Township Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the regular Township Council meeting of May 19th, 2026. We're so happy that you decided to join us. This is a regular meeting of the council. It's being broadcast live on Channel 34. It's streaming live on the Montclair TV 34 YouTube channel. It's available on demand and can and will be rebroadcast. This meeting is called pursuant to the provisions of the Open Public Meeting Act. The meeting was scheduled in the revised annual notice of the meeting scheduled to set forth in Resolution R-26-064, adopted by the Township Council at the regular meeting of February 10, 2026. advertised to the official newspaper on February 26, 26, posted on the township website and bulletin boards outside of the municipal building, and has remained continuously posted. In addition, a copy of the revised annual notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of our township clerk. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please, Madam Clerk.

Deputy Mayor Anderson. Here. Councillor Birmingham, absent. Councillor D'Amato. Here. Councillor Harrison. Here. Councillor Tolar. Good evening, present. Good evening. Councillor Williams, absent. Mayor Baskerville.

Present. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this point in time, the Township Council is going to go into the executive session. I make a motion that we adjourn to the executive session. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss personnel, and I so move. I'd like to ask everyone here that is not directly related that's the Township Council and the clerk to please remove yourself from the room while we have this discussion the estimated time that we should be returning will be around 7 o'clock so please join us around 7 possibly 715 and we look forward to seeing you then thank you OK. At this point in time, I'd like to make a motion that we exit the executive session and return to the regular meeting.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I'd like to make a motion, please, that we adjourn until 7 PM, which is the time that most of our guests are expecting us to start the regular portion of the meeting. Is there a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. I'll see everyone back at 7. Thank you.

Okay.

All right. Welcome to everyone that's just joining us now. And we're very happy that you're here. This is a regular meeting, May 19th. And we're going to start with the approval of the minutes. Okay. They have been presented to the council, the minutes of February 10, 2026, February 24, 2026, March 12, 2026, March 17, 2026, and March 24, 2026. Are there any corrections or additions?

i have corrections to both the february 10th and february 24th minutes february 10th i was listed as neither present nor absent and i managed to vote on everything so i'm assuming i was present and february 24th uh as part of the discussion on uh the application to green acres for canterbury park there's a statement made which I think should be included in the minutes that the application not include any pickleball courts and ask that be added and then the resolution dealing with Lackawanna Plaza was moved to it was listed last on the agenda it was moved to earlier in the agenda which is reflected in the minutes but then at the end of the minutes it's also indicated it was enacted at the end of the minute so that portion should be deleted I have no other changes and I alerted the clerk to all of those in advance okay I make a motion to accept the minutes as amended

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, so please, at this moment, I'm going to ask if we could all just take a moment of silence and reflection. In memory of Juniper Blessing, the 19-year-old student, a trans female who was stabbed 40 times in Seattle. She also was a New Jersey native, and I'd also like for us to just meditate and reflect and moment of silence for the three victims that were killed in the Islamic Center in San Diego recently. So if we can just pause for a moment, please. Thank you very much. OK. Now we're going to go to the portion of the meeting where we read proclamations. And since we know we have people from the volunteer ambulance unit, if everyone's here to receive that proclamation, can you please join the council down at the podium?

We represent the 100 Club, although I also represent the Ambulance Unit. I wear several hats in town.

Who has that one, please? Council?

This is for First Responders Month. Hello.

First Responders Month?

It's for firefighters, too.

First Responders. Okay, great.

Okay so I'm honored to read here the proclamation for first responders month which started I think yesterday a couple days ago and as we all know Montclair Township is Served every day by a group of dedicated firefighters, police officers, and members of the Montclair Ambulance Unit, which is a nonprofit here in town and has been providing services for many, many decades. All of these dedicated workers, their professionalism, their courage, and steadfast service protect the lives and well-being of everyone who lives, works, and visits our community. Whereas these first responders willingly and selflessly place themselves in harm's way to ensure public safety responding to emergencies with unwavering commitment, skill, and compassion, Whereas the Montclair 100 Club, founded in 1966, has for nearly six decades provided meaningful support to families of Montclair's first responders, including assistance in times of tragedy and scholarships for the children of firefighters, police officers, and, since 2019, members of the Montclair Ambulance Unit. Whereas, founded in October of 1966, the Montclair 100 Club was the vision of two Montclair business people, Joseph Hahn, president of Claremont Cadillac, and Raymond Connell, I hope I pronounced that right, a local attorney whose goal was simple yet profound, to unite business owners, professionals, and residents in support of those who protect and serve our community. And whereas the Montclair 100 Club continues to honor bravery, support families, and stand firmly behind the heroes who protect our community. And whereas May is recognized as First Responder Month, a time for the Township of Montclair to acknowledge and honor the courage, sacrifices, and invaluable service to those who safeguard our community. And whereas the 100 Club Community Service Award plaque in honor of former Chiefs Edward A. Giblin and John W. Gardner, missing for several years, now returns this day in May, First Responders Month, to its rightful home at Town Hall. Bravo. Now let it be resolved that we, the Mayor and Council of the Township of Montclair, do hereby proclaim May as First Responder Month in the Township of Montclair and urge all residents to join us in expressing our heartfelt appreciation to all of our first responders for their unwavering dedication, bravery, and service. And we now proclaim May as First Responder Month in the Township of Montclair and urge all of our residents to join us in expressing our heartfelt appreciation to our first responders for their dedication, bravery, and service.

Thank you all very much.

If I may briefly? Yeah, hold it. Thank you. And we have several of us. We have our two vice presidents. We have Hugh Moriarty and Bob Rowan. We have Don Felber. We have the chief. This is good. So this plaque used to hang on the wall out there, and it disappeared for several years. And then it reappeared, and we brought it up to date, and we're proud to return it to the town hall where it belongs. And just so you're aware of what the 100 Club does, we are the Widows and Orphans Association. fund started in 66 as you heard fortunately we're more of a scholarship fund these days but we're trying to raise our profile so we're here pay attention to us thank you Barbara do you want to get in the picture?

Barbara do you want to get in the picture?

That's how it disappeared last night.

We won't go into the detail. Come on, Barbara. Let's go now.

All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Nobody else?

All right. All right. Thank you very much. Good.

Thank you. Thank you.

Congratulations.

Always, always. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, we have a proclamation for gun violence, please. So if you're here to receive that, Councilor Rahoon Williams will do the honors. And thank you for being here. We're always happy, happy. Yeah, always happy. Yes, I would.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. Okay.

Good evening, everyone. So I'm going to read this proclamation for Gun Violence Awareness Day. Whereas every day, nearly 130 people in the United States are killed by gun violence and more than 200 are shot and wounded, with an average of more than 19,000 gun homicides every year, people in the United States are 26 more times likely to die by gun homicide than people in other high... income countries. And whereas New Jersey has 442 gun deaths every year with a rate of 4.8 deaths per 100,000 people, a crisis that costs the state $5.3 billion each year, of which $168.9 million is paid by taxpayers. that New Jersey has the fourth lowest rate of gun deaths in the U.S. And whereas gun homicides and assaults are concentrated in cities, with more than half of all gun homicides in the nation occurring in 42 cities, cities across the nation, including Montclair, are working to end the senseless violence with evidence-based solutions. Protecting public safety in the communities they serve is the mayor's highest responsibility. And whereas support for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from those who are a danger to themselves or others, mayors, council members, and law enforcement officers, in partnership with local violence intervention activists and resources, know their communities best, are the most familiar with local criminal activity and how to address it, and are best positioned to understand how to keep their citizens safe. Gun violence prevention is more important than ever as we see gun violence continue to impact communities across the country. And whereas in January 2013, Hadaya Pendleton was tragically shot and killed at age 15. And on June 5th, 2026, to recognize the 29th birthday of Hadaya Pendleton, born June 2nd, 1997, people across the United States will recognize National Gun Violence Awareness Day and wear orange in tribute to Hadaya and other victims of gun violence. and the loved ones of those victims. And whereas the idea was inspired by a group of Hadea's friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange, they chose this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters. When out in the woods, an orange is the color that symbolizes the value of human life. And whereas anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on June 5th, the first Friday in June, to help raise awareness about gun violence, by wearing orange on June 5th, 2026, people across the United States will raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun violence victims and survivors. And whereas we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the hands of people, who should not have access to them and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our families and communities safe. Now, therefore, the Mayor and Council of the Township of Montclair do hereby declare June 5th, the first Friday in June, to be Gun Violence Awareness Day, followed by Wear Orange Weekend, June 6th to the 7th. We collectively support the efforts of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. And we encourage all citizens to support local communities' efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor the value of human lives.

Thank you so much, Mayor and council members. We are so grateful that every year for many years you have been listening to us and we hope that this is the last year that we ever need to worry about gun violence. my name is Melissa Schaefer I'm a longtime Montclair resident and on behalf of every town for gun safety and Essex County moms demand action we are very grateful to you for your support for gun violence prevention in Montclair and we're wearing orange again this year and we invite everyone to wear orange on June 5th We have ribbons if anyone wants to wear a ribbon. Because the statistics that you heard in the proclamation just tell some of the story. We hear the news when the violence is particularly horrible, but it happens every day, every day in our nation. And for those of you that are here and those of you that are listening at home, if you have children, you know that they practice lockdown drills in school. But I wonder what are the deeper effects of practicing lockdown drills and what kind of a world teaches three-year-olds to lock doors, turn off the lights, get away from the windows, cram into a tiny space and remain completely silent as I did with three and four-year-olds when I was teaching a music and theater lesson at a preschool last year. And we were in a preschool bathroom that was about the size, it was about three feet by three feet, and there were about 20 of us in there, and no one made a peep. So no matter what your political views, your support for gun violence prevention is so important. And there are many more guns on our streets than ever before. New Jersey, as you heard, has always had strict gun laws and correspondingly low levels of gun violence. But since the Supreme Court decision in 2022, the Bruin decision, just about anyone can obtain a concealed carry gun permit. So I'm going to give you just a few numbers, please, if you allow me. In about the three and a half years before Bruin, there were about 1,548 applications for concealed carry permits approved in New Jersey. And since then, 105,000. So we went from about 1,500 to 105,000 permits this year. In Essex County, the number of permits went from 426 to 6,080. And actually, that's last year's statistic. The numbers are higher. New Jersey has lost $35 million in federal funding for community violence intervention programs. There are some really great ones in Newark, and they're struggling to stay afloat. And they're crucial for this work. There is a push in Congress right now to establish a national reciprocity law. which would require every state to respect the concealed carry eligibility standards of all other states. So the residents of the 29 United States that have done away completely with any licensing or training requirement would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in New Jersey. So West Virginia passed permitless carry, such as this, in 2016. And by 2020, gun homicides had increased 48%, and suicides had increased 22%. We shouldn't have to live like this. And that's why we educate and we advocate for gun safety through programs like Wear Orange and safe storage programs. For about $60, you can get a lock case to store your gun with a combination so that children or teens or someone having a bad day can't get to the gun. I think there's also, wouldn't you agree, Peg, that people feel like, well, if there are that many guns, I should get one. Right? There is a trend. There is a trend. But mostly guns lead to accidents, especially with children and teens and suicide. So... More guns do not make us safer. So we appreciate your support, the time that you've given us to speak, the proclamation, and we especially are grateful to our town council and to our mayor. Thank you, Mayor Baskerville and town council.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Do you have anybody that wanted to take a picture? We would hang out back there for you. Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, we have been on the photo. Thank you. Thank you guys so much.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you guys so very, very much.

