Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening everyone and welcome to the May 18th, 2026 regular meeting of the Township of Montlair Planning Board in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 72 of the New Jerseys public laws of 2025 and amendments to section 12 of the Municipal Land Use Law. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building on the township of Montlair's official internet website and on the statewide legal notices listings of this New Jersey Department of State. This meeting is 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 on my right, your left, and also at the back of the room where you entered. And first up is roll call.

Mayor Baskerville present. Mr. Borshaw here. Mr. Cample is not present. Um maybe excused. Mr. Damato. Camato. Miss Gaines here. Mr. Graham is excused. Mr. Ian Wallally here. Miss Willis here. Mr. Orbeez is excused. Um Miss Wallace will be arriving approximately 30 minutes late. and chair Bradock. I'm here. Okay. Thank you. Next up is swearing in of the board professionals. You will swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help. I do. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have the minutes from April 27th.

Motion. Motion to accept the minutes. Any revision? change, right? Just just make sure your microphone's on. Uh with Keith's change. I saw that. Yep. Motion to accept the minutes with the um amendment that Keith included. Second. All those in favor? I I opposed. Any abstensions? Miss Willis abstains. Okay. Next up, we have the minutes from May 4th, 2026. Motion to accept the minutes from May 4th 4th 2026. Second. All those in favor?

I opposed. Any new abstensions? No. Next up we have the resolution for 180 Glen Ridge A So Road Bazaar. Any changes to the resolution? that case I would move approval of the resolution. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Extensions. All right. Next up, we have the resolution for 260 Belleview Avenue. Any changes to the resolution? No. Then I would move approval.

Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Okay, Mr. Ian Wallally abstains. I'm going to abstain, too. Thank you. And Mr. Damato abstains. Next up is the council referral of area in need of rehabilitation for 14 Miller Street. Any changes to the resolution? Will someone move approval? I move approval. Is there a second? Second. All right, Miss Gains with a second. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? And abstensions?

Abstain. I'm also abstaining. All right, that brings us to application 296056 Park Street, Park Street Associates LLC. And Mr. Cample is joining the deis. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize. I should have abstained on on resolution for um the last resolution uh 14 Miller Street. Yeah. Okay. Would you mind change? Yeah. Changers toension. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trembulac. Good evening.

Good evening everyone. Alan Trenilac appearing on behalf of the applicant Park Street Associates LLC. This is an application for minor site plan approval to convert uh the existing office building at 56 Park Street from business offices to to medical offices. The property is literally a couple of doors down from where we're where we are tonight. It's located at the corner of Park Street and Claremont Avenue in the O-3 zoning district. Now, the O3 zoning district permits both business offices and medical offices. Um, from for about the last 40 years, this property uh the building on this property was occupied by William Connelly Insurance Agency and was used as business or administrative offices for the insurance company. Uh the property was recently sold and purchased by uh my client Park Street Associates LLC which is a company uh uh owned or or controlled by Steven Plaer. Uh the applicant's uh intention is to convert the existing building from office use to medical use. There'll be obviously internal or interior uh renovations done uh but um really nothing will be done to the building itself except for the interior work. Uh and very little will be done to the existing site what exists there today including a parking lot with 45 or 46 uh parking spaces. The only exterior changes that are being made here are one, we're going to restripe the lot. Uh two, we're going to add an

additional ADA parking space to uh comply with the requirement that there be two ADA spaces on the property. And the third exterior change we're looking to make is to uh remove the one existing freestanding sign that's at the corner of Park Street and Claremont Avenue and replace that with two freestanding signs at each of the two uh entrances to the parking lot lot, one on uh Park Street and one on uh Claremont Avenue. Uh the ordinance only permits one freestanding sign per property. Um but so that's the second variance we're seeking in addition to a parking variance. Um as the board knows medical offices require more parking than uh regular business offices. So we need a parking variance to permit 45 spaces. Um whereas I believe the ordinance requires 77 spaces. you know, given the ordinance requirement that there be almost um almost seven parking spaces per thousand square feet of uh of medical office use. As I said that, you know, the second variance we need is to permit two freestanding signs, whereas the ordinance only allows one. And then lastly, site plan is triggered here. uh even though we're doing very very little to the existing site as I've just indicated, but the site plan ordinance requires that where you're converting a a building to a different use that has a higher parking requirement that that triggers minor site plan approval. So, we do need that. In addition to the two variances, there's also a few um site plan waiverss that we need that our uh our planning expert will discuss. So I I

have three witnesses. I don't think either of them should be terribly long. My first witness will be Kevin Costello, who will testify on behalf of the property owner and discuss the uh owner's plans to convert the building. Our second witness will be Craig uh Craig Paraguay Paraguay uh from Dynamic Traffic uh a traffic engineer who will discuss the parking requirements for the site and the parking variance that we're seeking. And then lastly, we have our professional planner Katherine Gregory who will discuss both of the variances as well as the uh site plan waiverss that I mentioned earlier. So, having said that, I'd like to call Kevin Costello as my first witness.

And while he's coming up, can we mark exhibits? A1 is the application for development. A2 certification of taxes paid. A3 certification of publication. And A4 affidavit of service. What about the site plans and things of that nature? Um, so my apologies, I did not pre-mark these. So site plan from Francis Klein would be A5.

What's the date on? Just we get the date on it just to be clear. that is dated um April 16th, 2026.

I think that's prepared by Roth Engineering. She's got Yeah, she's got the earlier. We submitted with the application um the architectural drawings for the floor plans prepared by Francis Klein going back to 1986. Um not you know it's what kind of what's existing today. Then we have a site plan from Roth Engineering and a lighting plan.

Okay. So the site the the one that you're talking about was from back in the day. Was that the one from ' 86? Was it? That was the Francis Klein 721 1986 was the original date and I think most recently revised October 22nd, 1987. Sounds right. Yeah, sounds right. That would be A5. Yeah, they have this. Yeah.

And then I have a lighting plan dated um April 17th, 2026 prepared by I2 Illuminations. Mark that A6 have a property survey dated February uh January 20th, 2026. I'll mark that. A7. The signed plan dated February 17th, A8. And then another site and zoning detail uh information sheet dated Oh, that's the one dated 87. Apologies. I don't think we had the architectural ones circulated. So I think maybe there's two different plans. There's the one from 87 which was more of a site plan and then if you're saying there's interior architectural plans. I don't I don't think there

it's more of the architect, you know, there's really they're really not relevant to anything we're seeking tonight. Um but I thought I would provide them with the application. Okay. Well, um it might be um it's declared that the the office space is 11,000 um whatever. It would be good just to cite that with some sort of architectural plan that shows what the area is. I think I haven't seen it in a document other than um uh the planning memo.

Um the site plan has floor elevations, but it doesn't have the area of the building. March 17, 2026 by Roth Engineer. Is your mic on? Yeah. Um, site plan, minor site plan dated March 17, 2026 prepared by Roth Engineering. Um, are you saying that you don't have this document? No, we have the minor site plan. I think the architectural plans that Mr. Trumbulac referenced, I don't I didn't see them online. that might not be in circ. Apologies. I don't have the full background, but

well, and I tend to agree with Mr. Tribul. It's probably not relevant. Although Mr. Ian Wallally does have a question about square footage, so hopefully there is a document that can show that. Understood. 1986. Yeah. We submitted this one to just the site. Yeah. Which you can't even read. Yeah. Okay. Or we still you're good. I think we're good. I think you've got everything.

Is the raw site plan online? Because I didn't get a packet, so I I I wasn't delivered a packet, so I don't have it. I'll look for it online then. It's It's in the um on the planning board website. I can send it to you. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thank

All right, I think we've got everything marked. Okay, Kevin Costello, I think he needs to be sworn.

I do. I'm Kevin Costello. Last name is C O S T E L L O. I'm the development director for the applicant. Okay. Well, that was my first question. Your relationship to the applicant, Park Street Associates. Yeah, I'm the development director and do our acquisitions and uh construction work. Okay. And when did Park Street Associates uh acquire this property? We purchased this in uh December of 2025. Okay. And there's an existing building on the property obviously. Correct.

And um how was that building utilized prior to the time it was sold to uh Park Street Associates? So we um just going back through records and and talking with the Connies who sold it. uh they had converted I guess it was a former funeral home at one time. Um I think it was still in use as a funeral home when they bought it in the late 80s. It was basically doubled in size with a big addition that was approved in ' 86 and then they occupied that all the way until um April of 24. Um they ended up selling the company was bought out um and then it's actually sat vacant since then.

Okay. And the building was used as business or administrative offices. Correct. Correct. Okay. And the applicant here intends to convert the entire building to medical use. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Can you just explain to the board why you're seeking to convert the building uh to medical as opposed to continue it as regular business use? Yeah, we'd like, I should clarify, we'd like the option to to do medical tenants here. Um, if we had a strong office tenant, we would do that as well. But, um, generally we have a number of buildings, 30 plus buildings here in Montlair. Uh, about 200 tenants. Uh, we've seen a strong demand for office tenants or, um, medical office tenants recently. Uh we have a medical office building that's um at very very low close to zero vacancy that's just two doors down from this at 70 Park. We recently bought 39 South Fullerton um which is a medical office building. We've got some other you know 325 Claremont 695 Bloomfield have um we've really you know felt a strong demand for kind of higherend uh medical office space with abundant parking like this. We our medical spaces always have good parking. um we find the rents to be, you know, strong um and we can keep them full. There's a lot of medical office in Monontlair that's kind of drop ceiling and rough carpet, you know, and that's kind of not the the market we're going for. Um we do high-end finishes and and have been able to keep those full. How does the demand for um medical office in Montlair compare to the demand for regular business offices?

