Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the January 12th, 2026 regular meeting of the Township of Montlair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to the newspaper designated by the township for notices. This meeting is being broadcast live on channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube. This meeting is a quasi judicial proceeding, meaning that the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law. And we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. The fire exits are on my right, which is your left, and also the back of the room where you likely entered. As to the order of this evening, each application hearing begins with the applicant or their attorney giving an overview of the application and the variances that are required, if any. We then hear from any expert witness the applicant may have to help explain the application and why variances are required. The board members may ask questions of the applicant, the attorney, and their expert witnesses. And if you're a member of the interested public but not a witness in the case, you'll have two opportunities to speak. At the end of each witness's testimony, you'll be given the opportunity to ask the witness questions about his or her testimony. And that's not the time to tell the board what you think of the application. That'll actually come at the second opportunity. Uh, but if you do have questions for the witness, you will come to the front of the room, give us your name and address, and then ask your questions related to that witness's testimony only. And after the applicant's witnesses and any objector or objector witnesses have been heard, members of the audience will then have their second opportunity to step

forward. And at that time, you may express your opinions, positive or negative, about the application. Comments are generally limited to three minutes per person. And at the completion of the applicant's case and public comment, the public hearing is then closed, and the board members will discuss the case and vote. At that time, you'll be able to listen to our discussion, but you will not be able to participate. Okay. And up next on our agenda is roll call. Mayor Baskerville present. Uh Mr. Borchoff is excused. Mr. Campbell is excused. Councelor Damato here. Uh Vice Chair Graham here. Mr. Ian Wallally here.

Mr. Files is excused. Uh Miss Willis here. Uh and uh our new member, Mr. Or Orbia Orb Orba Orba. Welcome. Oh, I'm sorry. And Sher Bro and I'm here.

Welcome to our new member, Mr. Orba. Thank you for joining us. And uh like I said, if you have any questions, let us know. Welcome. Next up is our this is our reorganization meeting. So, we have the report of the nominating committee. Um I don't know if the nominating committee had a chance to meet but normally what happens is uh this would be I don't I don't see a lot of change. This is really a nomination for the position of chair yourself vice chair Mr. Graham and myself as secretary and the assistant planner Zanab Casmi as the assistant secretary. So, if you're satisfied with the composition of the board, um, what we need would be a motion.

I'd like to make a motion that we leave the composition of our executive team as is. Second. All in favor? I I opposed. I You're okay. Abstensions. No, no, no, no, no. I I said I seconded it. Oh, I said I. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, I think that's it for the reorganization. Yeah. Thank you. Continue serving as long as you'll have us. Next up, we have swearing in of the board professionals.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you may give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you. Next up, we have the minutes from December 15th of last year. I didn't receive any changes to the minutes from December 15th. So, there any comments? Like to make a motion we accept the minutes. Miss Miss Willis. Second by Miss Willis. Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Abstension. Abstension. Abstension.

Okay. Next up, we have the resolution authorizing the planning board engineer and planning board traffic engineer. And we did uh I did get a letter from uh Neglia Engineering confirming that their rates um have not increased um from 2024. Uh so essentially um they did uh increase their per meeting rate in 2025 um to $390 per person. So this would maintain the 2024 hourly rates in the 2025 per meeting rate.

I think it's per person mayor. Yes. So it's a flat meeting fee. So if if uh you know another say the traffic engineer needed to show up in addition to Mr. Hernandez, each one would get correct. Each one will be $390 per person. And who is the um traffic planning board person, please? Brian. Brian. Is it Inola? Mr. Inola. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Any other questions about this? I would make a motion to approve the renewal contracts. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Congratulations.

Thank you all. Next up, we have the resolution adopting the sustainability and resilience amendment to the unified land use and circulation element. And just to clarify, Arthur and I worked on this resolution, and there's language in here saying that the amendment replaces the section in our current plan. There's a a a sub a subchapter called environmental sustainability. Yes. So for consistency, the amendment, even though it's a separate document because it's so large, it replaces that section. So we'll simply take that section out and re renumber the pages in our unified plan. Excellent. Okay.

