved building does not conform

does not just yeah just doesn't conform to the plan. Is that okay? I think so. Okay. Just to make it less specific to the property itself. Thank you. Okay. Any other changes? Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Abstensions. Okay. And next up we have the resolution for 516 Bloomfield Avenue, Night Owl LLC.

Are there any changes to the resolution? Motion to approve. Motion. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. That brings us to application 2940 260 Park Street. 260 Park Street LLC. Doesn't sound like it. Is the light on? There's one of them. The light's broken. Yeah.

So, you may just It It'll still work. You just have to hold it real close. All right. Have to take it. Well, it'll still work. Just the light doesn't work. So, you have to just make sure Yeah. It's on by listening. It's frustrating because you know, Mr. Chairman, I used to have a problem forgetting to hit the button and now I I'm programmed to hit the button and then it doesn't react. So, we we appreciate that and uh you know, we'll we'll we'll see if somebody can fix the light.

So, okay. Um so, good evening everyone. Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of the uh uh applicant 260 Park Street LLC. Um this is a con, as you know, continuation of the site plan application for this property which we commenced back in November. Um we've had several hearings. We were last here I believe in January and um after the January hearing, we had two postponements. one just to allow some additional time to um make final plan revisions which we've done and then we also ago which caused a postponement. So we're hoping I think you know we should definitely finish up this application tonight can tell you what I have uh in store. I have some very brief testimony from Mr. Anderson regarding the recent plan revisions. Um, and then following his uh testimony, I have our last witness, which will be William Stimmel, who will testify uh as a traffic engineer in support of the parking variance and and and as a professional planner, and at that point, we'll we will have completed our uh our presentation. So, um having said that, I would ask that um well, Mr. Anderson, you're still you understand you're still under oath.

I understand. Okay. Maybe hit it one more time and see. Tap into maybe move it closer to you. It's not working. It should. If you tap it. Yeah. We'll just give him the handheld. That works.

Thank you. So uh after last meeting we made some minor revisions to the plans uh based on some of the comments that we received. Uh the the biggest being being uh the change slight change in the building so that all of the offsets are either zero or six feet. Uh that changed the building footprint ever so slightly. There's very minor changes to the areas of each uh apartment, but they're all conforming in size and it is a minor increase in the change in impervious coverage. I think now it's 182 square feet over. Still not a a plan that requires storm water management, but as we had before, we added the storm water management system in for 500 square feet. So, it's it's a trivial change uh in terms of the area contributing, but it's still the same design. Um we uh we revised uh the lighting plan and I believe we finally got it this time. We have some intensity issues uh underneath the building. Still need relief for for that. that was never really going to go away, but I believe we got the uh the right uh the right intensities out in the parking lot so you have safe uh movement around the site and you also have uh cuto offs to the adjoining properties so that we meet the requirements there and um

I I think that's probably it. Just um a couple of follow-ups. The so you the you talked about adjusting the offsets of the building. We're talking about on the southerntherly side. That's correct. And that was done in order to address the issue as to there being a possible setback variance depending on the That's correct. Thereation of the ordinance. So we made those changes to try to eliminate that issue. That's correct. We eliminate we did that to eliminate the issue. Um, we had uh the board I believe had voted that they thought it was going to be conservatively going to be a variance. So, we decided to eliminate that. I saw the I saw the plan. How did you do that?

Well, we took every part of the building that was closer to the line and we made it exactly on the line. Every part, not the whole building, just not the whole building, but then there's other parts that stepped back and we stepped we made sure they stepped back at least six feet. There was no three and a half foot step back or four foot step back. It's six feet. So now it complies to either the zero or six. So the concern about fire safety goes away because apparently if somebody builds on the line, the chimney effect will not be there because it'll either be right up against the building or six feet off.

But you did in little pieces. You didn't you didn't do it, I think, by having the whole facade. So you've got these gaps. Yeah. Yeah, there are there are gaps. If somebody builds it to the line, there will be a gap coming through, but it'll be conforming to the setback requirement. Would you be able to show it on the screen? So, you could show everyone. Well, I I don't have it here. Well, maybe.

Well, I've got it here. Janice can pull it up on the screen. probably the third sheet. Yeah, it is. Let's make it bigger, I think.

Yeah. You know, if you don't mind, I'll get up and point to it on the screen. Try not to stand in front of the projector. Paul, before you do that, just for the record, the plan that's on the screen now, and the plan that you're discussing is the latest revised site plan dated February 2, 2026. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Which which we should probably mark if we haven't already marked for the record.

Yes. I I actually pre-marked them. Sorry about that. Um A25, the revised architectural drawings dated February 4th, 2026. A26 are the revised engineering drawings dated February 2nd, 2026. A27 is the revised planning report dated February 13, 2026. And A28 is the revised engineering report dated February 18th, 2026.

And should we also mark the the other planning report that was issued to address the zoning question that was raised? Sure. That would be A29. That was the planning report dated March 3rd. Thank you.

Sorry. See if I can come. So, the front of the building was a very small fraction off the line that allowed for, you know, coping or a fenistration above to be right on the line. That was removed. And now the building is exactly on the line through here. At this point, we've always had the building jump in uh as part of the design and and go down and come out. These areas here are all six feet off the line now here. And the columns that project out that the structure of the building itself are set exactly on the property line. So, we're 6 ft all the way down after this uh bump, which was there before. And they just all came in that Where's the um Can you show Where's the line of the building itself?

Well, I'll try to do it without getting in front of the thing, but the line of the building is on the property line in here out down to the six and then out for each one of these structural elements. I don't see a six foot dimension on the plan. Is it just assumed to be six feet? I see other dimensions. Well, it is. Where is it? Where is it noted to be six feet on the plan?

How do we have to look at the It's on the screen. It's on the planning board website. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out where we actually put that dimension.

We have all the zeros shown. Um, take that page. on the architectural.

Well, yes, that that's probably the easiest thing. Not on this not on the projector screen, but on the architectural drawing uh A101, there is a dimension shown as uh 6 feet and 1/2 inch and that is towards the rear of the property. And that's a consistent line. It's there's no variation in that line all the way from the back to the to the front except for those columns that we spoke of.

I'm looking at 101.01 O00.00. Oh, okay. But there's no there's no property line there. I assume that's the property line. So, it's not the best way to document the six feet. I I mean, it's six feet in the middle of space. There isn't a property line shown. The property line is shown on the civil drawing. So your architectural drawing doesn't have a property line show. Maybe it does. I don't know. There is a dotted line, but it I'm not sure what that is. There's a line that says 03 on it, but it seems to bisect the columns. So my testimony is that the main bulk of the building is 6 feet off the line. It would have to be six feet off the line in an asbuilt condition or else it would create a violation of our approval if board so grants one. But the intention of the revisions was to make it totally conforming to the uh setback requirement and even the unique interpretation of the setback requirement that we discussed at the January meeting and possibly the December meeting. So, uh, yeah, my testimony is that it's either zero or six, except for that bump out or the bump in that I outlined on the, uh, exhibit board. Um, well, very clever. Um, I don't think that this I don't, you know, I don't think this necessarily meets the intent of what it is. I think that

by having these structural peers go out and have no yard at specific points and have a yard of six feet, I guess technically it would I don't see a gap in the way the language is written right now that would um not make this allowable. I certainly don't think this was the intent of what of what a zero or no yard is, but um I mean when this is put in practice, the building is the whole building is either on it. It's not these I mean the definition of a yard does call out exclusive of cornises, chimneys, eaves, uncovered porches, and handicap ramps or lifts. It doesn't say structural elements. I would put a structural element in sort of that same category. That's an exception to um you know not qualifying for a building that would meet the definition or not measuring the building to qualify for a yard. But that's it was our preference not to move those. But because of the discussion and the and the diversity of of

opinion on it, we figured it was safer just to make it zero. But we would rather have not moved it at all the the the columns because we don't see any fire element associated with it. But this is this the big thing that you did though is you moved the building because the building before was a lot closer, right? It wasn't six feet. It was four or something. Yeah. Yeah. So I I don't think the columns at that point. I mean, well, we didn't want to go come here. Yeah. Discuss it all night and then come back the next month with it on the line. Okay. So, uh, yeah, that that's kind of what our thought process was. If the board wants us to move them the columns back to where they were before as part of it, that we're okay with that.

But that's the justification of not. So, they don't think we can otherwise.

Well, if it creates a variance, we don't want to have a variance. The intent is to avoid any issue of variance and that's why we did it even though we would have preferred not to but we would rather have the board decide this application based upon the single variance being parking without any other additional variances. So to the extent the plans might need to be you know revised or be reconciled with each other you know we would be happy for the board to impose a condition along those lines. But again, as Mr. Anderson already stated, the building will be set back 6 feet or zero feet, which is in compliance with the literal reading of the setback ordinance.

Do the um sorry, do the structural elements that are shown on the ground floor, are they perfectly vert vertical? Are they on the line all the way up through the top of the building or do they set back? They they are until they come underneath the garage. Okay. And then from that point on, horizontally. They go underneath the garage. Okay. And then from Could I could I stay on that question just for a moment, Mr. and Wall-E? Uh do you have the architectural plans right in front of you? I do. Uh A102.00. Yes. Uh figure two, the west elevation. Oh, I haven't seen that.

So Mr. And while he was asking about those structural elements, do they all look the way that one is shown where it comes down straight and then slides out to the south to what I'll say tag the line. What? Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. A102.00. Okay. Uh, figure two near the top. It's the west elevation where you can see I think this relates to your question, Mr. In where the structural element kind of moves out to the south. and make it three to what I'll say tag the line. Yeah. So that's that's not either no yard or

I don't know if your microphone's on, Mr. Yinwali. I just my my question is are they all the same if you know? And if not, maybe we need the architect here to explain. Well, the architect is here. Uh just confirmed that that can be revised. It's just a ver just make it a vertical element. any decorative feature of it will be removed and cutting it back to look differently will just change. So just make it zero all the way up. Zero. So you're going to you're going to revise it to make it zero all the way up and then then horizontal into the building. Okay. Feel a little bad. I I think that's going to look better because this this

configuration I I see what it's trying to do and I appreciate your creativity, your team's creativity and trying to meet, you know, the the interpretation of the zoning. Um, but it did look a little odd to me. So, I'm glad we're going to fix that. Okay. Mr. Ianwall, you may have more questions. I interrupted.

No, I No, I I I see what's being done there. So is the So at that point it's no yard because it's not zero. It's actually no. It's either no yard or where there's a yard. Um and where there's a yard it's six feet. But there's a lot of these little yards. I I I very clever. Do you have anything else? The only other thing that I wanted to mention is we had reviewed both the the planning and engineering memos uh that came out regarding this latest submission. We have no issue with addressing any of the comments and particularly in the engineering uh memo. There was one that we previously discussed about the uh replacing the sewer in the street. I believe Allan indicated should be prorat a share if there is something wrong with it which is standard. But I think

all the other issues are are fine that we can address. The only other issue which really we leave it to the board's discretion as Mr. Hernandez pointed out in his last report. The issue is to whether the board wants flashing lights in the sidewalk to warn pedestrians. Now that was done in the Westerly building. Mhm.

We don't think it's necessarily ne it's needed here because there's much more of a setback um between the building and the sidewalk as cars are coming out. Whereas the westerly was much closer to the sidewalk and I think was needed more there for safety. But again, if the board wants it, we'll we'll put the flashing sidelight um flashing lights in the sidewalk.

How so? While we're on that topic of safety, it looks like the opening that was in, you know, right underneath the building towards the street is now gone. So on the south side of the building, there used to be, if I recall correctly, kind of an archway type of thing. I see the architects nodding behind you. Um, so specifically, uh, let's get to figure A-102.00. So this is still in the architectural plan,

right? A-102.00. And this is going to be figure four, the south elevation. So all the way to the right on that where you've got that now flat brick wall all the way down near the entrance to the driveway. There used to be a big opening there. And if I recall correctly, you testified about the safety element of seeing cars coming out. Um it looks like that's gone now.

It is gone. I don't know that that pertains to the car uh cars. I think it's set back from the street a considerable amount. So, uh people would be stopping at the street to look for, you know, before the sidewalk and um and and so I don't think any opening in that area is is necessary. We are at least a full car length between that area and and the front. So, uh, we do have the speed humps also in there for safety, slow people down. So, when they do come out, it will be going slow to get over those. So, okay. Yeah. I mean, given the issues you've highlighted with the sidewalk lights, I would say that's probably not the right idea,

right? Um, because we want something that works and not something that you have to maintain every single week. Um, so I I, you know, I'm on the fence about, you know, a tasteful light on the side, I'll say. You know, not like a big strobe light, not a warbler, but feel like maybe just a little something that catches somebody's eye if they're walking with their headphones on and staring down at their phone like so many folks are these days. I think that would it would be a good element to have. And I don't know exactly how you want to affect that, but I think just something that gets the attention of people on the sidewalk and not necessarily the neighbors. Yeah. I'm not sure exactly either, but if you had a building mounted one, it would be a lot more durable,

right? And uh you know, and it would just it could flash and uh certainly at night it would be more effective, but you know, and then the board is has expressed the reticence to do a chirping sound. So, uh, we can avoid that. Yes. I I something that is respectful of the residents nearby, but that's still grabs the attention. I'll leave it to you as to how you want to put that together. All right. Very good.

I had another question. Going back to the lighting, it looks like on the sidewalk it's still low. So to me it seems like the kind of thing that could be solved with maybe two more ballard lights because I see right outside the entrance door on the north side you have a three whereas it should be 0.5 right. So maybe a ballard light there and as I go down the sidewalk towards the um street there's an indication that there's a 0.1. Yeah. But these do not model any street lighting that's out there. Is there a street light there that'll Well, I mean, I don't know exactly where it is, but I don't remember walking down Park Street in the darkness. One of

I I don't either, but you're showing on a plan a 0.1 and it's supposed to be an I'm just saying is this is just the analysis of the lighting that we're proposing on site and how that lighting impacts the the lighting at the property line. So, can you then work with our engineer and if there is a street light there and our engineer is satisfied that that will provide enough light, do nothing. But if it isn't maybe putting just one more ballard light like I I feel like that's a small small requirement that's unreasonable Mr. work together on that as part of resolution compliance should the board okay approve it

and then the one other question I had I you had a note still on the plan about um the adjoining property to the north that fence is going to remain but do I recall one of the earlier hearings you all said you were going to put in your own fence. I think that the testimony was that there was a substantial amount of landscaping proposed along that line and it was a more of a vegetated buffer there as opposed to needing the fence. Okay. And so that's that's what we had proposed. Okay. I couldn't recall the testimony. I just want to make sure I understood what your plans were. Okay. That's those are all the questions I had. Other questions from the board? No questions from the public of this. I have one question. Is that okay?

Sure. Um, we don't have much time before we turn over to the public, so ask away.

I I I just have a quick question. There were two comments from the public last time that were asking about the rationale for mirroring the property uh having the retail on the other end. Um, I I recall this uh from the last meeting. I just would like to hear your rationale for not going in that direction and maintaining it this way. I do I do see the public's um perception where like they would have a lot of people coming in and out of that retail environment close in closer connection to the uh lower density residential versus the higher uh um density that we happening on the other end. Um and I just want to you know get allow you to get explain it before we hear from the public. So my thinking on that is that you have more noise associated with cars coming in and out of the building and on on when it's closer to the residential side than you do pedestrians coming out of a commercial establishment. So I think that if you did mirror the building, you would be creating more of a nuisance for the people next door than than less. So, I mean, it is it I don't know that's a a tremendous difference between the two, but I think it's at least 6040 7030 kind of thing where it's better the driveway where we have it and keeping the cars uh that make more noise farther away from the other uh lower density residential. and and and if you still hear from the public that they would rather have uh the building mirrored, would you consider it? Just asking.

I in fairness, we've spent a lot of time and money to get to this point to go back now with a new set of plans and more hearings. you know, we've looked at it and my client who really wants to be a good neighbor seriously looked at that and you know, again, we think that it's better to have the park, you know, the cars coming in away from the residential and that, you know, I mean, you can argue both ways. I mean, you can do it both ways. We'd still end up,

you know, where we are now, which is a conforming site plan, fully conforming site plan with just a minor parking variance. And you know this is the way the applicant would like to to proceed. Understood. Any other questions from the board? Let me just make sure. Let me see if the board has any more. Nope. Question from the public. You well you'll have to you have to come up to the microphone. Please give us your name and address. Okay. And ask Robert. Let's Yeah. Yeah.

Where in Park Street is this? I just would like to see a photograph of it. Or if you look at the cover sheet, which I'll show you here. Yeah. Here's the intersection of uh Wang and here is the the property. So it's one, two, three, four properties from the intersection of of Wang. Okay. So, this is going to be like an apartment building there only where the hatched is. See where that that rectangle is hatched on Park Street? Yes. Okay. This sounds like an absolutely horrible idea.

Well, this this is the time for questions of the witness. You'll have a chance to make that comment. Uh probably later tonight. Um I have no idea why you're doing this other than No, this is sir. This is for questions about his testimony. Okay. Well, I have no questions about the testimony. Okay. Then you'll you'll have a chance to express your opinions about the application as a whole after I assume one more witness. Only one I think Claire Silata 279 Park Street. Good evening. So what concerns me as you know by now is the traffic, children, cars and I am not hearing

what happened to the idea of doing a scoop out for the parking so that Uber uh and um other delivery places wouldn't have to go under the building but not double park. They could actually, you know, that cutout that you could cut out right to the sidewalk and allow 15minute pickup there so that there would be a place for them to stop without uh blocking anybody's driveway and it would be really easy to ticket them if they didn't obey that because it would be there. Plus, it would leave the street with some room to pass back and forth. So, what happened to that idea? Well, I I think that may be functional for Uber and other deliveries, but what that would essentially make this fairly narrow lot one big driveway, completely different than the rest of the street, and it wouldn't wouldn't look the rest like the rest of

But this is the front. I know. In in the front, you'd have a driveway in and a driveway out. No, no, I didn't mean that. I mean, I think she's talking about in the street. You're talking in the street. On the street there's there's the sidewalk and then there's the grass. Right. Right. I'm saying get rid of the grass. Make an egress or an ingress. I don't know what the word is. So that a uh for delivery only and pickup only. They could come in

without doing what happens now. So that was my question the last time and it's my and so I'm I'm wondering could is that possible because it would really really aid in the traffic flow if they could move off the main drag a little bit um for pickup and delivery. I Well, first it's not on the property that part of the application. It's in the municipal rightway.

Oh. Could could we widen the the street there and bump it out for this one use? I if the town thought that was the best alternative, we could uh but I don't know that it it is. I mean, I think maybe you could stripe the existing pavement as you know in that area for pickup and delivery because if you if there you know there's parking there now that is eliminated is it's you know it's just for pickup and delivery. It takes away from other people.

Okay. Well, there's 165 deliveries, over 200 deliveries and pickups a day before the pizza place opens or the bagel place. So, to me, that's not taking it away from the people. My question again is what's going to make it safer for these guys to zip in, grab their stuff, and get out without endangering either double parking or parking in the driveway or parking in a neighbor's driveway. So, that was that was my question. And I don't think it would take away from the look of the building or if the if the store is in the front of the building, that makes really good sense to me because it's much shorter a distance for the guy to get out of his car, run, grab it, and go. But, so that's my question.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from the public for this witness? Yeah. What's the motivation for this building other than making money?

I'll answer that. The client is building a building. This building's in the neighborhood commercial. It's part of the Watch on Plaza Business District. It has the same zoning requirements as the entire Watchung Plaza business district. This building's been designed entirely in compliance with all of the requirements that are permitted in in the neighborhood commercial business district. In other words, the building's been designed to give the town what the town has said it wants for this property. You may not like it because it's next to a residential neighborhood totally, but it's in but it's the zone line is between the the business district and I just wonder I just wonder where we stop.

Okay. Well, that was a a a street of like beautiful houses and now we're going to put an apartment building there. Have you seen the house that's on this property currently? I don't care. Okay, let's This is getting a little more to No, no, no. Let me let me speak. Well, no, because this is more comments and I I think this is not the time to have an argument with the the attorney for the applicant. Well, the developer should be called up then. I Well, it's I mean, I I just hate what's going on in this in this community. I I I understand that. You know what? And this is one this is one we're here to hear one application for one property.

Okay. So, you want to cut me off? Well, if you have a question for this witness about his testimony, I'm happy to let you My question is, what is the benefit to the community? And that's not anything he testified to answer that and I think I think their next You know what, sir? I have to say I have I'm I'm getting no respect, okay, for you guys either to allow this this community to be taken over by developers. This is this is for questions of this witness. And what I'm trying to say is that I think the next witness is actually the one that will tell you about the benefits to the community

based on what the you know this is the applicant's planner I think should be next and I suspect he will tell you what he thinks are the benefits to the community of this application but we will see what his testimony is. Any other questions from the public for this witness's testim or about this witness's testimony? I see none. Okay. So, thank you. All right. My next and may um uh Chair Brodok, sir.

Um there's been some question about whether or not the property is in the one of the residents wrote a very detailed letter about whether or not this is properly zoned. When will we cover that during this hearing? That's been covered by the latest memo from the planning department which confirms it's been zoned neighborhood commercial since at least 1974. I have some evidence that shows that that's probably wrong. I brought it with me and I'd like to I'd like to show it to you because I think it's rather I was actually suddenly I I I think that is something that just a little late Tony.

Well, we just got the memo. We've been we've had three four hearings on this and now you're questioning I mean, we've had planning memos and we presented the application as being in the neighborhood commercial zone and there's, you know, a neighbor raised an issue. Janice went back and researched all the zoning maps going back to at least 1974, which shows that the zone line has remained the same and this property is a neighborhood commercial. Why are you I don't understand why you would bring this up. That's wrong. When we're just about finished with the presentation, I think as someone called into question the zoning, Mr. Trombulac I think normally it wouldn't well normally we wouldn't go back and read all the zoning maps going back to 190 whatever when this okay

municipality was founded 18 something not sure so I think that that letter and Miss Thally's memo is what triggered I assume Mr. Ian Wall-E to look into it as well. We just we just got it in our packet this week. Right. So, I took the time to look at the maps and I have I have um a five page there's 20 of them here. Um you're welcome to um take a look at them. You can pass them around. And I don't know, Mr. Trump like if you want your planner to address this or I guess read it. Take a minute to read and we should mark this as board exhibit.

Are we on B3 at this point? Thank you.