So, we found medical office to be stronger recently. Um COVID, you know, put a dent in the kind of suburban office market, not as much in Monontlair as some of the kind of um less commuter friendly towns in North Jersey. Um but we we still have low vacancy in our office tenants uh or in our office buildings but they sit a little bit longer when they turn over and become vacant. And is part of that due to you know people working remotely? I mean the the decline in demand if you will for regular office. Sure. I think that's a part of it. Um since co you know there's been a big you know work from home push. Um so that has dented the regular office market professional office market a little bit.

Okay. Have you have you entered into any leases for space in the building? We have not as of today. No, not yet. Okay. And the intention is to have it occupied uh for 100% medical use, although reserving the right to

Sure. I mean, we we are marketing it to to medical companies. Um, I think kind of the plans we're having drawn lean towards medical, but um, we occasionally have office tenants that share medical buildings. Both kind of medical buildings we have in town on Park Street and on South Fullerton are probably 95% um, medical, but have a couple of small regular office tenants, financial services or or an attorney that works alone or something like that.

Would you expect to have multiple tenants in this building as opposed to one single tenant? I think that's where the market is. Um, we did some marketing for one, you know, large, you know, 11,000 foot tenant. Um, and didn't, you know, there's only a few hospital groups that can probably fill out a space that large. Um, so we're thinking it's probably more likely that it'll be one tenant per floor, just how the elevators and stair towers work out. Okay. Um, and how does the multi the fact that possibly multiple medical tenants, how does that impact parking demand for the property in your experience?

Sure. Um, at our other buildings, um, kind of a good mix of medical tenants really kind of has multiple peak demand times. So, if I have uh someone who does marriage counseling, they're only going to be in they're only going to be doing office hours after five o'clock and on weekends. If you have a physical therapist, they might be mostly, you know, their main time is early in the morning. Kind of a specialist. We have a brain and spine center or something like that. That might just be daytime. So, we like the the multi-tenant um aspect because it kind of spreads out the parking demand um you know, over the course of a day and and over the course of the week. Okay. And there's an existing parking lot on this property, correct?

Correct. And um I believe the plans indicate that you're planning to restripe the parking spaces. Yes. Okay. And you're also planning to add an additional ADA space so that there will be a total of two ADA parking spaces on the property. Yeah, there's one existing and with the new striping there would be two. Okay. And um with respect to signage on the property, there's an existing freestanding sign at the corner Park Street in Claremont. Correct.

Yeah, it's um you can actually kind of see in the before on the site plan, there's actually three signs there. There's one main sign on the corner right at Clare Mountain Park Street, and then there's uh driveway entrance signs that are smaller. um at each driveway. There's a driveway off Claremont, a driveway off Park Street. So, the proposal would be to get rid of all three of those and add back two signs that kind of act as entrance signs and directory signs um for the building. Okay. And they'd be located sort of similar to where the existing signs are adjacent to the driveways. Yeah, exactly. More or less.

Okay. Um, and will the signs be illuminated? So, yeah, we we normally do um like up lights like yard yard sign or um lights that shine up at the signs. So, the signs themselves are not internally illuminated, but they are, you know, lit up at night. No, not no internal illumination. Correct. Okay. Um, other than the signage, the restriping the lot, and adding the additional ADA parking spaces, are you proposing any additional changes to the exterior, you know, site? Uh,

no, nothing planned at this time. You know, we always kind of paint every, you know, new paint scheme, new landscaping, all that kind of stuff. Um, but no, no site improvements other than what's proposed yet. Okay. And then with respect to the building itself, you know, you're obviously going to have making internal um renovations to uh convert it to office space. Proposing any uh expansion or additions to the existing building? No. Proposing any other changes to the building as it exists today other than what I just mentioned respect to interior changes? No.

Okay. to address a comment or two in the engineers report. Uh what about trash and recycling? How is that handled now? How do you how do you intend to handle it going forward? Yeah, there's an existing trash enclosure in the corner of the site which is right where we'd put it anyway. So, we'll reuse that um existing enclosure. Okay. All right. Um now with respect to the parking variance that's being requested, did you review the number of parking spaces available for other medical office buildings in the vicinity of 56 Park Street?

Um yes. Okay. And um did you prepare a chart summarizing the results of your analysis of those other medical buildings? Yes. So, I I did kind of, you know, Oh, sorry. Yes. Hold on. All right. I gave copies to Zana. Can we mark that as exhibit uh A1? 810. Oh, I'm sorry. A10. Yes. So, I'll call that Park Street parking prepared by uh Mr. Kevin Costello dated uh May 18th, 2026. All right, Kevin. um can you just explain what the exhibit um shows and how you prepared that?

Sure. So, this was just kind of a walking tour I did around the neighborhood. Um I know that the parking ratio came up. Um this, you know, looking at this, this is a lot of parking for us. Like I said, we have a lot of buildings in Montlair. This would be a lot for any of our buildings. Um which is one of the reasons, you know, we were drawn to this property. Um, so I kind of did want to walk around the neighborhood and see what's provided in that's a kind of a medical heavy little neighborhood right there. Um, so we have 70 park two doors down. So I knew the size of that and the number of parking spaces there. But then I just walked around and counted spaces uh in, you know, a block in each direction to see what else was in the neighborhood. Estimated square footage based on

So earth kind of okay sizes. So 70 Park Street is uh is is one of the buildings that's owned by your company, correct? This Pler's company, correct? So that you know exactly how many parking spaces there are and the square footage. And I think your chart indicates that there's Well, what's the what's the ratio? That's about two just over two uh per thousand. Okay. And then the other four buildings that are shown on your exhibit, um 65, 55,551, and 49 Park Street, those you just counted parking spaces and and were able to determine roughly the square footage of those buildings. Correct.

Okay. And then your chart shows the ratio, parking space ratio per thousand square feet. Correct. Okay. And with the exception of one, they're all less than four spaces per thousand. That's correct. The only exception being 55 Park Street, which has a little over five spaces per thousand according to your calculations. Okay. And then what you know the last two items on that exhibit, would you just

Sure. Those are just Yeah, those are just parking standards. So um the kind of gold standard uh for parking engineers which will be addressed by our um parking expert is the IT standard the institute of traffic engineers you know so they say modern uh medical office space needs 2.63 per thousand um and then Monontlair's standard for this zone for medical office is 6.67 uh spaces per thousand. Okay. Okay. That's all I have for Mr. Costello. Are you testifying as a traffic engineer? No. No. He's next. Okay. Just want to be sure since he mentioned the gold standard of traffic parking is it

just it sounded like he was testifying as an engineer. I I will let Mr. Peru testify to the to the Okay. Questions from the board. Um I just want to say thank you for the plan. It is online. I found it and the engineers the engineers although it's a site plan he did site the same uh number of square feet um in the building as the um as the planning report does the tax um the tax role say it's a little bit smaller than that but I'm that's probably not accurate but thank you other questions from the board I have please

sir you mentioned uh highend finishings. Can you explain uh with the queen and style how you will keep the integrity of the windows? Will there be standard window dressing or just to keep the style of of that building up to integrity?

Yeah, we we love the windows. We have no um there's no work proposed on the windows. the previous owner actually replaced uh if you've driven by there has those like very cool curved windows um on the corners. Those have just recently been replaced. Really well done, you know, period correct windows in there. Um I don't have a building standard for I haven't gotten into what we would do for shades or anything like that. When I meant finishes, I'm talking more about, you know, we do sheetrock ceilings whereas a lot of medical office has drop ceilings. you know, we do LVT versus, you know, doing kind of uh like um you know, sometime they have carpeting or something else. So, it's just finishes like that. I haven't got gotten very far in in window dressings yet.

Chairman. Yes, sir. I just hope that you would consider having a standard window style for each unit that has a window just so we won't lose the beautiful structure of of that building. Sure. And it we can um so we're a we're a full service construction team too. So we don't just kind of give the keys to someone and write them a a tenant improvement allowance and then have them do whatever they want. So everything is kind of working with us. We do all the construction. They work with our architect versus their own architect. So, um, we could certainly kind of standardize, you know, some of those finishes to give it a cohesive, you know, appearance from the exterior. I think

we would appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Other questions from the board? Are you the right person to talk about lighting at the site? Um, sure. We can talk about lighting. Okay. Or before, can I just ask a question about this? Yes. this parking um study or whatever that you have. I'm just wondering like where did you draw the line like did you you did not cherry pick these properties correct?

No, this is all the medical and office on our block. Um and immediately I think I just went to the next two medical office up Park Street. So you've got image dermatology and the next one because then it turns to not office or not medical after that. So, it's just the medical offices within what would that be? 200 feet or something like that. If you go the other way on Claremont, you hit this building and you go the other way, it's multif family, but there's kind of a block of medical. Yeah, there is a block of medical, which is good. There is one at 90 I just saw. That makes your study even better. It's two spaces for 3,500 ft.