The final proclamation for today is honoring Pam Scott. Is there anyone here that is present to receive this proclamation? no okay then I will hold this proclamation but basically Pam Scott is someone that we should all all know and celebrate after 40 years of providing service with partners for health she will be retiring and she's just an amazing amazing job over the years and there will be a celebration for her retirement so I just wanted to mention that Pam Scott she's somebody that has basically touched every nonprofit organization and others in some form in terms of resources so I am so grateful to Pam and wishing her well as she moves on to the next portion of her journey thank you now we're going to resume the rest of our meeting

AND TURN IT AROUND.

okay the next portion is public comment and I hope everyone that wishes to thank you to speak signed here and so we're going to ask please that you limit your comments to three minutes that when you come to the podium please give us your name and if you're going to speak on a pending ordinance we would ask please that you wait until we have the discussion on that pending ordinance to share your comments with us god bless you and you have three minutes if you're coming for a discussion of an ordinance item and if you're coming to share anything that you'd like to with us we will be happy to hear from you and we're thankful that you would take your time to come okay Siegel please okay thank you pain

Hey, how are you? Eric Payne. I live at 70 South Fullerton, South Fullerton Avenue, Montclair. I'm a partner in Nite Owl LLC Cannabis Dispensary, and I'm here to urge you guys to approve consumption in the retail dispensary license holders. The state has allowed it. They've approved it for dispensaries that can have consumption. They have a set of regulations. The first part is to get the approval from the town to people that have already received the dispensary licenses. We're in the process of submitting our permits for demolition and construction, so obviously to be able to build the lounge while we're doing this at the same time. It was suggested to me to do a little research to see how consumption is playing out across the country. There's not a lot of research on it. Obviously, the obvious questions would be, you know, the way it would be handled and the regulations around it that the state establishes and that you guys would establish also but also too we are going to have decided we're going to put in our own kind of rules around the consumption lounge and kind of the parameters of how we see it going and how it could best be something that fits into the community obviously the main thing is people walking around the street and stuff like that and you have this secondhand smoke of now cannabis on top of tobacco So we would urge people that we make that available for people and also for medical patients that might want to be able to medicate at that time to be able to use the lounge that we have. And I'm sure that the other dispensary owner would know that. So I'm sure that Jake and Kush, they probably feel the same way. Obviously, there's the obvious business revenue, added revenue that it would bring in as well. And with us, where we are in town, we look to engage, obviously, the restaurants and a lot of the eatery places where we would, A, encourage and you can have the state regulations where you can order food in. So we obviously would encourage the restaurants around us, if people wanted to order food in. We don't anticipate it being a thing where people are going to be hanging out for hours. We're not going to encourage, we would discourage that. But also, too, in terms of the chefs around town to have infused. Now that's a big thing to have infused items and things like that and a lot of gourmet chefs are getting into that and having, you know, their line of edibles and things like that. So I would urge you guys to consider that. And also, too, to consider, you know, the expanding the zone, the commercial zone where you have cannabis, because, you know, we're all three in that corridor there. And to give all of us the best opportunity for success, if it could expand it, maybe think about Uptown or other places. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you for coming. Next guest is Lynch, please. Ordinance. Thank you. Grayson.

Good evening, Mayor Baskerville and council members. I'm Jeffrey Robert Grayson. I wake up every morning and turn on the news and wonder what form of madness will greet me today. We are living in turbulent times surrounded by deception, misinformation, propaganda, and abuse of power. We are told one thing today, something completely different tomorrow, On the third day, we're told what we heard on day one was fake news by a bad journalist, often called nasty or piggy. For African Americans, the concern is magnified tenfold because civil rights progress that our ancestors bled and died for are being systematically dismantled. The Trump administration and the Supreme Court featuring Clarence Thomas seem hell-bent on returning us to the days when Rosa Parks was told to sit in the back of the bus and strange fruit was known to hang from the poplar tree. We are being governed by dogma influenced by the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which in and of itself seems to be rooted in white nationalism. It is through this filter that I will respond to the words spoken at the last council meeting regarding the amended zoning maps along Bloomfield Avenue, Hartley, and New Street corridor. We heard from two landlords slash developers that have accumulated multiple properties with the idea of redeveloping these properties, which would increase density, alter the character, and shift the demographics of the neighborhood. Once again the words affordable housing units were used as public relations designed to manipulate our emotions by blindfolding us to the reality of gentrification. Clearly the housing market in the fourth ward has become a shell game played on a monopoly board and the African American residents are the disposable tokens. We heard the usual word salad from counselors feigning concern and empathy for the Fourth Ward community, then voting the exact opposite to what that empathy called for. We even heard Fourth Ward housing equated to hot dog stands. Has anyone ever heard of homes in Upper Montclair symbolized as hot dogs? There was even a golden opportunity for a counselor to vote in support of a community that initially had high hopes for him. Instead, he chose to abstain from showing any solidarity with that community. The Montclair Master Plan has become a runaway train that has gone off the rails. You have residents saying, pump the brakes because you're doing too much. You have others saying, keep building, just don't build it in my block, put it on the fourth ward. I want to thank Mayor Baskerville, Councilor Tolar, Councilor Harrison, and Councilor Birmingham for your yes votes to amend the zoning map in this section of town. Thank you for showing us that there is still room in Montclair for compassionate thinking and empathetic action in a town that has been consumed by hyperdevelopment and the steady economic displacement of its African American residents.

Thank you. Okay, the last guest that I have on the clipboard is Brian. Ordinance, okay. Thank you. Yes, is everybody for ordinance on second reading? I should have been more specific. Thank you. But I didn't let them know it's just for the ones that are on second reading. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're ready to move on to the pending ordinances on second reading. I'm going to open the public hearing without objection for pending ordinance 02613. It's an ordinance to amend section 327, vehicles and traffic, the code of the township of Montclair, New Jersey, stop signs on Harrison Avenue and Cedar Avenue. I now open the public hearing without objections. Anyone here that wishes to be heard in relationship to this?

I'm Ann Lynch and I live at 77 Cedar Avenue on the corner of Harrison and Cedar and I can't say how happy I am to hear that you guys are addressing this. I've been asking for regulation of that intersection for probably nine years. I've only lived in the corner for 11. I've had a car on my lawn this past year. I had my fire hydrant taken out by a car and the fire hydrant thrown across my lawn this year. I've had my tree hit by a car. I've had the telephone pole hit by a car. I have incessant honking at rush hour every single day because no one can make that left. And people make dangerous turns because they get an opportunity to move on a very difficult intersection. So I have people right behind me as I'm trying to turn my own driveway. So it is a disaster of an intersection. And I've seen so many relatively peaceful intersections getting four-way stops. And our intersection needs it more than any place else in the town. And I urge you to go ahead with it.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this ordinance? Please come.

Hi, Mayor and Council. Jacob Neiman, Complete Streets Director, for those watching at home or in the public. I just want to make a note. This ordinance is separate from the ordinance to change Sutherland to a one-way. Those are treated separately as they should be as ordinances. That being said, it's both my opinion, and I feel comfortable saying the opinion of the township engineer, that these must be looked at in concert, and if you're going to do one, you need to do the other. And so if the stop sign is something that's going to go ahead, wonderful. It has to be paired with that one way at Sutherland to ensure that the intersection can continue operating safely. The intersection at Sutherland poses a lot of difficulties from a visibility perspective. That would make it really difficult for anyone in the intersection, whether on Harrison or Cedar or Sutherland, to be aware of a vehicle stopped at Sutherland or for a vehicle stopped at Sutherland that's obeying the law and at the stop line to see any of those vehicles elsewhere. So I just wanted to make sure to note that before you voted and if you had any questions. But thank you all.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on that ordinance? Okay, without objection, I'm closing the hearing on that portion. And counsel, you have an opportunity to speak on this. Counselor Tolar.

yeah I just you know I appreciate the resident speaking and our Complete Streets director sharing his insight on this proposed ordinance I'm personally not in favor of it I just think it has to be a little more work to be done if you will investigating you know what impacts will this have on the other surrounding streets and I'm talking behind Sutherland up on Stonebridge Originally I wanted to know who asked for this, but we heard from a resident who has had some issues at her property there. I'm not saying she asked for it. And the data, you know, what data have we seen or been presented to share to determine, you know, that this one way is absolutely necessary. I'm in favor of a stop sign, but making the street one way. I'm very concerned about the residents at the end of the block, like I said, coming down Stern Bridge. You know, what kind of flow of traffic, what will that look like for the residents is my concern. We haven't seen anything to... I guess, suggest that this would be an easy get around for the other residents. And again, if there were any considerations or plans, either by the Complete Streets Director and or our engineer, to try to slow traffic down at the West Orange and Montclair border prior to them arriving at Sutherland and Cedar Avenue.

Other council members, please. I have a concern. So when we voted on this the last time, some of us were going to get more information and the thought was that we were going to discuss that at the Complete Streets meeting. So we had a very robust discussion at the Complete Streets meeting about that very area. And in fact, we saw what I thought was a very wonderful option for traffic calming and keeping people safe in that area. And it was led by our director, Jacob Neiman. And there was a lot of input and conversation and back and forth. I'm a little disappointed because at no time did we ever discuss the Sutherland one-way or the traffic signs. And so I was under the impression that this option that was presented to us was something that our engineer, traffic engineer, and our director of the complete streets or safe streets was offering us at the option and it really looked at the entire area there from the border of West Orange all the way up to Llewellyn so I would have liked to had more conversation or some input or any conversation about the Sutherland and the traffic lights if we were going to move forward with that, right? I thought it was like, okay, we're offering you guys something that we think is better. And so I said, okay, that's why we didn't have that. So I would have preferred to have more discussion and to hear from the engineer and our director at that time if we were going to still pursue this. Deputy Mayor?

Yes, so I remember that part of the meeting and I believe we were talking about different ideas including a traffic light but I think the end result was that it was determined that it would not be an option at this point I mean so I mean I would invite mr. Neiman to come back up to verify what the actual outcome of that discussion was but you know we were presented with a report from the engineer about this area and the data on which you know this these actions these proposed actions were based seven reported traffic incidents within the span of three years is not insignificant you know this at this particular intersection that we're talking about Harrison Cedar it's you know by a school right there's a park there there's a lot of pedestrian traffic there on the end there is you know speeding that we know about and you know it was discussed that Sutherland does need I mean we can't have another stop sign there because it's so I think it's only within a couple of blocks right so I I don't recall that we were saying that a traffic signal

Now, if you're responding to me, I'm going to just help you. And maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not talking about a traffic light because I don't recall that we had that either. I'm talking about the discussion that we had about going all along the eastern side of Harrison Avenue, all the way down from the west, orange border, all the way up and allowing absolutely no parking on the eastern side of the road and a lot of other things. So no, this wasn't, no, I remember what you remember about that, but I'm just talking about when we had this plan. So now is it thinking that we're going to do that plan plus the traffic, plus the southern, I'm just trying to figure out now all this. What you think would be the best, because I thought you were offering us that other plan.

So the plan that was discussed at the most recent Complete Streets Oversight Board meeting was focused on traffic calming. A stop sign is a mechanism for traffic control. They're often seen kind of interchangeably, but they have different goals and purposes. Traffic control, much as the word control sounds like, is designed to take control of an intersection and cause people to act in a certain particular way, direct them what to do, right? A stop sign directs you what to do, to stop. It controls that intersection. And you would look for traffic control, a traffic signal is another version of traffic control, in a circumstance where, say, you are having difficulty crossing the street because there's no way to get through, right? You need to control traffic so people can safely cross. You may look at traffic control because there's relatively equal amounts of cross traffic, right? And it's hard for people going in one way or the other to actually make their way through the intersection. Traffic calming is focused on bringing down the speeds and intensity of motor vehicle usage. Traffic calming is gonna be something like a chicane, like a speed hump. These things are often complementary, and they often accomplish similar goals, which is making residents, drivers feel safer, but they're not necessarily the same thing. And so this is a traffic control, ordinance the recommendation um uh ordinance before you the discussion we had was for traffic calming right and and there are circumstances where uh a stop sign will bring down speeds that's not their goal and they should not be used to control speed right that's not the job of a stop sign our engineer will will gladly uh remind me of that uh and traffic calming's goal is not to control an intersection Nonetheless, it can help make it easier to cross or drive safely through it. And so they're complementary and often mutually beneficial and reinforcing, but they're not the same thing. And so you can do both and have that still be a reasonable course of action. You can also choose to do one or the other if you feel one is more appropriate for the circumstance than the other.

okay thank you no yeah no I appreciate that thank you very much director does she have another minute according to you madam clerk okay so we will give you one moment

This is not a questionable intersection and I've seen four or five stop signs on Harrison and Upper Mountain in very wealthy neighborhoods with much less traffic than mine and I cannot say what I will do to try to make this happen if you guys don't make this right decision because I have a disabled adult son That is not the point because it's danger for everybody. Sutherland has 1,000th the traffic that Cedar does. It's so not comparable. I can't even tell you. I walk in the wealthy neighborhood all the time because it's so peaceful because there are no cars there. Nobody drives through there. No one uses it as a cut-through. Everybody uses Cedar. Everybody does. I'm telling you, I could take pictures. Every day they're honking. I come out with my camera to take pictures as there are 15 cars back down the street. There's no comparison. And if you guys do not do a three-way stop here, I will go crazy with papers and the town and the disabled son thing and the car on the lawn and the fire hydrant. So you must do the right thing. I will absolutely not take this lying down. Absolutely not.