Were there any modifications from uh that happened after the December 15th meeting or is it did was it was the draft that would be voted on now the same as what was presented? It's the same. Okay. with with I I assume with the amendments that I put on the record. Yeah. So it's the same written copy plus anything that happened orally at that meeting. So move second. All in favor? I I opposed. Abstensions. Abstension. Okay. Thanks. We should note for the record Mr. Orba is abstaining on all of these as well.

Okay. Next up we have application 2940 260 Park Street. Did we do the extension for Pine Street? I think we might have missed Oh, sorry, I missed one. Sorry, Mr. Trenlac, you sit down for a second. I skipped uh the resolution for 82 Pine Street. Is there a motion to approve the resolution to extend their site plan approval? So moved. Uh second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. I abstain. Okay. I wasn't present that night. Okay.

All right. Now, application 2940 260 Park Street. Well, this one works. Perhaps it's the one where the light doesn't work, but the microphone's on. Nope. Oh, now it's on.

Okay, now we're good. Okay. Good evening, uh, everyone. Happy New Year. Um, for the record, Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of the applicant, 260 Park Street LLC. Um, this is a continued hearing of the applicant site plan application to construct a three-story mixeduse building on this property. Um, we submitted um some uh additional revisions to the site plan and the architectural plans um since the last meeting in December. And what I'd like to do this evening, and those revisions are not substantial, so this should not take too much time, but I'd like to have our site engineer uh Mr. Anderson and our project architect just briefly go through those revisions um tonight. And then following their uh testimony, uh I will present our uh final witness, our professional planner, traffic engineer, William Stimmel. At that point, we will have concluded our case. So, um, as I said, I'd like to call, uh, Paul Anderson. Recall Paul Anderson. You understand you're still under oath?

I do. Okay. Um, quick question. Um, the letter that you wrote with respect to the definition of setback, how when will that be handled? It's up to board. I mean, I don't, you know, I'm prepared to address that whenever the board wishes. I assume, right? You know, it's been reviewed by council and it would seem that uh with your planner that would be an opportune time to discuss that. Okay. Um it's a legal it's a legal argument. It speaks about the definition.

I think it's a board interpretation at this tech technically that would be an interpretation before the goes before the zoning board of adjustment. But I think here because this is a pending application before this board, your job is to interpret it. It's honestly the the staff have never interpreted that ordinance the way it was suggested at the last meeting that you can't have um a building with it's either zero feet or six feet. We've never identified that if there's something that's in between as a variance before. So

well but u Mr. Terry Tremolac's argument goes at um the fact as to whether or not a variance is required. So if we're here to I think we should need consider a variance or not before we proceed with the explanation. It seemed logical to do that but wait can deal with it now. It it might be part of the engineer's testimony. No, no. I mean, the building was moved, was it not?

It was not. It was just the fact that there is an upper level that uh has a corbling that sticks out that is zero feet off the property line. So, it was not moved over. It's exactly the location it was. I I my initial setback was from the the lower level foundation. Okay. What's What's corbling? Where where is that found on the building? Well, it's in one of the upper floors, I think. I'll let Greg say exactly where that is. Uh the the architect. Okay. Uh but it's not at the ground level. Basically the the brick is is protruding out further as you get farther up.

So the testimony that we will hear will assume that a variance is not needed for that setback. you're you're it and the reliance is um on uh this January 6 letter.

That's our position that you know and I mean I guess our our planner can also provide testimony justifying the variance. Um but we don't believe feel strongly based upon what I've outlined in my letter and the wording of of uh the ordinances in terms of how you define a yard and how you define setback distance. We've always, in my experience, not only in Montlair, but but other municipalities, you determine the setback based upon the closest point between the building and side or rear or front yard, whatever it is. And and um that's the way it should be interpreted in this case. It's no different than any other ordinance terms. Well, I should say I completely disagree with that and I'd be happy to wait to make that argument at the appropriate time.

Well, I would hope at some point that the planner and the and the board attorney would weigh in on this issue since it is invol legal interpretation. I don't think it requires much interpretation based upon the ordinance definitions that I quoted from in my letter. Yeah. But I mean, I don't have much to add to what I already outlined in the letter. I thought it would be helpful to put it out there in writing so people can review it and react to it. So, so Mr. Enwala, do you want to have that discussion now or you want to wait till the they present their planner? Like, I'd be happy to do it now or later. I I think maybe it's better. Oh, is your microphone on?