Okay. Uh but but for sure you've you're not these are No, this is this is all the medical and then there's even one in there that's like medical that does have some office. Yeah, but yeah, it's all the medical in that strip. Thanks. And you collected these data today? No, this was I don't know a couple months ago. Do you know what day? I don't I'm not I'm not counting how many cars were there, just how many parking spots were there. So, that was going to be my next question is how full were the lots, but I guess it was a couple months ago. No, I didn't I didn't do a survey like that.

Okay. So, over to lighting. You've got low light on sidewalks and driveways. Do you have plans to improve that?

So, you know, really, we hadn't intended on doing um any additional lighting here. I got some comments. Uh, so there's there's existing I think one, two, three, five light pole fixtures mounted on four different poles. There's one double. Um, those I assume were installed in ' 86. Um, they're the kind of standard PSEG used to give out those um, fixtures to everybody so they use their power. Um, so that's what's existing on site. We got some comments at the DRC. Is there any way to add some? We propose just one fixture uh which is building mounted. If you're looking at the lighting plan, that's uh fixture W um to trying to improve that's the main entrance, the ADA ramp, the handicap spaces to improve the lighting there, but we didn't intend on adding additional lighting um other than what's there. It's kind of it's worked well. I don't know if you've ever swung by there at night. It's seems to be adequate. I know there's parts of that lot that don't meet the uh you know the current day standard. Um, but we hadn't planned on adding light poles, ripping up the parking lot to run new electric or any of that.

So, this is all you're going to do. That's what's proposed. Yeah. Okay. On your signs, why why move from three signs to two?

It's, you know, the the two signs, the entry driveway signs, um, are quite small. I don't think he even noted what size those are, but those are like they might be the size of like a pretty piece of paper like that. It just says driveway. Um those seem pretty inadequate driving down Park or Claremont to see the driveways. And then the one that's at the corner, you've kind of once you get to that corner, you've almost missed your entrances. So, we really thought it would be kind of just for identifying the building, identifying the tenants. Um it'd be a lot more convenient to have those out at the entrances. So consolidating into those and you can see it's a kind of serves a dual purpose. Obviously tells you where the driveways are, but it also, you know, has each individual tenant on it. Now it's going to be a multi-tenanted building. Right now there's just a single sign in the front that was for Connelly that had the whole building, but it didn't have, you know, room on it for multi-tenant.

And are you planning on installing a transformer? Is that what I see in the survey? So we don't know. Uh I not as part of this application. Um, I don't know if I'll need it or not. It really depends on tenants. You know, if I get a bunch of psychiatrists and psychologists, I don't need an I don't need to bring in new service. Um, if it's a lot of kind of if there was a laser hair removal and a um, you know, bigger pieces of equipment, I might need more power. I have decent power now. Um, so it's really unclear if I'm going to need it or not. So, no, not as part of this application. So, you might be ripping up the parking lot to install some new electrical lines possibly. Uh, it depends. It depends on the tenant mix for sure.

How do you plan to screen that transformer if you have to install it? I mean, normally we do it with landscaping. There's some limitations with um, you know, you've got to give it clearance or whatever. Um, but normally we just do it with landscaping. So, is that is that what you're going to do here? I mean, I'm I'm struggling a bit because you're telling me you may or may not install something that's not part of this application, but it's on the application materials, but you're not being very clear about what you're going to do. You say you generally screen it. Are you going to screen it?

So, we submitted that survey for the initial application because we were not proposing any improvements to the u to the project. We submitted just the survey. Um, we then went to the DRC. they really felt like there wasn't enough detail on there and that we should do a full site plan. We then did a full site plan between those two iterations there. We decided not to propose a so the really the the site plan that you're looking at from Roth is is what's proposed here. Okay. So you're not proposing a transformer. If you do need one, you'll come back for another site plan if I have to. I mean if it's um

Well, you're telling me you're not going to. So that's You're telling me you're not going to install the transformer? No, I'm telling you I might not need approval if I install a transform. It depends on where it goes on the site. Like if it's in a setback, I would need it, but I don't think I'd need it if it's in a part of the site that's not within a setback. I don't think it's an accessory structure. Neither do I. But if you're here for site plan approval for something you may need, just like you may want to put medical office in here, you're here for that, right? No, but if I have if I decide if I got approval today and then I got a tenant that needed new electrical and it required a transformer, I would need to come back to the board for a new site plan approval. Well, you're representing to us that you're not going to install it.

So, usually I'm saying I'm saying I I don't know if I need to install it or not. It depends on the tenant. I see. Okay. We're we're not proposing it as part of this application, but he's truthfully saying that it might be required in the future depending on upon the tenant, but I mean it's why it's not shown on the site plan. It was shown on the earlier survey as a possibility, but we're not asking the board to approve that since it's not on the site plan that we submitted. Okay, let me look at the site plan then. So are the air conditioning units on the side on the Claremont A side screened?

They are. They're well screened with land. There was landscaping, you know, planted around those. Those are existing um from the 86 renovation, but they are on the site plan as we're now establishing. So that is something you're here for. That's existing. Okay. Uh chair, could we go back to the sign issue? Absolutely. So, um I apologize uh that I don't really remember the DRC meeting very well. I was um virtually

dialed in. Yeah. From a bar in Mexico or something like that. And um it says here that we recommended the following items be addressed. the existing corner location of the existing sign would better identify the building because of its visibility from both streets rather than the proposed location. But I remember actually liking the two sign by the egress and I remember liking your schematic better. So where exactly are we? Um I don't think there was a consensus at the DRC about which was better. Um, but we discussed both options, but we kind of went back to the drawing board and thought the two the one that you preferred, the two at the two driveways. Um, so that's what we're proposing here. We're proposing getting rid of the one at the corner, putting one at each driveway.

And at one point you you were dangling the idea that you would have all three and we that's No, that that's way over. No, I don't think we ever but there was the existing one at the corner and I think that's what was discussed at DRC. I don't remember who was liking that plant was saying, "Well, maybe just make that one into a more of a directory and keep it in its current location." We would prefer the two. Yeah. Is it lit? Are they lit? They're lit but not back lit. The existing or the proposed? The proposed The proposed would be lit um with, you know, ground mounted up lights. There it is. Do

you have other questions, counselor? No, I just want I mean this is one of the two variances. So, no I you can't I didn't know if you were done with your lines of questions or my line of questioning was like well yeah where what was going on? Why why were people objecting to this? But I liked it. Where does it show up here? Can you Okay, I have one one quick question. Where does the where does the power enter the building now? Is it is it underground or is it um

No, it's overhead. Um I'm just trying to see if they show the pole. So I believe I know it comes in from the I guess we call it the north side. Um, there's two electric poles shown. If you look at the uh on the site plan, they're marked as TP. It's one of those two. And I'm not 100% sure which one it is. I might be able to tell. So, from right there. Yeah. So, it's the one that's closer the one marked TP that's closer to the dumpster enclosure. That's where the existing service is and it's overhead. Okay. I'm looking at the site plan now. Help me out. Sorry. Um, no problem. Um

um um do you see lot nine like to the north? That's the east. Yes, I think. No, this is Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So, if you see where 159 the dimension see a telephone pole right there. Telephone pole. That's where the existing service comes in. Um and there's an overhead wire that goes from there to the building. Yeah. You can almost see it like if you look um Okay. There's a photo in the planning board memo that shows the trans the like it's a polemounted transformer. Okay. Figure five in the planning report. Okay.

Thank you. That figure also shows a dumpster in the middle of the parking lot. Is that typical? No, that was the previous owners were I don't know if this was supposed to be right after we closed because this is the previous owner was letting someone park a trailer in there and that was still there and then they had their dumpster company pick up their dumpster and so they some reason slid it out and then picked it up later. But no, it would typically be in the enclosure that's in figure six. Okay. Is does that enclosure have a roof? It does not. No. Do you know if it needs a roof? Um I don't know. Yeah, I believe a roof is required. Yes, that's what I thought. That'd be another technical. Is that a waiver you're seeking or Yeah.

Okay. I mean, our position with a lot of these, Mr. Chair, is that the site conditions, the lighting, the trash enclosure, this the way it's been for 40 years.

If the board feels strongly about a roof on a trash enclosure, I I I have no problem putting one on. I mean I think while I understand your comment Mr. Tramulac you know typically when folks come they try to minimize the number of waiverss that are required and variances that are required. So usually there's some consideration in that regard. You're coming here for a deficiency of 45 parking spaces and it sounds like most of the testimony revolves around hey it's always been this way and I'm personally struggling with that a little bit. I understand that. But you're changing from office to possibly medical office and offering not much in return other than hey, this is the way it is and and and it's okay. You're allowed to put on your application the way you want. I'm just giving you a preview of what our site feeling right now. It's a nice looking building, nice site, wellmaintained it well, changing the tenency, and it's been lit this way for 40 years. But why not fix it now? Why not why not make it safe for people to walk up the sidewalk?