Okay, are there any, well, we closed that portion, so that was really being very generous and kind to you, so thank you, because we had already passed that public hearing portion. Council members, are there any, let me just see, and then I'll go this way first and then come back. Councilor Birmingham, please.

I think it was like a few weeks ago we made another street one way Linden I think I don't think we were given data I assume I got I did hear from neighbors that they didn't feel like they were fully informed but My sense is like we're doing this on your recommendation and this is how others have been done. I guess I'm just.

Yeah, so the Linden Avenue was in the process as I started and so I can't give as much context or detail on that. I don't know what exactly came before you for that process. What I can say is what Norberto, the township engineer, completed was essentially a stop sign warrant. We talked about this at the oversight board meeting.

I'm sorry. A stop sign what? Warrant.

We talked about this at the oversight board meeting. And basically, what a warrant is in this circumstance is something that says, are certain conditions met that would warrant the installation of a stop sign? It doesn't mean you must. It doesn't mean you must not. It provides a structure and a rubric for understanding, is this an appropriate intervention? And I believe his recommendation was that it met those warrants. And so, again, that's not saying you must, but that's saying that the conditions are there that it would warrant the installation of a stop sign. And the installation of the stop, the one way is directly tied to the fact that without a stop sign, a car that is properly stopped at Sutherland going eastbound would not be able to see or be visible to anyone else in the intersection. This intersection is challenging because it's not a square intersection. It's a bit of a dogleg. And because of that, the sight lines are a lot more challenging. Added to the sight line challenges is there's a residence with a very large stone retaining wall. It's gorgeous, but it does make it difficult to see. And so that is an added level of complexity. Beyond that, the location of driveways in firehouse number three mean that the stop sign on Harrison going southbound has to be placed at some remove from even the Cedar Avenue portion of the intersection. And so you've got a series of particular challenges that mean if you're going to do a stop sign, the Sutherland would need to be one way. It just is not something that would safely function without those being done in concert.

Thank you. Council members?

I just had another question. Yes. Councillor Tolar? Sure. So to answer your question about Linden Avenue, what was presented to us, the answer was nothing. It just showed up one day. There was no presentation. There was no report given to the council in advance. It just showed up. So just want to put that on the record. heard that the deputy mayor stated that a report was presented do you have a copy of that report because I don't recall seeing anything she said something was presented by the engineer or your that's the memo that we got with the ordinance the last meeting well that's a memo I'm looking for a full report you know the data that says and can you maybe answer this Jake By making a street one way, how does that stop people from driving and speeding down Cedar Avenue? I'm just trying to really understand how that's going to slow everything down. I don't know. I'm asking because you're saying you're going to make Sutherland a one way, right?

That's the suggestion. That's the ordinance.

If the concern is the traffic up and down Cedar, how does a one-way off of Cedar slow people from speeding? I mean Harrison, stop people from speeding up and down Harrison. If the street off of Harrison is one-way, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.

So the change to make Sutherland one way is not intended to address a speeding issue on Harrison Avenue. The change to make Sutherland one way is necessary if a stop control is implemented at the intersection of Harrison and Cedar.

So you said if a stop patrol is implemented. Is there going to be one implemented?

That's a decision for you all, the mayor and council, as to whether a stop sign is appropriate for the intersection. And my professional opinion and the opinion of the engineer as laid out in that memo is that if you are going to put in a stop sign, at that intersection. It must be paired with the one-way on Southerland.

So what a stop sign, well you said must be paired because you're saying every one-way leads to a stop sign. That's a law? Is that a rule? Is that what you're suggesting?

No, sorry. The must was in...

So we can put a stop sign instead of making this a one-way.

No. So what I was saying is the stop sign must be paired for the safe operations of the intersection, in my opinion, in the opinion of the township engineer as he laid out in his memo. Those should be done together because it would not be safe to have eastbound traffic on Sutherland attempting to use the intersection when they are not able to see other drivers and vehicles and when other drivers at Cedar and Harrison are not able to see them.

And do you know if the engineer's report, I'm sorry, memo, specifies or talks about the other streets behind? I'm just trying to understand the flow and the ease of traffic by making Sutherland one way. The other people that live in the neighborhood, how does this affect their getting around?

It will presumably have an effect. Sutherland and Stonebridge are relatively lightly traveled streets. I believe there's plenty of capacity to handle any change in traffic patterns, and especially the fact that right nearby is Graham Terrace. It's very easy to go up Sutherland, or if you're leaving Sutherland, go up Sutherland to Stonebridge to get down to Graham and return to Harrison Avenue. You can also go to Stonebridge and

further northern terrorists there's a family with a disabled person has any communications happened with that family yet sorry repeat the question on Sutherland terrorists there's a family with the disabled adult has any communication happened with that family yet if you one-way Sutherland Road Have you had any conversations with the family on Sutherland Terrace that has a disabled person that lives there? How will this impact them for a van picking them up, any emergency vehicles, et cetera? I'm just wondering if any communications have happened with that family.

I'm not sure what communications may have happened. I've not personally communicated with them.

Okay. So we still need to calm the traffic on Harrison.

Right. Calming traffic was discussed at the Complete Streets Oversight Board meeting. What's being discussed here is a traffic control device and a traffic control intervention.

Councillor Harrison, can I ask? Can I just ask Jake all these? Interventions that we're making you're able to track Impact right like you have software and you're able to track impact of these interventions.

Yeah for sure So to give like a very straightforward example the the speed humps that were recently installed on under Cliff Road if you look at our data for the week prior and The Monday prior to the installation, the average speed was around 32 miles an hour, I want to say, or 29 miles an hour, and the 85th percentile speed, meaning 85 out of 100 cars were going, or the 85th car of 100 was going, I believe, around 33 or 35 miles an hour, right? Far above the 25 mile per hour speed limit. The Monday after the installation and modification of those speed humps, the average speed was about 19 miles an hour, and the 85th percentile speed was 23 miles an hour. And so we were able to see in one week a very real impact on some of these changes. the number one contributor to serious injury and fatality on our roadways is speed, just like bar none. And so any decrease like that is really quite remarkable and something we should be aiming for everywhere because it'll mean more people get home to their families. It'll mean more people don't have injuries on our streets.

I just have another question. So like at the end of this year you'd be able to give us kind of a report because we are being we are trying really hard to make recommended changes but you'll be able to sort of let us know the impact if any of these need to be modified or whatever I'm thinking of a traffic light maybe in my area that you know that people have concerns about but like you'd be able to tell us that and and So we would know that our interventions are working or if anything needs to be modified?

Yeah. Like, fortunately and unfortunately, the work never stops, right? And so there's always going to be need for improvement and always going to be need for modification, right, and changes. And there are circumstances where we may find that an intervention that we put in place is not the appropriate one. One of the things we're going to be trying to do is a lot more kind of quick dirty and cheap demonstration sorts of projects where we're able to try something out and like maybe if it doesn't work, we can move on and try something else, right? There's a lot we can do that involves just like putting down some planters that we can later pick up or putting down a couple of flex posts that we can later pick up. and remove for relatively cheap. It's an iterative process. We're going to do improvements and then we're going to do more improvements because we can always be doing better. There's not a point at which our streets are safe. They always need to be made safer.

Councillor Harrison.

Before I get on topic, fix the one speed hump on Lloyd before someone bumps into somebody else. You're going. On Lloyd? I mean on Undercliff.

Undercliff. But was it on, okay, was it on the,

The one closest to West Orange, since you foolishly brought it up, is a speed bump, not a speed hump, and you have to slow down to five miles an hour, and cars are not expecting that when the speed humps in West Orange and the others on Undercliff are. You go 15 to 20, it's okay.

I'll confirm with the engineer that that one's to spec.

Or put up a sign saying it's a speed bump, which is not preferable. But I saw today a car almost ran into the car in front of it, not anticipating it was going to slow down as much as it did. Okay. Because it had to, but the car behind it didn't know that. Gotcha. Okay. On this, there is no question Cedar and Harrison needs to be made into an all-way stop. I agree. And in my current job and in a prior job, the way I come home is down Eagle Rock to Harrison to Cedar down to Orange Road. Going the other way, going to work, I do not go that way because making that left-hand turn is totally unsafe. My question, and I do not understand the coupling of this with the Sutherland going one way.

Right.

That wall has been there forever. At least the 50 years I've been driving and when I started driving, it had been there a long time. It wasn't a new wall. There is not a lot of traffic on Sutherland. The making it an all-way stop is going to somewhat improve the situation because the cars coming from the stop going southbound are going to be going slower than they would be otherwise. You have to pull out at the intersection. If drivers feel unsafe, they can go up to Stonebridge, over to Graham if they're going in that direction. I think if we were talking about a much busier use of Sutherland if we were talking about a new situation which drivers were not familiar with I would maybe understand but It is more of an obstacle in some places in town, but I can drive you around, show you 30 intersections where you have to pull out fully across the crosswalk in order to see cars coming. towards you I if I just don't see it as being unique I think and you know as you brought out in answering councillor Birmingham's questions we now have the ability to monitor what's going on and I I think let's get the all-way stop because that should have been done a long time ago. And, you know, I'm glad, you know, in recent years, this council and prior councils have been moving forward on all-way stops and a variety of other measures to control speeds in town. I know they're technically not doing that, but that's what it does. You have to come to a stop. You go slow. You can't go back to... Your usual 40 miles an hour to be somewhat facetious and takes you a while to get up to back to the speed limit. I just, I, yes, you're totally solving the problem if you don't let cars use that intersection. But I don't know that the problem is big enough to warrant that dramatic change for those residents on Sutherland Road.

The only thing I'll say is on principle I can't condone designing an intersection in such a way that the only safe way to get through it is to pull into the crosswalk. And so that's where it comes from. Is that something we do as drivers all the time because we want to safely enter an intersection? Yeah. Can I condone an intersection that's designed with that being the intended way to handle a situation? I can't.

And if it was a new situation, I'd absolutely agree with you. And if it was a more heavily traveled road, I'd agree with you. But you're talking about a couple of vehicles an hour at most.

I'd like to just say that I agree with everything that Councillor Harrison said here and I am really very much not in favor of the one-way Southerland and every time we have this discussion for some reason people feel like they want to talk about Linden And so I now feel as though I need to let anyone that's listening know that Linden was not a new situation. At least for 10 plus years, Linden has been getting attention. And just like, you know, you said sometimes we try this, we try that. We started with a crosswalk, change one spot, then another crosswalk, another spot, then a type of a sign. That didn't work. And there was nothing over the last 10 plus years that was able to make the situation better so that people would not go in a way that they would have, you know, near miss with people with their babies and carriages. So it's not as though this came up and then a month later we had a one-way sign. It's over 10 years and many different things that we tried. And so as our Councilor Harrison said here, I would be in favor of the stop signs without the southern one way and then trying to see how that turns out. Sometimes you do have to go through many iterations of something to get things straight, just like at the one that I always talk to you about at the Irving High and Orange Road, right? That's another one that we've been dealing with for a very long and trying things and so i don't um think that this is a situation where i would be in favor of you know throwing everything out there at one time we talked about the the stop signs which um seem as though they're necessary then you also told us about a whole plan to put a a bike lane and you know for a different situation but all in that one thing and so i would like to see if we can stop with the stop signs and then move forward with the great plan that you had for the um calming in the area and see where we are and then reassess counselor i have a question okay counselor toller and then deputy mayor

Sure. Thank you. I'm just curious. You said take control of traffic. You use traffic calming measures. Is that correct? Take control of traffic. then you said it directs you on what to do and how to act is there any other ideas suggestions for this intersection that you would recommend besides the one way I mean you mentioned Linden Avenue as the mayor stated it's been longer than 10 years and again this is something engineering just put up there that no one asked for it so there was no discussion but what other recommendations would you give for this particular area that we're talking about right now

So I want to make clear, traffic calming does not direct, does not control.