May I start? Uh, let's just mark this first before you you can Yep. get going.

B3. So, we'll mark this is um says 2026-03-09 regarding 260 Park Street Zoning Planning Board meet PB meeting A. Ian Wall-E five pages. So, it's a five-page document set marked B3. Mr. Ian Wallally, please proceed.

Um, so I read the memo. I thought the the memo from the resident was very detailed. Um and I also read Miss Tally's memo. So I thought that um what I would do is start with the current tax map which is sheet number one and lot 18. That's 260 Park. That's the 12th parcel from the corner of Gordonhurst if you can look at the numbers. So if you count one from that I think it's a dentist building that's on the corner there and you count 12. Um, and then if you go to the 1979 map and you count 12 parcels, the 12 parcels is is still in R2, which is 260 Park. And on that map, the lots are very clearly defined. And you can see that number 12 is in the R2. If you go to the next page, you look at that's the next page is just a blowup of the same map, 1979. And you can see the 12th is still in R2 which comports with the tax map on the first page. Um, and then if you go to the 2006 resolution is not that great, but even where it's yellowed, the 12th parcel is um in R2. And also one thing I want to point out is that if you go back to the tax map, um, lot 12, which is the, you know, lot 18, its rear property line has kind of a northeastern slant to it. And that's the last property in the R2. If you look at the others, the next property that is in the NC in the historical maps has a southeastern back um, property line. So that's two ways to identify that this property. And I think that the resident is correct. It probably um when the new

um digital maps were created. Um there was very likely a mistake. And then the last um piece I have is a memo that I wrote to Janice and Graham Pedto and it's about the house that I used to live in on I grew up in on 37 Cloverville Place and the memo and this is when the digital maps when the online map was being created and we were reviewing some of the zoning and I said hey 37 Clover Hill is not C2 it should be R2 and it was probably you know that way for generations. So the draft of those plans, I mean, I witnessed an er an error on a property that I used to live in. It was C2 and it was changed to R2, which it should have been, and it was at the end of the block. So based on this, I'm quite sure that the mistake was made when the historical zoning maps were not uh recorded accurately when we went digital. So your position is contrary to the town planner's position as to the for this property.

The town all due respect all due respect I don't we weren't given this specificity in terms of looking at those maps very closely and comparing it to the t to the tax map. I just did research based on the maps that were in that in that memo and I very simply just counted the parcels and matched them up and looked at the position of it and it looks like the online map is incorrect. I don't know what to do. I'm just I'm just giving you the the online zoning map that's on the town website

confirms that this property is in the NC zone. That's the current zone map that's on the website that my client certainly relied upon when he purchased this property. I I'm not debating that. I'm I'm If we're using the We're using the historical maps in the memo as proof as to why it's zoned properly. Why can't we use the historical maps to also determine that it's not zoned properly? I'm just following the logic in the argument that was presented to us. And I'm not a lawyer. I'm just I'm just looking at the detail. And usually when I look at details, I'm not too wrong. But um you know I don't know what the

I don't I do not know what it means legally. I'm just saying this is what I see in the maps.

No, and and I respect that, Tony. I think everyone in the room respects that. The problem is that as Mr. Tremulac points out, the zoning map that's online for shows that this property is in fact in the NC zone. And as Mr. Tremulac said the applicant relied on that zoning for purposes of this application. To the extent there is the necessity of an interpretation of the zoning and the zoning map and the zoning ordinance, the board of adjustment is empowered under the municipal land use law to consider that that question specifically. So I don't think that this this venue is the appropriate place for that question.

But but to lay out options were are we able to request the zoning board of adjustment evaluate this? It's or is that immaterial based on No. Um it would be it would be well that's it's I've never seen a situation like this where you have a planning board member questioning the zoning

and that interpretation can only occur through the zoning board of adjustment and so who makes that application to the zoning board I'm not prepared to say Mr. and Wall-E could this board I suppose could the applicant could or an objector could but if the issue is where does the where does the boundary lie that is an interpretation that only the zoning board can can consider.

Well all I would say is you know I was aware of the issue raised by the neighbor And I received a copy of Janice Tally's report March 3rd, 2026 as you all received where the issue was reviewed by your town planner went back and looked at the maps and her conclusion is that the review of the historic zoning map showed that the property was included in the NC zone since at least 1974. Why isn't that sufficient to resolve this issue?

It will be for purposes of this application before this board. If somebody else wants to uh have the zoning board of adjustment, take a look at it for an interpretation under 70 of the MLU. That is within the purview of whoever does that. But I believe that the applicant is entitled to rely on its property being in the NC zone and this board should continue this application with that understanding at this point.

Arthur, what is the um what is the law? Um uh can you describe what for example let's go back to the example of 37 Cloverville Place that if I didn't notice it I happen to notice it because I was looking specifically for errors but most people wouldn't know if their property is reszoned accidentally um whether it's in favor or not. So what would the law be that okay there was let's say let's say for example let's say there is a mistake in the online zone map that becomes the law or is the law the last time a zoning map was documented or I I just I don't know it

it's not a question of what is the law it's a question of the reliance on what people know which is exactly what the applicant did it relied on what the township said this zone was. Okay. So, if the zoning board renders an interpretation, well, I don't want to I don't want to prejudge what's going to happen to this application, but the zoning board is within its rights to render an interpretation based on evidence presented before it as to whether or not this particular property is in the NC zone. It's a it's a straightforward interpretive question at least in my humble opinion.

Yeah. Because the other um the other I mean I understand why the R2 zone included this property. This property has no commercial behind it. The property that is in the NC zone has commercial behind it. So I could see that 25 years ago or whenever someone would have say here's a logical place to draw the line because here's some commercial there. But there is no commercial in lot 12 or the you know lot 18. I'm sorry. Okay. But that's beside the that's beside the point right now. Thank you.

So just to be clear, this body has no right to adjudicate this question. But we can do any of the other questions that we have the powers to adjudicate. So we should probably just as a practical matter continue with what we're doing and then just let everybody know that if they would like to appeal this it is to our sister body and just not worry

to be clear about your being clear if the board determines let's let's just say let's just assume either way it doesn't matter if the board denies the application or grants the application that becomes res judicata Meaning that's a decision of the board that can't and won't be overturned except if there is an action brought in superior court and the judge in that court determines that the board this board acted in an arbitrary unre arbitrary capriccious and unreasonable manner. Exactly. So we would just continue with what we're normally doing and set aside. We're hearing this application

presumptively the property is in the NC zone. Exactly.

Mr. Trumulac, I think you had a another witness that you wanted to call unless you're well for next curveball to come for Well, if you need a couple minutes to to read and No, we're not. He's He's ready because we're not I mean, this is been decided for purposes of this application. Am I correct? This board has to assume that the property is neighborhood commercial.

The board hasn't made that decision. It's simply hearing your application and presumptively it's in the NC zone. It is assuming that the property but the board is not being asked to make that decision. Has no ability to interpret the ordinance map or the zoning map actually. Okay. Do we need more advice or we we Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. William Stimmel, my next witness. Sir, do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

May I ask you to state your full name and business affiliation for the record? Sure. William Stimmel, St. Mel. I'm with Stimmel Engineering. My professional address is PO Box 280, Rutherford, New Jersey. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Stimmel. Um, I know you've appear appeared before this board on several applications testifying as a planner. I'm not sure whether you've testified before the board as a professional engineer. Whether you have or you haven't, I would like you to um um discuss your credentials as a professional engineer and your qualifications and experience as such and particularly in the field of traffic engineering.

Sure. I'm a graduate of NJIT with a degree in civil engineering. I've been employed for the past 26 years in the state of New Jersey as an engineer and a planner with a particular focus in traffic engineering. Uh, I've been a licensed engineer since 2004, a licensed planner since 2010. I'm a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and a certified professional traffic operations engineer. I also uh had previously served as an adjunct at NGIT in the civil engineering department teaching a senior level design class in traffic and transportation engineering. and I've testified in front of many boards including both the uh planning and zoning boards in Oclair.

Okay. And as a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, I assume you're familiar with the various manuals published by that or professional organization. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um I'm offering Mr. Stimmel as professional engineer and as a professional planner. And you say your licenses are current in both. Yes. Licenses are current in both. They're up for renewal in uh April and May this year. I'm familiar with the April one. Yes, we'll accept you as as both. And if you could just move the microphone so it's a little bit more in line with your mouth, that would be I think helpful for folks listening. Sure. Thank you. Sorry. Okay.

All right. Mr. Stimmel, you want to um you've reviewed this application. and you're prepared to discuss the um um planning considerations relating to the application as well as the most importantly the the variance that's being sought for parking deficiency. Correct. Yes, I am.

All right. So, why don't you begin by um just briefly uh discussing the existing conditions of the property and then what's proposed for the property. Uh certainly just very briefly the existing conditions are that the site consists of an irregularly shaped parcel with an area of 12,366 square ft roughly.28 acres. It's currently occupied with a two family dwelling. The existing use is non-conforming to the requirements of the zone. It's primarily a commercial zone and permits residential as part of a mixeduse building. So if the site were vacant and were to be were to be developed with the two family that exists there now that would require a devariance. Uh the property is bound by residential lots to the north and to the west and a mixeduse lot to the south and then Park Street to the east. Um there is vehicular access to the property via curb cut along southbound Park Street. For the proposed conditions, the applicant proposes to demolish all existing structures on the subject property and construct a new three-story mixeduse building. Uh the building will have 900 square ft of commercial space on the ground floor, seven residential units on the upper floors. The seven residential units will consist of four two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units. Vehicular access again will be via a curb cut leading beneath the building to a paved parking area at the rear. Uh the majority of the paved parking and circulation areas will be covered by the building. As far as landscaping is concerned, the existing trees are to be maintained along the perimeter of the site where possible and extensive landscaping is proposed along the perimeter for aesthetic and screening purposes. I'd refer the board to architectural plan L101.00 00 which has already been testified to by Mr. Schwitzer. Uh in terms of drainage improvements on

the property, the applicant's proposing to construct a trench drain at the driveway entrance which is connected to a seepage pit within the interior of the site. And then there's extensive lighting to be provided at the building opening underneath the building and in the uh parking and pedestrian circulation areas. Okay. So would you then discuss the zoning for this property?

Certainly. Uh the site is located in the Wong Plaza Station area per the unified land use and circulation plan. The site itself is located in the NC neighborhood commercial zone. Permitted uses per ordinance section 347-90 are mixeduse buildings, retail, personal service, restaurants, business, professional and medical office, educational play center, churches, charitable institutions, municip municipal facilities, and then also uh cannabis retailers, but only on a section of Valley Road. So based on the above, the proposed mixeduse building is uh permitted use on the property, has satisfied uh the conditions and is considered to be a permitted use in the zone. Um as far as the existing development on the site and in the surrounding area, again, the site's developed with a non-conforming two family dwelling for the testimony from our client at an earlier hearing. It's currently rented to 10 college students. The rear of the property is developed with a pave parking and circulation area and a detached garage. The layout of the parking isn't exactly clear, but there's parking in the rear of the property right now for at least 12 vehicles. Lots to the north of us on Park Street are primarily one and two family dwellings. Lots to the south of us are primarily mixed use or fully commercial. And this pattern is reflective of the permitted uses in the area where the site is located. As lots to the uh south are located in the neighborhood commercial zone and the lots to the north are in the two family zone.

You talk you and you've reviewed the site plan that's been submitted and the zoning chart that's included in the site plan. Correct. I have. Yes. Okay. And can you can you indicate based upon your review of the site plan and the application everything else that's been presented this in this hearing uh what if any variances are required in connection with this application?

Sure. Uh the the first consideration is the presence of any devariances. Uh the devariances as the board knows are related to the nature of the use or the intensity of the use. I just spoke about it a moment ago, but the uh mixeduse building is permitted in the zone. We comply with the density requirement. We comply with the height requirement. So, at least based on the information available to the applicant at the time the application was filed, it's appropriately in front of the planning board. There's no Dvarianes associated with the application. Uh in terms of C variances, there have been some revisions to the plans based on comments raised from the board members and just an intent on the part of the applicant to try and make the the building as conforming as possible. And at this point, the number of variances has been reduced to just one, which is the C variance for the parking requirement. The uh minimum parking supply of 18 parking spaces required, 16 parking spaces proposed. So, we're we're too off of the parking requirement. Uh we did spend a lot of time talking internally about the the needs of the project and one of the big concerns was that the overnight parking demand for the residential component of the use be fully satisfied and it is. Uh the parking calculation provided on the plan by Mr. Anderson is based on the RSIS which gives the maximum number of parking spaces allowed. Le let's talk about the RSIS because I think we need to dive a little deeply into that. You just indicated that RSIS currently provides that

the required number of parking spaces for a two-bedroom or threebedroom is spelled out in the in those standards is now considered to be the maximum that can be required. Isn't it correct that up until a few years ago RSIS required that those were minimums? Yeah, the the board could not previously require more parking than was provided in the RSIS and now the applicant can provide no more parking than what's noted in the RSIS. So that's effectively a maximum parking for the residential component of the use. Okay. Is that a state law? Yeah. Yes. The state residential site improvement standards. We talk in abbreviations too much probably.

I just it's actually I think it's in the administrative code. Yes, it's part of the administrative code, right? So, it's an NJAC. Yeah. So, it's it's a state law and there's nothing that we can do to change that is what I'm hearing. Correct. And and the town ordinance is tied into RSIS. So, RSIS really governs in determining the parking requirements in Monontlair for residential for residential. Yes.

Right. Okay. Now, RSIS also provides, correct me if I'm wrong, that a planning board or another reviewing body may allow for fewer parking spaces when there are, you know, considerations or factors that justify fewer parking. Is that right?

Correct. There are four character uh four conditions that are referenced in the RSIS as specifically being a valid basis for reducing the parking requirement. The first is household characteristics which is a category of census data that talks about the vehicles available per household in the municipality. The second is access to mass transit which I think is straightforward enough. Uh the third is geographic location which means the the nature of the site and the surrounding area and the fourth is off- streetet parking res offsite parking resources which generally refers to street parking but can also refer to community or mun municipal parking. The RSIs also says that where housing is included in a mixeduse development, a shared parking approach to the provision of parking shall be permitted. Okay. Then what can you elaborate on the shared parking? I mean that's a it's a mandatory provision in RSI. A shall be permitted shared parking approach.

It's a shell statement. Yes. Okay.

Um the the board I'm sure is probably familiar with the concept of shared parking. But basically where you have two different types of uses. There's an understanding that those uses, if they each require 20 parking spaces, may not require 40 parking spaces in conjunction because their peak demand for parking varies at different times of day and days of the week. Um, so for example, uh, the proposed restaurant and the residential apartments upstairs would be a valid situation where you could apply a shared parking concept. Uh, it's mentioned several times. the uh the idea of shared parking that is mentioned several times in the unified land use and circulation element both for the township as a whole but specifically for the Wong Plaza area. Um the land use plan also notes that the parking standards used by the township are generally used for suburban areas with minimal transit services and heavily segregated land uses which is not typical for Montlair or this area of Montlair. Uh I did do a shared parking analysis. It was based on uh information published by the IT and is similar to the example used in the unified land use plan. It's basically a spreadsheet where I took the parking requirement as calculated on Mr. Anderson's plan for a total of 20 parking spaces for the proposed development. That's prior to the application of the electric vehicle credit. I looked at the weekday and weekend hourly percentage occupancy for those parking components, both the residential and the restaurant component of the use, and added it together to find out when the peak parking demand would occur and found out that the peak demand is actually 14.97 spaces. So rounded up to 15 during the Saturday evening peak period. Uh the parking demand for the site based on the shared

parking analysis exceeded 14 parking spaces a few times both on the weekday and on the weekend but was generally much lower. Before you go any further, you mentioned the spreadsheet that lays all this out. Yes. All right. And showing you this document that says share parking analysis revised January 12, 2026. Is that what you're referring to? That's it. All right. Let's let's have this marked and distributed. So to the board and maybe you can just explain it a little bit more detail with the board having the benefit of the 2530 number because you added it 8:30 8:30

and this is the shared parking analysis from Mr. Stimmel and Mr. Stimo, what was the reference date for the IT publication? Uh, it's the sixth edition of parking generation, which I want to say came out roughly two years ago. Okay. Did it take into account the the new way of working in the co era? Do you

It does the the the the parking numbers and the trip generation numbers as well are are updated on a rolling basis. older uses or outdated data is phased out over over a period of time. Um the for the most part and certainly for something like uh residential use there has not been wild swings in the data as you might think. I think that COVID period where everyone was working at home was uh unfortunately for for many people short-lived and and now office numbers are returning to a little bit more of what they had been prior but yes it is updated. Okay. Thank you.

So, if you look at I think everyone has it by now. If you look at that exhibit that was just handed out, the shared parking analysis revised January 12th. At the top of the page, there's some general information about the residential parking requirement, the restaurant parking requirement, and again, that's based on the calculation on Mr. Anderson's plan. It provides the specific edition and section of the IT parking generation book that was used as the basis for the percentages on the table. So the number of parking spaces comes from Mr. Anderson's plan. The percentages come from the IT data and then it's broken out on an hourly basis for both the residential and the restaurant component of the use for both the weekday and the weekend. So the column on the right, the bold numbers are the combined parking requirement based on the components of the use as they fluctuate throughout the day. And if you if you look at the data, if you look at the percentages, it makes sense. The restaurant, for instance, isn't uh going to be open in the morning. It shows the peak in the weekday midday period and then another smaller peak in the weekday evening and then a peak again. It's closed again in the morning on a on a weekend and shows a peak in the early afternoon on the weekend. The residential, as pretty much every residential development, the peak parking demand is overnight when people are at home. They're home from work, they're home from shopping, restaurant, school, whatever else they might be doing and experiences 100% of the parking demand during the overnight period. So if you if you look at those numbers and refer to the column on the right, the peak for both the weekday and the weekend period, the highest single hour is Saturday at 6 p.m. with a peak

parking demand of 14.97 spaces. So that's still below the 16 parking spaces that are provided, excuse me, on the subject property. So this shared parking analysis was performed in compliance with the uh methodology spelled out in the IT manual. Correct. Yes. Which is used by traffic engineers.

Yeah. The the IT publications are are sometimes referred to as the the Bible of traffic engineering. That's where most of our data comes from both for parking and for trip generation. uh the the way this study was done is in keeping with other shared parking studies I've done in the past and as the the chairman had questioned the the percentages may change over time but the the big picture of it stays the same let's say

okay so the the conclusion that is reflected in your calculations and the methodology and the schedule that that's been admitted that basically confirms that given the fact that there are different peak hours for the residential versus the restaurant and you make the adjustments based upon the that shared, you know, the fact that they'll share the same parking spaces. Um, the highest parking requirement at any time of the week for this project would be 15 parking spaces. Correct. Correct. Okay. And 16 are provided. 16 are provided. Yes.

Okay. Uh just getting back to some of those other factors that the RSIS says are reasonable basis for consideration of a parking reduction census data. I looked at the household characteristics, the vehicle ownership per household for this particular census tract in Montlair and showed 1.7 spaces per dwelling unit across all dwelling types, which works out to 11.9 spaces for the residential component of the use compared to 14.3, which is what was shown on Mr. Anderson's plan. Uh talks about access to transit. Obviously, we're close to Wong station. We're close to bus routes. Uh there's a discussion of the geographic location and certainly this is a walkable and bikable neighborhood. Um and that would be appropriate in this location and then available off-site parking resources. Uh I did take a look at the on street parking utilization in the area. Uh one of the prior members of our team, I believe it was Mr. Danti, but I could be wrong, said that he anticipated that the residents of the building would park underneath the building. The employees of the business would park underneath the building, and most of the patrons associated with the with the business would park on Park Street or or walk or take other means to get to the property. Um, and from my experience, I I believe that to be a fairly accurate statement. Uh so the availability of some on street parking I think is beneficial to the application. So I looked at on street parking on Park Street between Wung and Gordonhurst which is the next cross street to the north. I did these counts back in November thinking I would get to testify three hearings ago. Um, but I I

was out there Thursday, November 13th from 11 to 2:00 p.m. 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and found a minimum of 22 parking spaces in that section of Park Street. I went again on Saturday, November 15th, from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. and found seven parking spaces available. And this is the lowest number in that in that window, 12 to 2. And then again on Tuesday, November 18th from 5:00 pm to 7 pm and found a minimum of 43 parking spaces available. So the distance from the site to park in Gordonhurst is about 700 ft. It's about a 3minut walk using a standard uh design speed of 4T per second. And then once you get to that intersection to the north, the west, and the east of it, the street parking is nearly 100% available. I I that's where I parked when I went to the site to do these counts so as not to include myself in the in the data. Uh so there is available parking even at the busiest time of the week. There were at least seven parking spaces available.

Okay. Then um would you discuss the uh criteria for granting the 1C variance and your provide your analysis and your opinion as to whether the variance criteria are satisfied in this application?

Yes. The applicant has to demonstrate that the positive and negative criteria have been satisfied in order for the board to grant the requested variance relief. And again, we're down to one C variance associated with this application. The lot dimensions, the coverages, the setbacks all comply uh based on the revised plans that have been submitted. So the one variance is for the parking, which would come under the heading of the C2, the flexible C for the positive criteria argument where the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits in granting the variance outweigh any detriment. Purpose A is the health, safety, morals, and general welfare. And that's advanced by the fact that the applicant is redeveloping a property largely in keeping with the requirements of the zone. It's permitted use. We comply with the density. We comply with the height. We comply with all the bulk requirements. We just don't comply with the parking requirement. As noted in the board planners review letter and also based on my review, the unified land use element of the master plan mentions that this lot and the adjoining lots uh to the north and south are extremely deep and specifically says that this lot could support additional development with uh parking between the buildings and the railroad line. Um, this project accomplishes land use goals for the area of providing clear pedestrian connection between the parking and the front sidewalk, adding quality landscaping improvements, and providing adequate but not excessive parking. And it does of course provide one affordable housing unit. Purpose E, which is the uh establishment of appropriate appropriate densities and again the proposed development complies with the density requirement for the zone. And then the negative criteria, the applicant has to demonstrate that this variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will where it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Based on

my review of the application and the submitted materials, I see no substantial detriment or substantial impairment based on the proposed redevelopment. We've got a permitted use in the zone. The relief we're requesting is certainly relatively minor in nature. It's just that one C variance. We have a minor parking variance where we do provide a significant amount of parking on the subject property. And there's some clear indication in my opinion from the township that there's an interest in reducing the amount of parking provided both based on the comments from the DRC meeting and from what's presented in the Wong Plaza land use plan. Importantly to to us as the applicant, the parking requirement for the residential component of the use is satisfied fully during the critical overnight period. Most of Montlair doesn't allow street parking, so we could keep all that residential parking on the subject property and satisfy it with the on-site parking requ uh on-site parking supply rather.