Like that's that's where I struggle. Like lighting to me, you've heard this before, right? Lighting to me is a safety issue. And when the driveway the sidewalks aren't lit to anywhere near the standard. Like I personally have an issue with that and I understand it's always been that way, but here's your opportunity to fix that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, if I may, sir. Just to piggy back on the lighting issue, um I know you indicated that the it wasn't intended or desired to rip up the parking lot to install new lighting, but I believe you're installing it looks is a little unclear based on the lighting plan, but it appears that you're proposing a new I guess like a wall pack. Yeah, correct.

Lighting. So, what would preclude you for providing additional wall packs along the facade of the building, which wouldn't require excavation and digging up the parking lot? Yeah. So, you run into this. I did a project on forest a few years ago where you what you run a the standard is a there's a minimum and a maximum. And so what happens with trying to get a wall pack that does the whole way over is that you end up getting hitting your minimum on the far end but then right next to the building you're like way over your maximum. You know you'd be 10 15 foot candles there which is also would be another waiver. So you're already going for that waiver. Yeah. I I hear you. It sounds like the board feels strongly about the lighting. I do. I don't know about the rest of the board, but I certainly do.

I'm hearing you. Um, will comply with the lighting. Now, I don't have a lighting plan that's going to, but we'll be happy to submit, you know, on condition of approval that we submit, you know, if the board engineer can do a administrative approval for a lighting plan that meets the standard. That works for us. Sidewalks and driveways, all areas that are supposed to be illuminated, whatever the standard is. Yes. Okay. on the side. Okay, come back to it. This is why we're here. It's coming back to me. It's coming back to me.

Repressed memories. Why is the sign the previous signs and I'll ask engineer Hernandez this like is best practices to have the sign be perpendicular or parallel to the driveway of something like this? And we did discuss the safety issue of people driving south on Park Street and that they would be pulling in. And what do you are you do you want to have people I mean obviously people are using, you know, Google Maps to get there and they're going to know that's the way and then once they go if they're going every week for, you know, whatever.

We always find visibility best to be perpendicular. I I I don't normally think about it as to the drive aisle, but towards your drive, you know, the the actual roadway. I always try to be perpendicular to the roadway just because you can see it from a long way. You know, you can see it quarter block away, several buildings up. So, perpendicular to the roadway and I don't really think about the driveway orientation that much because once you see where it is, you know, that's your entrance. you you've kind of already the question is are you advertising the tenants in the building to people who are not going there or letting people who are probably going there for the first or second time know that that you know make the turn now because if it's after it you know I'm just worried about the pile up and

well that's what we always feel that's kind of what we feel the existing sign location is once you hit that corner you've missed one drive out and now you've got to make a turn to get back around and you probably don't even know that you know if you're going there for the first time you don't even know that there's two entrances so you almost feel like you missed it. We put it back by or think our thinking was to put it back by the driveway entrances and for medical it's not like there's walk-in you know most medical tenants it's fine it's fine I mean I can see our engineers excitement about this question answers it which is that it doesn't make a difference you should feel like you should get your questions answered I mean if you feel strong like I felt strongly about lighting you should if you feel strongly about

I just want to make sure that whatever we may have agreed actually at that previous meeting we talked about it for a was, you know, reflected. It's fine. It's all good. On the site plan, they're um they're showing parallel to the road, not perpendicular. Yes. To answer your question, I think it really depends on the intent of the sign. Um but I would just to your point, um you indicated that you prefer to be perpendicular to the roadway, but I believe as illustrated, it's parallel. You're right. to the roadway which will run contrary to your No, one is and one isn't. One's one way, one's the other, but I would Well, they're both No, I think they're both parallel to each respective roadway.

It looks like the existing one is one way. Well, I would think it should be perpendicular to the roadway to align with the driveway through this is the entrance, but yeah, I didn't even notice that be right. He didn't do that. That was not my intent. is

when you're exiting a driveway, if there's a sign that is parallel to that roadway, it blocks a huge portion of what you see in the street to enter the street. So, from a safety standpoint, it seems like what they've done is better. Um, in fact, when I first saw the plan, I thought that's pretty good because it's set back from the road and it wouldn't interfere with any turning movements in and out of each driveway. Um whereas if that and it's a those are pretty sizable signs if it were there. Um although it is it is nine and a half feet set set back. So that's not too bad. It's better than that sign being very close to the road. So

yeah, I would agree with you in this case. I think it's not only set back decently from the property line, but it's also away um I guess horizontally from the driveway a good amount as well. So I don't think either way would really impact it as far as visibility. um for cars exiting the driveway, but I think from an aspect of directing traffic into the site, um you probably won't notice what the sign says to until you're past it. I guess if you're heading, um this would be southbound on Park Street. So, you're saying that you think perpendiculars would be better in in for in this instance. I I personally

I believe so. And I I didn't even catch that, but you because you can see in the sign detail on the lower left, it's proposed as a double-sided sign because we did plan on it being perpendicular. But if you know, if the board feels one way or the other, I I I'm really open. But generally, we put them perpendicular. That would be our preference. I mean, that would make sense to me as long as it's not going to block folks exiting the driveway. You would just rotate them in place and stay at least 9 and 1/2 ft back from Exactly. So you'll make that change. Yeah. As part of condition of approval. Thank you.

Other questions from the board or even from our engineer about his memo. Does it make sense to keep the third sign with the change that we're describing? Um we're open to a third sign. Um I don't feel strongly of just more relief from that's really up to the board. But um yeah, you do have a pedestrian entrance at the corner. I think more people are probably driving to a to a medical office building like this. But um yeah, I'm I'm I'm open to a third if if anybody Not a recommendation. Just curious.

Just uh one more point of clarification, chairman. Uh just so just to clarify that you're you are seeking waiver relief for uh the uh drive aisle width correct as well as the parking stall width correct deficiencies. Okay thank you and I assume that's your next expert that'll testify about those. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Are there any members of the public that wish to ask this witness questions? Come on up. I just want to give a No, no, you have you have to we have to get you on the record. I just want to give my No, no. Yeah, we we we got to give you a microphone. So, if you can borrow the microphone from Mr. Hernandez here,

right? And this is for questions of the witness about comment if I can. Oh, well that that'll come later. Yep. That'll come later. Just want to say I'm in favor for Oh, okay. Appreciate that. But we'll get you on the record next time. Anybody who wants to ask a question of this witness about his testimony so far tonight? Nope, I don't see anyone. Back to you, Mr. Trump. Next witness is Craig Paraguay.

Sure. My name is Craig Paraggoy. P E R E G O Y. Yes, I do. But unlike Mr. Costello, I am the traffic engineer. Okay. Just want to clarify. Anticipated my first question. Um, you're a licensed uh engineer in the state of New Jersey. I am. Yes. Can you just provide a little bit of background of your qualifications and experience?

Sure. Uh, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. Uh, licensed professional engineer in New Jersey, Florida, and Texas. I've been a traffic engineer for 26 years now. Testify pretty much every night, including here in Montlair, but it's been a while since I've been here. Since getting before CO really have a specialty in traffic engineering? Yes. Okay. And your license is current and good standing. It is. Okay. Mr. Chairman, offer him as a expert in the field of prof uh traffic engineering. We'll accept him.

Thank you. Right. Craig, you want to prov um begin by um you know discussing the subject property and parking requirements because you were you were engaged in order to uh review the parking for this uh proposal. Correct.

Yeah, primarily to access assess the parking supply. Obviously your uh ordinance has a different standard for medical offices. So we have to operate under the assumption that the whole building is going to be taken up by medical office which increases that requirement. The ordinance requires one space per 150 square feet, which would be 77 spaces. If you do the math to convert it to to match the way it does it, that's 6.67 spaces per thousand square ft. That's a pretty high number and I see that pretty often because a lot of times ordinances aren't updated as as times change and uh the characteristics of these places change. But um I can reference the IT that Mr. Castell sort of referenced before the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation manual and that's uh basically a compilation of actual parked cars in parking lots of various land uses and then uh the peak parking demand is then reported uh for those sites and I can use that to project based on the building square footage for this particular property. So for medical office buildings the IT has 41 sites that are studied. So, it's one of the ones that has a lot a lot more than uh most. It's very carefully looked at and the average peak parking demand based on all those 41 sites um based on the latest edition of IT which came out 2023 uh is 2.63 spaces per thousand square feet. So, if you do the math and apply that here, that would be 30 spaces whereas we have 45 proposed. Um they also give you based on the statistical breakdown of all the different uh counts the 95th percentile confidence interval and I think that's pretty good to to reference. So basically 95% of the sites were between this and this and uh that interval for medical office is 2.28 to 2.98 spaces per thousand square feet. Again doing the math at this location that's 26 to 35 spaces still under the the 45 that we