You said take control of traffic. Go ahead.

Right. Traffic control, so a stop sign, a traffic light, that takes control of traffic. That is a control device. Traffic calming would be something like lane narrowing, chicaning, speed humps.

those are used to encourage drivers and other road users to behave in a way that's appropriate for the the roadway and the context and the environment right slow down drive more safely what we're dealing with here in this town just you know for the most part we have speeders you know people just use some of these streets as cut throughs what are we doing to slow that traffic down

So we're doing a bunch of things, including installing speed humps, and we have proposals for improvements to Maple Avenue, which are focused on a principle of traffic calming, incorporating speed humps and narrower lanes. We've got the plan that was discussed at the most recent Complete Streets Oversight Board meeting for traffic calming on Harrison Avenue. And so we're doing a bunch of traffic calming, but we're also doing some traffic control, the installing new stop signs, for example.

So Irving Street, High Street, and Orange Road, last summer, I think we had eight or ten accidents within two or three weeks. And nothing's been done. Nothing's been talked about. You know, Orange Road's a county road. not that this has to do with this ordinance but the urgency for that intersection in my opinion is far greater than what we're discussing here today and if this was a plan that you and the engineer you know came up with to solve it I'd like to see the same energy and excitement and enthusiasm given to Orange Road High Street and Irving deputy mayor thank you

So I have a couple of questions, and I do want to get clarification that I think there are plans for high Irving and Orange. Yes?

So there's a broader... The current Harrison Avenue bike lane traffic calming project is part of a larger conceived idea that would incorporate Orange Road and High Street and Irving, that whole section. The amount of money needed to do any one of these projects means we can't bite off everything all at once, and so they're part of a broader process. And so yeah, that is not somewhere we're not paying attention to.

Back to this topic, I think it's very clear, it's obvious to me anyway, traveling in this stretch of town that a multi-way stop is very much needed at Harrison and Cedar. With respect to the Sutherland one-way idea, Is there, you know, I understand what was in the memo. Is there any like data or information independent of the stop signs at Cedar and Harrison about that, you know, people making left turns onto like the intersection of Sutherland and Harrison? Is there any independent data that was reviewed?

Meaning like crash data, speed data? Yes. I don't know what other data was incorporated. I know what was used for the memo. And so I don't know if there was further other analyses done.

Okay. So we don't have any, you're saying? There's no information about crashes at Sutherland and Harrison?

The information exists, but I guess I'm not quite understanding what the question is.

I just want to know if there have been crashes at Sutherland and Harrison.

I don't have it off the top of my head, but the crash reports exist.

I thought the police department said there were maybe seven crashes in the past ten years at that intersection. Is that not correct?

I don't have it in front of me.

Over 10 years.

Yes. Councilor D'Amato, please.

Thank you. So obviously you are now aware very much on a global, on a bigger level of that everything you do has second and third and fourth order effects. We're seeing this, we've seen this in the first ward where there have been stop signs or controls that are done on Upper Mountain Avenue and then all of a sudden we've got kind of chaos and you know a street or two away so we know that this is an issue that whenever we're going to change something that there's going to be an impact somewhere else we know it and it's tough and it is iterative you're going to change and do this and nothing is going to be forever and maybe we'll do this so it seems to me the key thing here is if we're going to do the stop sign which I think You know, I don't live there. I don't commute there. But I've been enough. My kids went to Nishwane. Like, those turns are hairy. It's hard. And I understand. If we're going to do that, I feel that we really need to trust our professionals here who clearly have worked this particular problem hard. very hard and know that counselors are concerned about the second-order effects up Sutherland, that the two things are a package. And I would actually ask our guest attorney today, Ms. Goldstein, there any reason why maybe the answer you would know is yes any hardly legal reason why not tonight but why in general something like ordinance a and B could not be combined into one because this whole thing feels like Kind of a little game of chicken that like basically I don't want to vote for A if B is not going to pass because I can see the look on your face. You're being very sincere and afraid that we're going to pass and create a dangerous situation by doing this. So, I mean, for the future is really my question.

legally you could combine make it put your mic on please it is on oh yeah legally you could make it one or ordinance it in the future if you want so in the future if you have something like this bring it to it I would I would like to see it as one because this is a little hairy to do it is to I

seems like a place for a stop sign it seems like if if the impact of the one-way is so catastrophic we could in the future if the calming is so good then we could reverse it So let's please not end up passing something that our own.

Okay.

I'll just say one thing. So probably before Jake became the street's director, I went to the town engineer and, you know, Councillor Anderson and I, you know, we were advocating for stop signs at Llewellyn and Harrison and then Gates and Harrison. And then Councillor Tolar and I, we advocated for a stop sign at Hawthorne and Gates. And this particular one I advocated for because, you know, when meeting folks in the area, you know, it's a dangerous intersection. And so I asked the town engineer for a solution. And this was the solution that he presented. The first solution that he presented was to create a one-way on Sutherland and Graham, creating a horseshoe knot. dissimilar to the horseshoe that's on the Brookwoods, right? So you go east, up Sutherland, Stonebridge, and down Graham Terrace. And he wanted to present an ordinance in October of last year to effectuate, to put it up for a vote. I told him not to do that and let's have a town hall meeting. So what I did with my family, we went out and we papered all the houses on Sutherland, Stonebridge, and Graham Terrace to let them know what was happening on what was going to be proposed on those streets with the one way. And then I had a town hall meeting at the library in November. So folks came out from Graham Terrace, and they weren't too pleased with the one way, so we presented it. Jake was kind enough to look at it again and made a suggestion, and the suggestion was to leave Sutherland, because Sutherland is really the problem here when you're coming, what is it, east bound on Sutherland, entering Harrison Avenue. That's really the problem, whether it's 10 cars and one car. You only need one car and another car going the opposite direction to have an accident. So after that, some period of time passed, and we started the process again in March. Deputy Mayor and myself, we went again. Flyers on every house on Sutherland, Grand Terrace, Stonebridge to alert them. Folks were outside. We spoke to them about the proposed changes. Had a meeting by the firehouse in March where folks came out. It was mostly folks from Grand Terrace. We had some folks from Tishner there as well and a couple of folks from Sutherland. Now, The folks for Graham Terrace were happy. Just in general, everybody wants to see the speed on Harrison slow down, and everybody was in favor of the stop sign. Was there 100% consensus on the change for Sutherland? Absolutely not. There's not 100% consensus on anything. On most things, rather. Now, we're faced with a choice here. We have our professionals here telling us that In concert, we have the best chance to reduce accidents and have better control over this intersection here. And I also have... people that are emailing me saying, hey, this part of town needs some attention because the other part of Harrison is getting all the attention, and I can't cross the street with my children to go to school, and it's very scary. So what I'm asking for is from my counselors here for your support in protecting the well-being of the folks that live in this area. Thank you.

okay was there a movement no I just want to add to one thing did you have a councillor taller did you have okay ham was first okay no I just wanted to add that why do we have to do a straw poll oh times okay now I just didn't know what you were doing I know that's not something that we normally do just draw a poll it during a meeting but I just wanted to counselor Toler no no it's fine I know that the engineers recommendation to make this a one-way I just wanted to say that when he did Linden Avenue he had to go back and fix it because it's not working properly so that's why I asked if there were some other options for Sutherland because He went out, made Linden one way. The residents are very upset, et cetera, et cetera. It's not making the traffic flow properly, so it has to be fixed. That's why I asked if there was another option besides making Sutherland a one way.

Okay, is there a move in for the pending ordinance 0-26-13?

I move for pending ordinance 0-26-14. Second.

I'm sorry. You said 14. We're on 13.

13.

Sorry.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yes, yes. I move ordinance 0-26-13.

Roll call, please. Who seconded? I did. Yeah, I thought you did. Yeah, okay.

Madam Clerk, please. Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councillor Birmingham? Yes. Councillor D'Amato? Yes. Councillor Harrison? Yes. Councillor Toller? No. Councillor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville?

No. Okay, so now I... We're going to move on to pending ordinance 0-26-14. I am going to open the public hearing without objection. So is there anyone here present now who wishes to be heard on the ordinance to amend Section 327, Vehicle and Traffic of the Code of the Township of Montclair, making a one-way on Sutherland Road? I know we've had a lot of conversation on that already, but please, if you're here for that, please come forward. We'd like to hear you.

Good evening, Levi Siegel. Good evening. I live in Ward 2. So about a year ago, this council passed the Complete Streets Policy. And the goal of that policy is it establishes the Complete Streets Department, whose job is to make recommendations to the council on very explicitly how to make streets safer, right? Section 1A of that. of the policy says first all streets safety eliminate all road fatalities significantly reduce cross severity and injury improve personal safety by prioritizing safety improvements for people walking biking and other mobility devices and so yeah the job of this of the complete streets department is to make recommendations both of these ordinances are recommendations that the engineer and the director have selected as the best options to do immediately because part of complete streets and part of the safe systems approach that the department and board use is combining short-term projects that we could do tomorrow such as these stop signs and making Southerland a one-way and And the more long-term projects, which are the traffic calming, like slowing down speeds on Harrison and slowing down speeds on Orange and High, that's a different project that I think this council is kind of conflating with this project. That's something that we can... And it's because safety on our roads is a major public health crisis. There are things that we need to do now, such as stop signs and the one way that have been recommended, and there are things that we need to focus on in the long term as well. It's not logical to, I don't think it's logical to say that we're gonna reject the one way just because we don't understand why when our, and we don't have enough data when the board has clearly identified this as working in tandem with the stop signs. And we know that this will help traffic safety immediately. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to be heard on the one way on Sutherland Road? okay so seeing no one else I'm going to without objection close the hearing is there anyone on the council that has not been heard that wishes to be heard on the southern I'm sorry the southern land road yes mayor I'd like to just quickly so

The reason why I asked about the data was just because I was wondering if there was. But I am inclined to, in this particular instance, go by the recommendations of the engineer and the complete streets director. You know, when I went around with Councilor Harris, Williams a couple of months ago and fliered every single, you know, all of the doors. I think that really the main concern, as Councilor Williams says, was this beating on Harrison. And, you know, there were some concerns about potentially the impact of making Sutherland one-way, even though some people understood that there was, even without, you know, the one-way thing, the very narrow street, right? But there were some concerns about potentially an unintended consequence of having drivers taking the horseshoe for there to be speeding on Graham Terrace. So I am going to vote for this. But I would like to suggest that if that is at all possible after this goes into effect, and as you said, we can monitor this, see what the impact is, as should be done, and as I believe is part of the intent of the Complete Streets Ordinance is to monitor the impact of all of these measures that are taken that we approve. and see if there is a resultant speeding problem on Graham Terrace after this is done.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion that we pass the pending ordinance 0-26-14.

Second.

Madam Clerk, will you do roll call, please?

Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham? Yes. Councilor D'Amato? Yes. Councilor Harrison? No. Councilor Toller? No. Councilor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville.

No.

Motion carries.

Now we're going to move on to the agenda item number C. So without objections, the pending ordinance 0-26-15, which is an ordinance to amend chapter 341, water, article 20. Can we pull this one?

We were going to pull it for. We are going to pull it. We still have to do the public hearing first.

Yeah, then after that I can pull it. Okay, all right. And so, yeah, Article 22, all services to be metered, exception. Is there anyone here who would like to be heard on this pending ordinance 0-26-15? Please come forward now.

Mayor, members of the council, good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Ethan Wohl. I've been a resident of the town since 2008 and just finished construction of a new home on Highland Avenue that does have a fire sprinkler system in it. I appear in opposition to the proposed ordinance 2615 which would require a separate water line for all fire sprinklers in the town I understand that the Water Bureau wants a uniform rule. It's easier for them to administer. I understand that. But it would impose unnecessary expense on all builders of one and two family homes. And not just custom homes where it may be voluntary, as in my case, but where it's mandated. and particularly for two family homes where they're intended to be more affordable, it really imposes an unnecessary expense on them. I submit that it also creates problems for the town. It involves excavating streets, exposing mains, and putting taps on the mains. These are 100-year-old, close to 100-year-old mains. It cannot be a good thing to have heavy equipment working around those mains and putting additional stress on them I am obviously not a fire sprinkler engineer but I will say that having spoken to several as well as installers most towns in New Jersey they have told me that do not impose this requirement. I can say that there's a national standard that's applicable to one and two family homes, NFPA standard 13D. That standard is specifically designed to not require a separate water line because of the expense involved. And I am aware that The director of utilities has various arguments in favor of this approach. But again, in a situation where the majority of towns in New Jersey don't require it, I submit that this council should take a hard look and evaluate why Montclair needs a different rule.