Okay. Um, I know you're going to talk about the uh design waivers, but I I'd like you to before you talk about the waivers that are uh requested, if you could discuss the issue of off-site traffic and you are you familiar with the case law in the state of New Jersey relating to planning board's considerations, planning board consideration of a site plan involving a permitted use and whether offsite traffic is to have any relevance to site plan approval for a permitted use.

Yes, I know a number of the residents are concerned about the traffic and it has been mentioned before in the course of the hearing. Unfortunately, the board cannot deny this application on the basis that it would add traffic to an already congested roadway. Uh the authority to prohibit or limit uses generating traffic into already congested streets or streets with a high rate of accidents is an exercise of the zoning power vested in the municipal governing body. That's based on a case called Dunkin Donuts of New Jersey versus the township of North Brunswick from 1984. It affirms an earlier decision from Lionel's appliance center versus CHID from 1978 which stated that the authority to review site plans was never intended to include the legislative or quasi judicial power to prohibit a permitted use. To put it in other words, when the municipality considered what types of land uses were appropriate for this location, they assumed that those uses would generate a certain amount of traffic and said that this is appropriate with this amount of traffic for this site when it determined that this was in the NC zone and allowed this type of mixeduse building. U the the township has effectively approved the amount of traffic generated by the proposed use. could have restricted the property to one and two family dwellings. There's a two family dwelling there now, which is of course non-conforming. Could have restricted the intensity of the use by establishing a lower density or an F requirement. I would add that the proposed apartments generate very little traffic. Uh the the rule of thumb for traffic engineering is that a single family home generates about a trip an hour during the peak times of day and an apartment is something less than that. It's a fractional trip, 6 or 7 trips per hour. Uh the proposed commercial use on the property is about as small as it can be. It's 900 square ft. The road in front of the property is straight and gently sloping. There are no sight

distance obstructions. Uh the applicant has agreed to make some modifications to the driveway in terms of providing the speed humps, possibly providing the visual but not audio cue to alert pedestrians in the roadway and the fact that the building is set back 20 ft from the property line. All of those factor into the provision of adequate safety. And for my review of the material submitted and the surrounding area, I see no significant safety consideration inherent to this use um other than what would have been considered when the ordinance was adopted allowing this type of use on the property.

Okay. And then lastly, if you can address the waivers that are requested as part of the application.

We do need a few design waivers. Uh first from the planning department letter the minimum parking dimensions 9 by19 is required 9 by18 is proposed. Uh this complies with the accepted RSIS standard of 9 by18. Certainly a very common dimension meets the residential requirement and is considered acceptable for this type of low turnover parking environment. the minimum drive aisle width where 24 feet is required. 23.5 ft is proposed. Again, a minor deviation from the ordinance standard. It's still adequate to address the typical passenger vehicles which will be entering the site. Uh keeping in mind that the parking at this location will be primarily used by the residents and will be low turnover. And then there was one I believe believe there was still one outstanding design waiver related to the lighting in the board engineers last review letter which was from February 13th which is uh lighting in a public area.5 foot candles minimum and 2.0 foot candles maximum are what's required and the lighting levels exceed 2.0 0 for a small section of the area in the um in the interior of the parking area. Um and again, this is a minor deviation which only affects a small portion of the site.

Of course, the additional lighting also provides an added safety benefit, doesn't it? Yes. In locations where you you might have pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same space, you generally want a little bit more lighting to improve visibility. And it's considered a a safety benefit. and the higher intensity lighting in uh in the the parking area would not spill out or have any effect on the adjoining property owners. Is that correct? No. All the issues with the spillover lighting which I think were limited to a small section of the property line where we above the site to the north of us have been addressed by the revisions to the site plans.

Okay. Thank you. Are no further questions? questions from the board. Uh you me Mr. Nice, did you? Okay, vice chair. Uh well, you mentioned that the um residential use generates low traffic in and out. Um my question though is about the commercial space. Uh you said it's small, but it is a pizzeria. Yeah. Um do you have any data on how much traffic that would that use specifically would generate?

Uh I did do a rough calculation of that and I would caution the the board that the the projections of site sh site generated traffic generally consider a bigger space. So the numbers are there's some fluctuation with the numbers as you get to the smaller end of the range. Um I did uh because the issue isn't necessarily the size of the commercial space, right? It's really what is in the commercial space. Yes.

And and if it's a pizzeria, it's going to be I mean there lifeblood is deliveries, right? So there's going to be quite a bit of in and out. I mean, we can't consider off property traffic, but we have to consider the on property traffic generated by that use. And considering that the peak is going to be 15 spaces and you're going to have potentially employees there and uh deliveries going in and out, how does that impact your analysis of the adequacy of the parking? The trip generation is 32 trips in an hour. So for a pizzeria is

for a 900 square foot pizzeria. So 16 vehicles approaching the site, 16 vehicles leaving the vicinity of the site. 16 and 16 out per hour um at the at the busiest hour of the week, right? Without considering the popularity of it. I'm sure we're all expecting it to be an excellent restaurant establishment, but uh that seems to me um to be much heavier intensity use than we were just talking about because the residential obviously said one an hour, right? Is for for the residential, correct? Okay. Right. One per unit.

One trip per unit. Is that what it was? One trip per unit per hour. Per hour. For a single family residence, it's about 6 or 7 for an apartment. Apartment generates slightly lower traffic volumes than a single family residence. So at peak hour, there's really one space available for 32 trips and we're still talking like they don't have a set aside area really for delivery drivers to come in and out. Correct. We have we had discussed providing one of the on-site parking spaces for delivery drivers at a past meeting. I I did not get the sense that that got any traction with the board, but I I could be wrong.

I think we're considering I think we're considering all options. I think we're just trying to get a sense of what kind of impact um this will have in that in that smaller area. I mean, we mentioned it is um an odd shaped lot, right? So, they're they're coming in and out. It's not like it's like a real easy um I guess turnaround time. If you have two delivery drivers coming in, that could cause some uh some issues. So, I I would just like a little bit um more understanding of how it's envisioning the uh delivery uh drivers, how how is that going to work? Can with the Yeah,

Mr. I'm sorry to interrupt, but my client just mentioned something very important to this discussion that I was not aware of, but given the reduction in the size of this commercial space, only 900 square feet. It's not big enough for a pizzeria. It will not be a pizzeria. So, it will not be a pizzeria. It will be a bagel shop, which is he indicated it would be So, that's confirmed. So, it's confirmed. There was indication that it was going to be a pizzeria. So, now it's going to be bagel shop. Uh, I'm assuming the hours will be different then from shop would be open till 3 o'clock in the afternoon. We're showing zero spaces in the morning and it's a bagel shop. Wouldn't we need to relook at this? Pardon me.

Wouldn't we need to relook at this? The analysis is showing zero spaces utilized in the morning. And if it's a bagel shop, I would imagine the lion share of business is done. Yeah. Yeah. But it would still be based on a percentage of the parking requirement for the zone. And I believe it would be the same parking requirement for a for a bagel place that it would be for a for a pizzeria. It doesn't the analysis that he did running down to Gordonhurst, right, was taken at a certain time of the day, which this is now all different.

I can tell you that generally earlier in the day there was more street parking available on Park Street between Wong and Gordon Hurst. I didn't specifically collect data at that time, though. It does get a little tricky on that street though because you have a lot of delivery trucks at that time. Um I've actually had one coming at me at the wrong lane. It gets a little bit tight on that on that street. Um so I think that does to Mr. Campbell's point. I think that does u change the analysis a bit. Um Mr. Stim, I have a question about the shared parking analysis. Isn't there a difference between a a bagel shop's heavier in the morning, right? Correct.

Is it? So, how does a morning intensive restaurant use compared to an evening intensive restaurant use when you considered shared parking with a residential use?

Yeah. So, if you look at the the table with the residential data, on a typical weekday, your residential parking demand peaks around 5 in the morning and then starts to drop off, picking up as you get later in the morning. So, by 10:00 a.m., you're down to half of the residential parking is being used. Uh, Saturday is a little bit more consistent. It drops off later in the day, afternoon, evening. Um, but you do experience the same thing. I think that the u uh obviously the percentages would change if it's a if it's a bagel shop versus a pizzeria, but it would shift the the peak demand for that that component of the use into the morning period. But again, it would still be based off of the 5.7 that's the requirement for the restaurant. It's just that the percentages of when those 5.7 hit would be different. Is the math constrained by the 20 units that we have to deal sorry 20 parking spaces that we have to to deal with here.

I mean you're taking percentages but is it? Yes. It's constrained. So you'll never go over 20. It assumes that you're 16. There's only 16 physical spaces. So what's our I guess forecast accuracy check here? Do you measure this against other mixeduse buildings in the area to understand how this how these projections might compare to what you can see in actuality?

It's it's operating off of the fact that the municipal parking requirement or for the residential component the RSIS parking requirement is accurate in terms of the needs of the project. any use. From time to time, you will have some overflow, but for 95% of the time, you assume that it's accurate and then it's based off of that up and down within that set of numbers, the the residential component and the restaurant component of the use. So, there is no check. Did I follow that correctly?

There's no check per se. It's a it's an argument for granting the variance. I don't believe that the residential component of the parking is going to be anywhere beyond what we've provided on the subject property. We've got a lot of census data which is real world data specific to this section of Montlair that talks about the residential component of the use. The restaurant may have a little more demand, may have a little less demand, maybe at a slightly different time of day. I believe that most of that demand is going to be via on street parking. So we did look at different times of the day, different days of the week and showed that at the lowest point, the Saturday afternoon, you have seven parking spaces available for that section of Park Street between Wong and Gordonhurst. And then, you know, it's a little bit of a walk, but beyond that, the parking to the north and the east and the west is is wide open from the northern end of that study area. Following that, I think the friction point is that if most residents are home when most of the bagel uh customers come, then if there's not enough spots, then where do they go?

Yeah, you have to park a little farther away. It's u it's a matter of functionality for the business. The uh the applicant certainly doesn't want to propose anything that isn't going to survive there. Uh he had talked about it being his family's pizza business when it was discussed as being a pizzeria. I don't know if that's still the case with the with the bagel business. I don't know. the Santi bagels if that sounds right. But um you know the it certainly wants it to be a functional business and is proceeding with the understanding that we are close not quite meeting the ordinance requirement for the parking. What's the overnight requirement again for the residential uh how many spots? The residential parking requirement is 14.3.

14.3 is required. So then there'll be potentially two spots available in the morning is what we're saying. Physical spots. Correct. Yes. Okay. Okay.

And the the census data shows a lower utiliz or lower availability of vehicles per household at 1.7 vehicles per household. With the seven units that comes out to 11.9 so 12 and that's across all types of housing. So, a large house with six bedrooms u is lumped in with apartments. Could you please read me per uh purpose D or whatever it was again? Purpose uh purpose purpose A is the health, safety, morals and general welfare. D

purpose E is the promote the establishment of appropriate population densities. D uh mentioned excess parking. I don't think I hit on D. purpose de purp purposes of the municipal land use law. You you read one that that that mentioned the phrase excess parking. I was just curious. Um hold on. I'm going to Yeah, that's not in the MLU. I think that was just your commentary on a particular u one of the factors that's in the M.

It was from the uh I think it was from the uh unified land use plan. I'm trying to find the exact reference though. It's okay.

While you're doing that, I can ask the planner a question which is um how would we uh factor in the possibility that the parking on this stretch of Park Street or one block to the north may in the future in the immediate future change? I mean that your office right now is working on a demonstration project that would limit radically the amount of on street parking on Park Street just north of Gordon Hurst. So can we take that into into account?

Uh you as a board member, you can certainly take that into account. Um but that may who knows what's going to happen with with these projects. We don't know what's going to happen. So, I I really don't know what to say with with this discussion about potential parking restrictions with the creation of a bike lane in the future. I can't answer that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nice. You had some questions, I think, earlier.

Mr. Stim, you said earlier, you testified earlier that uh you found on average something like seven spaces. Where did you look? I mean, where was I imagine you walked the Wong Plaza area? What was included in what you looked at?

I specifically looked at the area of Park Street between Wong and Gordonhurst, which is the next cross street to the north. I looked at that uh small municipal parking lot by the auto repair facility at the northwest corner of Park and Wong. I looked at the the parking immediately adjacent to the Wong Plaza commercial buildings as well as the I'm going to call it the crescent of parking that's in front of the train station. And then I I looked at the uh the municipal lot adjacent to the transit facility going further to the south where it butts up against the uh school and playground. Did you include um Wong Avenue in that as well?

I did not include Wong Avenue um was generally parked up when I was there. I I did not mention the the Crescent or the parking in front of the Wong Plaza buildings. Uh because again th those were largely parked up. I felt that given the extent of the variance that we're asking for of two spaces demonstrating that the parking availability on park was adequate. Uh there was obviously a lot of parking available in the transit lot at at certain times of day anyway, but that's not widely available. It's limited to to permit holders for most of the spaces.

And when you say the crescent, you're talking about the area that goes around the plaza. Is that what you're referring to? Correct. It's a it's a curved section of roadway between the train tracks and that small park. And then on the other side of the park is the the Wong Plaza buildings, the tutor style buildings with the the name of the street is Wong Plaza just for the record. Okay. There is a street called the Crescent as well in town. So not to get the point. Well, I did not count that. Yeah. No, no, separate part of town. But your count was on street parking. It was not the municipal parking lot over by the auto body shop when you said there.

I did I did look at that. I didn't include it in the testimony provided. So the seven spaces I think is that what you testified to the minimum number that you saw free that's just between Wong and Gordon Hurst on Park Street. Yes. Okay. Question. I don't know if this is for you or for Arthur. How should we contemplate this uh testimony considering that the basis for this analysis has meaningfully changed? What did you say? I'm curious how we should think about this. It is. You just have to speak up a little bit. I I heard you said but if you

Yeah. I'm curious how we should uh contemplate this testimony given that the basis for the analysis has meaningfully changed since the testimony started. Right? It's no longer a pizza shop. It's a bagel shop. The hours of business and traffic are meaningfully different. So, we're being asked to do math, which I can do quickly, but what I'm curious how we should think about this as a board.

Conclusions change as a result of the bagel shop in terms of the shared parking analysis. I think the numbers would change somewhat. There's the possibility that it could affect the end result. I think the overall picture of the testimony provided, the availability of on street parking, the census data, the walkable neighborhood, etc., etc., I don't think it changes that portion of the conclusion. If if you want to if you want to think about it a different way, if you eliminated one parking space that one apartment, there's no parking variance, but I don't think that changes the board's concerns. I I think the municipality has talked about reducing the overall parking requirement and some of the board members, one of the board members who had he's not here anymore. You're not on the board at all.

He was your number one advocate had brought it up at an earlier meeting that maybe we should knock out two more parking spaces and put it as bank parking and if it was necessary then develop it in the future. Um, I I think the big picture is that we meet the parking requirement most of the time and that we can show that there's available parking on the street or in the immediate vicinity of the property for any overflow that occurs. Would we still anticipate 32 trips, but now we're moving that uh to the uh morning hours as opposed to the evening hours? Is that is that the calculation? Is that still the same? Yeah, the that that number would still be the same. The 32 deliveries, trips in and out.

32 trips trips in and out. One one car pulls up, that's one. Car pulls away, that's two. Okay. So that 32 trips is not specific to a pizzeria. It's more specific to what I would imagine is the fast casual rest restaurant listed here. Is that accurate? Yeah, there there's um the trip generation and parking generation data covers a variety of land use, but it doesn't break it out into every single possible restaurant that's out there. So, it does generally lump them into categories. Quality restaurant, which is fine dining through the ranks to to fast food. Miss Tal, you you were going to say something about No. No.

Okay. I thought you were gonna respond to what Mr. Campbell said, but it what would that do to Mr. Campbell's point for the analysis if we're now thinking about these trips in the morning um when cars will be parked because people will be asleep, right? Um how does that how should we be thinking about that? How does that change compared to when it was a pizzeria and it was more of an evening use?

Well, I think my my understanding of how the site will operate remains the same. I think it's going to be that the residents and the employees of the business are going to park on site and that visitors to the business are going to primarily park on the street. Um, in terms of the shared parking analysis, it shifts the percentages around does have the possibility of additional impact in the morning, but then less impact in the evening and during the Saturday afternoon period because it's expected that the the bagel shop would be closed by 3:00. So, it um it moves things around a little bit. Yeah.

Mr. Let me let me see if I can respond to Mr. Campbell's question, then I'll turn over to you, Councelor Damato.

I I think you have to use your best judgment. You know, the they've presented evidence here based on a certain use. You've heard testimony based on how Mr. Stimmel thinks that would change. And you have to as a board member, as as we all do, have to decide how you weigh that. you know, it's a to me it's kind of a a weight question. He's testified, you know, yes, you don't have a revised table. He's testified what he believes. It's up to you to decide how credible that is, if you agree with it based on your experience in town. Um, your review of these data because, you know, we can ask if they're going to revise it. I suspect Mr. Trombi will say, "No, we'd like to finish this application tonight." So, I'm going to kind of jump ahead and just say you have to make your own best decision. No matter how you slice it, it's still two parking spaces. We're short,

right? I understand that. That's kind of requirement doesn't change. It's still there's still short two parking spaces. That's it. Council Demato. So, there's not going to be any We're not going to memorialize this announced use of of the of the commercial space in any way. Correct. I anticipated I anticipated based on the testimony putting in a condition that says there will not be a pizzeria

and that's infinitum that this cannot be a pizzeria. Is that how it works? Because otherwise the answer is yes. Okay. It can be any other kind of

but we have but we but again you're you're ruling out one use but otherwise if we're talking about projecting uh um traffic and parking on the space we would have to assume it could be the heaviest possible use of a 900 square ft space that conforms with the zone we believe this is supposed to be in. So it could be a fast ca it could be any kind of fast casual restaurant. We could prohibit pizzeras but it could be anything else. Could be a taco shop. It could be a retail store. It could be a retail store, a little nail salon. It could be they're all permitted,

right? So as we do this, we should be thinking most likely what is the most like you know the high it could be something much different. And in fact, the way stores change it is likely not to be the same thing that somebody says. Well, I think a condition should be that in addition to prohibiting or excluding pizzeras, um, and I think this would be the case whether the board said it or not, but if if there was a change in use and the new use had a higher parking requirement than the bagel shop, then that would have to come before the board because there's a higher parking requirement. So yeah, that's true.

Not withstand notwithstanding that that use could be a permitted use in the zone. You'd be willing to agree to that? I think so. So would we would we sum that up to say any it can be anything that conforms with the zone and also conforms with the fast casual restaurant as described in the IT parking generation sixth edition. Is that what I I think it would be based on the ordinance. Anything that doesn't require more parking spaces than than what this combination of uses provides. I think Well, I suppose there's different ways to do it. You could either do it that way or tie it to the specific restaurant.

That's kind of what I'm wondering because you're you're you've testified what the trip generation is, what the parking require or what parking I guess says parking generation. parking generation would be based on this one specific use. So, I'm just trying to say I'm trying to find out how do we how do we tie that to something that's objective?

I I don't believe the trips are relevant. I think it just comes down to the parking and what would satisfy the board. is the board. I if the board feels that the testimony exclusive of the shared parking talking about the the census data, the availability of transit, the walkable neighborhood, the the potential uh interest in reducing the parking requirements, uh the comments from the DRC and so on. If the board feels all of that has sufficiently addressed the two space parking variance, then I I would imagine you could grant the variance and obviously if you needed a variance, the future calculation shows you need 23 parking spaces, then the applicant would have to come back at that time. If the board feels that the shared parking analysis as discussed with the change from bag pizza to bagels is critical and that's the basis for approving it then I think it would have to be tied to that category of restaurant. Other questions from the board ask you what's your so regarding the waiverss the parking spaces are short by a foot I believe and the drive aisle is short by a foot or by one half of one foot.

Correct. And then there was the the lighting exceeds two foot candles in the interior of the site. There were there were three left I believe. So just going back to the drive aisle and parking space. So with a deficit of a foot and a half, do you see any issue with that when combined together? Because I think you kind of testified parking spots are generally what's accepted under RSIs, drive aisle, most folks are residents. Do you see those two kind of coming together and creating a multiplied effect or are you still comfortable with that layout? You mean conflicts?

Yeah, conflicts. Are there going to be more conflicts because it's really it's a foot and a half deficit rather than kind of a one foot and a half a foot? To be honest with you, I don't see the 9 by18 parking spaces as an issue of any kind. In certain limited circumstances, it it's appropriate to provide a wider parking space, maybe where you're likely to have strollers or shopping carts or things like that. Um, it's an apartment. Can someone have a stroller there? Sure. Are they really going to take a stroll their kid in a stroller from the elevator to the or from the door to the the parking space? Probably. Well, they might. I mean, it's a as somebody who's lived in apartments, probably. Yeah,

it's um it's a low volume generator of traffic. The traffic turns over infrequently. It's residential parking in that in that parking lot. Um I I don't see a need for the the the wider parking spaces and we do comply with the width. I think the length is perfectly adequate. It's a widely accepted engineering standard. 9 by19 is, you know, it's a little bit outdated for lack of a better term. I think the only real shortage we have from an engineering standpoint is the the 0.5 ft the 6 in of width. And unless you're in an area where there's a column, you could still overhang at the back to make up for that. U I don't believe the landscaping on the southern property line would prevent that. So I don't I don't anticipate a significant issue with the maneuvering in and out of those spaces. And even if you did have a little difficulty, you were more of a tentative driver, it's not the parking lot of a convenience store, you're going to have time to jockey around a little bit and get out.

Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes. If I may, just please just to uh kind of piggy back on that discussion. Well, it's not necessarily a waiver uh requirement. Um you are proposing two compact spaces and the code um does allow the board to uh wave the minimum parking requirements to allow for 8 by7 spaces um with the understanding that the uh approving authority finds that such spaces can reasonably be reserved for use by small cars. So, um I guess if you could just elaborate on that a little more and provide that justification uh for the board to consider as part of its deliberations.