have. Um, part of the reason for that and and I look back at prior editions of the IT manual going back to 2004 and with each one that parking ratio for medical offices dropped. Uh, there's a couple reasons for that. In fact, the 2004 was 3.53 per thousand. So, we're almost one space per thousand square feet less uh about 20 years later. Uh, reason for that is a couple things. One is there's a lot more urgent care or you know uh walk-in clinic facilities available. So you don't always have to go to your primary care doctor. Go to your doctor when you have you know a cut or minor malady. So it's kind of spread out uh the demand. Um tele medicine is another big thing that uh obviously changed things for minor maladies routine visits things like that. A lot of people opt to just do that online sort of zoom internet consultation. Again, that's another person that doesn't have to park there. Um, another thing is, uh, the ride sharing services, Uber and Lift. A lot of people will now, you know, used to have to wait for a family member to drive them to the doctor. Now, people take an Uber or a lift. Obviously, that guy drops you off and then he's gone. So, he's not parked from there. And I think one of the uh the other things that is interesting is it I think it was with the last edition they broke out medical offices on or near hospital campuses because that this the statistics were showing that they had a higher parking demand than a standalone medical office building like this. Um but if I looked at that if this was on a hospital campus with that higher number that that average demand is 3.58 per thousand square feet. So it's still the math still works out here. That comes out 42 spaces here. So even if we were in that higher category, but those are sort of some of the reasons why the parking demand for medical office spaces trended down over the years. And I think uh Dr. Google's contributed to that. I don't know about all of you, but I do it. You know, something doesn't feel right, I I Google it and you can find that you're you

know, you'll be fine or you'll be dead in five minutes. But for the most part, a lot of people opt to they don't have to run to the doctor for it. They they oh this is what it is. So, all of those things have shown a decrease in parking demand in medical office facilities. And your ordinance, I don't know when that that six that uh one per 150 came out, but I assume it was well before any of these, you know, advancements that we've seen able to decrease the uh parking demand. And I thought um the survey that Mr. Costello have provided parking spaces pretty interesting. I I guess you have that exhibit, but you know, the provision of parking spaces was about three per thousand there. It with with data as far back as uh the early 2000s for the the sites that report how much parking is actually provided, the average provided parking is 4.6 basis per thousand square feet, but the occupancy is only 49%. So you're we're see you're seeing that not only those ones that provide that higher number of parking, you're not seeing the number of parked vehicles, uh which is obviously not ideal. You don't want to have a bunch of empty parking spaces. Um so real realistically I think based on um you know current modern trends and the way medical offices are this location in particular I think is going to have more than enough parking. Uh we understand that you know one of those drive aisles there's a pinch point. This this has obviously been in existence for a long time. I think just one spot it gets down to 18 and a half ft and it's just for an extended island. I I don't I don't see any any purpose in trimming that back for that one little spot. Um

you're talking about the aisle width the width aisle. Yeah. Just when you first come in off of uh park one of the islands is a little bit. That's it for the most part. The rest of the circulation is is you know more than sufficient for two-way uh traffic and parking. Uh the parking space stalls, most of them are are standard size. I know there's a few that that scale off, I guess, the way they were strike are uh eight feet about 11 in. So that much short certainly not going to make a difference. And then the least desirable spaces in the back are about 8 ft wide. That's probably where if I at least if I I was the medical tenant in here, I'd say my tell my employees to park there. You obviously want the people to be able to park closer to the front door.

But all of those uh dimensionally will work fine. they obviously have for 40 years. Uh so I don't see any issue or any reason to reinvent the wheel. More importantly, not to lose any more parking. But I think it uh it all it all works uh in terms of site circulation and access and will continue to operate similarly to the way it's done you know for 40 years. Just to come back a minute to the uh parking that's provided. I mean you indicated that the IT standard is 2.63 spaces per thousand. Um What is the ratio that we're providing here per thousand square feet? We are providing 3.88 per thousand square feet.

So remember I mentioned that the highest the medical offices that see the highest parking demand on hospital campuses they were 3.58. So even even this location is is higher than that. So you got a pretty substantial amount of data not only from here in Montlair what's being provided but also based on this the national data by IT which is refined year after year after year and we see that number come down year after year after year. So I think that trend is probably going to continue. You've indicated you indicated I think that the the IT manual which is updated periodically uh each of the last four times that's been updated the ratio has has come down has come down. Yep. then you would expect that it would probably continue.

I would think soon AI is just going to solve all of our problems and put us. So then is it your professional opinion that the 45 parking spaces that are proposed for medical use uh would be adequate? AB absolutely for modern medical office more than adequate. Yes. Okay. Okay. And I think you covered the v the waiverss already. Is there anything else you wanted to add? Okay. Unless everybody wants me to board them some more, I think. Oh, I'm sure you get a few questions. Yeah. Did you have them, Mr. Cample? Yeah. The IT data, was that national, state, county, like what level was that? It's it's national data. The 44 sites come from all over the country.

How do we think about that data being normalized for where we are? Usually, anytime I've done specific parking studies in New Jersey as opposed to and compared to the ITA, it's always lower because here we have a lot more mass transit. We're a lot more densely populated. People can walk. So, usually the national data like out in the middle of Oklahoma, sure, when you go to the doctor, you're not going to get an Uber or a lift or take the bus or anything like that. So, in New Jersey, we tend to be a little bit lower than the national average. Some of the sites that it has do say they're from New Jersey and New York, but you know, they go as far as Hawaii, all over the country. Chairman, please.

Sir, you mentioned uh the scenario for vehicles and there has been an uptick with medical transportation vans. What would happen if you possibly have three vans in the parking lot at the same time dropping off patients or picking up? Would the parking lot be able to accommodate that makeup?

Yeah, abs. Absolutely. And the vans could do a couple of things to actually reduce parking demand. That's actually a good point. The van may just be picking up and dropping off, so they're not staying there parked during the duration of the patient's visit. Also, sometimes the vans are coming from places where they bring multiple patients, whereas those multiple patients may had to all come in their own cars or have a family member drive with them in their own car. So the medical transport is probably another factor that's bringing uh the parking ratio down but I think less so than tele medicine and really urgent cares. I mean you know I know back in 1987 you couldn't go to a walk-in urgent care to get stitches on the finger you cut with a knife. Now you can. Thank you.

Other questions from the board or Mr. Hernandez? Mr.

Chairman. Yes. Thank you. Um concerning the parking spaces, the stalls, particularly the northernmost um parking spaces is a row of 13 spaces measured at 8.1 ft wide. Typical um you indicated that in your opinion um you'd recommend that those spaces be where the employees park. However, they're not signed as such as far as like reserving those spaces for employees only. So, will will that in fact be the case? Because I I I do have concerns. I mean, obviously the um the previous um testimony we heard indicated that the leases are not worked out. So, we're not sure what kind of medical uses there will be, but um it's a good chance that people looking to use this facility may have difficulties entering and exiting the vehicle. So, the loss of the extra foot, I think, is a concern. Um, so would those spaces be reserved for employees? And if not, I guess what are your thoughts on the potential uh benefits or, you know, pros and cons of losing a space in that row, but gaining additional compliance spaces in the process?

Yeah. I mean, I I don't know if you want to assign 13 of those spaces to employees because what if, you know, what if it's two offices that have like one doctor and one assistant, then you're taking away spaces from uh people who want to park there. You know, if you lost one space in that back row, you could get those maybe not quite to nine, but you could get it to at least replicate the spaces that are in and in short. As far as supply, I think that will be certainly enough. you heard the testimony that I think we're looking at 30 to 35 spaces at the busiest time being used here.

But that being said, you know, it's it's functioned for for years. I don't really see it as an issue. I mean, there are public parking garages. In fact, at hospitals, there are public parking garages that have 8 foot wide parking spaces. I I Robert Wood Johnson in New Brunswick, I know for a fact there are eight foot wide parking spaces in that parking garage and it's a medical facility. So, I I I don't think the expense of losing one of those parking spaces or restricting them to employees that might not come is worth the tradeoff. If they were right by the front door, I might think differently, but because they're the least desirable spaces, I would

The only thing I would add to that is the is the, you know, site plan ordinance specifically allows for uh uh parking space dimensions of 8 ft by 17 ft, you know, where the the spaces can be reserved for use by compact or small vehicles. So, so will they be signed for compact? We would mark them. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Because it's not currently. That's my Well, we would mark them for compact space compact cars only. The ones that are 8 ft. Sure. Okay. And I believe that's subject to board of board approval as well, right? That that Yeah. I mean, your typical SUV or crossover would qualify as a it would fit. You know, I drive a Toyota Highlander parked right out there. It an 8 foot space is no problem. It's the big pickups, you know, the Ford 350. He's he'd be a little tight.

For reference, these are these are 8 and 1/2 ft wide. These spaces in the municipal lot. We have those dimensions. Even though it's good to know, so just for reference because they feel a little small quite honestly. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. They feel tight. That's why like 8.1 ft seems a little tighter. I know it's not much, but it, you know, it's it's it's fairly low turnover. Like you pull in, you go to the doctor every once in a while, you pull into the space, you're in there for a decent amount of time. If this was a, you know, a retail environment where you you're in and out and it's a lot of cars in and out, then you feel a little bit better with the larger space, but you see out here, eight and a half works. This is that much smaller limit.

I don't know if it works. I mean, it's what we have to deal with be a little bit nicer if they're bigger, but so be it. Mr. Borchoff, did you have something? Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um, I was just curious, do you know, um, will there be any designated spots for uh, charging or there's no plans for? No, we don't have any PV spots proposed. We don't you only need to do that if you're adding more spaces. Okay. Thanks.