Thank you very much.

That was it. Thank you all very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else present who wishes to be heard on this ordinance?

Seeing none, I'm going to, without objection, I'm going to close the public hearing and offer the council members, we're going to... Yeah, so I just, this, when it came up for our first reading, I watched the tape, and we, not a word was spoken about it, but We all trust and absolutely treasure our water utility, which works perfectly. There's never been a day when my water hasn't run and run with beautiful drinking water. So this is... absolutely not about going against them it is they're advocating for us going the extra mile on something and that's great that's fine it's our job to just weigh that against other interests and the other interests here are as the resident said do we want to make it uneconomical for a non-mandated structure? That is to say somebody who's not by law required to have a fire sprinkler system to install one if they so choose. And do we want to make it always necessary to dig up the street to hit those old those old lines so I think that what I would like to see there's no great need there's not any sense that there are a lot of buildings doing this right now that are not mandated and I would like to just pull it so that we can look at it and and really just split the difference if we can maybe find a way to indemnify

owners who want to do this indemnify the town for this very slight risks that may be involved in them doing this and then we could bring it back a little bit later if that's okay babe I'd be in favor of that council yeah I would be in favor of pulling this we've actually asked the director of utilities to join the next facilities and infrastructure okay committee meeting to bring us up to speed on all things water That will give us a chance to kind of digest what's expected, any other projects coming down the pike, et cetera, so we can at least have a better understanding of what this means for the town, for the residents, et cetera. So I'm okay with tabling this. Okay.

I'm fine.

We're good.

Okay. Madam Clerk, we're going to table this until – We only have one meeting in June, right, and one meeting in July. Why don't we do July for there to be a good discussion. Okay. July. Thank you. All right. So we're moving right along. Pending Ordinance 0-2616. Ordinance amending Section 8 of Chapter 230, Parking Lots, of the Code of the Township of Montclair, New Jersey, to revise the parking permit fees and related regulations. I'm going to open the public hearing without objections, and anyone that is here that wishes to be heard on this public hearing, on this ordinance, please come forward.

Okay. I didn't have time to study that one as much, but... I was wondering, is this the one where you're saying that we want to be able to change the rules so we can increase the fees? Got it? Okay. I'm sorry I couldn't even I couldn't even hear what you were asking well basically I don't have that one in front of me is that the one where you're asking to be able to raise rates once a year without any public discourse yeah I don't believe that I think the public should be able to speak yeah that's what mine is that on I think that's was the main thing it was crossed out

But it was crossed out. I don't understand because it looks like that was crossed out.

Madam Mayor, that's paragraph A on page 2, or page 1 of 2, paragraph A.

wait a minute council birmingham no i think he's going to say okay councillor harrison i thought some troublesome council member thought fees should be changed by ordinance and suggested that be the change instead of it seemingly just being changed willy-nilly which is how it currently is worded.

not following yet someone help me at the meeting that where this was introduced councillor Harrison said he doesn't want it by resolution he wanted it changed by ordinance because then you have time for the public to speak but somehow that change did not get into this final draft so it's supposed to say via an ordinance I believe I that's my recollection okay intended change was as well

No, you were saying the exact correct thing based on what... So what was published... You want me to speak? Yes.

Okay. What was published is what was provided in your packet, and a copy is provided for the public. We just gave it to the gentleman. What you did, what the governing body did, was you struck the line that said, via a duly adopted resolution. So the sentence stops at... I'll read the whole sentence the fees for the issuance of parking permits on public parking lots may increase annually at the discretion of the township period okay so what that means is should the governing body want to adopt an ordinance or make an ordinance to amend this yeah every year you can do that which is You don't have to put that in there.

So you mean the discretion of the township by taking out the duly adopted resolution, we can do it by ordinance?

The only way you can do it is by ordinance. So what you did at first reading was you struck that line because that's inappropriate.

May I? Councilor Harrison? No. Okay. Deputy Mayor.

So it's a little confusing, but just to answer the gentleman's question, because the fees are actually in the ordinance, any time we would decide to change the fees, we have to have a hearing. You would be on notice because we wouldn't be able to. I understand. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Yes. So is it true? So from what I understand, fees are supposed to be set by ordinance.

Okay.

They can only be set by ordinance, but I also understand that in some places parking rates in public areas can be set dynamically.

Is that true? I'm sorry. Before we have a time, I should have closed the public hearing, but I just wanted to make sure there's no one else. Anyone else in the public that wishes to come forward, please be heard on this before we have further deliberation from the council. Thank you. Seeing none, I'd like to, without objection, close the hearing, please. Now, Councilor D'Amato. Now, Councilor D'Amato, did you have something you wanted to say?

I was basically trying to find out, is it true, because it's been mentioned to me, that there were municipalities that can change meter rates somehow dynamically?

Yeah, you're able to do dynamic pricing in given circumstances. I'm not sure what the exact legal language you would use to implement such a system would be, but there are plenty of examples of municipalities that I'm not sure if in New Jersey, but generally that use dynamic pricing to ensure that their rates are changing to match the demand.

Okay. Manager?

So in those instances, all fees are established by ordinance, but there'd be a sliding scale, minimum and a maximum. See, that's it.

Okay. Council?

Okay.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we vote on pending ordinance 0-26-16. Second. Madam Clerk, please.

Deputy Mayor Anderson. Yes. Councilor Birmingham. Yes. Councilor D'Amato. Yes. Councilor Harrison. Yes. Councilor Tolar. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. Mayor Baskerville. Yes.

So is this a new ordinance? Yes, it is. Second reading. Okay. Next up is pending ordinance 0-26-17. Without objection, I'd like to open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard, please come forward at this time.

Hi, it's Brian again. Brian McClenahan, 23-year-old resident. I was looking at the parking regulations randomly one night just for some other reason. Then I noticed something like 10 o'clock, the change in 10 o'clock. I was like, what's that all about? So I think taking a step back, we all know for the 23 years I've been here, parking is annoying in this city. There's not enough of it. It's just a hassle. It's something we all go through. Some of my favorite ones are the most ludicrous rule is the meter's broken, you can't park there. That just is so unfathomably unlogical. They even have the gall to put stickers on every meter. The new meters, I don't know anybody that likes them. Another very annoying thing is the train lots. They're starting a ticket now, like at 8 o'clock at night, where no commuter is using that lot anymore. They give you tickets, where in the past they didn't. So then coming up to this, all of a sudden I started reading this. It's like, meters on until 10 p.m.? It's like, no. That's just a simple, flat out no. We have enough harassment on the meters, the pain in the ass of going and doing it, making sure it has enough money in it. So I started thinking, what other towns do it? So I looked at Verona, 6 p.m. Nutley, 6 p.m. Castaneda a little wider, Milburn, 6 p.m. South Orange, a busy district, 6 p.m. I went as far as Summit. I was trying to think of towns, similar towns that have like nightlife and stuff like that, 6 p.m. So first of all, where did we get 10? It's already 7, which is weird. That's the golden hour. They get a lot of tickets because most people think it ends at 6, but it's actually 7. And then also, secondly, is the 50% increase in rates. Whatever. So I truly see this as simply as a money grab. Get more money, more money. It's like, I won't put it that way, but it's purely done for a money grab. There's no engineering report. There's some consultant. I'd love to see that report. Can I call your office and get a copy of it? But there is no reason to have the meters going to 10. There's no reason you're giving people ticket at the lot by Upper Montclair train station at 9 o'clock at night. It's ridiculous. And then besides that, I miss Officer Baldwin. That's it, I think. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing. Is there anyone else from the public, please, that wishes to be heard on Ordinance 0-26-17? Seeing none, without objection, I'm going to close the hearing and offer the council an opportunity to be heard. Yes, Councillor Williams, please.

So Hoboken generally extended their parking in the business district from 9 p.m. until midnight Friday and Saturday but it but in in seriousness you know everybody will can attest to this that the population Montclair expands probably from Thursday night through stop through Sunday right and And they're coming into town because, you know, we have a lot of amenities. We have restaurants, things of that nature and stuff. The town does not get any revenue from their visits, right? The only revenue that is generated from their visits is through parking, right? So, you know, all these great restaurants we have, I'm glad to have them. But the only businesses that we're getting revenue from, which haven't really opened yet, are the cannabis business. And we can get direct revenue from that. Every other business, we're not getting anything other than property taxes. So what we're doing is we're monetizing. The one thing that we can do is our street parking. And some of that also is to kind of change behavior. central business district we want to divert people into the decks instead of parking on the street and hopefully that will alleviate a lot of the traffic so money grab yes there there's some money you know that was intentional but also to change behavior as well I'm sorry we can't make they can't hear you there and in this type of

hearing once we close that the preference is that this this be the time for the council and we do respect that you came up and shared with us and I'm appreciative not during this type of a situation any other council members please councillor Tolar sure thank you you're saying I just I want to know are we paying parking authority to stay on till 10 p.m. because

that's the case whatever money we're supposed to generate from keeping the meters going till 10 we're kind of losing it if we're paying salaries are we is that what's going to happen parking authorities going to work until 10 p.m. to issue tickets okay and the cost analysis what cost analysis was done to show that this would verify an effective you know cost increase if you will because I to have heard from residents just like this gentleman who that it was a money grab. Many residents are not happy with us trying to push this until 10 p.m. because they feel that they're going to take the brunt of it. And I understand what you're saying about visitors and businesses. I would support this if this was identified to say Thursday, Friday, Saturday. But right now it says Monday through Saturday. which means Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly Thursday, we're ticketing our residents. And we're trying to attract, if you said, the business, the people that come into our restaurants, why don't we make this a weekend 10 p.m.? Just my thoughts.

Counselor Williams?

Yeah, sorry. So this, like with Sutherland and whatever, there's a bunch of different ordinances that we're going to, bring up. So Monday through Saturday, this is just a parking increase here, but there's other things also that I was talking about with Thursday through Saturday in terms of the higher pricing.

That's why I said maybe this should read if this is what you're going for.

No, this is a different ordinance.

Oh, okay, because this just doesn't feel right for the residents. I understand what you're saying about People come here for the businesses, etc. If that's the angle, if you will, it really should just be for the weekends till 10 p.m. because at this point we're actually charging our own residents and everybody's paying a lot of money for Taxes and whatever else, we just have a lot of responsibilities as residents, if you will. People are spending more money, and to me this just doesn't seem fair. It's not a fair, like I said, I wanted to know if any cost analysis or reports have been generated to verify the effectiveness of going until 10 p.m.