I Yeah, I believe the compact spaces and I I think this was spoken about at an earlier meeting. I think the compact spaces are going to be part of the residential parking that's assigned to individual apartments. So, somebody with the smaller car is going to park in that space or those spaces. I think the assigned spaces are not those two spaces from what I can see on the site plan. Looks like residential units one through seven have assigned spots not in the small car parking. And I happen to be on the lighting plan, but I think it's shown on other plans.

I'm seeing space reserved for resident as number three. No, I might be missing it. I apologize.

What is the hardship? That's for waivers. The waivers.

Yeah, the is correct. The parking spaces from 3 to 9 on the plan are the ones that are designated as reserve parking. We could flip that to be one through seven. And I assume if somebody had a small car, that's what the applicant would do. Yes. Yes. It's a little bit of parking management like you have with all these apartment buildings really. So, while one of my colleagues um was interested in not having those small car parking spaces, is it your opinion they should stay perhaps based on even the shared parking analysis?

I it's my opinion that they should stay both based on the board's apparent concern related to the parking. um you you know you you may find five years down the road that you generally don't use some of the parking on the subject property but to address the board's concern I think we should keep them at least for now. All right, Mr. Hernandez, did you have anything else? That was all. Any other questions from the board? I'm going to suggest before we go to public questions of Mr. Stimmel, we'll take a fivem minute break and then we'll come back. We'll have questions from Miss questions about Mr. Mr. Stimmel's testimony and then you don't have any more witnesses, right, Mr. Trombulac? That's correct. So then after that we'll have public comment on the application as a whole.

Yes. So that's that'll be the rest of the uh the evening for this applicant. Then we have other hearings and things to get to. So five minute break everyone.

Right. Do you know that in Jersey City it is becoming the policy that people do not want? I think this is Miss Tally, are we back recording here? Okay, we are back on the record and this is public questions of Mr. Stimmel about his testimony tonight.

Okay. Claire Silata, 279 Park Street. Um, my question is that I was here the other night and there was a traffic expert who talked about all of the traffic in the area. It seems to me I'd like to understand why you're not addressing the street traffic and it how it would affect this and that you're only seem to be addressing the parking as though it doesn't take place in this in the context of the community. So the question is where can you explain why it's not I'd like to understand why he's only addressing one part of this and the other night for a different variance. We heard the big uh bigger picture.

I don't know what you were here for the other night if it was a zoning board or a planning board matter. Generally, the

traffic study or discussion of traffic at a planning board application is a lot less detailed because it's considered um they're all permitted uses in the zone. The intensity of the uses permitted in the zone as I had testified to. It's um it's assumed that the municipality considered that amount of traffic when adopting the ordinance that allowed those types of uses on the property. So the addition of traffic to the street is not really something for this board to consider even though Park Street, Wong Avenue, etc. may have higher volumes of traffic, may be congested, etc. because it's already it's already factored in, let's say.

Okay. Is that true? I Mr. Is that is that your understanding of the case law that because this use is already permitted in the zone that we're not allowed to consider the off-site traffic impacts as Mr. Stimmel has said? Mr. Stimmel noted the Dunkin Donuts case. Is your mic? I just want to make sure your mic's on so everyone can hear. Okay. So, he noted the Dunkin Donuts case and that is precisely what that case holds. that off-site parking, I'm sorry, off-site traffic is not within the purview of a site plan application. It's just not.

Okay. So, that's crazy, but okay. I accept that that may be the law. So, going to the site itself, if I understand you correctly, you're telling me that 14 spaces will be used most of the time because most of the people who live there are going to be commuting. That's why they're going to move there to be close to the train. So, 14 spaces will be filled. You're saying that there's two extra. Are they for anybody in the neighborhood to park there or are they solely for whatever the commercial use is of the space?

I'm going to answer the question in two parts. The first part is that the 14 parking spaces, I think what you're referring to is what I was saying that when the residential parking demand peaks, it's during the overnight period. Everybody's at home sleeping, they're home from work or wherever else they may be. So, there's the need for those parking spaces during the overnight because you can't park on the street overnight and mo most of Montlair, right? The second part of that is the availability of any additional parking on the subject property that's not it's not reserved for residents and it's not a handicap space would be open for use by

visitors to the building whether it's visitors to the apartment, someone going to the the bagel place. It's not if you're going to the hardware store, you can't park there. Oh, so there's no public parking in this building. Is that correct? It's correct. It's private property. It's complete private property. Correct. And I I ask you that because back three meetings ago, I thought I heard that there would be several spaces for the public and certainly for whatever the commercial use of the space was. I don't think I misheard that. That's two different things. I mean, for patrons of the business, yes, they will be able to park in there, but that but

but if I wanted to park there because I had to go to Rosarios to get some meat, you're telling me I couldn't park there. Correct. That's correct. So, there's really outside of the person who owns this building, there is no room for anyone who isn't using the building in some way. Is that correct? Correct. We're changing your story. No, I think it was a misunderstanding at the earlier hearing. I don't think it was ever the intention that anyone going to any of the businesses in the area or visiting a friend that lives on Park Street could park in the property. I think the intention was always that it would be for the the residents and the visitors and the employees of the of the building.

Okay. So, so again, if you take the employees of the building and the residents, I don't see that there's any room either for someone wanting to pick up bagels because if you have 11 12 spaces for the residents, and those are protected spaces, I'm assuming. That's a It's a good question for Mr. Stimmel. Are they protected spaces for the residents? If I have number one, can anybody park there whether I'm parked there or not? There's one reserve space for each of the units. The rest of the parking is up for grabs. So, okay. So, there's seven reserve spaces. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. And let's say there's three employees. Is that would that be a a good estimate? I I wouldn't want to estimate that. Okay. Can I can I ask you that question? How many employees would there be? answer. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to make an assumption because there's lots of assumptions being made here. I'll make mine. I'm going to say that there's three employees. So, now we're talking 10 spaces and there's four left, right? Six 16. But you said that each unit was 1.7. What? What was that?

That's based on census data. Each of the each of the households in the census tract where this site is located has 1.7 vehicles per household. Okay. So So we're assuming that the people in this building will only have one car per household. No, we're saying that we I'm saying that I would expect that they would fit the profile of the census track that on average it would be 1.7. when you're talking about an average with a small number of units there there can be fluctuation from time to time. All right. So, um but they're only guaranteed one space. Is that correct? They're guaranteed one space, but they've got the right to use any of the other spaces.

Okay. So the the second question I have for you is I think that I what I hear you saying is that you make the assumption or that that the statistics support the fact that people park overnight and then they drive out of the apartment and go somewhere else and then there are empty spaces. Is that the assumption you're making when you say the overnight parking and then they're gone? Yes. Um, I've been going into the Westerly, which is similar to this. And this would be a question for Mr. Stim. So, um, I I sort of want to know what you base that on because in my experience that that's not what's happening in Wang Plaza with the apartment building.

Again, that's based on the IT projections for parking demand on an hourly basis. We had talked about going to the Westerly to look at the parking utilization on that property. But the um what would the best way to put this be? The owner did not seem receptive to that idea. So we didn't we didn't pursue it.

Okay. So what I'm walking away with here is that because the way the law is written, is it true that your study fits the law and fits the board's requirements but may not be fitting for the people who live in the community? Is that a possibility? I'm not sure what you're at. the parking study.

Yes, you're doing a parking study that has to do with people coming and going. But because what I just heard you say, because it's this board, you don't have to look at the cyclist, you don't have to look at the mothers with baby carriages, you don't have to look at Uber, you don't have to look at any of that. Is that correct? So, so my question is if you don't have to look at that, then your statistics may be 100% correct. 100% correct. and it may be a detriment to the community, which when you were reading what this was supposed to be, you actually did say at one point that this has to be in the best interest of the community here.

So, I leave you with that. I don't think you're going to answer that question for me, but that's my question is, so it doesn't matter what the best interests of the community are. It meets all the laws. Is that correct? I'm I'm not sure what you're referring to and I'm not sure exactly what the question was. I think if it meets all of the requirements of the law but it does not meet the interest of the community, am I accurate in making that assessment that the law does not reflect necessarily the interest of the community? Is that a possibility here? your report.

It's assumed from the perspective of a planner that if you're proposing to redevelop a site with a use that's permitted on the property that that's based on the municipality's understanding of the area and that that in and of itself is something that promotes the the health, safety, and morals and general welfare, which I think is is what you're talking about that I referenced.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Gerald Fierce, 259 Park Street. Um you used the term non-complying um usage of the property. Um can you explain to me what that means in terms of the existing use on the property? Yes.

Yeah. I had said that the the zone doesn't permit one and two family dwellings and the existing two family dwelling which is a little bit unusual in that it's it's rented to 10 college students would not if it was a vacant lot it would be a non-conforming use if you were to propose to develop it w with that two family I'm sorry I just didn't understand what you just told me um I'm sorry are you telling me that it's non-complying because it is a two family house. Correct. If that was a vacant lot, you could not put a two family on that lot without getting an approval for that use. Can do do you know how long that property has been non-complying? Oh, long time.

A long time. I'm not debating that. Has it ever been complying? I would guess that that building's at least 100 years old, so I would think it would predate the ordinance.

Uh-huh. Uh so um well I guess you know I'm well we'll go back to that issue. Um can you explain to me then why it is necessary to have a commercial space in that non-complying space when it's already non-complying. the fact that we are it's a commercial zone. So, you're required to provide commercial space for any of the any of the permitted uses are commercial uses. You are allowed to provide mixed use with residential as long as you've got a commercial use on the ground floor. That that's what the ordinance states.

I see. So, so it it's you need even though the space is non-complying anything done to it must have a commercial space. We're eliminating the existing use on the property which does not comply with the requirements even though it it's very old obviously and proposing a use which does conform to the requirements of the zone.

So the the most relief that an applicant can ask for from a land use board is a D1 use variance for a new use which is not permitted in the zone. That would be what you'd need if you were devel to develop this property with the two family that's there. Now, all we are asking for because the the use we're proposing the the the mixed use, the the the density, the height of the building, all of that conforms. All we're asking for in terms of variances is just that one variance for the parking terms of separation from the property lines, the size of the lot, all that complies. Right. And the wa the waivers also you're there were the variance and the waivers two things right

one one variance three waivers right the waivers for the size um and um I'm not quite sure this is something that you can answer me but just out of the previous um discussion um if we go to superior court and find out that as we suspect and as our research has shown and which I think has been appropriately investigated ated. Um, what happens if there is a non-complying usage on that space after the fact? I'm going to I feel like one of the attorneys would be better equipped to address this.

It's really a legal question and candidly I don't know the answer. Oh, okay. So, we it's just it's an up in the air question. No, that's fine. I I just I was just wondering because of this very traumatic discussion sir. And by the So hang on one second. Please stop shouting from the audience. It's I'm having a hard time. Am I shouting? No, no, not you. The gentleman behind you that's seated. You're you're fine. I I I I thought maybe I biting the microphone. I was having trouble hearing what you were saying and you're at the microphone. I because of other, you know, comments in the back. Um yeah, I I think that's a legal question. I don't think Mr. Stimmel testified to that, right? But I think it's a reasonable question and frankly it's one I don't know what happens either.

Right. Right. No, I just I because he was using speaking about non-compliance and stuff. I I wasn't sure if that was within his I understand it's worth asking. So I asked the question. Okay. Well, that that those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Other Yes. Okay. Hello. My name is Donna Picket. I live at 255 Park Street. Um I'm sorry I forgot your name. Uh William Stmel. William. Okay. Hi William. So you said you relied on it data. Yes.

Do you know how often that data is refreshed? Uh the the data sample is a rolling data sample. As the as the years go by, they phase out older data. They perform updated counts. So it's continually refreshed if you want to think about it that way. But the data only comes out when they publish a new edition of the trip generation or in this case parking generation books which happens intermittently. I'm going to say every four or five years. You don't four or five years roughly. I read it was 1970s. The last time it's it slowly gets refreshed. It's been slowly refreshing since 1970.

I I wasn't even born in 1970. Yeah, I know the book is not that old. Yeah. Well, that's that's okay. It I'm just thinking that Well, just saying that it's slowly been updated and refreshed since the 70s. Slowly. But you're saying four to five years. So, you don't know the last time. Five years ago. Um I think the parking generation book is relatively new that I think the chairman had asked about it. I thought it was about two years old. Um I I didn't bring it with me. It's it's a thick manual, but um it's updated periodically. I think I've bought three different editions of it since I went into business on my own uh 12 years ago.

Okay. So, back to the IT data. Um so, you your analysis was based on national averages and not this neighborhood because you just focused on that block and lot. The total parking requirement was based on the ordinance which is what was on Mr. Anderson's plan. The percentages as it fluctuates throughout the day on an hourly basis and on weekdays versus weekends was based on IT data which is national. So you did base it on national but and you the IT national averages and not on that block and lot or both. Again the number of parking spaces required was from the ordinance. The percentages in the table were based on the IT data which is national. So it's a combination of the municipal ordinance and the IT data which is national.

Okay. Do you know if the IT data accounts for ride shares, Ubers, um, Lyfts, um, Amazon, FedEx? Is that data have that the ITAT data? Do you know that?

The the way it works is that uh, for a particular use, they'll count the driveway volumes to determine the trip generation. They'll count the number of cars parked on the on the property to determine the parking generation. So, in that if a if a delivery vehicle, if an Uber driver, if you have people carpulling, whatever the case is, if they come in and out of the driveway or they park on the site, then that's included in the projections. It doesn't it doesn't make a distinction.

So, it does the the data doesn't account for the number of deliveries. You didn't look at at the time it was going to be a a pizzeria so you didn't look at the uh pizzeria deliveries and it shares and sorry and all of that. It it doesn't segregate the the deliveries from the customers coming to the site. So the IT data you're telling me doesn't differentiate. It does not. Correct. Okay. Um, so I thought I heard you say that um you did your traffic counts in November. Yes.

No, parking counts. Oh, sorry. You're right. Parking counts. Yes, parking counts. So, why did you only do November for parking counts? Because the issue of parking uh came up, I believe, at an earlier meeting and that was the first opportunity that I had to do the parking counts. And when I did them, as I said to the board, I thought that I would be speaking about this in December and and here we are. But I just did it to collect data at the the closest time.

So, does it have any guidelines on um this scenario, this block and lot zoned uh in C in the residential area? Does it give you guidance on doing more than just How many days did you do in November? I I was out there three times. I counted the weekday uh weekday e weekday midday weekday evening and Saturday afternoon peak times.

Okay. Um I don't think this is the right time to ask the board, but I I have another pile of uh pictures of data for three months that I I gave at one meeting, but I have more that I can give as another exhibit different times and days. Um, so I can provide that after the meeting as an exhibit my study that I've done. I think it would be best if you finish your questioning of Mr. Sorry. All right. Finish your questioning of Mr. Stimmel and then uh I think that she can be treated as an objector and uh then you can produce those documents during

what will essentially be your case. Right. I because I I gave an exhibit like at the first meeting. Okay. So, uh back to you, William. Uh and then just just to kind of play that out for a second, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Just so we would get that exhibit, we'd review it, council would review it, and then council could ask her questions about it. If she's an objector, how would that play out? If she's going to produce evidence for the hearing, then everyone has the opportunity to review it and ask questions about it. Okay.

Okay. Um, so going back to the IT, do they give you um guidance on doing a parallel study of the neighborhood of other block and lots um that have retail space like the Milbour Deli? Did you does it give you that kind of guidance? the the parking data was collected on Park Street in front of the property to reflect the availability of parking in the neighborhood. I extended that a little bit beyond uh primarily going to the south, but didn't feel it was necessary to include that in the testimony just because of the fact that there was available parking on Park Street. In terms of the IT, they give some distinction as to um let's say trip generation if you're in an urban area versus a suburban area versus a rural area. But I'm sorry to interrupt, but my question was,

does the IT give guidance in that neighborhood u for you to do a parallel study of an existing business to look at those numbers and compare it to what the proposed plan is.

The it says you have to use the data based on engineering judgment. It doesn't specifically recommend counting offsite similar businesses. Um, you know, it's something you you could get into. Uh, as I said to one of the previous members of the public, we did talk about counting the the the parking utilization at the Waverly building, but ultimately ended up not pursuing it. Okay. You can't guarantee the popularity of the business, correct? You can't guarantee the popularity of any business. No. Okay. You were hired and paid by the applicant, right? Yes.

And your role is to evaluate the traffic impacts in support of this application, right? My role was to what I was primarily retained as a planner. Then when the parking issue came up, I was asked to do perform additional services related to the the parking variance.

Okay. Um okay. So um so specifically to that block and lot uh when you were doing your study did you consider um the site distance is reduced uh if the site excuse me if the site distance is reduced um crash risk increases. Correct. Did you did you study that? Did you consider that? I'm sorry, what are you asking?

Like the site distance. So like say if there's uh landscapers, let's just say if there's a snow bank. Um if there's like a a truck, if there's at Royy's hardware store has an 18-wheeler truck there. Did you consider um like the the sight of coming out of that property? The street is straight and gently sloping. There's nothing there's no wall or or building or or anything along those lines to to obstruct sight. If you had somebody that I don't know parked a tractor trailer across Park Street, you wouldn't be able to see around it. But that's not something we could design around.

Well, that concerns me. Um, you didn't consult with the local fire department any emergency services. We got a review letter from the fire department which was testified to earlier during mostly during Mr. Anderson's testimony, but also I believe during Mr. Schwitzer's. And what were the results of that? Did did we get the do you get the results? I we we received comments from the fire department. I believe we addressed or or agreed to address the majority of them. Is that correct, Mr. Trenilac? I believe so. I'm sorry.

I believe he's correct, but Well, can we confirm that? Well, these are questions for this witness. He didn't provide any testimony relating to the fire department requirements. So, well, this all has to do with that block and lot and traffic and types of cars coming in and out. Uh, delivery for the dough paper products for the coffee cups and um an emergency access and ambulance for someone at, you know, that lives at the apartment building. So, I would think that someone that's doing a traffic analysis would be considering those types of things. So, that's the question. Done. And he's not doing a traffic analysis because

I'm talking about the traffic analysis on that block and lot, not on the street because I understand on on this lot, our property only. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The fire department has reviewed the plans. I'm sure that they would have mentioned if there was any issue with emergency vehicles being able to And you're you're sure about that? I mean, you have that report. I mean it's public for us to see that you I think you have it too and there was no comments you know about the inability of fire trucks to access the property in order to fight a fire or the inability of emer other emergency vehicles to enter or exit the property.

Okay. What my question really was around that with you know other traffic going in and out of there the tenants and pe and the um customers for the business. Um so I guess that was taken into consideration. Um so did you um take into consideration the uh pedestrians and children that would be coming to that pizzeria? I know it's a going to be a bagel store, but you your study was based on a pizzeras. So, did you take into account um the number did you consider that the the volume of pedestrians going because we have a watch school kids, you know, pass by there. I see, you know, they go to the dance studio. I see lots of pedestrians. Did you

consider that? We did not count pedestrians across the site frontage. I I believe the site has been designed with adequate pedestrian accommodations both in terms of getting people in and out of the building and uh some of the comments from the board members. We we put in speed bumps on the internal driveway to to slow cars down when they travel alongside the interior door. The applicant has agreed to look at providing uh visual cues for pedestrians to let them know that people are coming out of the site, but also the building is set back from the from the sidewalk. So, a pedestrian is going to be able to see a car pulling out. I don't

there's based on my review, I don't see any safety issue for pedestrians with this uh with this proposed redevelopment.

Okay. Um, I think that's all my questions. Let's see. I have a lot more questions, but it's irrelevant based on the wall, which is crazy because I have a lot of questions about future developments there and the street and it's just unfortunate that that's what I should be doing, trying to change that law. But anyway, thank you.

Welcome. Does anybody else wish to ask Mr. Stimmel questions about his testimony? I don't see anyone else.

And I assume you don't have any more witnesses. We don't have any more witnesses. I do want to speak to my client for a few minutes. Um I assume you're going to take public uh comment at this point. That's the plan. Unless you want a break. Well, whether we do it now or or after the public comment is up to you, but I just want to discuss a possible plan revision with my client. Why don't you discuss that now before we get to public comment in case the public would like to comment on it so we don't have to do it twice? So, do you need five minutes? Yeah. Okay. Take a fivem minute break.

Okay, we are back on the record. Mr. Tremulac, before we get to the objector, yeah, did you have anything you want to let us know resulting from your meeting?

Yes, I wanted this is what I wanted to discuss with my client. Um, be due to the change in the again reduction in the size of the commercial which eliminates the pizzeria from being a a a realistic use. and the fact that the intent now is the bagel shop. Okay, we don't need nearly the same the number of seats that were provided for in the restaurant. So, what what we would like to do and we I would amend our application um and the plan submitted to provide that the bagel shop will have no a maximum of 10 seats as opposed to the 17 seats that were contemplated for the pizzeria. By doing that and reducing the number of um seats to 10, we also eliminate the parking variance. Okay? Because you now have a requirement of three three um one one parking space for every three seats. So the parking requirement for the um commercial is now 3.33 spaces. The requirement for the residential remains the same which is a total of 14.33. You add 14.33 and 3.33 um you've got a total requirement of 17.6 spaces minus the two space credit we get for the EV stations results in a total parking requirement for the building of 15.6 spaces. We're providing 16, no variance. It's a fully conforming application with a couple of very insignificant waiverss. That's all we're

dealing with. Just to clarify 100% compliant with the requirements of the zone district. Ju just to clarify uh you said it was uh the bagel shop will uh the number of seats will be reduced. Can we just say that if the commercial space itself Yes. will contain no more than 10 seats. Sure. That's so that the you know I would maybe say it another way that the parking requirement for that space would be no more than 3.3. Okay. I don't want to word it but

well apppropo of the earlier discussion about whether or not the a subsequent user would have to come back to the board that kind of thing. I just want to try and wrap it up into a but I think we should to for ease of enforcement because the calc the numbers work with 10 spaces 10 seats. Mhm. I think the resolution should say 10 seats. Sure. That's fine. Otherwise we'd have to every time you have to go back and do the math, right? So if that if that's the math that works, that's what the resolution should say. That's fine. That's the intention. That's the commitment. My Yeah. No, I think it's a good idea. The only other thing I know it was discussed is in prior testimony as well that there would be no outdoor seating, right,

as well. So maybe that's another condition just so it's black and white. That's acceptable also. Okay. Uh with that that completes our case. That completes your case. Okay. With that, Miss Picket, do you would you like to introduce your exhibits as an objector or does this test or does sorry, does this change anything for you? What what the attorney's uh sorry, what the applicant's attorney just mentioned? Yeah, exactly. Okay. If you'd like to come come up. I believe since she's an objector, we have to swear her in. Is that correct?