Other questions from the board? Um would the um citation from IT uh is it possible to have that just added to the record? I know that you verbally spoke about it, but if you could put that data in the record, it' be great. In terms of the Well, you're citing something. So, if you put that something in the record because we're potentially going to be relying on that. You mean you want us to provide the portion of the manual that shows that? Yeah, I mentioned that there's so many parking spaces and only 46% of them are occupied or something. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's right out of the man. Yeah. Yeah, if it's right out of the manual, I would just include it in the record just so we've got some backup. Yeah. Thank you.

I would say it's publicly accessible, but they charge a fortune for that thing for Well, it's also really hard to find. We'd like to find what you found. I think it's probably, you know, Yep. I easier for you to give us what you're talking about. Not a not a problem. We've broken out into PDS for each use. So, any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public about this witness's testimony? I see none.

Okay. My um next and final witness is uh Katherine Gregory. Mr. Ravoli, we'll need you. Merry, uh, state your name. Spell your last name. Gregory. Sorry. Gregory. Yes. Uh, Catherine. And that's actually spelled K A T H R Y N. Last name Gregory. G R E G O R O Y. My business address is 96 Lwood Plaza, number 350 in Fort Le, New Jersey. Good. You could raise your right hand. for tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. It's all you got? Yes, I do.

Thank you. Gregory, are you a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey? Yes, I am. And when were you licensed? In 2000. Okay. And you're also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners? Yes. Okay. And um can you just tell the board a little bit about the experience you've had since you were your experience as a professional planner since you were licensed?

Okay. Uh, I've been a planner for the last 30 years. I've been licensed for the last 26. I am the principal of Gregory Associates, which I started in 2007. Next year will be 20 years. Um, I have testified throughout the state of New Jersey and been accepted as an expert witness in the field of planning. Uh, just as well, I am a a municipal planner. Uh, and I represent uh the Burough of Edgewater and also the Burough of Fairlon and the Burough of Hermes. all located sorry all located in Bergen County, New Jersey. However, my travels have brought me all over the state um to testify um in sport of variance applications including Montlair, but like Craig, I probably haven't been here since before CO.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, Aler, Miss Gregory is an expert in professional planning and your license is current. Yes, I actually had to pay for it this month. That's how I know. Okay. Yes, I I know as well. So, uh, thank you. Yes, we'll accept her. Thank you. So, Katherine, um, you were retained to evaluate planning and zoning aspects of this application. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And can you just uh indicate for the board uh what you did, what you reviewed in preparation for your testimony this evening?

I reviewed all of the application materials that were submitted to the board. I reviewed your zoning ordinance, your master plan. I have reviewed uh several of your planning and engineering review letters uh by your uh by your experts um conducted a site visit um and have formed a planning opinion on the variances that we are requesting associated with this application. Before you get into your your uh testimony in support of the variances, you want to just provide some brief information regarding the existing site conditions and and what's proposed by the applicant?

Certainly. Uh I'll go over for the record even though I'm sure everyone's very familiar with the site considering how close it is to this particular building. Uh but the site is almost 35,000 square feet. Uh it is a corn a lot and obviously we've already talked about the fact that there is a very nice Van style building located on the property and there is a parking area that is located around that building which would be on the side and the rear or the rear and the rear or the side and the side however you want to look at it. Um it's an existing site that as was already testified to apparently which I did not know was a funeral home but I did know that was an insurance office. Um, so it does have a long-standing commercial type of use for the facility. Um, and we are seeking to change the use to a medical use, which under your ordinance, unfortunately for us, has a higher parking standard than that of a regular office.

Okay. Keep going. Yeah. Do you want to then just lead into the variances?

Certainly. Um, so the site is located uh in the O3 zone. Um and as a result of the proposal for the medical office use for this building, we are seeking two variances. Uh they have obviously been discussed quite a bit this evening. Uh the first of which is for the number of parking spaces. 77 are required for this site. We are proposing 45. Maybe we're proposing 44 if we change some of the parking in the back. I'm not sure if that was actually decided. Uh but you heard extensive testimony from our traffic expert about the parking. um and the changes that have happened with medical uses over time, the TEDOC, the Uber, um the urgent care centers, all of that. So, this building is not and he also testified to the fact that they like to have multi-tenant uh buildings in terms of even just medical because of the differing hours of operation. So, they're not going to have a primary care physician in every single office space here. that would be maybe the only thing that could create that much more parking, but that doesn't really exist. We do have those kind of shared spaces in terms of different uses. I mean, my primary care physicians in an office building that has different medical uses as well as just general office uses. Um, so this really is kind of what's happening today. He's talked about our engineer talked about the fact that um the it is really coming uh really up to uh today's standards in terms of the requirements for different types of medical office uses in terms of parking and unfortunately and I know this from experience being a municipal planner our particular town ordinances don't always catch up um so especially if per per se uh the zoning board usually makes recommendations to the planning board and uh if they're not reviewing any

applications for medical office uses, they might not realize that those standards need to change. Um and you know, we're now we're here before the planning board who's in control of the master plan, but um so maybe that would be a recommendation here next master plan. I'm not sure. But um so obviously there there's usually a like a disjunction between the two sometimes because it doesn't always happen very quickly, but the it keeps coming up with new standards because uses now in today's day and age really keep changing pretty fast. It used to be a hospital and a doctor and now we have all kinds of specialists and imaging centers and and all these types of things. So, um I think that it's rational uh to um think that this site would be um appropriate with the actual number of parking spaces that it has for medical office use or else my applicant probably wouldn't have bought it. Uh they have, you know, his group has experience with medical offices and how much parking is really needed. So, I think it becomes kind of self-controlling as well because of the experience that he has. Uh we also need a variance for the number of freestanding signs. We're permitted to have one. We are proposing two as was discussed earlier. One basically for each vehicular entrance. Um and I agree with a lot of the testimony that was said before in terms of a planner when you have that sign down at the corner. Um by the time you see the sign, you've passed the entrance. So you're making another turn and so you're spending more time on the road instead of getting into the site. Um, in terms of which way the sign goes, I think that's up to the board because I know there's discussion about it being parallel or perpendicular. Um, but as long as it's not in the line of sight, which neither of these are, they are provided with a certain setback so that when you're coming to a stop in the driveway to make a turn out, you're not going to there your vision is not going to be blocked because we do have that setback. Plus,

you have the sidewalk which is also the the enhanced right of way. Um so in terms of the special reasons I would say that uh we do promote purpose A which talks about promotion of the public health safety and morals morals and general welfare um mostly because we are providing medical uses so that usually goes to the public health also uh provide adequate light air and open space um we're not really proposing many site changes uh so the signs will not impact any adequate light air and open space and also purpose G which talks about providing sufficient space in appropriate locations, variety of uses which would include medical. Um and then uh we also have a couple of waiverss that we need that

before you go on to that just just one question relating to this number of signs and all. Is it relevant to you know the variance that's being requested that this is a corner property with two separate entrances?

Yes. Yes. Um I think I was getting a little ahead of myself because we have those two frontages. two signs would be warranted. I I don't think that I could say the same thing if this was a middle block property. Um, and oftent times in ordinances you will find uh exceptions for corner lots to have more than one sign. And with this said, we also have an entrance, a vehic vehicular entrance on each side. So I think that that also contributes to this the two signs being warranted uh on this particular site. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for reminding me. Um and uh we also need a couple of waiverss. Uh one is the parking space dimensions which was discussed. Uh also the parking aisle width which was also discussed which um the the dimension is actually only at there's like two pinch points. Uh one would be um yeah where there's an island in the middle of the from the entrance off of Park Street and then we also have 19.6 6 feet that's located off of Claremont. And in terms of of that uh with having that one little pinch point of 18.5 ft um if you think about it that's like natural um oh god the term is it all of a sudden is escaping me. Uh since you have that pinch point, people actually slow down when it's a little narrower like when you don't have that 25 sorry 24 feet which is typically required. Um so naturally people are going to slow down. That's like a traffic calming uh uh thing. I'm having trouble with my words. I apologize. But um so I don't really feel like that's detriment. Um, again, you know, obviously we've talked about the fact that this site has been existing for a long time. But, um, but I I don't see that as a detriment in that particular one area because when people know that it's a little narrower, they're going to go slower andor they're going to wait for somebody else to come through first. Um, I mean, I think we've all experienced that when we're in parking lots. So, um, and I believe that our applicant has stated that he's going to comply with all the lighting. So that would actually eliminate at least two if not three of the waiverss that we would be requesting in term of lighting. The first of which would be lighting intensity at property lines. Um and also lighting foot candle levels. Um I'm not

so sure about the height of the pole lighting fixtures. Uh I'm not I don't think we're intending to. We're going to keep those. So okay. So we need a waiver for the height of the pole lighting fixtures.