So one last thing, and I hate speaking multiple times, but so if we can go back and, Jake, I don't remember when the date of the presentation where you and Manny went through all the different changes and the pricing increases and the reasons why and the benefits and things of that nature. you could just if you remember off the top of your head the date that that presentation was given then folks can go back and they can look at the presentation it was pretty thorough and it explains the reason why we're doing it and it's not it the the parking utility It's a utility, so it has to be self-funding, and it has a lot of responsibilities in terms of all those decks. They need engineers to come and look at them to make sure that they're safe. They need striping. They need snow removal and stuff like that. So it's not just a matter of every dollar that they get is coming into the town's coffers.

there's things that the utility actually needs the revenue for so but anyway yeah I for whatever reason the date February 24th is sticking off on the top of my head and so I think February 24th meeting and if not then in that vicinity was when that presentation was given The utility hasn't raised meter rates since 2018. I think permit rates may have been a little bit after, but it's been a significant period of time since rates have gone up. As we all know, costs have increased substantially, and so the utility is collecting on the current rates in real dollar equivalents about 24% less than it was then, while costs have gone up significantly more than that. And so just to break even, right, there needs to be a change there if the utility is going to remain self-funding. With regards to the 10 p.m. window, There is money to be made in having longer meter rates, but at a fundamental level, what's the job of a parking meter? It's to manage that curb space. And as we all know, Montclair does not suddenly become unattractive after 7 p.m., and that curb space, if anything, becomes more valuable. Right? One of the real things this is trying to address is the fact that on Bloomfield Avenue, basically every night of the week, you have significant traffic interruptions from double parked cars, folks illegally parked on the side of the road, in areas where they shouldn't. because curb space isn't available to them, right? That curb space is necessary to drop off your grandmother when you're going to dinner and she can't walk from the deck. That curb space is necessary when an Uber is dropping you off for a show at the Wellmont and you just need to be in and out. And that curb space is necessary when a Grubhub driver needs to pick up food. So while there is money that will be generated by the utility to fund their operations, right, At its core, going to 10 p.m. is about better managing the curbspace and ensuring that it's available to those who need it most when our business district curbspace is most in demand. And so that's why, for example, the rate increases for the special zone are targeted on the peak demand days, right? Yeah. The 10 p.m. is done all the time because it is unfortunately much the case that even on Tuesday you have double parked cars because people may not go to a restaurant on Tuesday the same way they do on Friday. But they certainly are ordering food from that restaurant, and that restaurant needs someone to pick it up.

Good. Thank you very much. I'd like to make a motion that we vote on pending ordinance 0-26-17. Okay. Madam Clerk, please.

Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham? Yes. Councilor D'Amato? Yes. Councilor Harrison? Yes. Councilor Tolar? No. Councilor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville?

Yes. Next up is pending ordinance 0-26-18. It's an ordinance amending section 327-22 loading zones of the code of the Township of Montclair, New Jersey to update the loading zone operation times and Without objection, is there anyone from the public that wishes to be heard on this ordinance? Please come forward.

same thing it's the loading zones used to be free parking after six or seven I can't remember but again another thing about this whole thing is no one knows I we just found out this randomly local had no article about any of this ten o'clock meter time We talked to friends. No one's heard of it. We called up Montclair Film to just go, hey, it's going to cost your people six more bucks or something to go see a movie now. So no one knows. So again, the loading zone is just another annoyance. Maybe they could have resident tickets or stickers like you do at beach towns where you can month our residents gets to park there free, I'd be happy with that. Then Jimmy Jam them all you want. Crank up the rates. Another thing about the lots and the train stations, there's zero signage saying you can't park here after 7. So I think that's unconscionable that you don't have a sign. It's just a money grab. And the true money you're making is not the extra meters, it's the tickets that you'll be giving people. So maybe you have a moratorium on tickets for the first three months or something. So that's it.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public who wishes to be heard on this ordinance, please? Seeing none, without objection, I'm going to close the hearing and offer the council an opportunity. Councilor Toler? Sure, thank you. Is Manny back there?

I didn't know if Manny was in the back. I couldn't see beyond the pole. I see that Maple Avenue is on here. That's wonderful. I see that the loading zone hours and days is not what I discussed with Manny because that particular street is already very tight. Councilor Tolar, I'm sorry, where are you? I'm on page 5 of 6. Okay, thanks. Right now it's saying Maple Avenue from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. to assign one spot as a loading zone. When those two businesses only need from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. And after that, it can be a parking spot. As you know, Maple Avenue is a very tight street. We have 19 homes without driveways. I would not feel comfortable allowing one space to be a loading zone from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. I talked to both business owners and they only need two hours in the morning to bring their supplies in and I thought I said that to me anybody and here when this was put up for the first time I thought that was mentioned so so many and I had discussed this and I we want to keep the code consistent throughout the municipality right and we want things to be for all intents and purposes standardized and so a loading zone is going to have a consistent time of day in which it applies right we're losing a parking spot that way i think it's fair to what you're saying i didn't mean to cut you off but this particular street is going to have to some some considerations needs to be given because we can't afford to have an empty parking spot

for loading Monday through Sunday or Saturday all day councillor Tolar is councillor Williams is just question for you I think this is the loading zone that's in front of the daycare center

and not in front of jefferson's okay well yeah again where's that one then because that's what i asked for yeah so that's as as we discussed at the oversight board meeting that's coming in a uh that's coming in always coming when is i mean like come on bro i'm serious like i as i see you do other things as i discussed at the oversight board meeting We are looking at expanding the availability of loading zones throughout the municipality, and we're looking to do it consistently and throughout the municipality.

How come it didn't make it on here when this was a discussion that was held a while back?

Because this isn't about expanding the loading zone availability or establishing new loading zones.

So do you think you'll have that on the next meeting?

As I stated at the oversight board meeting, my intention is to get something on for the next meeting.

So can you please, for the purposes of this discussion, identify this area. It says, as Councilor Williams said, it's in front of the daycare center. And that's fine.

They will need a loading zone.

that everyone is is on the same page we're voting this one is the area that's in front of the daycare center on Maple Ave anyone else have any other question yes yes deputy mayor yeah I just wanted to clarify that there's just not about it's not just about commercial loading zones it's about school buses school drop-offs so this makes sense to me my my my question has to do with enforcement and regulation So there's the authorized vehicles can park in the designated loading zones for up to 20 minutes. How would that be enforced?

So that's enforced through a number of tools. One, just regular parking enforcement, the normal way they enforce. There's also the safety sticks that would be able to be used for enforcement of that.

Do we know the status of the safety sticks? I know I've asked.

Yeah, I'm going to defer to Manny on that.

I know he's had those conversations with the... And can you describe again for me how the safety stick is going to work after the 20 minutes is up?

It's automated enforcement, and so it takes a picture of the license plate and mails a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. for the violation after it's been reviewed by someone within the parking utility. So it's not, there is a person involved who's making, if they see an ambulance there, they're not gonna send a ticket to the ambulance company that's loading a patient in, but it's automated enforcement with oversight by the utility.

good thank you no I appreciate that because I think as we do these different things it's important that we say the thing so that the public knows you know what course they mean too so thank you very much council and deputy Birmingham I'm sorry I called you definitely Jake is this a step towards having these spaces become

like stops for Uber? Because I think it's a valid question. Why do we need commercial loading zones until 10 p.m.?

The idea of these spaces is there's a pre-existing part of the code that allows for flexible, free use of the curbspace, right? So the reason the loading zone time is being expanded in concert with the meter rates going up is because we need that space to still be available for picking up and dropping off, right? It's not, it is, the idea behind it is that vehicles will be able to load and unload quickly, easily, and then continue on their way, right? Whether that's Uber Eats or someone dropping off grandma.

So I guess that's the question because I see this, like I've tried to get an Uber pick me up on Bloomfield Avenue and they literally, the guy was like, I'm never coming back to Bloomfield Avenue because it was dangerous. We also see a lot of double parking with Uber Eats, DoorDash, like this is a new world. Like this is something that did not exist even five years ago, right? So that this, where we say commercial designated as commercial loading zones, Will we have signage? I know, for example, Ridgewood has done this, where their commercial zones after 6 PM become 15 minute parking for this purpose. Is that, so till 10 p.m., is it designed for the door dash, for the, that's what this is? I just want to be clear because I don't know that we have people, like trucks unloading paint, but I do think we need to mark out space. For the DoorDash drivers and the people picking up Uber people, is that what this is?

The intent of it is to allow for that flexible curbspace, right? To allow people to pick up and drop off Uber Eats, whatever it may be. It doesn't just have to be a box truck taking out Amazon packages or a truck unloading paint.

Okay, and is this something that you can track as well, like with double parking?

Is this something that you'll be able to kind of... Yeah, so I'll be able to work with Manny to understand how enforcement has occurred, right? Are they writing a lot of tickets, that sort of thing. Something like double parking, I can obviously get information on tickets written. I know one of the challenges with the double parking rules is that by the time you write a ticket... It is difficult to enforce double parking when someone is in the middle of a travel lane. And so I can also look at enforcement that's going on there and kind of track and see if we've seen improvement. But yeah, the idea is basically to keep the curb open for folks who need to make quick trips.

Okay. And we could have signage to that?

Yeah, for sure.

Okay.

Councilor Harrison? Okay.

Several things. We're going, dealing with... The way the ordinance is written, it clearly covers the DoorDash UberEats pickups because they are picking up from a merchant and that ordinance says that. But it doesn't deal with UberLyft picking up a person Because they're not doing that, and the ordinance then says no other person shall park a vehicle in a designated loading zone. And my understanding was we were trying to do both, and the ordinance doesn't do both. Both allow the DoorDash people, but they're picking up merchandise from a retail merchant. so they're clearly covered. But it doesn't deal with the Uber, because I don't think we're going to call a passenger merchandise. And so I'm concerned. I want to follow up on... There was one other thing I wanted to say about this, but I lost... we the other ordinances and this we are going to have to publicize so people are not shell-shocked and i think we need to have a discussion about the train station parking lots because i don't think anyone in town understands that at night or on weekends that you need a permit to park there and i think i could and not totally convinced the ordinance requires that certainly during the day and the permits was curious the permits used to read daytime I forget the hours then they read 24 hours which surprised me but I There are very few commuters in the train station lots after 7, 8 o'clock at night, and certainly not on weekends because the trains don't go there. And there are a hell of a lot of parking spaces there in the town that needs parking.

Council D'Amato?

Could you sum up, again, this bill in like one sentence? just for people at home align loading zone hours with meter hours okay so it makes sense and it you know stuff that's coming through it sort of makes sense but I do think that that counselor Harrison was saying we are prioritizing Delivery outbound deliveries from these spaces over the picking up of and dropping off of people using ride share things, which very soon may be more. There may be more of it. And I guess we can fix that at a later date. But it seems to me that we didn't, like this could have had a big longer discussion. We all did vote yes on it on the first pass. But I think we have to have a discussion about a big one about whether we want to be incentivizing more ghost kitchens and other things like that. The great people doing their work, and there's a demand for it, but this is incentivizing that commercial behavior, correct?

I don't know that incentivizing is the word I would use, and I don't know that ghost kitchens is what I would describe most. Not ghost kitchens, restaurants. Yeah.

Restaurants doing delivery, not... You know, because it's not people picking up their food. Well, it could be, though. Only if you have a commercial plate. No. No.

That's the thing. That's the one thing that's a little bit confusing.

Yeah, the ordinance is labeled commercial loading zones.

It says very clearly commercial, but we're talking about DoorDash, which is not. Nobody has a commercial plate for that.

Nobody has a commercial plate. No.

So that's a question is, like, is this going to be confusing people?

So the signage currently doesn't say commercial loading zone for the loading zones on Bloomfield Avenue. And so I think any signage that goes in would be consistent with that. The goal is not to restrict this to trucks delivering paint. to the question of kind of the broader conversation and the pick up and drop off side of things. There also exists within the code the pick up and drop off zones. Those have stricter five minute limits. And so, more than happy to look at an expansion of those and and and incorporate those into the the curb management we're looking to do but I want to as a tool for addressing the current demand I think five minutes is a tight timeline and it's going to lead to a lot more enforcement that is not necessarily the desired outcome right the best case scenario for these loading zones is that folks are in folks are out and and they're on their way and they never see a parking enforcement officer or get a ticket in the mail, right? Because the idea is that the curb space is open, available, free, and easy to use, right? Changing the hours to align with the meters, right, which is the goal of the ordinance, is done because if we were to say have them out of sync, right, you're going to have suddenly these parking spots that are taken up for free by people until the meters kick back on the next day. And that goes against the goal of making sure that curb space is available and managed. And again, like, free. There's a reason we want this to be free, because it's flexible, open, and allows for people in town to just come in, pick up what they want, drop off who they need to drop off, and continue on their way.

Okay, Councilor Williams.