Uh yes. Because you're you're testifying essentially as an objector. You don't have an attorney, correct? No. Okay. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Oh, and my name is Donna Picket. And your address, please. 255 Park Street. Thank you. So, you didn't ask for my name. So, we have we have two exhibits that you've uh given to us. The board has reviewed them. It's 01 and O2. the applicant's attorney has reviewed them. Uh I think you wanted to introduce Yeah. what what those are.

Yeah. First I wanted to say that I have a lot more um on my phone. Um but going to CVS and then going to the UPS and using my printer uh my printer is slow and going to those places. Every time I went um when I had time because I still am working full-time consulting um it was broken. So, what you have is just a small fraction of what I have on my phone. Um, I could um submit more. And the thing is when I print them out from my phone, I don't know if you know this that it doesn't print out the date and time stamp. So, I have to print them out and then I have to find them on my phone and I have to write down the time and the day. So, I just want to put that out there. But, um, yeah. So what you have there are um pictures that I have taken on uh Park Street at various times of the day. Mostly

Miss Tally has them. I have 01.

She has 01 and O2. So, uh, mostly I, you know, I work from home and, um, my office is near the the the front, so front of the street, and, um, I take, uh, pictures at, uh, 7:00, I take pictures at 8:00. Um, there were there seems to be more school buses that, you know, have gone down Park Street. I've called the board of education to to ask, you know, why that was. They just decided to change the route. We're but according to her uh there's more kids that have moved in there between Park and Gordon Hurst and up Park Street. Uh so I take pictures of uh Royy's deliveries. I have to uh admit Roy has been better since I've spoken to him. He's taken Saunders business. Uh but he does have 18 wheelers uh that are there. I take pictures. Uh you'll see that I have uh FedEx. I have um Amazon. Um I have paper company, I have Boris Head, I have um uh Cisco, I have other uh deli trucks that are coming there. It it is like it's almost like the turnpike. Um it it's it's increased. I've I've lived there. I've owned the house since 1996. Um I I moved into the fairway section and then I moved back here in 1996. It was it was good. um not in 2007 I moved back to Park Street and um I've seen um the increase in in traffic um especially with the Milbourne delies and I go up and walk up Park Street. I take pictures of cars parking in front of fire hydrants in front of driveways. Uh I have a packet of uh pictures of pedestrians just to show you that um there is uh high traffic of pedestrians

that walk in the area. I've taken pictures of kids on their bicycle. Um and uh I just I do want to state about the light. I think has conf has confused things. Um people don't pay attention with the light or no light. I've talked to Paul the crossing guard. Um, he agrees that light, no light, it's still a dangerous intersection. I did see a woman crossing from the west side of Park Street going to the east side of the Park Street. I was on the south corner of WHung and I saw a car coming under the railroad trussle which I called the town and left the message and I called the Essex County Engineer and left the message. When you come under the railroad trussle, you have the green light. So you're coming under that railroad trestle and you know as someone said it here tonight you not listening not paying attention they have the green light and they go across park east to west and a woman was pushing her baby in a b baby carriage and the guy slammed his brakes. Um it it's it's just really changed around there. Um I had the white walk symbol sign uh to cross Wong and a car just cut me off. They don't pay attention to the light. But anyway, um back to the pictures. Um I try to portray um evening traffic, Saturday traffic, traffic during the week. Um we have that dance studio. There's uh parents, you know, taking their little kids to that dance studio and they're parking all the way up to Gordonhurst on Saturday. Uh people go there and they they uh take yoga classes. Um, like I said, Royy's taking Saunders Hardware business, so he's he's got more deliveries. Um, I know that's a secondary access road. I don't know what that means. Uh, that was the next thing I was going to try to study. Uh, because

Park Street, it seems like it's Bloomfield Avenue right now and it's not a secondary access road. Um, but anyway, um, those pictures that you have are small samplings. I do have more and um I even take pictures in upper Montlair when I go because what I now when I go to Kings to go grocery shopping um I'm backed up past CVS on Valley Road um and I know there's a new project going in or proposed for that swim school where the old Chase building was and I sit there through three lights. So, it used to be 10 years ago it would take me, you know, I don't know, 10 minutes to get from my house to Kings and now it there's just so much traffic on Valley Road and and people are double parking and they're double parking on Park Street and where I live it that whole area. Um,

and that's that's kind of what So, anyway, that's it. I'm done. I was going to say that's what the pictures kind of showed. you know, parking in front of fire hydrants, double parking, large vehicles, you know, parking in spots maybe they shouldn't, vehicles overhanging or parked directly in driveways. I mean, that that's what I seem to get from from what you uh circulated and and I I would imagine it's probably similar to all the rest of the photos that you have. It's just more of the same, right?

Yeah. And they park um at the gas station there. Um which by the way, I have called the town about this, too. that the tree is missing there. Um it would help with noise and it would look better. But anyway, they park they just park right there and in front of Rosarios. There's a yellow. They park right there. They park in front of the uh Waverly Westerly building right in front of their driveway. It it the whole street has just changed the whole face. Every there's signs no parking here and you know Roy's got cones out, the deli's got cones out. I have a cone between my driveway and Jerry's driveway. I'm And people are mean. Like, you go out there, I'm like, they're parked right smack dab in front of my driveway. And I ask them, do you not know this is a drive? I'm like, are you drunk? Like, do you not see this? They and they they just don't care.

And then I say, I'm going to call I mean, you could look at the police log. I I I bet you from the last two or three years, you're going to see my number come up on the police log calling um for them to come for illegally parked cars. Um

sounds like a good place for targeted enforcement quite honestly if if uh the township so wanted to. Um but um by by the time they get there, people leave and and then and then they tell me I'm only 10 minutes and and I I say only 10 minutes but you know I have to get out of my driveway and then I say to them, do you see this sign says no parking anytime? Uh I don't speak English. I after they've spoken to me in English like they just they just try everything um to they they just don't care. They just don't care. Um, but I'll stop taking my pictures. I I do have a lot and what I have doesn't show too much. Um,

well, thank you for sharing what you've what you've brought. We've all seen it and it does look like it's a challenge. Um,

are there questions for Miss Picket? Because now we now we have to question you since you're an object. Unless you had anything else that you wanted to raise, but it sounds like you're all set. I just wanted to say that like I said I I've owned there since 1996. I've been back there 2007 and I moved back there um because I didn't want to pay taxes in this town for two pieces of property and my son was going to private school um and he was going to go off to college. So, I thought I would go back to Park Street because that would be a great walkability place for me to to go shopping, have coffee, and and that dream is is turning to not be the dream that I had to have retirement years to, you know, be a relaxing little relaxing little village. Um, and I was, you know, just hoping that it would stay that way. I know things change is what you told me on the I don't mind change, but I want good change and I want sensibility and I want us to follow our town plan and I don't want us to forget about safety and walkability. Um, and that's my story.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Picket. Before you go, uh, I just want to let you know I counted 34 pictures and one sheet that contained four color pictures in what we've marked as O2. Does that Does that agree? That's probably right. The color ones came out from CVS and they come out like a little Christmas card thing I pasted on. But that was one sheet with four color photos and 34 black and whites. Yeah, thank you. I know. And I wish I could have printed out more and had the time, but work and life gets in the in the way. it. I think you presented a good picture of what things are like there. So, I I I think that I think it's appropriate. Yeah. Um, are there any questions from the board for Miss Picket?

Mr. Trombulac, do you have questions for Miss Picket? I think just one. M. Pickicket. So based upon what you just presented to the board, is it fair to say that you think that because there are inconsiderate people who disregard parking regulations, disregard other regulations in terms of parking or where they leave their vehicles running, etc. and because there happens to be some truck traffic in the commercial district that those are reasons to for this board to deny my client's application is that that's basically what you're saying isn't it because

say that can you just please repeat the first part of your question I think what or I said is it your position that because of these you know you present a lot of of photographs of cars parking illegally Mhm. Some trucks making deliveries to other businesses like the hardware store. Um and other people violating, you know, maybe traffic or other park parking regulations. That those are the reasons why you think this board should deny my client's application. Is that correct? That's correct based on common sense and not the law. And I know where you're coming from. Yes. That's my stance. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the public of Miss Picket? Thank you. No, I don't I don't see any. Thank you, Miss Picket. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So, we've covered applicant. We've covered objector. I think we're on to public comment. Unless you you don't have anything else, right, Mr. Tulak? No. Public comment about this application. If anybody would like to make public comment, Miss Silata is here. Claire Silata, 279 Park Street. I'll make it quick cuz I'm tired. Thank you.

Um, this whole experience for me, I've been to planning board meetings, board of estimate meetings, and um, I'm sorry to say that it seems like when you guys get started with the law and all of this that you forget about us, about the people who live in the community. We don't object to change. Your design for these buildings, especially the one for the watch on is beautiful. I don't object to that. What I what I feel right now is that somehow the issues that we're bringing to you are not important in some way to you. Basically what you say to me is well you can't address these issues because they belong to the board of estimate or they belong to the lawyer or they belong to you. They don't belong to me and I pay a lot of taxes to live here and I don't come lightly. I'm not talking about somebody making noise at night. I'm talking about the safety of the community who lives in my neighborhood. Again, you want to put a building up. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying, what are you doing to make it safe for those of us who live there? And when you, Mr. Tremach, tell me that tell us that for God's sake, you've been here three times, they're waiting, it's a hurry. Frankly, that doesn't make me feel very good. That makes me feel like what you care about is getting your client what he wants and not about the community at all. And you guys are all restricted by all the laws that are around you to do

anything about it. You have to say yes if he complies with what the laws are. There was another accident there three days ago. Three days ago. There's an accident now. every bloody week or a near accident every day. And I'm there every day. Jerry's there every day out on the street. So what I want to say is we're not objecting to change. We're objecting to this terrible feeling that you don't understand how dangerous that area has become. It is not fun. It is not easy. Crossing those streets is a disaster. and somebody's gonna really get hit and killed there. And I don't know what else to say because I don't seem it doesn't seem to have any effect. I don't know how to change it. I don't have the power to do that. But I'm begging you to please figure out who does. Let us know and we'll work with them because it's got to change. Well, it doesn't have to change. And you've got a convenience store coming. You've got another bagel shop coming. What else? You know that that middle one, that middle building that has the dance studio in as soon as these two go up. You know what she's going to do? She's going to sell it for every penny she can get for it. And then we'll be here again for the third building. And I heard today that the guy that there are builders who are hitting on the guy who owns the low buildings, you know, with Rosarios and everybody

wanting to put up a three-story building there as well. There goes the neighborhood if it's not done safely. So please, please tell us where to go, how to fight, what to do to have an effect. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. I think so. Right. Because she's still a member of the public even though she's an objective. Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure council agreed with me.

Um Okay. I don't have a lot to say because you've heard me. Um I I wrote a letter in December and I did say that it seemed like it was an anomaly that that building uh and I at 258 as well. Um is in you know mixed use NC. Um so that was in December I raised that. Um and I did put in a lot of oper requests and if I would have gotten them on time and if I if they would have been answered properly uh we wouldn't have be at this point questioning the zoning. But I do want to say um as far as the law um that you have to have an ordinance when you change zoning. I could not find that in none of the uh uh ordinances that I looked at. I mean I I did a lot of scanning on that uh database the the town portal. You have there's no ordinance. There was no public notification. There's no documented approvals. There's no evidence of when that map was changed, the date and approval of that map. So, as far as I'm concerned, this property is null and void. It's not in C. And um I I I will be appealing to the um the zoning board. Um, but like I said, I'm I'm finished because I think you heard, you know, through my letters and my other testimony that, um, you know, how I feel. So, I think that's it. Um, yeah, and someone's going to have to help me or I'll just call the I guess I call the zoning board to see how I appeal this. But, as we all know, there's no documents. I I've searched high and low. I went to newspaper.com. I went to the Montlair Public Library. Um, you have to by law send out a public notification 10 days before you have the hearing. I've asked for that over and

over again till I'm blue in the face. And I also want to say those um Oprah request um the state of New Jersey needs to they need to change that as well. Um I I could not be clearer than a bell on the information I asked for and I didn't get it. So um that's it. Thanks. Thank you.

Uh Gerald Fierce, 259 Park Street. Um, well, as I see it, there are two main issues, legal issues that put the town in jeopardy in this project. Um, as I remember the discussion of fire, the fire department did not was not enthusiastic about the and we discussed the smaller parking spots, the turnaround issues that would be in the garage, whether a a fire truck could get in the garage. Um, I know it concerns the neighbors on either side and it concerns the neighborhood. That is a major issue that should not be ignored. It the fire department did not challenge. It just was not happy. I mean, it didn't say no, but but I think you should. Uh, so I think smaller parking spots and compact cars. I know because I live on Park Street, people don't drive compact cars here. I can't see around the cars. Um the second issue is that after over two months of asking for compliance with freedom of information, the legal documents cannot be shown. And we have heard today, I didn't even know that if you actually do the count, you can see this was miszoned. and you know, incompetence, cavalier attitude. You can't use a graphic as a legal um document. You can't work off of a map. And I think the town is put into financial and legal jeopardy.

And I can only ask you to delay or say no until it is clarified. Thank you.

Thank you. Other comments from the public about this application. I see none. Mr. Trenulac, do you have anything you'd like to sum up with? Um, yes. I think I need to. And, uh, I think fortunately, uh, I'll have less to say. Um, since we've eliminated the parking issue and the parking variance from the application, I mean, the starting point here is the zoning for the property. Um, people may question this, you know, but, you know, the zoning for this property is NC neighborhood commercial. Um, my client purchased the property. He's a, you know, he's an intelligent guy, knows what he's doing. He certainly like any intelligent investor is going to review the zoning and made a determination as to what can be done with this property. Um he relied upon that as he was entitled to the zoning map that's posted on the town website which I guess goes back to 2002 clearly shows the property as being in the NC zone. We submitted an application six months or longer ago indicating that the property was zoned neighborhood commercial. The planning department received that, reviewed the application, did not take issue with that, really confirmed that the zoning was neighborhood commercial. um you know the resolution I the um memorandum that Janice Tally prepared in response to Miss Pigot's uh uh correspond recent correspondence to the board in my mind resolve the issue. She points out that some of the older maps might be

some might be a little bit blurriier, not clear, but she points out that the um the properties clearly identifiable on the 1974 1979 zoning maps and that the review of those zoning maps indicates the properties in the NC zone. Okay. Um I think based upon the discussion earlier, Mr. N's advice, this board has to assume that the property is uh zoned uh neighborhood commercial unless some other body with greater authority determines that that's incorrect. So, you know, we're in the neighborhood commercial zone. Um, I should also point out, um, can't believe it's seven years ago that I was before this board representing the owner of what's now the Westerly building. And I think, m, Mr. Chairman, you were probably on the board at that time. You may have been the only one, maybe Mr. Renowali, I don't know. But what I can say is there was significant neighborhood opposition to that application for a lot of the same reasons we've heard with respect to this application. It's dangerous. There's too much traffic. At the time there was no traffic light at at Watch Plaza, but that you know there were major concerns about you know Watchon Plaza at that time being over congested and that parking was you know a traffic was a concern. That application nonetheless was approved by this board. Now, I I can't say whether any of the neighbors that are here, you know, objecting to this application were objected to the Westerly, but I will say this that that brought the whole issue into focus there for the planning board and for for

interested neighbors as to what the zoning of the Westerly was and these other properties. Yet, even though you had all these concerns that were expressed at that meeting about traffic congestion and similar concerns, no one brought forth the is the possibility of changing of the zoning. Certainly, the planning board didn't propose a reszoning of these two additional properties in the NC zone, including my client's property. planning board didn't advance that and apparently no interested members of the neighborhood and most of those residents at the time lived on Park Street. Also, nobody brought that up. So, the zoning has remained unchanged um since the Westerly um was approved in 2018. So, we're left with a zone a zoning designation for this property neighborhood commercial. Um, my client is proposing a building that complies 100% at this point with every single requirement that's applicable in the neighborhood commercial, starting with the use. The use that's there now is is 100% residential. And by the way, it's a horribly dilapidated uh uncared for eyesore of a building with with a parking lot. the entire rear of the property is a paved parking lot. Um, does nothing for the community in addition to the fact that it's non-conforming to the zoning because the zoning in the neighborhood commercial does not allow residential unless the residential is on the second floor as part of a mixeduse development. So, we're we're eliminating the unsightly nonconforming residential use that's been operated. There's been problems over the years with this property. I know because it's

been historically occupied as like a frat house or a sorority house um for Monontlair State students. We're eliminating that and we're putting in its place a building that the zoning ordinance says this is what we want at this property. We want some of the other uses, you know, a lot of uses are permitted, but the use the first use that's listed as permitted uses is a mixeduse development with commercial on the first floor and residential above. That's what we're providing a small amount of commercial space on the first floor and seven apartments, one of which will be an affordable um housing unit in I get where the boundary line Mr. M councelor Damato will tell me whether it's first ward there. um is first w. Okay. So, we're providing an affordable housing unit in the first ward. Um which is obviously a positive thing. We're providing a building that's totally compliant. You know, we meet all the standards. I mean, I don't have to go through them all. We're allowed a three-foot a three-story building 36 feet in height. We're proposing a three-story building 36 feet high. We comply with all the setback requirements. We comply with the density requirement. We comply with everything. We even now comply with the required parking. It's a fully conforming site plan application which based upon my understanding of the law um really has to be approved subject to reasonable conditions that might be required in connection with the site plan. And I'll come back to the site plan in a few minutes. But, you know, I just need to um emphasize what's been

discussed several times. I raised this issue at one of the earlier hearings and I wanted to put on the record at that time our understanding of the law which I think has been um seconded or or endorsed by Mr. uh niece because the law is clear as can possibly be when you're dealing with a permitted use, a use that the governing body has determined is appropriate for this location that this board cannot consider off-site conditions, most importantly in this case off-site traffic conditions and override the determination of the governing body that says this use is permitted and say no we think there's too much traffic. That determination's already been made by the zone by the town council in zoning this neighborhood commercial. And I'm going to repeat what you know um what I read earlier about the law. Um first, the the Bible that we all rely upon, the you know, Cox and Koenig handbook uh recognized treatise on land use law in the state of New Jersey has the following quote on page 338. quote, "A planning board has no authority to deny an application based upon existing offsite conditions." It goes on to site several cases. Um, one being a 1993 appellet division case where the court held that site plan approval could not be denied because of off-site traffic problems. referring back to a 1978 case um where it was where that principle was first um pretty much uh announced and is clearly the the uh the law that's applicable. The Dunkin

Donuts case that we all land use practitioners refer to all the time. Planning board cannot deny approval for a permitted use based upon traffic conditions. What we've heard from the neighbors is there's too much traffic. Um, and people violate parking regulations and they and they park where they shouldn't park and they block my driveways. I I feel for the neighbors. There are legitimate complaints, concerns, but you know, they're not valid reasons to deny my clients right to develop this property in accordance with the standards that this town has enunciated. Um, you know, um, look, I I'm very familiar with Watchon Plaza. I My law office was above the bookstore for 13 years. Um, I go to the plaza a lot now for various reasons. It's definitely it's hot been there. It's thriving, okay? You know, and consequently, it's harder to find parking spaces. The traffic can be difficult at times even with the traffic light. But it's a business district and don't we aren't we fortunate that to have thriving business districts? Don't we want our business districts to be thriving and active? Um, you know, and watch on Plaza certainly is um, you know, and as far as the neighbors are concerned, again, I understand their concerns, but, you know, when you buy a a house that's very in close proximity to a business district, there are pluses and minuses that go along with that. The pluses are, as Miss Picket noted, the walkability. I can walk Yeah, you can walk. You can walk to all the great shops and eating establishments and everything else that

Watchon Plaza has. But on the negative side, you're going to have some, you know, you're going to have some negative effects that go along with that. You know, traffic, you know, parking issues, um some inconvenience, um you know, it just goes with the territory. But my client, you know, those are not valid reasons. the town can deal with those things and I think the town should. Some of them are not so easy to deal with. I mean, the problem with Door Dash and and Uber Eatats, you know, and the Amazon delivery trucks and all that's a problem, you know, throughout this town and throughout the state really. And I think we're going to see over time municipalities enacting regulations to somehow deal with those things. But um you know the it you know people shouldn't be disregarding traffic regulation, shouldn't be blocking people's driveways and all that. But again those are off-site conditions that we're not responsible for and that can and should be addressed, you know, through the enactment of appropriate regulations or or or better enforcement, if you will. I don't know what the answer is. I do know the answer is not to deny my client's application because of those concerns because that would be contrary to the law to the law as I've as I've indicated. Um, you know, as far as the site plan itself, you know, we've modified the plans right up until tonight to try to respond to comments and concerns expressed by this board, expressed by the public. We've addressed, I believe, every comment from the planning department memos and from the engineers um memos. We've indicated that we will comply with Mr. uh Hernandez's most recent memo to the extent we haven't already complied with

his comments. We will comply with every every one of his comments with the exception of the requirement that if there if the sewer main needs to be replaced that the cost should be entirely borne by my client. That I think is contrary to the law. He should only have to pay his prat a share along with other uh property owners that you know share the use and the benefit of that line if it needs to be replaced. Um other than that we don't take any issue. We don't think a flashing light uh is is uh necessary at the sidewalk, but we defer to the board. You know, if the board wants some sort of light, you know, I think we would certainly accept a condition that um you know, required that to the reasonable approval of the town planner and the and the board engineer as to what the appropriate you know, light mechanism would be. um you know so at the end of the day you know we have a plan which we think is a good plan um a nice new building fully compliant with every requirement of the neighborhood of the neighborhood commercial zone um you know and because of that um subject to the conditions we've already mentioned I believe you know this is an application that deserves to be approved and really I think has to be approved under my understanding of the law since we're you know um we don't we don't require any variance. So I think the waiverss you know we've got a little bit higher intensity light in the building but it's the parking area. Nothing's spreading out onto the neighbors property. More light in a parking area is usually better for safety reasons. So that that's you know

uh I think a justifiable uh variance I mean a waiver the parking space size 9 by8 is is more or less kind of standard. It's what RSIs um provides for um as a requirement and our own ordinance allows for parking spaces to be the width as well as the length to be reduced you know for compact size compact cars where appropriate. And then the the backup aisle, I mean, we're six inches shorter than what's required. There's no question that cars are easily able to back out of the parking spaces and to and to um and go enter the parking spaces and to and to to leave the building uh uh whenever they're leaving. So, for all those reasons, I I And by the way, I thank the board. I meant to say this at the beginning. I'm going to say it at the end. My client thanks the board for all the time. You've spent a lot of time on this application. Um, you know, you made us uh work pretty hard, but we have worked hard to try to give you a plan that is good for the community and is fully compliant with what the town wants at this location based upon the existing zoning regulations. So having said that my mouth is dry. I can't say anything more if I wanted to.