Um okay. So then going forward um I mean I know that it's already talked about that the site existed for many years. We don't believe there's any substantial detriments. Um so I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to the public good by granting the variance or the waiverss associated with this application. Um I do believe that there is a betterment to the public good in terms of the signs because again we talked about the fact that we have the two entrances and we have the two streets. Um and I don't believe there's any substantial impairment to the intent purpose of your zone plan and zoning ordinance. Um in your signed ordinance there actually um there's several purposes uh which talks about controlling the size, location, character, other pertinent features um improved quality of signs. I think that we're going to be doing that here. Um providing each commercial property with equal visibility by promoting signs. And with that said, we do have those two entrances. So, I think that we'd be doing that here. Um I think that the signs will be compatible with the surrounding area. They're um they're going to be attractive and they're not going to be distracting to motors. They're really not they're not oversized. We're not seeking variance for that. So, um, with that said, I think that, um, in this case, um, I think that some of the variances you can sort of couch under the C1 hardship because it's an existing site, but I also believe that the benefits that weigh the detriments. Um, as our applicant stated that there's much less of a demand for general office space. We all know this since COVID and working from home. uh but there are there is more demand for specialized medical space office space because we have extrapolated all those uses out of hospitals and uh so there really is more of a demand for that um and I don't I believe that the benefits of granting the variance will outweigh the detriments in support of this application.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Questions from the board? a couple um just back to the parking and I'm sorry I probably should have answered the the the 47% number um that was applied to the average parking and it brought the the occupancy of parking down. Is that peak occupancy of parking or is that the average occupancy? That's going to be a question for our traffic because a lot hangs on that. Is that peak? He's saying peak.

Okay. Thank you. And then you know with respect to um I you know I think that you picked up on that the other justification here is that although medical space is in demand right now it's growing um the type of medical space is less dependent on parking. Can you explain why why is this new this new type of demand for medical space why does it require less parking? Well, because you have things that are a little bit more specific to appointment only. Um, in terms of a a primary doctor, if if you know they if you're sick, they're going to try to fit you in, right? You know, and it takes me literally weeks to get an appointment just for my annual because when people are sick, that's when you want to go to the doctor. But when you have specialized uses, that's really more appointment only. and and the specific types of appointment like if you had a radiology appointment that takes a certain amount of time where doctors can have people waiting for them and they don't know exact they have an average time obviously how they know how long it's going to take but you know you could see one patient for two minutes and one might take 15 but if you have a radiology appointment whatever imaging has a certain amount of time right there's the prep you have to put on a gown and then you have to go in and it's just it's very it's very fixed um if you're a psychologist, you have only one client an hour, you know, so when you're talking about the specialties, they're much more time oriented versus trying to fit as many patients in as you possibly can. So, I think that has something to do with it and the fact that um like our traffic engineer said, you know, um the elderly, they can take a lift or an Uber if they can't drive themselves or now there's we also brought up the medical transport vans. Um, but Uber and Lift didn't exist, you know, 20 30 years ago,

or maybe Uber started 20 years ago. Um, so and it it's so widespread that even if you're not in an more urban area that used to have taxis that you could take, you know, if you're just in a semisurban area, Uber's usually available. So, I think that just the our our technological nature has changed so much in terms of the parking demand as well. It's like it's all this like integrated stuff which is kind of fascinating as from a land use perspective as a planner because I remember testifying for self- storage facilities when no one knew what they were and then the parking demand was so low but everyone thought oh my god the building's so big and we need so much parking but you really don't because people rarely go there. They store their stuff and they leave it and they visit maybe you know once a couple months or whatever the case may be. But now what we're talking about is like uses really keep changing because of technology. So land use and technologies is I think a really interesting dynamic at this point in time. Other questions from the board? Any questions from the public of this witness about her testimony? Any comments from the public about this application as a whole? Sir, step on up. Thank you.

And we'll give you Mr. Hernandez's microphone. If you could give us your name and address, that'd be great. And then any comment you'd like to make. Sure. Uh Matt Han. I'm the owner of 63 Park Street. Um and I'm just want to say I'm in favor of the projects. Uh the parking variance gives me no issue. um 63 Park Street I've overparked or sorry many many more spaces than I use for the vet and I had the same medical parking uh requirement and I would say it's about a quarter full at most. So um my ane you know my one site is you don't need that many parking spaces. So again I'm in favor of it. So thank you. Great. Thank you.

Yes. come on up, grab the microphone from Mr. Hernandez and give us your name and address and any comments. Um, Levi Seagull, um, 111 Edgemont Road. I just want to say I'm in support of of um, the parking variance because Montlair is a very dense place and there are many ways to get around without a car. There's the 28 bus that goes down Park Street and um, biking and walking. So, um, yeah, I don't think we need to have like basically double the amount of parking spaces when you have it's dense enough so that you don't have to drive. So, yeah.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else wish to make a comment? I see no more.

Okay. Just briefly, Mr. sheriff. Um um you know with respect to the parking variance the Montlair parking ordinance in my uh to my knowledge has not been reviewed in at least three decades. I know that the parking requirement for medical office has been what it is today uh one space per every for every 150 square feet. That has been in place for more than 30 years. There's been no change in the ordinance yet. There's been dramatic change in the demand, you know, based upon the testimony you've heard from the witnesses. Um the IT manual, which um studies parking demand throughout the country and is updated periodically, um is now at 2.63 spaces per thousand, whereas Montlair requires almost three times that. and the IT manual as Mr. Paraguay testified you know from 2004 to 2023 the manual was updated four times and each time the parking requirement for medical office has been reduced from originally it was 3.53 per thousand in 2004 20 years later it's now 2.63 63 per thousand. Um I think if you go around town and look at the properties that have significant parking uh lots um whether medical or non-medical, you're going to find that a most of the spaces are not utilized and we're requiring people to provide more parking spaces than are really necessary. while at the same time we have significant legitimate concerns about

impervious coverage and um flooding conditions. Um so um the reality is that you know we're providing almost four parking spaces per thousand square feet substantially more than it uh requires and again based upon the information that Mr. Costello provided regarding other medical offices uh in the immediate vicinity. Um we know we're providing more than than almost all of those uh buildings and um you know we're providing enough parking. I think that's been established with respect to the sign variance. Um again I think it's significant that this is a corner lot. Um you know the requirement one freestanding sign per property applies to all lots including interior lots. This is a corner lot, fairly large lot with with act with driveways on both sides. So, you know, the signage, you know, um provides a dual purpose. Obviously, it it provides some identification for the tenants, but it's also provides um identification for where the driveways are. Currently, the one sign that on the corner um is is only visible there. You know, there's four ways to approach this site. you can only see that sign coming from two directions. Um, you know, if you're coming uh eastbound on Claremont Avenue, you can't see that sign that's there now. Um, and you pass the parking lot. So, the the signs serve a purpose and um and and given the fact that there are it is a corner lot with two entrances, I think the signage um uh variance is is warranted. Um, you know, in terms of the other benefits of the application, we've agreed to com, you know, provide compliant lighting where none doesn't currently exist. We're adding an additional ADA parking space, which is an obvious benefit. We're restriping the

lot. Um, we're agreeable to providing a roof for the trash enclosure. Um I I should say again your ordinance allows u the board to uh accept parking spaces that are 8 ft wide that can reasonably be reserved for compact spaces. I think that's a variance that this board or a waiver that this board commonly approves and we'd ask that you approve it for the 8oot spaces we have. If you if the board felt that you'd rather us widen the space uh widen the the the uh those spaces and sacrifice a parking space, we're we're willing to do that to whatever the board feels is appropriate. So um you know for all those reasons I would respectfully ask that the board uh approve the variances grant the waiverss we we've requesting and um um provide minor site plan approval for the application as proposed.

Thank you. Thoughts from the board? Mayor,

I'm I'm very much in favor of this application. Um, I'm in favor of the variances. The lighting that we discussed, I think is very important. Um, as well as the ADA parking spots. Um, and just as a as a plug for the great municipality of Mont Clair, one of the things that Miss Gregory didn't specifically note is that all of our seniors in Montlair are eligible for free easy ride transportation to your medical medical appointments. And so, you know, that's just um in addition to all the things that were mentioned um to speak towards the reasons that we may not need all of the parking spaces that are there. So, if anybody's at home watching, get your free easy pass um so you can go to the doctor's. And the final thing is I would be in favor of um trying to figure out how we can uh widen the space a little bit more and maybe lose a spot. But I'm very much in favor of the application.

Okay. Yes.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh Mr. Costello, I would respectfully request that any signage that is placed on the property is in the period of the Queen Anstyle building. I I think that if we try to incorporate 21st century signage on the property, it will take away from the building design and it has been a treasure on that corner for many many years and people love passing the building and just seeing a piece of history. So I respectfully request if you can any of the signage remain in the period of the building. Thank you.

And if we could get people to come in horses. No, just kidding. So I think with I mean I think it's a good project. It's a medical corridor. It's you know it it's a place you know for both people and pets across the street. um the testimony on on the part on the on the ratios is compelling if you know what's there. But the key for me is if we're being fair. So because every applicant can't just get, you know, we can't just give one applicant x number, you know, relief to certain degree and then give another applicant different relief for a similar purpose. So I don't know the history here. I did a little um dirty and quick digging um at the biggest comp recently, which would be Seymour Street. And I know that it's I wasn't here. I You were here. You were here.