Just very quickly for people at home that were wondering when this presentation was, Jake was correct, it's February 24th, and if you watch the video online, at the one hour, 12 minute mark starts the presentation of the parking fees.

great thank you so much for that counselor Williams and also thank you very much for all of the time and effort that you personally have put into helping us with this very very difficult thing the parking I'd like to oh yeah yes no no no I just need to sorry about this okay

Because one of the things that I do feel like we need is for retail, right? You want people to be able to say, I'm just going to stop here for 15 minutes. How about go to the toy store and pick up the birthday present and find a spot? Now, in this, it says designated commercial loading zones shall be utilized solely for the active delivery and receipt of goods and merchandise to or from retail merchants. So that would qualify. Yeah. But then in Clause F, so you don't have to be a commercial. You can just say, I want a commercial product, and so I'm popping out. But then it says here, authorized vehicles may park in a designated loading zone for no longer than 20 minutes. And such vehicles shall display the vehicle's hazard warning lights while lawfully utilizing a loading zone. So in terms of, quote unquote, authorized, being authorized, is there any... fit anything official that needs to be done you can just say like if you if I have my personal vehicle there you can just say I was just running in to get and we won't have a problem with like people like stores who want their box truck to come in You know what I'm saying? Yeah.

I don't foresee a significant issue as most businesses receive deliveries at times of day that are disconnected from when the other demand for this curbspace is highest, right? And part of that is in response to the fact that curbspace demand is higher in the evenings. And so I don't foresee that causing a problem. Beyond that, right, most of the loading zones are pretty substantial, and so you could still have a vehicle or two in them and still be able to do commercial deliveries. And then beyond that, the number of deliveries that are conducted by the largest vehicles is relatively limited. There are many, but it's not all 18-wheelers.

Yes, Councilor Tola. Sure, thank you. Just to piggyback off of what Councilor Birmingham was asking, we already have an ordinance, if I'm not mistaken, for deliveries for businesses, for trucks. I think the issue is the trucks wish to just pull up to the door. For example, the Valley Mart on Valley Road, which used to be quick check, they pull up to the parking lot when the ordinance says they're supposed to unload and walk it in from Van Vleck. So what we need is more enforcement to make sure that When deliveries are coming in by these trucks, that they're following our ordinance. So I don't know if that's something you built into this. If you think it's going to work properly, do we need to look at what we have as an ordinance already for delivery trucks? Because there is one on the books.

I'll look into the ordinance for delivery on on I guess private property because if they're supposed to well but if they're supposed if they're not supposed to be pulling into the parking lot and they're supposed to be delivering from Van Black that's just I'm not familiar with that particular challenge so get in and I would imagine many of the other businesses in town there are signed streets already in our ordinance on the books where trucks are supposed to park unload and walk those items into the store so I

If this is something that you're trying to do to say that delivery trucks can just pull up and unload and go into the store, you might want to research and see what ordinances we already have on the books for delivery trucks.

Yeah, and to be clear, this is for... The purpose of this is to align the times with the meters, right? And so happy to look into better ways to manage loading and unloading generally. Happy to... consult with the planning department and make sure that that we have an understanding of what the requirements they put on for loading and unloading at the planning board for example because all of this kind of connects and so happy to further explore you probably need to talk to enforcement too oh for sure that truck pulls in on Valley Road and they're definitely supposed to unload on van black yeah but of course again people just want to pull right up to the door I get that but we have to make sure that

They're following our ordinances.

I guess I may not have been understanding. So you're saying they're unloading on Valley Road.

You mentioned that part of your defense for this was for delivery trucks to pull in and park and unload. And I'm saying that this shouldn't be part of the defense of this because we have something on the books already for trucks to unload and walk the stuff to the door. That's all I'm saying.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding, is the concern that they are parking on Valley Road and delivering when they should be delivering from Van Black?

They park at Valley Road.

Or that they're parking in the parking lot for the- They're doing both.

They're doing both. They're doing both. Okay. And that's just one establishment that I can refer to. So I'm sure there are others where trucks are supposed to park on another street and literally walk those things in on a hand truck for the business. So that's an enforcement issue. And it's also something you should probably look at to see what streets are assigned for trucks to make their deliveries. Sure.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion, please, that we vote on pending ordinance 0-26-18, ordinance to update the loading zone, operating times, and days.

Second.

Madam Clerk?

Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham?

Yes. But I really would like to make sure we figure out the right signage for this so they're used. Certainly.

Councilor D'Amato? Yes.

Yes, and ditto on what she said.

Councillor Harrison?

Yes, same comment.

Councillor Tolar? Yes, and please have the ordinance ready for the next meeting. Thank you.

Councillor Williams?

Yes.

Mayor Baskerville? Yes.

Yes, and the same comment as Dr. Birmingham. Okay, moving right ahead, please, we're going to go to agenda item G, pending ordinance 02619, ordinance amending section 32715, overnight parking, code of township of Montclair, New Jersey, to update the overnight parking permitted streets and the street that we'll be discussing this evening is Warman Street are there members of the public who wish to be heard I'm going to open the public hearing without any type of objection no seeing yes no Brian no Okay. All right. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing without objection and offer the council an opportunity. Council members? Seeing none, I'm going to... Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry. I just want to say that I'm supportive of this. This is a very small street. There's a lot of multifamily homes.

Excuse me.

But I just want to remind people that if this does pass, that the residents would still have to get permits.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we vote on the pending ordinance 02619 regarding overnight parking on Warman. Second. Okay.

Madam Clerk, please. Deputy Mayor Anderson. Yes. Councilor Birmingham. Yes. Councilor D'Amato. Yes. Councilor Harrison. Yes. Councilor Tolar. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. Mayor Baskerville.

Yes. And our final pending ordinance for this evening is the pending ordinance 02620. It's an ordinance amending Article 2. Rent and Fees Chapter 234, Parks and Playgrounds of the Code of the Township of Montclair, New Jersey, to revise the swimming pool permit fees and related regulations. Without any objections, I'd like to invite members of the public that wish to be heard on this. Please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I'm going to close the hearing and offer the township an opportunity. Seeing none, I'd like to move ordinance 02620. Madam Clerk?

Mr. Anderson? Yes. Councillor Birmingham? Yes. Councillor D'Amato? Yes. Councillor Harrison? Yes. Councillor Tolar? Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville?

Yes, thank you. Councillor D'Amato, please.

a new business ordinance yeah I've got it an ordinance amending salary ordinance o 2566 for the management non-union group for the year 2026 and I so move discussion council yes

Anyone?

I just have a question. Yes, Councilor Toler. I guess for the manager, the salary ordinance that you put in front of us, is there a percentage rate that you're using for these? And the last time this was implemented, when was the last time people got an increase?

About a year ago. So last year, the salary ordinance for the non-union management employees was set at 2.75%. So this is similar to last year in that the maximum salary for all management non-union staff will increase by 2.75%. it sets a pattern for negotiations with other bargaining units thank you anyone else

Okay, I'd like to, well, you moved it. There's a second. Madam Clerk, please.

Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham? Yes. Councilor D'Amato? Yes. Councilor Harrison? Yes. Councilor Toller? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville?

Yes. Thank you. Councilor Birmingham, please.

New Business Ordinance J, an ordinance amending and supplementing Chapter 228 of the Code of the Township of Montclair to add new Article 3 entitled valet parking. And I so move.

I'm sorry, which one is that? It's the valet parking. Oh, that's on this page.

Oh. We don't, but we have an explanation. Oh.

Yeah, basically the township doesn't currently have any real rules or regulations governing valet parking. The idea is to create a structure that allows for the application and allows for businesses that seek valet parking to apply for permission to do so and provide the documents and evidence and support we need to ensure that the operations of that valet parking doesn't negatively impact the community, neighboring businesses, etc. And that it doesn't impact

street safety or and that the benefits outweigh whatever detriments may come from it okay counselor members do you have any discussion on this counselor Tola sure thank you the valet parking you said businesses would put in an application

to kind of state their claim as to why they need valet parking who will be reviewing those applications to make those determinations the the Department of Complete Streets in concert with you know when I need guidance from the police department I'll go to them when I need guidance from the utility yeah

So we currently don't have any places for residents to park now, technically. You know, we've heard from residents in the past about valet parking, the issues that it causes on some neighborhoods and blocks, etc. Do you believe this is the best thing to put forward, considering what our residents have already shared with us in the past?

Yeah, so this ordinance, one of the regulations it puts in place is that they need to present an agreement for off-street, off-site parking. And so that means they need to rent spaces in a deck, or there's a business that has a parking lot that's vacant after hours, for example, they can park it there. But they need to provide proof that they have an agreement in place to accommodate that parking demand off-site and off-street so that spots for residents and other visitors who are just coming in and need to park themselves have the space available to them and to ensure that in neighborhoods where currently there are possibly valet parking going on where they're parking it on the street that they're not able to do so.

Do you have a sample of the application and the guidelines that you're going to put forward for us to review? This is just an ordinance stating the purpose, the definition, but you know where the guidelines that you're going to reference since you will be the person approving applications and what would the application look like I think that's a fair thing for us to have in front of us I'm what hold on again I just don't think this is a good look or a good idea because you're saying an empty parking lot but we just want to pass something where people can park till 10 so are they empty or are they full

I was referring to a private lot, for example, if there's a... Give me an example, a location like where? If the DeCamp Bus Terminal, the former DeCamp Bus Terminal decided to rent out their parking spots, like that'd be fine. Chase Bank on North Fullerton leases out its parking spots to an operator after hours. You know, it's not... It needs to be off-site. It needs to be off-street. And so there's any number of ways a business could figure that out.

Okay. Well, if you have something prepared, if you could email it to me. I don't know if the full council wants to see it, but I would like to see these off-site areas that you're referencing that a business could put in an application for approval.

Okay. I want to be clear that we're not telling them where to put the cars. They need to come to us and say, I have an agreement to lease 30 parking spaces from business A in their lot from these hours and my valet parking operations are going to be in place during these hours, et cetera, et cetera, right? So I'm not saying, oh, we've got some space in the North Fullerton lot. You can put them there. We've got some space in the Orange Road deck. You can put them there. It's for the business to provide to the township where they are going to be parking those vehicles.

So there's a good chance you'll be denying a lot of applications then. There's a good chance, right?

I will ensure that the applications... i will ensure that the applications are reviewed fairly and they meet the requirements of the ordinance and that there any application that is appropriate will be approved i'm i'm not gonna assume one way or the other whether anything's going to be approved or disproved when we're first trying to figure out you know where people would park like if they're putting this in where would you know where you're going to suggest

open space for them to park cars and who's going to monitor and ensure that that's happening if their application gets granted because we've had problems with the restaurant right here on Glen Ridge Avenue every single restaurant that has come there's been an issue so I'm just trying to see how are you Church Street to how you're going to avoid problems

Yeah, I believe the ordinance lays out the enforcement mechanisms involving if it's the parking utility having to do with their spots, right? So if a business is inappropriately using a utility parking spot, they would be able to ticket the vehicle there. And I believe the police department is also able to, given the authority, to enforce against the valet operator.

can I please just make a suggestion like when we have something like this that has numerous things it's really difficult for me to decide which way to go right well I am totally opposed to valet parking hands down for other than the purpose of someone moving in moving out or something that so when you have a bunch of different things like a smorgasbord of things in here where I can't pick and say well yes I want this or that one then you know I just like have to vote no and the thing is there a way that we could try to figure some of these things out where before we put them all in or it just works better if you just go with all of them or none well now I was just trying to figure out why we're doing it this way where you have a bunch of different things in here maybe he can answer it did you write this up it was written in consultation with the legal department and the parking utility and my office and they thought they thought that this would be better to put all of these different things into one

Yeah, the idea is to be comprehensive and really try to cross our T's and dot our I's and make sure that we come up with an ordinance that is effective and enforceable, essentially.

Okay, Councilor Williams?