Thank you. Sure. Mr. Nice. Yeah. Mr. Chairman like just uh I just want to clarify the testimony that Mr. Stiv Stimmel gave with regard to because my notes are somewhat variant with his testimony. Um, my notes reflect that there was to the applicant was going to install a fence on the northern side in the event the neighbor removes the existing fence. Did Mr. Stimmel say that tonight? No, what he said was that he thought the testimony was that there would be sufficient vegetative

separation. Um, so I just want to clarify what the applicant's position is with regard to the fence, the replacement of the fence, because there is an existing fence there now on the neighbor's side

and the neighbor if the neighbor does replace that. So, I just want to clarify that. We we have no intention of putting a fence in. You know, if the revised landscaping plans provide for a substantial buffer that's going to shield um the the parking lot from view, you know, from the neighbor's property. And that's that's all the the zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires either a fence or a landscape buffer. And we're providing a landscape buffer, substantial landscape buffer along that the northerly prop northern northerly property line. Anything else, Mr. Nice? Sorry.

Anything else? Nope. That was I just wanted to clarify that one point that I have in my notes.

Appreciate that. All right, that's the end of the hearing. Uh thoughts from the board? I would say overall um I'm you know highly sympathetic to the concerns of the public. I think this board always tries to take into consideration uh the impact of our decisions. Um that being with that being said though I think um Mr. N I'm sorry Mr. Tremolac has a point that we do need uh a legal basis to deny an application like this and I have uh been unable to find one. I think a lot of these concerns I would be very frustrated with somebody parking in front of my driveway. I'm very sympathetic to that. I understand the concerns about the traffic. I drive down there and I see the trucks coming and and it's a a tight squeeze. Um I think though those are not the concerns that we can address. We don't have the authority to address those uh as as a body. Um but we are a highly deliberative very thoughtful board in my estimation. I think the applicant professionals would agree with that. I would I would assume. Um and uh we are very sensitive to the concerns of the public and and we thank you for all of your testimony as well for all the the information that you've provided, all the background. Um I think the concerns are a lot about enforcement of the parking there and I think the township's overall uh plan and policy documents uh that govern uh that that district. Um there is uh Miss Picket you asked about how to you could present your case further and and you know uh forcefully you can still go to the other boards and and appeal this the ones that do have

the authority to look at that issue that you were talking about the zoning issue which we we don't have that that authority um but in my estimation overall I think um uh you know we pushed back my primary concern was the fire safety issue the chimney issue I think Um, Mr. Wy did a fantastic job of bringing that zoning that um, setback issue to light and making sure that the applicant made the adjustments that were necessary to make the building sa safer in the instance that the building next door does build up next to it. Um, and I think the applicant to their credit was very receptive to that and um, did make those those changes and we we do appreciate that. Um, I was still concerned about the parking. That issue is now off the table. There's nothing we really can say about the the parking issue. Um, and uh I think overall uh I would uh vote in favor of this uh application because uh again I agree with your legitimate concerns, but it's not within our purview uh to address those.

Uh I just want to clarify something that I thought I heard you say. Sure. Any appeal from this decision, if the board approves this or doesn't approve it, any appeal lies with the superior court, not with a different board. Even the zoning issue, Mr. Nice, is that even that's not going to that won't be an appeal from this decision. That will be a separate appeal, if you will, before the zoning. I didn't mean to indicate that and I know you did. I just wanted to make the record I wanted to make sure clear. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Um I can speak now. um I can be easier because I'm not a lawyer. Um I'm uncomfortable because I don't think the town ever intended this for this to be um an NC zone and I I feel confident in that. I think that um it was just a mistake and and people, you know, if you're a developer, you take risks and so forth. And I think because this was so close to an R2, maybe some more investigation should have been done with respect to whether or not this is truly in NC. Based on what I've seen, I don't think it is. And I'm not comfortable. I mean, I I think if the zoning board really has authority and if everyone if the developer so confident that it really is in NC, then bring it to the zoning board and you're if you're so confident, then they'll approve it as NC. I do think that um it's going to be very difficult based on what I've seen so far to prove that it that the town really intended this to be in an NC zone. I think it still remains um an R2 and that's why I have difficulty. So I would vote no based on not necessarily legal, you know, strict legal concerns, but I think that I'm um voting on I I would vote on a property that is not zoned properly according to the zoning viewer map. I think that there's historical information like the old zoning maps that that Janice presented that show it clearly in the R2 zone. I'm between the two of them. I think I think this whole drama hangs on the fact that the property in question is the bo the district border is not common sensical and that that's driving everything. If this application was for a property that was in the heart of the NC zone, I just don't think there

would be any heat around it at all. People would accept it as as you know as a thing. But it is not only at the border of it, but in some respects because of 258, it's out, you know, it's even at farther outside. Um, and I think this is a very unusual situation. Both the applicant and the objectors to this have the right to essentially appeal any decision we make. It's sort of like a primary, you know, decision that is made because if we deny this based on something that maybe speurious, you can, you know, appeal it in court and and the and and the objectors as well can go to a parallel process to the board of adjustment that would then undertake a process that I believe is well known in law. Well, they would look they would investigate the the uh the history of it and then make a decision. So, I think that that does and it's not a copout. That does just mean that there are other bodies. And then most importantly, the issues of off-site congestion and traffic and overdevelopment are totally legitimate, but those do the crucial thing is that those do fall on the governing body. And when you brought up, for example, Miss Picket, you brought up or somebody brought up the question of the building south of the Westerly, that that could be developed into a three-story building. That is purely in the in the realm of the powers of the governing body to so-called downzone neighborhood commercial area. But it cannot happen after an application has been put in. That is the key thing to understand. that is would be the rug pulling that we are not allowed to do in

a nation of laws. So um I I I I think I am disposed to the idea of allowing the application to go through because they it does conform with what it would be if it's in the if it's in the zone. But I feel in the pit of my stomach and my heart that I agree with Mr. Enwall that it isn't in the zone. But that's not our decision to make. The last thing I would say is that it's a give and take on small matters here. these waiverss which are quite minor uh uh and we asked for things. I was in that DRC meeting the develop you know the the feeder committee to this and we asked for something which was uh water detention because of the terrible flooding problems and we were given a pretty good concession on the part of the applicant of almost 2,000 gallons of of water that would be detained. So we we traded something we got something. So, I don't think it makes a big difference whether we kind of vote, you know, yes or no on on these things, but but that's where I stand and it's very difficult and I just would thank the residents and even the applicant for just doing this in a fair and and and you know, thoughtful way. It's hard.

Mayor,

um I think that it's um well, first of all, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Ian Wall-E for taking the time that you took and it must have been in um quite a bit of time to to go through and and review data because I don't think that many of us um did that and um it shows the level of of thought that you're willing to put through to it. It's difficult for me um when you do that and then you show the information that you have which is is conflicting with some information that we've received because once I have information that from what I see looks as though it is not um in neighborhood commercial you know then we're told well basically you know nothing we can do with that that we've already started this or whatever. I don't necessarily agree with that because I always think that there there should be an answer somewhere and there should be some options. We should have some options. It's not I mean if we make a mistake and we've been drawing this I don't you know for a while or whatever. Does it make it okay? And I'm just not that comfortable that if we make a mistake it makes it okay and then null and void when he's saying it's not even in neighborhood commercial. I don't know enough about the law. I've never seen this happen before in in many many years of being involved with the planning board. I don't know. Um but I'm just wondering there are always options and I don't know that I've heard them. It just seems like oh well you know it's not neighborhood commercial now we're going to move on and I'm not ready just to to do that because I want to know what are the options. So, do we get another legal opinion or you know what are the options?

Our ordinance just or our ordinance says any interpretations of the zone the boundaries of the zoning map uh go to the board of adjustment. So, there's no options for the planning board. Right. But can the planning board say that we make a motion that we want to send this because we have some very um wellthoughtout information that demonstrates something that is critical to this application. Can do we have that right here as a body to say that and and hold up the application meaning defer deciding the application? Yes. Pending an application before the zoning board. No, I don't think we have that option. Okay.

We just don't And you have um case law or you have something that you can read to me that says that we don't have the option to send it to the zoning board. If you wish, I'll prepare a memo for you, mayor, and and do what I can to come up with the rationale. But as of right now, this board doesn't have the authority to defer a decision on the application pending before it so that we can refer it to the zoning board. this board is is self-constituted to make this decision on on the site plan.

I I received that even, you know, earlier when you said that, but for some reason, it just doesn't seem right. And I don't like making decisions that don't seem right to me because if something is wrong, if it's not in neighborhood commercial and we're just moving along because you're telling us, well, that's a law. You know, I'm that person. Well, we need to change the law. We need to do something. I'm not I've never been one just to go along with things that don't feel right to me. So, I just need to have more more information and time to digest this because it doesn't seem right. He bought some compelling information to me and when I look at it, it really doesn't look like this is in neighborhood commercial. Um, I think I have seen this, Mr. Trembleac, you can you can chime in on this, but I think that the board can itself take an appeal to the superior court if it finds that an appeal is of some consequence. I don't know.

Or appeal its own decision. Appeal its own decision. Well, I I I don't know about that, but but let me just make this point in response to the mayor's comments and all and I understand the concerns. One thing that can't be disputed is that the 2022 zoning map clearly shows this on the So, the zoning map doesn't need to be interpreted and and that zoning map was adopted by ordinance by the council multiple times. Mhm. So that's the legally adopted zoning ordinance that we're working with that's been

So will we never correct it if it's wrong? I guess that's the um question that I have. Will we never correct it if it's wrong because it's there. A lot of things happen. People make mistakes, machines make mistakes. And if there's a mistake, then I would like for us to correct it on our website. Correct it everywhere. The question is and this is a they submitted you know the time of application rule that is the zoning that was adopted by the c the council the zoning map and was in effect at the time of application. Yeah.

So do you want to come back now and we can change it? We can, but that doesn't affect this application because they are guided by the the zoning ordinance, the zoning map that is adopted and time. Well, let's ask what you want to do as the planner of the township of Montlair. Do you want to do anything? Do you want to change it? Do you want to go back and see if it's right? And do you want to change it if it's not right? Because I haven't heard anybody in here say, you know, I I hear what everybody is saying. It's it's here. It's here. But my question is, is it right? Just because it's there doesn't make it right. And so I want to know do you want to make it right if it's not right.

I well I have to say I worked with the zoning officer. We submitted a report our from our evaluation going back to those zoning maps rather than counting the lots that you did. We basically went from the configuration of the lots adjoining this property and our interpretation is that it was in the NC zone. So you have my report. Tony disagrees. So, do you want to know? I agree. I I I think that I'm right. Tony thinks that he's right. At this point, I don't know how where you want to go with that because the applicant relied upon the zoning map that was in effect when they when they when they made their application. Even if we went back and we amended the zoning map right now to to to something different, they had the right to rely on the map that was in effect. I received that. But that that wasn't my question because thoughtful people would probably say something like, "Mr. Ian Wall-E, thank you for taking your time to do that." My, you know, calculations did not show that. Why don't we sit down and look at and see why it's different? Because thoughtful people would really want to know what is the truth here. Not because I did this, mine says this, and because you did that, yours is different. thoughtful people would want to sit down and look at it together and come up with what is true. So again, I thank you for taking your time to do that because I think truth is important.

Well, I know with my property, we have before us an application.

I received that. Thank you. I received all of that, Mr. Trimmlac. Thank you. I received what you said as well. I just want can if I can just add one final comment because I'm looking at the zoning ordinance section 347-4 interpretation of boundaries which reads as follows. the boundaries of each of these zones as created by the zoning ordinance um as prepared by the Montair Township Department of Community Planning and Community Development and amended through June 22 which is hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter at you know the boundaries of the zones as shown on the zoning map amended through June 20, 2022. That's what this is. 2022 is hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter.

And that also says there's a note to that2. The note says that it's included in a pocket at the end of this volume. It you don't have an online map being in a pocket at the end of this volume. So there's some errors in this code. There's an the online map is is attached is it's part of the ordinance. But the sentence that you read has a little numeral one. It says editor's note. The zoning map is included in a pocket at the end of this volume which goes it's that sounds like it's a paper map. It sounds like something that's historical. It doesn't sound It's also attached to the ordinance link to the there's a link to the map right in the correct that link. Okay. If you look at it's not the interactive map.

I know. I know. So, when you click on the link, okay, I'll bring up the example of my property 37 Clover Hill. I wrote a memo in 17 said it's zoned incorrectly. If you go to the online map, it's back to R2. If you click on the link for the actual zoning map, it's still C2 to this day. So, mistakes are being made. And I think that if we should and and you know the you listen, you we stumbled into this. I think what we need to do as a town is let's get the maps corrected and then move on with good information. Right?

Meanwhile, this application is entitled to be decided based upon this map which was in place adopted by the town, relied upon by my applicant when he purchased this property. I mean it correct. We filed the application. We've gone all the way to this hearing. You've had your planner review this. You've made a decision. You think that there's a mistake somewhere, Tony. I respect that. Okay, I respect you. I respect But that's no basis to hold up my client's application because you think there was a mistake. You think this isn't what was tended. This is what's intended. This is adopted, posted on your website, incorporated as part of your zoning ordinance. How can you simply

It can be It can be held up. It just can't probably be held up by this body, but it can be held up. And I'm looking at something that says why the developer usually loses in cases like this the you know because it is the ordinance that speaks not the map

it's the ordinance that speaks not the map but again it's a two-prong thing we can pass the resolution which says that this is a you know that this conforms if it's if the zone is correct and we don't even have to we're not going to say the second part but another body will rule and it sounds from what I'm reading that often rules um against an electronic map. And it says here, "A developer's remedy is typically not the right to build, but rather a possible lawsuit against municipality for damages or request for a C or D variance based on unique hardship the town's error caused them." Sounds fair to me.

Council, where are you reading from? Just so we know. What? Where are you reading from? Robots. Huh? Uh uh Google's Gemini, which is a good source of these things. No. And I mean, just to be fair to the applicant, where is this from? Common sense. It is a reading of I'm reading from Gemini. It's an artificial intelligence. Okay. Which is a first draft of, you know, of legal knowledge, but it says it's it's a normal process, but it is not something that I don't think we decide on. I'm done.

Janice, you mentioned there's a PDF. Is that PDF different from or the same as the map? Uh the online map, the electronic map? I don't know. Yeah, for this for this site it is. So, so from the 22 ordinance, you said for this particular site for the I think both on the online Yeah, the online version and the the PDF referenced in the in the ordinance. Sorry. They're both the same. Yeah, they both showed incorrectly. No, they could be both incorrectly, but I think that's um I mean for us to decide that it's incorrect here tonight, I don't think is uh is our is our purview, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Anybody else wish to be heard? And you don't have to. Just I don't want to cut anyone off. I make sure that I'm being a good student here. So, can we vote predicated based on the finding of how the property is zoned like contingent on how it's zoned? We can Okay. Meaning that we wanted based based on it we want a determination or is that if we because right now we're like we prove with the condition that it's correct. Is that is that the correct? Oh, can we condition an approval based on an interpretation of the zoning map? Correct. I don't think so. No. No.

Okay. That's a good question. There there will be finality in this board's ruling. Whether it votes to approve the application or deny, it's final. Got it. Okay. And would any other governing body or board take our vote into account? Is there um they're weighing their I'm seeing head nods. Yes. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think they would. Our decision here tonight wouldn't um inform a zoning board decision, right? No. Yeah, it's totally separate. It's totally separate.

The the zoning board, nothing would prevent them from, for example, listening to the tape to get the information and doing what it is that they're going to do. I don't know how that application is going to be presented to the zoning board, if in fact it is. But that will define how the board much the same way that you listen to the evidence before you and you make decisions based on that evidence. I expect the zoning board to do the same thing. Okay. Thanks.

Um I'll say, you know, one more one more thing about the 2000 I don't have the 2022 ordinance. Um but the case um after uh Miss Picket presented the fact that the zoning is not, you know, discernible. The argument that was made that was that it's it's been that way. It's been NC since 197478. Nothing then nothing should have changed in 22, but it did. That's the issue that you know the the the planning board the planning's letter says that it's been historically NC for years. What did what changed in 2022?

Well, you said that the map was adopted in in 22 and there therefore that declared and you saw the quality of our old map. So we but the parcels are pretty well I don't want to get into the parcels you were part of the group that worked on those the new zoning I missed it I made a mistake then I saw I saw my own property I worked on the zoning map so that's when 2020 2016 we or 2017 as a volunteer I as a quite frankly as a volunteer I didn't have the responsibility to make sure that every eye was dotted I was trying my best as a volunteer I pointed out my property from years ago but I didn't I didn't feel it was my responsibility to edit that map and make sure that it was perfect. I'm just saying

and the argument

you saw the you saw the quality of the maps in 2006. In 2015 2016 our job our task was to create a legible zoning map which is what we did and we worked with the planning board and we got it adopted by the council. So yes, I gather that there's some question about this particular property, but there's no the only only difference in the in the maps between 2016 and 2022 was we amended the zoning map and we made some changes. So that's the only change. It did this this didn't change between 2022 and 2016 when we originally adopted the new zoning map.

You were saying it changed. Yeah. But I don't I listen I don't want to take too much more time. I I'm I'm confident that um there was a change historically. This should not be NC. We So I'll just leave it at that. I I'm I I'm confident enough I know which way I'm voting for this and I I'm confident in my reasons to vote certain way. Is is this something the zoning subcommittee of this board will want to look at or should look at? When you say this, what is what do you mean?

The the issue that has been raised by Mr. Ian Wall about whether or not the zoning map is correct or not. Is that something that should be looked at by the zoning subcommittee? Absolutely. You mean regarding this particular property or all? No, no, no. Just the map itself. I mean, Tony was saying that, you know, he's thinks he saw an error with his property on Cloverdale, so maybe that's a task that should be reserved to the

Yeah, it's still not corrected. You know, if you look at the clickable map, the corner lot on Clover Hill and Claremont still says C2. So, that that that mistake persists because I I clicked on it. The online viewer is different. There there's two different zones for that same property. On the online one, it says R2. On the click on the map that you click on, it says C2. So, that's just one piece of evidence I'm quite familiar with. That's a mistake. I don't know.

Well, that's for his property. For this property, the two maps are are matching, right? So, uh, look, in my estimation, I agree we should probably have a committee review of this, but for purposes of tonight, I I don't see where we have a legal basis to, uh, to make a determination that it's wrong. That's just where we're where I'm at.

Yeah, there's there's a lot of things I wish we had the power to do. Wish we had the power to look at this in more depth. which we have were able to evaluate it and come to a decision on what we think the zoning is or not it should be what it is but I don't think we're the right body for that. I mean I'm I'm looking in the same book that Mr. Trimulac's got open and trying to see what it says and it seems pretty clear and consistent with what council said that that's the zoning board of adjustment power. It's not a power that we have. I wish we could do that. I wish we could take into account off-site traffic. I I don't like driving down park anymore in that area. And I go down at least once a week. It is hard to get down the street. People don't park like straight on the curb. They're tilted out. It's, you know, it's almost at the point where you can only get one car by at a time. You can't have two-way traffic. So, I I feel for you all that live in that area. It It's absolutely a challenge. I wish we had the power to do something about it, you know, but at the at the unfortunately our hands are tied on that and and also now that the building is fully conforming, there's no variances. We don't really have much of a choice outstanding. You know, I understand issues around zoning, but I personally don't feel like we have a choice but to approve this because it's conforming and we can decide if the design waiverss are sufficient to deny, but I don't think that's even rises to the level of a denial personally. So, I mean, that's that's where I'm I'm coming down is that I wish we could do more and I feel for the folks that live around that area, but I just I think our hands are tied on this. And with that, I would unless anybody wants to be heard. No. Mr.

Campbell, are we obligated to vote tonight? There's no window that we could take this away for an audit. I don't I don't think so. I mean, they've completed everything. We've heard public comment. I mean, we're at the end with, you know, it's a tough position. Again, it's it's we make decisions sometime with imperfect information. Kind of what I was saying with this um

shared parking analysis, right? You know, it's it's from January 12th. like I you know it would be nice to have gotten that earlier. Be nice to have it reflect the current intended use of the property. There's a lot of things that you know unfortunately we have to make decisions how we weigh evidence, how we weigh testimony, how we weigh that against the law and what our obligations are and the oaths that we took sitting on this planning board. Unfortunately, we have to make a decision yes or no or abstain. Right. Those those are those are the options before us. Yeah. Um and and with all that said, I would move approval of this application with the conditions that we've discussed and hopefully Mr. Nice has a list. I do.

Thank you. Oh, your microphone. Your mic's not on.

Now it is. Uh the applicant agrees to all of the uh board engineers comments and recommendations save for the uh if the sewer line is damaged uh the applicant will pay only its uh proportionate share to replace the line. Um the applicant will put conduit in the ground for future EVs. There shall be no outdoor seating at the restaurant. Uh, I think the applicant may have addressed this, but one of the conditions I had was that the lighting at the property lines shall comply with the ordinance. The civil plans will be revised to show the building elements at 0.0 feet. I think that was done.

Pardon? I think that was done in this latest revision.

Yeah. And and I thought so too. Um there will be some warning device whether it's building mounted or otherwise uh for traffic uh making egress from the from the building. Uh subject to the reasonable approval of the board engineer and the board planner. Um, the applicant will work with the board engineer regarding the Ballard lights on the north side of the uh, building. The commercial space will not be a pizzeria. It will be a bagel shop. Uh, if the uh,

I don't think we're conditioning the approval on it being a bagel shop, right? Didn't we decide it we'll have no more than 10? I'm not I didn't get there yet. Okay. Okay. I just That's That's two more down. Okay. Well, I just I want to make sure we're not counting that as a condition. The bagel shop, we're not restricting. Not restrict because it Well, what it will say is the commercial space shall have a maximum of 10 seats. Yes. Commercial space.