You were here, maybe. And um that was over seven, but it's mixed in with the public parking use. So, I don't know how that played out, but the internet seems to think that that we were pretty tough there. I don't know if there are any other recent ones, engineer Hernandez, that we've done, but I would just like that we

try to be fair, you know, with whoever comes and that if it's if we're going to I mean, we should change the ordinance obviously at some point if it's way out of line with reality. But fairness is important. So, I don't know where we're at, but otherwise, I like it. I would also just say I don't like parking minimums as a general rule because I think they could be taken care of in a different way. We have to be mindful now going forward though that in an area like this. I was riding on Saturday with several hundred bicyclists and we are now mandated to having streets that are complete that have accessibility for cars, pedestrians and bicyclists. Um, we are not going to go all the way probably. It's just not really possible. But I think it's very possible that Park Street parts, you know, a north south corridor like that, probably two of them will lose parking on one side. That is going to happen. That should happen. We have promised that something like that is going to happen. So, it doesn't mean we can't do this. and it's kind of on the building owners when they're projecting what their tenants will like that there won't really be as much on street parking. So that doesn't mean I'm going to be against it, but it's just we need to be mindful that when you look at this stretch of Park Street that in a year or two one side of it and actually I would guess that it would be the other side of the street will not have on street parking. So that's maybe that's not maybe for now to discuss. That's for later on. But but so I'd like it to be fair. This seems fair. And I'd like us to just be mindful that at some point we're going to have to deal with this reality of if if we

are under the under the real utilization of that parking lot that there, you know, there's going to be a squeeze. That's all. I would hope we're always fair in our I would hope we're always fair in our in our dealings here and that we judge every application based on its own merits or detriments. So I I yes I hope we continue to do that and that we always do that. Yes, we do. Mr. Borchoff, did you have a comment?

Uh I was just going to respond. And I would say one of the uh differences between Seymour Street and this uh would be that outside of the public uh parking per uh uh component of this, it's also the um fact that it's all summit almost entirely. So you've got the hours and to my understanding the preference here would be a variety of tenants although I'm not confident we would have a way to enforce that. But going on the assumption um that that would be the preference. Although honestly even if it weren't that I would still I think be in favor um and I don't think that would supersede if you know I'd rather summit not come and buy up that property. But uh other than that that's it. I am in favor.

Um, you know, whatever the case, the ratio is one for 150. I mean, that's what we're dealing with right now, regardless of what could happen. So, I think just getting a copy of that report, that it was really critical to my um, you know, I will vote in favor of this subject to just getting that data. That's because that seemed to to me that was the only data that was presented that actually has occupancy of parking spaces relative to medical use. Everything else was the number of spaces. We don't know how well they're occupied and um that wasn't that wasn't conducted by an expert witness. So, okay. Yeah, that's good. I'm Yeah, I'm I'm in favor.

I was like, you don't have to. I is I'm not trying to pressure anybody to make a statement, but Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm in favor. Uh what I would add is probably to echo the mayor's sentiments, which is if we're truly over here that we would probably benefit from expanding the parking spot. Like I think giving up a spot so that you know the many SUVs that are around here could park more comfortably um is something worth considering. What do others on the board feel about that about cutting one parking spot along that stretch of 13 to make it 12. And by my rough calculations that means each spot would be 8.775t wide. Better than what we have here.

Hopefully that's correct. But it cost you a bunch of money when you have to go and get those dingies taken out of the side of your car because people open the side door of their car and they bang your car and and not on purpose either. You know, some they sometimes they don't know, but if you're just making payments on your beautiful new car and you notice it. So, I'm just trying to protect people's cars and if and sometimes mobility issues, right? If if you need to get out in and out of a car a certain way, you might really need to have a certain amount to stretch your legs out, you know.

Well, I will say that I am definitely in favor of the application and that, you know, if we can have parking spaces that are wide enough to meet standards, the closer we can come to that, the better. So, okay. I think I'm seeing the same way. Okay. I'm seeing mostly head nods of that's the board likes the suggestion of eliminating one parking spot cross understood

and really I I feel similarly to the board here. I mean I as you know lighting was my big concern. Um and if you all are going to fix that put a roof on the dumpster and um then I'm I app and I appreciate the testimony on it and parking ratios. I think that's I think it's very helpful to hear especially not just what's in the current version which I would say is most applicable but also what has happened historically. I think that's a good good benchmark for us to use um for an application like this. So appreciate that discussion and with that I would make a motion to approve the application second

subject to the conditions that we've mentioned which I think are the roof on the dumpster or the trash enclosure. Sorry to put it more more accurately uh you'll submit a compliant lighting plan for review by the board engineer or the revisions committee. Either one. If you can handle it, great. If to go to revisions, that's fine, too. What else am I missing? 44 spaces. 44 spaces will be your your new parking total. A copy of the IT and a copy of the IT parking ratio parking discussion. Even if it's just a sheet of paper out of I second that. Was there a question on the spaces?

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we have confirmed definitively that now we're requesting 44 versus 45 versus the 47 that is on this sheet. Yeah. or just I believe so Miss Tally's memo that got revised as of May 13th said there were 45 things being provided. Yeah. And so I think we're talking about eliminating one here. So it' be 44. Right. Correct. Okay. The signs perpendicular. We're okay with the signs being perpendicular. Yes, we're okay with the signs being perpendicular. Still 9 and a half ft back though. Still 9 and a half ft. It's at its closest, you know, with a suggestion to make it in more of a queen an style, you know. Yes. Suggestion.

Suggestion. I mean, I think it'd be a nice suggestion. I mean, I I do like that sign on the corner. I mean, frankly, I I would like a sign on that corner and I think that style matches the building nicely, but beautifully. Um, you know, so you you all came in with two and seemed very comfortable with two and I think that makes sense for wayfinding. So, we have a motion. We have a second by the mayor. All those in favor? I opposed abstensions. I No, Miss Wallace, I think you're abstaining. I forgot to note what time you joined the day, but it was after the application started. So, just thank you, board, for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Oh, we had a good Okay. Do we have any committee reports? I don't think so. Bills. I think we have bills. Oh, yes we do. Let's see.

Yeah, we've got bills. Is there a motion to approve the bills? So moved. Oops. So moved. Second. Second by Mr. Borshop. All those in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Uh then one last thing before we adjourn. So the next meeting is June 1st and neither Mike nor myself will be there. So um it's it's up to this board June. Did I say June 1st?

Yeah, June 1st. Well, Mike's conflicted from the swim school application. So he may be here, but he can't sit the application. I'm traveling. So this board has to choose somebody at the meeting to run the meeting. And I'm hoping you all will choose Tony only because we've talked about some procedural challenges or discussions around that application. And so, you know, the board will be made aware of of that as well, but I spoke with Tony about that um to at least get him familiar with it and comfortable with hopefully running that meeting. So, you all will select a person to run that that meeting or It doesn't seem like we have a lot of choice. Well, you do. You do. Well, we talked to Mr. Ian Wallally.

Well, I think it has to be one of the class four members is what we're advised. So, out of the class four members, which I believe are I think that's an excellent Ian Wallally. I'm just teasing you. While you're looking at him and Cample and I'm not throwing my hat in that ring and you know I to Tony Mr. Ian Wallally's been here a while. He he and he's very good at he's good at asking questions and keeping order. Not that anyone else isn't, but well, I mean, filling his shoes is like impossible. It's not It's It's possible. You just have to make sure people ask questions at the right time. Open the meeting up, I guess. He might be here. I If it's the only thing on the application, I don't think I don't think he's going to be here. And then Eric can't do it either. He's

right. Mr. Damato is conflicted. Yeah. I mean there's there's I mean we we we went through a few discussions among the the board leadership how do we how do we put this together so that it was we we had a few discussions of how do we put this together so that it it continues because as you know there's a lot of public input that comes with it and so we just want to make sure that somebody's equipped and they don't get thrown into that that night and have to manage the meeting. So that's Yeah, we also heard that the planning testimony will not occur until meeting after July 3rd. This meeting coming up is not the concluding meeting. Correct. And you'll be back for the next I'll be back for the July 3rd. No,

I will. I will not be back for July 3rd. Okay. I just realized that I won't. So you have to run to Mike. No, he's conflicted from the application. Oh, all right. I just realized that I'm not here on July 3rd as well. July 6th. July 6th. Oh, July 6th. I am here. This is a meeting. I'll be back by then. No one's here. July and then the 20th. You know, now Okay. Yes. So, I will be back for Sorry, I don't have the dates perfectly in my head, but yes, they will be back at the first July meeting so that Mr. Ste can testify. Well, June 1st is primarily going to be parking and traffic, right? I that's what they've mentioned, but they also um

they are having their civil engineer come back at some point. I don't know when. So, I don't want to talk too much about that since this that application is not on. But just so this board is aware, u that's that's our recommendation, but do with it as you will on that evening. You will you will on June 1st. So, yeah, you don't we don't need to take a vote today, but we will on June 1st as to who will lead the meeting. And so, you know, that'll be your first order of business, assuming Mike doesn't come here just to open up the meeting, which I would tell him to sit home. That's easy enough. Are they the only application? I believe so. Yeah, they're the only application scheduled and they should be if they're not because they're going to take the whole take the whole time.

Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, I think that's the only application on. So, I just want to brief the board on that and as long as you cut us. If anybody has questions, let me know. And with that, I would move to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? I opposed abstensions. Have a good night, everyone. Great meeting. You too.