Yeah, so it says that I sponsored this. I didn't sponsor this. I don't know how that got on there. I did work on this. So how this came about is we were trying to handle valet parking with the temporary no parking. And folks found a way to circumvent that. So our town attorney said, hey, look, this is how other towns do it. And she... prepared this document and, you know, we worked together on it to kind of like fine tune it. And I think other folks around here also fine tune it. So the problem here, the thing here is that while I'm not necessarily in favor of valet parking either, but there's nothing in place that prevents it. right or regulates it rather let not say regulates it so that's what this does now this lays out all the guidelines all the steps you have to go through in order to get and a permit for valet parking you have to have insurance you have to have your own off-site parking not right rent it through a place you I mean it's very very involved here and you have to have everything in place in there's a fee and things of that nature so you know that's the way that you know because right now we have we have certain businesses that are operating valet parking rules because there's nothing really that prohibits them from doing it yeah this will regulate this and in order once this passes folks that want to do Valley parking have to go through all these steps otherwise the parking enforcement as well as the police department have a way to say hey you can't do this and stop it so that's really the spirit of this thank you councillor Harrison oh I'm sorry so I think I'm just councillor Shin and then you

okay so I was very well I'm very happy to see this ordinance as you know just echoing what counselor Williams said we tried it with temporary no parking spaces but it wasn't working and this has very actual like this is based on actual real problems that we have been seeing around the commercial districts you know where businesses and and I'm not trying to you know intervene with their ability to be successful in their business but businesses in these districts were having valet parking and the spaces that they were using were on residential streets and very narrow streets, creating safety issues, public safety issues, causing traffic congestion. And so without any legal way to enforce any of this behavior, you know, it made it very difficult and unsafe. So, you know, I think... looked at the ordinance I think it's good to have you know a very clear you know establishment of the zones you know in in this in this ordinance we're saying that we're not allowing them in residential zones school zones or within 500 feet of any park historic district unless an exception is granted by resolution by this council and for other situations there's a clear application process section 228 19 clearly sets out what what's required for a license to be issued right and I would expect any application to have sort of a checklist to make sure that all of this is in place there are fees right application fees and an annual renewal fee so I I think this is a really positive first step and we'll have to see you know if there are but without any sort of regulation there's nothing to enforce so I'm in favor of moving forward this with this Thank You councillor Harrison

We have a simple other solution of banning valley parking, which is what I think we should do. There it is. And let me go through the reasons for that. This is taking parking spaces that would otherwise be available to the public and benefiting them exclusively for a business that does this. And the camp isn't being used because it's too far away. But the other available lots downtown The one by OP's and the lot next to it, close to Bloomfield Avenue, the Chase lot, the car repair on Park Street, they're all being rented out now for parking. If one of these businesses comes and says, we want to take 20 spaces, because that's what we estimate our demand to be, those are no longer available to the public as they are now and that's going to reduce the demand because they based on how the ordinance is set up are going to have to go for what they're anticipated maximum demand for those parking spaces is which means a lot of the time they're not going to be using those spaces but they're reserved for them because they have to be available i i think this is going to disadvantage the other businesses that don't have the wherewithal to to set up valet parking because there's going to be less parking spaces available for their customers for their employees and i i just don't see a justification for our allowing valet parking and the assumption that magically that they're all gonna follow the ordinance when they have a convenient parking space on Forest Street to use, and that we're gonna have magic enforcement when every weekend downtown, every available illegal space is being parked in. Too close to the corner, no parking, that stretch on park between Montague in Portland where there are two available parking spaces it is parked from one end to the other every weekend and to expect that magically we would enforce this to keep people where they are is is totally unrealistic and but my main point is this is Advantaging some businesses to guarantee them parking at the expense of other businesses and I don't think that's appropriate and we should simply not allow valet parking

Council of Birmingham? I'm not. Okay, so right now, let's just, right now, we have restaurants in town that are, people will go and they're spending $1,000. Easy. Right. One, we're saying we should give them free parking. That's one argument that's being made tonight. But another is that if those people are gonna, let's say that they're gonna pull up to a restaurant where they're ready to spend X amount of dollars, there's a valet service there that we would then require that restaurant to have them park off the street. As a condition of that valet parking, they're not gonna park on Forest Street. they're gonna have to, that valet service has to park that car off the street. So they're taking that spot, and Chase parking lot where they're charging $30 a head, I don't frankly care if they're not getting all that money, when our midtown deck is never really full, which is sitting right there. So I guess with all of the constraints here that are put here, I mean, you're telling people they have to do a traffic study to have value parking? And we already know value parking is happening in a very limited number of places. So I think that the number of restaurants that will increase their valet parking based on this ordinance will be zero I don't see this like making a lot of restaurants want to have valet parking if they don't already you they have to have 75% of other businesses around them agreeing yeah okay fine property owners but they have to get the support but in other words like you all these people who will otherwise be parking on the street taking parking spots from other people don't get why like the valet having them now then park off street they are there are some spots lost because of ramping right like they have to have some it's three spots is that the limit I believe it's two two yeah okay because I think net when you when we talk about because right now we're hearing all the people on Forest Street like people are parking there and the valley valley cars are parking there So you're saying that we would be saying you can't park on the street. You have to park in a private lot.

Right. And if we saw if we saw people not complying, right, the ordinance allows for us to take away the license to do so and allows us to they're violating the rules. They don't get to keep doing the thing. And so right now, where there's no regulations in place, it's very difficult for any sort of enforcement to happen, especially against the business or the operator, because the parking utility could write a ticket for an illegally parked car, but that parking ticket goes on the registered owner of the motor vehicle. It doesn't go on the operator of the valet parking. entity. And there are relatively limited lot spaces in Montclair Center, for example, but there's a significant amount of deck space, and especially in those private decks. There's lots of parking available that should an operator decide they think it's worthwhile to have valet parking, that they would be able to do it in many different places. no I'm just I don't see it being a I see this potentially freeing up parking because we're making them park off the street yeah the the clear benefit is that we will have an understanding of where they are going to be parking these cars and if they are not parking the cars there then there's a mechanism in place to ensure that they are no longer able to operate

I agree with my colleague's skepticism that the thing can be regulated very well. I also think that we should recognize the fact that we regulate aesthetics and morality. That's what we do as a government. We have... historic preservation board that regulates minutely what a sign looks like because of the aesthetics and how it would do that. And then we regulate or ban things that we think are immoral, like puppy mills. There was an ordinance that was on the books. And I think valet parking is aesthetically gross and kind of immoral. I mean, it's like it is basically... It's like a red velvet club, a red velvet rope club, which is exclusionary. That's the point of it, is to make people feel bad and excluded. And I don't think I would ban having a red velvet rope because they'd make a blue one or whatever. But I don't think we should be incentivizing or we should be making it very difficult, if not impossible, for people to do this. I know in the past we've actually mandated it. including on Glen Ridge Avenue before the deck was there, we told business owners, you know, to get in their site plan approval that they had to have a valet parking plan. So we need to be realistic that, you know, we were enabling it. But I don't see any reason really, you know, world's smallest violin, if we just say we don't do valet parking, like that's not our jam, like, you know. There's a beautiful deck. Park your car. The car will park itself eventually. And ride a bike. Ride your skateboard. I don't know. I'm against the whole thing. I'm with the mayor.

I just wanted to ask one question. I'm not for this. Like Councilor D'Amato said, we should be encouraging people to... use our parking decks, especially if we're raising the rates, right?

It was a joke. Okay, because the decks are not going up. I want to be clear.

And then I just wanted to know had you done any looking or investigating, if you will, on the enforcement of tickets that have been issued for people parking in areas where they shouldn't have so to offer valet parking you should be able to say to us you know i've talked to coding i mean parking authority and they've issued x number of tickets on church street and generated this amount of revenue so we absolutely must have valet parking so there are no numbers there to compare this to you know we have to think about our residents they are priority while I understand many businesses want to come here because we're Montclair destination with glitter we have to have people park in our decks and do we know if say their application does get approved if this ordinance gets approved are they going to be charging customers for valet parking and who gets that money or is that going to be

portion of your application where they can't charge because they're doing it now on Church Street so I'll answer the question or address the question about please don't I'd like to vote on here and I'd like to call the vote for this what is this one this is item j i'd like to um call the vote for item j please which is in the ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 228 of the code of the township of montclair new article 3 entitled valet parking I want to keep giving one quick thing, because you all tell me I've got to move these things. And once everybody's had a chance. And I'm the main culprit.

I'm the main culprit. Right.

You're the main one that gets me every night.

Yep.

So is there a second on that? I called for a vote. OK. Madam Clerk, please. No, we called a vote.

Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham? Yes. Councilor D'Amato?

Abstain.

Councillor Harrison?

No.

Councillor Toller? No. Councillor Williams?

By voting this down, you're leaving everything exactly the way it is, unregulated. So I just want to point that out. Yes.

Mayor Baskerville?

No.

The motion's defeated. Better than this here.

Okay, and so, yeah. We're going on to the next one, please, to item K. Is that you, Your Honor? Thank you.

This is an ordinance to repeal and replace Ordinance 0-25-63, removing from Chapter 327, Vehicles and Traffic, and establishing a new Article 2 in Chapter 228, Parking for Sale and Use of Temporary No Parking Signs. I so move.

Second. Discussion, please? Any discussion on that?

Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk? Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councillor Birmingham? Yes. Councillor D'Amato? Yes. Councillor Harrison? Yes. Councillor Toller?

Yes.

Councillor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville? Temporary no parking sign.

This is Kay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to consent. Do we need to take a break or we're okay to go ahead? You want a five-minute break? Let's check with Councilor Williams. Are we okay to take a break, sir?

No, let's keep going.

Okay. Okay, we're going to continue with the consent agenda, please. Do people have things that they want to pull off of there? Please let me know now. I don't have any questions. Nothing on the bills list, Councilor? Not one. Number three. Yeah, number three. Number three, okay. So far we have number three. Anything else we might get out of it? Okay.

Number three is coming off, right?

Number three is coming off. Okay. Please.

Well, we have Michael here. The consent agenda. I think I'll pull number six just because I see Michael is here and someone may have a question. Okay. Thank you.

All right. I'd like to move all of the rest of the items on the consent agenda except for number three and number six.

Second.

Okay. Madam Clerk.

Deputy Mayor Anderson. Second. Yes. Councillor Birmingham? Yes. Councillor D'Amato? Yes. Councillor Harrison? Yes. Councillor Toller? Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. Mayor Baskerville?

Yes. Thank you. Okay, let's have the discussion on number three, please.

Councillor Toller? Sure. This is a resolution establishing the designation of the annual municipal events. And I guess my first question is, I'm not sure who put this resolution up. because there are a few committees or organizations missing from it that I would like to include for consideration.

Yeah, I think we should pull this.

We'll pull this. I agree.

Can I just say which ones they are? Because I don't know who put this up. It says the Department of Recreation and Cultural Affairs. Oh, okay, because the MLK Scholarship Committee is a township committee that should be on here as well. Okay.

Okay, I think the discussion was that we're going to pull this for now. Is everybody okay to pull? This is not in the urgency. Okay, let's go to number six then, please.

Madam Mayor, you said Mr. Thornton put this up?

I just said it says Department of Recreation and Cultural Affairs. I did not put this here. I did.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

No, I think it will be good once we're all in agreement. Thank you.

Number six, please. This is a resolution authorizing change order number two and final closeout of contract with Spinelli Companies for the 2025 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project bid number 2425. And again, I only pulled this because I saw... Mr. Primavera here in the audience and you know going to sleep so I don't know if any counselors had any questions I did not but I figured I'd give him his two minutes if he wanted to speak on it since he stayed with us this long

There you go. To close out our project from last year, the reason this bill took so long to come to fruition is because the contractor took a long time to submit the videos and all documentation to our engineering firm. It's also a change order because we are actually paying less money for the final total cost. We're saving about $106,000 by just closing it out this way rather than extending them and having them complete the work.

Thank you very much. Council members, anyone else on number six? If not, we can vote on that. Madam Clerk, please.

May I have a move-in and a second? I'll second. Deputy Mayor Anderson? Yes. Councilor Birmingham? Yes. Councilor D'Amato? Yes. Councilor Harrison? Yes. Councilor Tolar? Yes. Councilor Williams?

Yes.

Mayor Baskerville.

Yes, and before I move to adjourn, I'd just like to let everyone know I'm really excited to announce that our Deputy Mayor, Susan Jen Anderson, will be honored tomorrow by Essex County for her amazing work in government for not just the Township of Montclair, but beyond. They are recognizing her for AAPI Month. I guess it's A-A-P-I-N-H, A-A-N-H-P-I Month. So, yeah, let's give it up for Deputy Mayor. If you guys would like to go cheer her on and take pictures, I think we begin at 6?

It's at 6, and there are two other honorees. There's a student... Now we is talking about our girl.

Okay, so I'd like to make a motion to adjourn, please. All right. Have a good one. Thank you. Oh, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Look, the light's out. Sorry.