Commercial space. So whether it's a bagel shop or something else, but that that brings up um and I'm not sure I've phrased this very well, but if the parking intensity of use of that commercial space increases above the current shared parking analysis, uh uh a future occupant will need to come before the board. I would say the per current um u minim minimum number of required parking spaces. I wouldn't put the shared parking in there. I I would agree because I don't think this shared parking reflects what's actually going to go in there at this point. So, I don't want to rely on this. Okay. Um and that's all I have.

I would second plus the general conditions that we have. Yes. Or obvious standard conditions. Yes. We have a second from the vice chair. I would say call the role if you would. Okay. Okay. Mr. Campbell. me. All right. Um, Mr. Graham. Yes. Mr. Ian Wallally. Uh, no. Especially since the Put put your microphone on, Mr.

No. Especially since the support of the fact that Miss Pickicket's um request was denied because it says here that the review of the historic zoning map shows that the subject property was included in the NC zone since at least 1974. I'm pretty sure that's wrong. So, I'm a no. Mr. uh Councelor Damato, I'm going to vote no, unfortunately. Uh Mr. Cam Cam, Wow, we already Okay. Mayor Baskerville, no. Mr. Campbell, no. And uh Chair Broaddock, yes. All right. Denied. What's the denied? It's denied.

Okay. Four to two. All right. Thanks everyone. Can I testify please? No. It's over. It's over. Um, do folks need a break? Do we need Do we need to handle Yes. our new business tonight? We absolutely need to handle the no break. No, we It's 11:15. Well, I know, but I mean, we've been we've been Well, I I think I can keep going, but I thought we had a couple of breaks already. We did, but it's been two hours. I like to at least give folks an option. All right. You want You want five or You keep going.

No, no, we're here. We We still have more business to attend to, I guess. All right. I'm going to have to leave cuz I'm really starting to feel very nauseous and I don't want to have to sit here and be nauseous. So, if we have break stuff. So we are we taking a break or are we going to just keep keep it rolling because we really we have we have to keep I think the mayor is like the mayor's not feeling well and it's going to head out.

No, I'm not I'm not going to sit here while we go for a break. I really I've been like in fact I don't know if you noticed it. I've been having a hard time anybody just being here because I'm not feeling well. But if we have to go through break and stuff I know I won't be able to do that. If we can you know move move this on. I'm trying my best to do it, but I'm not going to sit here for a break. It's not fair. That's That's ridiculous. I'm a good person. I'm fair. I try to be just with everybody, but that's very disingenuous for you to say that. Okay. And you're basing it on an interpretation. The ordinance clearly states 2022, this is an NC commercial. Mr. Danti, no interpretation. Disregard that. You cannot disregard that,

Mr. Danti. It's It's been decid I I understand your position. And I understand your frustration right I look there's a lot of changes made Mr. Charilac I understand we're not so unfairly folks folks folks I I understand the frustrationally by my right gentlemen gentlemen this has been Mr. Ian Wallally, please. This has been decided. I understand. We still have another hour of stuff to do. I'm as frustrated as you are now. I understand it's late. We're all tired. Sir, please.

I understand. We are all tired. We need more. We have more stuff to do. Necessary. It's not necessary to go down. Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. You really think I'm this big? Please. I'm I'm a hardwork person. Sir, you see me? Sir, especially we're both Italian, too. Unbelievable. Uh, Miss Tally, referral of pending changes on chapter 85 affordable housing, chapter 202 land use procedure, and chapter 347 zoning.

Right. These are extensive changes to our administrative requirements for affordable housing. Uh the and I think I me mentioned this before, the state of New Jersey amended the uniform housing affordability controls as of December 15th of this of last year when uh we signed our um settlement uh agreement with the Fair Share Housing Center on affordable housing plan. Um, in I guess it was in January, we agreed to have these ordinances adopted by March 15th. That's the deadline that the Fair Housing Act, amended Fair Housing Act, required all municipalities to have these implementation ordinances in place by March 15th. So, um, unfortunately, this was supposed to be considered at the last C uh, planning board meeting because it was on the council agenda last week. And since the planning board had not reviewed these for uh consistency with the master plan, they had to table the second reading of the ordinance. And so the council has a special meeting on Thursday of this week to adopt these ordinances. Largely, for the most part, it's verbatim what is in the state requirements, reformatted slightly to fit within our code. The only thing that we s that we differ from what the state requires is that we have preserved the local preference for affordable housing in Montlair. The state laws clearly say that there is municipalities are not permitted to have a local preference. um they may permit a preference for other households within the housing region, but there have been case laws that determined a local preference discriminates from people outside your municipality.

Um, we've kept it in there because I think Montlair has fully met its affordable housing obligation as I've told you from, you know, when we first talked about the fourth round housing element by fully meeting our fourth round obligation including our present need which is our rehabilitation obligation. We are therefore have more flexibility uh than other municipalities that are facing an obligation to tailor the affordable our affordable housing regulations to meet what we what what what we need. And all of our housing plans, our third round housing plan and particularly our fourth round housing plan talks about the need to address displacement and gentrification of our um local uh lower income residents uh who are losing out. And by giving them the opportunity to to be prioritized on the affordable units that are created, we are uh directly addressing the displacement issue in Montlair, which particularly affects obviously the lower income uh uh households in the township. So um I think that this was crafted to be um consistent with our with our housing element fair share plan which clearly says that the local preference is important. we've kept it in there. And other than that, the all the other items in here are really um implementing um the uh the the the state requirements. So So I have a question on three. Mayor, you have a question?

Oh, no. I was going to make a motion to Oh, I have a question before you go before you go to that. um 347 156 specifically D which I think is page four of the 347 document. Okay. Right at the top. Wait, let me get let me get to the Okay, here's the 347 document. Which page? Uh four. Is this the redline version or the clean version? I think this is the clean version that I have. Four. Yes. Uh it's on 34. So uh chapter 347 156D. It talks about the partial unit.

Yeah. You know, and uh contributions cash in loo. I think that should be revised to also account for dividing by four in the case of a use variance where it's 25% affordable. Right now D only seems to address the current 20% whereas A talks about having a a 25% or one in four total for um these places where there's a use variant. So you're saying in D uh D should contemplate whatever the fractional uses depending on how it was calculated under an earlier section right

the fractional uses or the sorry the fractional unit excuse me should be treated the same I would think. Uh all right what give me that then I'm looking at the red line version now. What's the number again? Uh 347-156 156 154 156 Okay. D D Yeah, you're probably right. I did not touch that. So I probably should change that just to match what's a right where is a A mentions a you know one and five but then a one and four for a use. Yeah, that's a

approval. Use variance approval. Yeah. So just to make sure we're counting the fraction our math is consistent. I got that correct. And that's somebody who doesn't say well I calculated differently. I don't have a fra I I just to be consistent and that's all I had. Other than that I think it is consistent with our okay our uh master plan. Good catch. Thank you. You got it. I would therefore then defer to the mayor. I I have have a question about the um the affordable units in here. Does it talk about um our affordable units being for Montair residents or that's not in this document? It's in there. I on what page? I'm just trying to get

Oh, I don't know which page it is. I know that I I worded it to that. So that the local preference, which I believe is in six, it's uh in chapter 65. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because I got a bunch of emails in the last couple of days about it and I thought it was already in there. It is in here. I did not remove it. All righty. So, and if you want, I I'll take the time tomorrow to let you to to point out exactly where it is in here.

Thanks. No, I think I just think it's really important since we went through that already and we got a court decision and they felt that since we had no further um you know responsibilities at this point in time that we are going above and beyond that at that point in time. I know you said something changed in when June or somewhere, but I think it it's worth the shot for us to go forward with that and and um see if we can get it for local preference. Abs. Absolutely. Okay. That's I the council I took the council's uh direction and made sure it was in there and I will point that out to you.

No, I No, I appreciate it. I just I didn't see it in here, but thank you. However, I would like at some point to have some data on the extent to which affordable units that are being marketed to local people are actually being taken up and then and that percentage like they're all local people. What? Any any units over the last since 2018 that have come up and been available have been um have been local local residents have filled those slots. Really? Yeah.

Since 2018, you're saying all the affordable units that have come on have been taken up by by That's what my understanding is from the administrative agents that we've had. Yeah. My understanding is that it's almost zero. Who did you get that from? Just people in the market. I But I would like to see I would like to see a a report that just enumerated that. There's no way. I mean, okay. No, I'm not. They're pulling because they all local residents and employees. It's either resident or employee goes to the top of the list

and that's where they draw the names from as of 2018. But you have to pass through several small eyes of the needle in order for it to work. That's the number one. The very first sorting is local residence.

It's local residents, but then people have to be able to move very quickly. People have to be in the uh uh uh in the market for the that type of apartment. And then the problem is that the income and rent compression is such that you have to have a very tight income range and expense range in order for it to make sense. So they may be offered locally but they're not really being picked up locally because you have a much larger pool of people in region 2. Anyway, I just would like to see a report and see if they will because I would like to see a report. So I have one they're no longer our administrative agent. So they don't have our our data.

Well, I would like whatever it is, we need to get it and we we should have it soon. So in uh 220 or 202, I'm sorry. Um 20243 B 3. I would like to in the red line insert. I would like it to say all residential construction of buildings or structures on property used by and then I'd like to cut out. Can you give me the section again? It's page seven of 202 the red line version 2020 202-

um land use procedures. Okay. Which one? I'm on page seven. I I just don't want to actually list out the types of religious body uh religious buildings. So it says churches, synagogues, mosques and others. I would just like to say on property used by houses of worship. What? Okay. That came state that came straight from the state law. I mean I I can take it out. I'm just telling it that Yeah, I understand. Well, we're our own place. So, you want to take out uh structures on property used by get take out of churches, synagogues, mosques and just say and other and you take that out and just says houses of worship.

Just say houses of worship. Yeah. Which is more inclusive. That's fine. Yep. And any other um similar formulation. That's all. Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we accept this with that amendment. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And there's something else that is consistent with the master plan. Yes. That's good. Is there a second? A second. All in favor? I opposed. Extend. Thank you very much. You have to pay some bills. Oh, no. We have We have more to come. We have we have a public hearing for the area need of redevelopment study for 619-631 Bloomfield Avenue.

Okay. Now, we have a PowerPoint presentation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Casmy's reading the room already.

Only one witness. Don't forget that. All right, good evening everyone. I will wait for this to get uh lit up. Um, thank you for your time and uh for being here at this hour, but um I'm going to just give a quick presentation to supplement the redevelopment study that was submitted for review for this public hearing. Uh this is a public hearing to uh discuss the designation of the property at 619 to 631 Bloomfield Avenue, block 2209, lot 12 as an area in need of redevelopment, a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment. Just to give context, this is adjacent to the Montlair Center Gateway phase 2 redevelopment area. It's a property that was not previously included in the redevelopment study that we did several more than several probably 10 10 years ago.

Thanks.

Um so just to give us a little context uh the township council authorized the planning board to conduct an investigation of the property to determine its uh designation as a non-condemnation redevelopment area. Um we are currently at the public hearing after which the planning board will submit its recommendation to the township council which will then adopt um the report or not um and designate the area as an area need of redevelopment and that will precipitate the redevelopment plan being prepared. All right. So the redevelopment plan would give the township a host of legal tools to facilitate u or incentivize development. Um there are a host of uh benefits to um you know having a redevelopment area designated um from establishing the planning um and design standards to um facilitate approvals to um providing some tax and financial incentives to um facilitate the redevelopment of that property. So to uh earn designation or to be eligible to be designated, the site must meet at least one of the following eight criteria which relate to this um condition of the building and the general area or other logistic um constraints that would prevent a building from being appropriately utilized or u maintained in good condition. So, as uh Janice mentioned, this is at the end of the Western Gateway or part of the Western Gateway. Um, it is almost on the corner and is on the north side of Bloomfield Avenue. There is frontage on Bloomfield Avenue and through Midland

Avenue there is access to a parking lot with 24 parking spaces in the rear. Um, there are four retail storefronts. So, that's a little incorrect. So, um there are three small tenants uh to the west and then the larger office retail building to the east and above that are two floors of residential units containing four units. Um here's a map of the proposed Western Gateway District from the master plan. And just for some context, the property is in the C1 central business uh center area, which is the more uh commercial area of the C1 zone. Uh it permits buildings up to six stories or 67 feet. So the current property is underutilized in that sense. And it also is um much less uh dense than is permitted. We currently are at 10 dwelling units per acre where uh 55 are permitted. And here are a few photos of the existing conditions. So you can see some deferred maintenance and the the direct uh visual of what that looks like on the um eastern portion of the building. The first photos from the apartment. Um then the ceiling at the former office beer bar and grill and then a picture of the skylight which um you can't really see well but there is some water damage as well at the top. Um here is some photos from inside the units. Um you could see the wow condition is mostly okay but um could use some work and then there's again more water damage. Um here are some interior shots of the retail tenant spaces at uh 69 627 to 631 Bloomfield Avenue which are the three smaller um tenants to the west. So, you can see a broken down window,

some boarded up um doorways. There's a lack of ADA access that's also shown here. Um here's some exterior shots of those retail um tenants. This is you could see the rear access to the patio. There's exterior condition is not great. um seems seems to be you know the condition around the building and some pictures from the actual office beer bar and grill space where mesh um was operating for the past 5 years until quite recently. So, from our investigation, talking to the property owner and looking at um aerial history and uh records, we can tell that the property has been largely vacant for at least six years. Um the larger tenant space was o um was vacated December 2019 and then mesh came in at 2020. Uh retail storefronts have been vacant since at least 2018. and I think some of them a little bit more and same with the residential units above. So, as we go into our criteria analysis, um the six-year vacancy substantially exceeds our 2-year threshold um stated in the the statute. And so, the building through its vacancy has fallen into disrepair. It is untenantable um both the residential and retail portions of it. and uh the building owner has claimed that it would require substantial rehabilitation to uh be habitable. So we also looked at uh the conditions detrimental to health and welfare. Um there is some deferred maintenance and the you know structural damage from

water and uh drainage and then uh obsolescence in how the site is um interacting with Midland Avenue. There can be some improvements on uh how that parking lot is set up and how the curb cut is quite wide potentially creating conflicts with pedestrians. Um so aging interior and then exterior conditions could create a detrimental condition to the safety and public welfare. Then as we see through the pictures the actual buildings themselves present uh dilapidated and substandard and obsolet obsolescent conditions. There's broken windows. Um there's ADA access that needs to be uh installed for the the building to meet current life safety standards. Um when you go into the building uh to the retail I mean to the apartments um there's a step up that doesn't provide ADA access and then the stairway up to the units which is the only way to access them is quite narrow and steep and uh wouldn't meet code requirements today. All right. So, uh, our conclusion based on this criteria is that the building is eligible to be designated as a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment, uh, subject to criterion A, B, and D. Um, so this would uh present an opportunity for an underutilized parcel in a key downtown area to be utilized to its full potential and um better integrate into the streetscape and the historic district. Sorry that was very quick, but um

don't apologize for being quick at this point. It's almost midnight. So this is just one property, right? That's always your mind. Yeah, this is just on one property and there's some more there's some more stores that look not so great. How come they weren't included? Well, no. Further up, right? So, they're already in there. They're already in already. Oh, so is it on the zoning map or is it still they still see one on the zoning map? No, it was never approved. No, they're they're all we've never adopted a redevelopment plan, but those have already been designated in the area. Oh, they've been designated. Okay. Not don't have a red. You don't have a redevelopment plan yet. Okay. So,

we never adopted it. Which um which of the adjoining properties are have already been approved as being um uh with the same criteria that you're placing? So, the the fleet feed on the corner that's not right. That's okay. No, that's an area. That's an area need. So, that that satisfies the requirement that it's the dilapidated property. Absolutely. All of those properties only.

Wait, so why? Oh, sorry. I got time. So all the purple there is So this property is the only property that was not included. It was never part of the original study because the office because the office restaurant 2015 or 2014. It was it was actually in use as a restaurant back then. But so was Fleefe. That was okay. Right. And that was include Fleefe was included, but the restaurant wasn't. Which one was on the corner? Did you That's been around for a long time. Bloomfield and Midland. Yeah. Are you telling which building? The Leech building. No, the corner of uh the corner of um Bloomfield and Midland. Midland. That was never included. That wasn't includ. Okay. Before you say Okay. So that's not in. Right.

But then everything else, including the police station and the police lot in the back, that's all included. Right. And there's a couple of those uh lots back there, the um residential lots. They're vacant, right? Yeah. They're owned by the the They were associated with the Leech building. Those were included as was uh and we we already designated the the everything except for the first residential lot on on Portland Place. They were all already designated. So you're adding this to the other. Are they also designated in the same criteria? The No, the residential was an area needed of rehabilitation. Everything else was an area need of redevelopment. Redevelopment. Okay. And that's what this is going for here. Redevelopment.

Are need of redevelopment for this one? I mean, is the idea to combine this property with the other ones and create a whole redevelopment plan? We have a we have an RFP. I got the proposals today to do a redevelopment plan for all for this whole area for the whole area for the Western Gateway redevelopment area. And we intend in intend to keep this building I mean this property which is important because having access from Midland Avenue makes access for parking an interior parking structure much more doable.

Okay. What what will the RSP cover? Is it public realm improvements or also the buildings? The you mentioned the RFP. What does it include as a scope? It includes all of these properties um in a to do a new redevelopment plan as a developer RFP to do that. We we issued an RFP. We're hiring a consultant consultant team to to do study these buildings and propose a new uh Yeah. So like the art redevelopment plan would uh identify the permitted uses a design standard any

a design you know like landscaping that would be required for it. So it creates like a sort of cohesive decision of the township that a red developer then can come in and use the tools available in the redevelopment plan to hopefully implement. Right. So these redevelopment plans obviously they supersede um you know HPC authority and things like that. I want to make sure I mean some of these buildings are like the police station the office building are historic. Um are are we uh contemplating um HPC protection for these structures?

We're yes we're contemplating HPC involvement in the preparation you know discussing the redevelopment plan. So I hope it's like the same way that blockano was done. Are we contemplating it or will it be a part of the redevelopment plan HBC uh involvement and engagement and will there be the weight of um uh law when I can't tell you that.

So that's that's a a serious concern for me. Um and then I I do have a question. I mean look, Laboratorio is right there. You have some really successful businesses right next door. uh what's the reason for these buildings falling into such disrepair and should this be really be considered an area in need of redevelopment or an area in re need of of rehabilitation? The request from the council has been to evaluate this as an area in need of redevelopment, not an area in need of rehabilitation. The key difference is why yeah the key difference is you have more flexibility um in doing a financial agreement with a developer and for with an area in need of redevelopment. You can't do that with an area in need of rehabilitation.

What would be the benefits say they if they what would the benefit be to somebody who was uh rehabilitating these properties under uh an area needed what what would what are the benefits of an area needed rehabilitation? I think that's a better question. The council, the council would have the option to give them a shortterm tax abatement, which basically any increase in their in their uh property taxes could be phased in over 5 years. That's it. And they would still be subject to um all of the ordinances and and uh uh they would still be subject to HPC scrutiny, all all of that under area in need of rehabilitation. Correct. It depends on how what's in the redevelopment plan.

No, no. area needed if we were to do it under a rehab rehabilitation plan. Either either way, the area the redevelopment plan either an area need of rehabilitation or an area need of redevelopment. Either one allows you to do a redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan is reviewed by the planning board. It's adopted by the council. I can't tell you what the council's going to want to put in there as part of that. councils in in the driver's seat, but generally, you know, they would probably want to work with the HPC. They would and they would want to work with the planning board and work with the we have a series of public hearings and and community outreach. Sure. But but as as we all know what the council is going to decide,

of course, and and you know, the the other land use boards uh you know, are the authority uh to shape these plans becomes really advisory and that's that's a concern. Uh we're you're essentially for me to vote for this. You're asking me to strip the HBC of its power and authority and I'm not comfortable with that for the for this area. I didn't think I said I don't think I said it strips you of the power your power and authority. But it does we become advisory at that point HBC rather than having the force of law Janice I know that's not what you said but that's just the practical effect of doing an area in uh uh doing a uh redevelopment plan.

All right let me most of our redevelopment plans do continue to have referrals required developers re any development application be referred to the HPC. So, I can't tell you what this redevelopment plan's going to say because we haven't, you know, we just got the the proposals today. So, all I'm saying is if the the council is in the driver's fleet, the council acts as the redevelopment agency in Montlair. And so, if they want to deter they will determine how much what kind of role they want to have the HPC and that's all I can say. Okay.

I think you have a pretty good relationship. Mayor, my concern is right when you do these redevelopment plans, um, they control, right? So, the statutory authority of a of a land use board like the Historic Preservation Commission is superseded. Our ability to shape a redevelopment plan is limited to really just our advice and the uh, redevelopment plan governs. And if it were to say call for the demolition of the historic police building um or the um even the building that the office is uh currently located at we could just advise against it but we would have no authority to prevent it. So I that's

but otherwise you do have authority to otherwise the HPC's uh our our town statutes govern statutes govern and the HPC would be able to to have the ability to prevent demolition of historic structures. So the historic I mean the the key historic structure 647 Bloomfield Avenue is a landmark building. So yeah and but the whole business district is is in a um it's a historic business district. So HPC has a lot more authority over demo in in those districts. Okay. I think a bigger problem, sorry, is simply that the criteria are uncompelling just being dilapidated.

I have a concern about that too.

Yeah, I agree with you. It is not, you know, because as you said, the key benefit of having a redevelopment area is that it it's that's the way that you open the door to a financial agreement. Um, and um, it's gained by allowing something to fall into disrepair. And so I will just be honest. The reason that I would be in support of something like this is because it would increase the value of a municipal asset in that area, which is the police building and the associated lot by creating or pass through between Midland and Valley and otherwise tie it together and make

right give our own municipal assets, but that is not a criteria under municipal land use law that allows you to declare an area of meter redevelopment. And these other criteria are just completely uncompelling. I tend to agree with you, counselor. I think uh it makes far more sense if this were presented as an area in need of rehabilitation. I would find that far more compelling than an area in need of uh redevelopment

street for rehabilitation. Yeah, I tend to agree as I look at it on Mike, it just feels like a building was purchased and let it it goes into disrepair and then now it's an area in need of redevelopment. Knowing it's part of a larger plan, that makes me feel a little bit better because I think developing this property with the other ones makes makes sense to me. This on its own, I think I would I would have a lot more serious concerns about it. But turning I mean looking at the criteria itself the one one thing I was going to ask you Miss Casmi was you know for criteria Dilapidation conditions detrimental to health safety and welfare of the community. How does this fit that latter portion? How is how are the conditions inside the building which to me seem to only affect tenants of the building and occupants of the building

detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community? Yeah, I think that that section could be expanded on a bit. So, um I think there's a little bit of a crossover between criterion A and D, but um but just just yeah, looking very specifically at D, right? So, um I think the that could be more argued by the actual site conditions, but how the parking is accessed and how that's interacting with Midland. Um and I think there's some leeway into how the internal um deterioration is affecting or could affect the uh outside condition but um I see your point. I think

but just it only you only have to meet one of the condition one of the criteria. I I understand I and and did you talk about criteria A? Yeah, the that's the interior interior which are so if you focus on criteria A that the generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated or obsolescent or possess any of such characteristics or are so lacking in light air or space as to be conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. Right. I I think it meets dilapidated. I I think that it does meet that

substandard probably. I'm not the life safety. I'm not an ADA. I'm not swayed by mostly because we've heard an application recently where the applicant clearly said and I don't know if I remember right, it's an 8-unit building doesn't have to be ADA compliant. So, while I would love all of our buildings to be ADA compliant, like I'm not I'm not swayed by that particular argument here. Well, we didn't do obviously the further studying of a structural engineer code uh code compliance, but um there was the incident of the burst pipes after the you know freezing cold and um from that we got the the notice that there was concern about the structural um integrity of the apartments above while the you know ground floor could be um repaired and possibly the tenant and mesh could come back or the who was using the space. Um, they were concerned about how the apartments above were potentially affecting the interior safety of that downstairs space.

That would have been helpful for the report, too. I think that's a right a reasonable date. Well, when you when you think about unsafe, right, that just goes to support more of the argument on why criterion A is applicable here. Yeah, we can I'll tie that back into um the criteria explanation. But is that really why we're doing this? Yeah. Honestly, is that why we're doing this? Are we doing this because this building is dilapidated? I don't think it's true. Yeah. And that goal could be achieved through an area need rehabilitation. It allows us to do this, but it doesn't compel us. And you know, tonight I think we're all just trying to

be honest and f you know, follow the law and like I just don't believe that's why we're here. I don't believe that that's why we're doing this because we want to create, you know, a a a coherent plan and and I would like to, you know, make money off of a building at some point, maybe, or make it worth more, make it more vibrant, but it's not because it's in bad shape. Not true. Do we know why the building has been mostly unused for the last several years? I'm sorry. Yeah, I can't hear you. Do we Sorry, it's a little late. Yeah. Do we know why the building was mostly unused for the last several years?

Well, the tenants had left and then they were not um no one came back in from what we heard from the building owner was that substantial rehabilitation is required before anyone could come in. So, can can I ask how long has the owner owned the building? Since December 2019, the present owner. Wow. Yeah, that's it's a long time. Very long time. And when was it vacated? The property? Uh the tenants, the last tenant left December 2019. So they've owned it since 19 and the tenants left in 19. That is according to the tax record. Yes. So he's kept it like this for years.

Seven years. It says the property Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Campbell. Oh, I was just going to recite from the report. says the property was purchased in December 2019 shortly after the closure of Office Beer Bar and Grill on December 1st, 2019. And the three retail storefronts to the west of the former office grill space appear to have been vacant since approximately 2018 based on site observations.

I tend to agree with where Council Damato is headed. It just seems strange that by building It needs work, repairs. So, you don't have a tenant. So, now it's an area in need of redevelopment. I mean, it sounds strange to me, but I'm going to kind of put that aside. And, you know, if I look this straight for what the council's asked us to do, and is this does this meet the criteria or any of the criteria? I would say yes, it does. Respectfully, chair, I don't think it's compelling enough to councelor Damato's point to warrant area needed redevelopment. I

asked a question about the um just going back to the old municipal building um the historic building. So when was that put into an area in redevelopment? You mean the other properties? Well, the police building I'm talking about the old mun building 2015 I think. So that so that was put into an area of redevelopment. Yeah. So and then a redevelopment plan was never we worked on it. We have we had a draft plan and then it all fell apart. What was the um what was just so historically um what was it going to like what did the redevelopment plan want there?

It was going to um keep the police station I think there were going to be a a floor a floor above the police station. The issue was and they were going to redevelop the property surrounding it, but the develop the property owner at that time wanted to put storage in the center of it and they were going to be town houses on on facing Portland Place. So you'd have town houses facing Portland Place, mini storage in the center of the the lot with structured parking, and then you'd maintain the retail and and the police station on on Bloomfield Avenue.

Well, that's the developer. So I mean if we if we do this then my mind immediately goes to okay what do we like the consultant comes in what are we going to tell a consultant to do it's like what do you want them to go to the community like what's the purpose of I mean obviously I mean you know Mike makes a good point I mean well PNCG is in the process of acquiring the properties on Portland Place to move their substation there. So that's part of the problem. Part part of the issue is we want to have the a redevelopment plan with appropriate guidelines uh to ensure that the PSCG substation is designed so that it it it it is has a soft positive exterior. Oh, so they're moving across the street. Yeah. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. In back of the police building,

right? And back behind the leech building. And then we want to preserve the police station which is obviously a key historic asset and make that you know a redevelopment plan that celebrates it. I mean, I'm speaking for the council, but and and the town, but that's what I understand. And then have appropriate development and redevelopment along Bloomfield Avenue with uh access, this is key, from Midland a Midland Avenue to go to structured parking in the center of the site

and hopefully have egress on Valley Road as well, so you don't have cars coming in and out mid block on Bloomfield Avenue. So, that's kind of the idea. We just don't have all of the That's the idea. But it should be in here. I mean it should it's separate that that this this has to the redevelopment study has to be adopted on its own. You don't consider we know that you're going to do a redevelopment plan but honestly that has nothing to do with the redevelopment study and this is unless that particular property is absolutely necessary for the effective redevelopment of this of of of the the area. I think that might have to do with an area need of rehabilitation.

That's if the municipal ownership or just disjointed ownership is preventing the um redevelopment of that property. So, can I could we do those same things if it were a area in need of rehabilitation? Absolutely. The only thing is that you'd have to exclude this property from the pilot. You know, if you do a pilot, all the other properties can be included, but this property would have to be excluded from any pilot analysis. And so at no point in time could that property be considered for a pilot. We're just trying to understand with it because this propertyy's there's, you know, one owner. So this property would be excluded from a pilot. It would have to be under regular regular taxes

taxes and the other properties would have the option of being part of a pilot if the township chose to do that. So this just takes that option off the table. Okay. The council's always in the driver's seat.

I can I sorry it's very late. It's going to be very combabulated. Uh but it it does seem odd that the town would invest uh funds and effort in rehabilitating an asset that's private owned by someone that has let it, you know, go to disrepair and and fund a study to encourage him to do something about it. Just just to correct the record, the township's approach has been any costs associated with the preparation of the redevelopment plan is paid for by the designated developer. Right.

So we'll get the township will get the money back if they if they designate a developer. So if the process would be there would be a developer designated that would take over the ownership of this land from the current owner or it could be the current owner or it could be the current owner and what um what would how what kind of urgency would the process demand? Um like well PS is there a timeline to develop? Yes, PSCG calls on a weekly basis. Where are you with your redevelopment plan? We need to new we need to move our P our substation and we're basically they're putting pressure on us. So

because they're going to they want to purchase some of our property too. So if we accept this and and recommend it, the idea is that this would get redeveloped by a private developer based on this plan. That cost will be offset by them, right? And this one developer will do all the these things. Usually there's one developer. I mean, this put gives the township maximum control. You get a lot more control over what happens on this property through the redevelopment process and all the design standards and the redevelopment plans than you do under relying on existing zoning. And I don't think we could accomplish what we want to accomplish here. So with just existing zoning with and with that logic then with respect we don't know what we want to do. I know

I did not even know that there was a consultant coming and there is no need to declare a redevelopment area for this parcel in order for the PSCG transaction to be executed in any way. This is for something far much farther down the road. Our experience with the one large redevelopment area in town indicates it is not something that is helping the process along. I mean this is much more fraud. So I think that certainly this requires much more what

fraud. It's difficult. I mean we're not and I personally am not voting for any more financial agreements unless it involves a municipal building and which this potentially does. But I'm just saying if you if just so you know if it's an area in need of rehabilitation you that offer is off the table for this particular piece of property. I mean, again, I have to say the council's in the driver's seat. Say that last bit again. The at the end of the day, if you if it's if you designated an area in need of redevelopment, then the council is in the driver's seat. You get to decide if

the council is in the driver's seat with seven people turning the steering wheel different directions. Exactly. It doesn't work.

What was the rest of that part? So, so you if you if you designated an area in need of redevelopment and it only has to meet one of the criteria, um you have the ability to decide if you want to at the end of the day enter into a re a financial agreement and offer them a pilot or not. You don't have to. If you do designate this as an area need of rehabilitation and I think it clearly meets that criteria, then then you don't have the option for this property, this particular property of even doing a pilot. So that's off the table. That's all I'm saying. And I want to make sure that that that we that that's just understood.

But the school folks in I'm in favor of sharing the pilot if we have to have a pilot. There's two beautiful words in the English in the Latin language advalorum. Regular taxes are vastly superior. Vastly superior. So it you have to have a very very good reason in order to take something off the tax roles. And so it may there may be a good reason, but I I'm not seeing it now. And I don't I don't think there's a great rush. There's not a great rush. So we can talk about it and somebody can convince me. I don't know.

I was going to ask on this. Would would you mind showing us where the PSG substations substation is going to go on the map?

Oh, really? Let's Yeah, it takes Yeah, it's going to take all of the property behind the leech building and most and all almost all of the parking behind the police station. Well, where are the police going to park? Someplace else. That's why we need to do a read. How come PCG can't rehabilitate the substation? Why do they need to move?

Because it it's not big. They've told us it's not big enough. They need more property. And this is they were directed to go to this area because it's it gives them the the larger area that they need for to expand their substation, which they can't do in their present location.

I I don't I guess I guess I feel like a bunch of transformers. I mean, if this is Bloomfield Avenue, um, and we want people to live there, you know, just having this, you know, electrical factory there seems I I I know historically it was there. It's on the other side of the street. It's it's that brick building, but it seems like that use sort of interferes with, well, certainly interferes with the parking right now for the police station. Um, again, I'm not this first time I'm hearing of it. They basically will take it if we don't get if we don't sell it to them. Although they can they have powers to do that. Basically they have powers and also it needs to be directly adjacent. It needs to be in close proximity to their needs.

Will we get the will we get their building? It's not going to be right. Well, that build that that it's basically a a demolish that. But will the town get them to return? I don't know. That's what we have to negotiate in this redevelopment agreement. That's why we have the parking has you can negotiate that now. If we if you buy this, we want yours. You can't talk to them like that. I'm not I'm not involved in those conversations. But again, it's it's better. I think that's why we want to have a redevelopment plan so it's documented. We have a plan.

What's going to be built where, what it's going to look like, where is the parking going to go. That's the value of having a plan when you have these when when you have these discussions. How could they take the parking for a seems like, you know, you how how could PSNG say, "Okay, have a police department in Montlair. We're going to take your parking lot. Seems like that's not fair. I mean, where are the police going to park?" New location. Oh, new location. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Never. I'm behind. Sorry. pieces to the puzzle.

Okay. But just for clarity, they wouldn't be able to take the police parking lot if they weren't moving locations. Correct. Right. PS&G. The the part the what they've what they've presented to the township is a new substation, including all the area behind the leech building and the parking area for the that's what that's the amount of area that they need and they're going to pay the right. What's the timeline on that? Did they come to us with that or did we tell them that we're moving or how how did this happen? Like how what's the township has had conversations with PSCG for the past two years? Okay.

Three years for the next two years. I think the timeline would be next council. Originally they wanted to expand and front on Bloomfield Avenue. The prior council said no. Yeah. They didn't want it on Bloomfield Avenue. didn't want it on Bloomfield Avenue. So township said, "Well, you know, we'll sell you the our property." You know, that's how this conversation went. Okay. Okay.

And that's why we are where we are today. How do you design it so you can um craft because if you can craft a substation if you if you uh soften it with walls and architecture and and a combination of landscaping which is what why we have the building's kind of interesting as it is. The RFP has to include a landscape architect and an architect so that we can have the right design elements to soften that. Would there be enough room back there for a parking deck? Oh, your mic.

I think I think yes, we can with with the re if this area is redeveloped um behind the buildings fronting on Bloomfield Avenue. Yes, you could design it so you can put some parking there. I think that's the intent. You got to provide parking on site. So, and that's why we need to have a consultant help us design how these pieces will work together. And presumably the police vehicles will move into that deck at least on a temporary basis until I'm assuming that the police department will be relocated. No. No. Yeah, the police I mean this is it's a little late to go into all this but agreed but it's not I'd like to get this

the idea that it is we we have not decided what is going to happen with that asset and and we're moving along. My question is why we're having this conversation. Could we get testimony at the next can we push this off and then get testimony from the owner of of of this asset who is sitting in the audience very politely? I can be very quick. I would be happy to listen to somebody else talk. This is a public hearing. So if any member of the public would like to make a comment on this proposed designation, step up. Give us your name and address and your comment.

Sure. David Blick, BDP Holdings. Uh professional address is 7 Oak Place sweet 240 Montlair, New Jersey. Residential address 218 South Mountain Avenue, Montlair, New Jersey. Uh, I want to clarify a few things. I think there's a lot of questions and some conjecture that's been made this evening about why the property has been held vacant, why the property next to this has been held vacant. Uh, as Miss Thally has indicated, this was part of a larger redevelopment plan spanning the better part of the last decade. We were hit with COVID for a number of years where the municipality was shut down. uh under the prior council and under the prior planning board, I think a few of you were members. You probably recall testimony from a lot of the residents on Portland Place clamoring for access to the redevelopment plan not to be on Portland Place. That was one of the larger or largest sticking points from the residential community. We were able to acquire this lot within the block. specifically wanted this lot within the block to solve that issue for the public on Portland Place. This really mitigates any of the traffic on Portland Place, which is a one-way road, right? It only goes east. Um, acquiring the curb cut on Midland into the rear of this assemblage really provides another option, as Miss Thally indicated, to provide ingress and egress away from the residences on Portland Place. So that was the reason for the acquisition. The reason the buildings have been vacant is we've been waiting for the town uh for a number of years postco to pick this back up. Uh I think for the prior two years, maybe even a little bit longer, this concept of PSEG has been around. So we've literally been waiting for tonight to hopefully progress the ball forward on this. Uh I certainly don't like having vacant property. you know that I've

spent millions of dollars reactivating Lacawana, which is sunk cost, right? It's a temporary activation. We looked at teniting a lot of these buildings. Uh we've had short-term tenants here and there. The buildings are not habitable. Uh the office closed because it was not habitable by them. That's why they went out of business and sold the property. So I think you know whatever you decide tonight I think the planning department indicated that this meets a number of the criterion. It's obviously adjacent to a number of parcels and lots that are already designated as areas in redevelopment. This would provide for an additional lot that enhances not only the cohesiveness of all the other lots that are designated as a redevelopment area under one cohesive redevelopment plan, but solves for the biggest public problem under the prior redevelopment plan, which is only having access on Portland Place. So that's completely eliminated with the inclusion of this lot in any potential redevelopment plan. Thank you.

Um, can I ask you a question, please? So, you can't do that if it was um rehabilitation as uh vice chair. I I don't do anything. Uh, I think the the frustration from a developer under any redevelopment process is it is driven by the governing body which in Montlair is the town council. So, you would in fact be creating the redevelopment plan and we would have to choose to live by that or not, I guess. Um, but you create that redevelopment plan, rehabilitation instead of the redevelopment because there have been some, right, questions about

Look, maybe I'm in a position where I understand uh pilots better than the average resident of Monontlair. Um, I think they're a great thing. I think as a governing body, we have a grave fis fiscal crisis ahead of us. Whether or not you see it coming is another question. Uh I think we're seeing it in the schools right now. I think at the municipal level we are seeing failed infrastructure in our facilities. We're seeing failed infrastructure in our recreational parks. Uh we're seeing a lot of additional expense. I believe in January it was reported that you know the municipal benefits for employees is going up by $4 million. That's a significant percentage of the municipal budget. How does that get paid for? uh pilots provide a disproportionate share of revenue from property to the municipality. I think that's a good thing. Uh whether or not some of that gets allocated to schools, obviously a debate for another time, but I think if I were in your shoes on the governing body as a resident of Montlair, I'd be in favor of including this parcel in an overall pilot to enhance the fiscal outcome of the township. You'll get more money with a pilot than you would at alarm taxes.

Thanks. I'm I'm I'm going to ask planner tally my question later because it had nothing to do with pilots, but thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else? Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to make a comment about this redevelopment plan or this redevelopment study, I should say. All right. Seeing none, does the board have other questions, comments they'd like to explore. What is the timing on this? The 15th. There's No, no, there's no timing on this. It's just this we just noticed a public hearing. So,

I noticed as a public hearing. I Yeah, I got the R I issued the RFP, got the proposals today. I'm just trying to move the project along. We can we can carry this to another meeting if you feel more comfortable. Okay. I was gonna ask a question about historic building. Yeah. Sometimes your microphone on Mr. Yanelli.

Uh sometimes just facades are are saved and sometimes whole buildings are saved. So I think maybe we'll save that for next time in terms of what's the intent and what's the preservation effort. Um if the police are moving out, filling that building with another use is sort of difficult. I mean, it's not as if it's a residential building or an office building that's so easily occupied. So, but I think following on Mike's concern about the historic use and I know that that's ultimately the whatever the guidance is to do what the town wants on the former police building. You know, we should probably I wouldn't mind discussing that.

Yeah, our perview is exterior on the HBC. Our purview is exterior. We don't we're not uh I I can't think of an instance where we have uh say on what goes on in the interior. We're we're we're really the historic car character of the of the uh district is is what we would review. And that's the exterior building, not the interior. Yeah. But again, we can't really have a plan about what's going to happen because

we haven't decided what we're going to do with the main building in the area. So, the I it is a little weird and I'll just say, you know, I I don't feel like I'm in the driver's seat. I feel like I'm kind of bundled into the trunk on this. I mean, like I just don't what like we haven't been briefed in any way. I mean, I know maybe the economic development committee has, but but and I've seen some drawings that are kind of cool and great, you know, and I do want it to happen, but but this see it feels like putting the cart in front of the horse. And if it's about the financial agreement, we just have a difficulty because, you know, majority of the people on the council are not in favor of giving out financial agreements, you know, without an extraordinarily compelling reason and just don't think we're there yet.

So, can we just close the hearing off? I think we would have to carry it to a date specific if that's what everyone want. I mean, I'm I don't feel the need to carry it, but I'm happy to carry it if that's what folks generally want to do. I guess my question would be Carrie, is this simply to approve uh just to approve the recommend the recommendation here? It's it's whether whether we feel that one or more of the criteria are met for an area need of rehabilit redevelopment. Excuse me, it's getting late. Same. So, answer is yes. If we're prepared to decide that, we can decide that now. If we feel like we want to carry it to another date, we can

objectively I'm not sure what else um is or one of the criteria recommendation for the uh for the council. I think we can we can make recommendations, right? That's what you do. Council ultimately makes the decision, right? Okay. You just make a recommendation. You hold the public hearing. You make the recommendation. Council makes the decision. Yeah. We can recommend that HPC stay involved. Absolutely. As a reviewing authority, but wait, it's the the law says a delineated area may be determined by this criteria, not that it shall. We're under no obligation to have it happen. It says may. So I saw that.

I mean, the burden of proof is on why it needs to happen. And just because one of these criteria are met doesn't mean that we have to we're obliged to recommend to the council that it be that the zoning be nuked. Basically all at your this is the only thing is the council sent a resolution to the planning board asking you to conduct this study. So that's right. We we have a council resolution asking the planning board to conduct this study. requires a public hearing and you report to the council and the council makes the decision. I'd have to double check if there's a time frame. Is there a time frame? I don't think there is for this.

But is our resolution if we were to do this tonight that the council may declare it or we is our resolution that we're recommending that the council do you recommend? The council is the one that makes the determination. We would be recommending. Yes. Well, then I vote no. Okay. Is is that a motion or is that just generally where you stand? I'm I mean I'm dead I'm actually serious about that because again I I would like to conclude this if we can but if folks want more time then I think we carry it. I think I think people are just we carry it. You want to carry it carry it carry it. My question is I think folks are getting sleepy.

I don't think I there's anything else I can present to you or that we can present to you than we've already presented. So we'll just put it on the agenda and there'll be further discussion. I don't have anything further to present. Right. Like I I don't think there's new evidence or you know Right. I understand. Okay. So we can certainly carry it to the next meeting. Carrie Carrie way. Let's when are we carrying it to you Miss Tally? It's also 12:30 almost 12:30. So you know we can you want to carry it to to March 23rd? I actually can't attend that meeting and I would like to be here for that. How much is Yeah. Yeah. Is there another date where we don't have a lot?

Well, that's the same date we're doing the master plan reexamination presentation. So, we can carry it to the April meeting. Yeah. As long as is that Do you think the council's going to have any issue with waiting till April on this? I don't either. I don't know. Okay. April 13th. So, June. No, April 13th. April 13th. It is April. April 13th. So, presentation. Thank you. So, we're carrying this to the April 13th meeting and that's the 619631 Bloomfield AB area needed of redevelopment study. Guys, we got to pay bills. We got Art Art's got to get paid. It's It's not even We also have and I don't know if we need to do this tonight. We have area need of rehabilitation designation for 14 Miller Street.

Let's send Let's do that April 13th as well. That will also be carried to April 13th, but that's not actually a public hearing. So, we do that whenever. So, that'll be April 13th. Uh, do we need to do committee assignments or can we skip that tonight? We can skip it. Wonderful. Who's gonna jump in right now? Well, it's just whether we need the committee to meet and we need to staff it up. That's my concern. Uh, lastly is bills. I'm going to skip committee reports. Bills. It's late. Motion to pay the bills. Second. Second. All in favor? Opposed? Move to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. This is such a twist and it just