Yeah. Maybe it's better earlier because then if there if we agree that there should be no variance then we could proceed more easily. Sure. Okay. Um Okay. So um I did bring some information and I apologize to bring the information but I think it's important to look at the way our code is is drafted. Um if you could pass this around. Some of them are um printed double-sided and some are there's different sizes, but there's double-sided and single sided. What are you passing out, Tony? I was say, can you give us a description because we'll mark it as an exhibit.

You can mark it as an exhibit. It's a copy of our code. It's a copy of other codes. There's a copy of the fire department's letter related to um setback and so forth. This is all for for this application. Yes, the there was a letter. It's on It's a letter that was um written by the fire department. Okay. Um in October. So do you have you can take

I don't have what you have the fire department. Okay. Is there a spare one? Is there an extra there extra ones over there? Can we pass one down?

I just want to confirm that I count nine pages. Yeah. And each one has a number. Some of them are two page, you know, two pages, some are three pages, but there's six items, I think, or four items. There's board one. I think this is B2. There's five items. Some are multi-page, some are single, but yeah, there's nine pages, I guess. Yeah. Back in front.

Okay. So, the one that's um that's labeled number one, Mr. Wally, before you to B2. Is that the right exhibit number for this? because I believe our the first uh package of information Mr. Ian Wallally submitted was marked as B1. Hold on. I have SP. Oh, yes. I have board one. There it is. That's our ordinance.

Okay. And I I should just make the comment that the reason why sideyards in this zone are either zero or 6 feet is it's because of safety. And if it's zero, the wall is going to be a party wall essentially with a very high fire um rating um on it. If it's six feet either or it allows the passage, safe passage of firefighters, those that need to um you know do what they need to do. Um and it also would allow for a lower fire rating if there's a if there's a given distance. This is very standard in ordinances where buildings are um can you know downtown sort of locations where buildings can touch. So um the first sheet is our is the definitions which attorney Tremulac um pointed to in his letter and the rationale in his letter was that it's a yard and then there's subcategories of yards but our zoning is not that way. A yard has its own definition. A front yard has a definition. A rear yard has a definition and a sideyard has they each have their own definitions. And the front yard, I agree. It does say the closest point is what you measure. In the rear yard, it says the closest point. Sideyard doesn't say that. So I reject the argument that somehow the definition of a yard is always at the closest point. I think it raises an interesting question also. If we were to allow say a 5 in setback, right, and then the property 258 can build up to the property line would be leaving an odd gap between the buildings. Doesn't that create

it's not safe? It's not. But I think technically speaking, you're different. The setback is a point. The yard is something else. The yard is the space. Yeah. It's the It's the It's the sidey yard which is situated between the principal building extending from the front front yard to the rear yard. So, it's a line. That's the case. It's a line. No, it's a space. No, it's a line. Well, let me let me um let me just, you know, yeah. Um and I guess what I want you to understand is that the definition of a front yard does say it has to be the nearest location of that facade to the line. But you can't Well, let me finish.

Okay. The rear yard says the same thing. This yard, the sideyard purposely does not. So there's no way that we should interpret the sideyard to be the same as the other two because the definition is different. If the sideyard also would be measured from the building's closest point, it would say that in the definition and it doesn't. I think what the issue is is not the yard is because the yard is the open space area. The key is the setback. That's not a defined term in our in our code, though. The yard is used as a setback. Maybe it's I'd have to check and see if it's a defined term in the municipal land use law.

Attorney's Trebul argument though, which I'm speaking to uses the word uses the term yard. That's why I'm um when I have to reference our definition of yard is an area in our code. Well, we have we have four definitions of yards.

No, no, no. I I think where the front yard is versus the rear of the rear yard, but the yard is the is basically defined as an open unoccupied space on the same lot with the building situated between the street and the other lot line and the parts of the building. Quite often buildings are not usually in a straight line. So the yard the depth the depth of a yard is never is very rarely a constant number. you know, the the yard. It's what's key is the setback. The sideyard setback at one point of the building is usually a little bit different from the sideyard setback at the other point of the building. And you always look, it's a minimum sideyard setback or you look at the at the closest point to make sure it meets the minimum. And then you look, in this case, there's a maximum. Um, you would look and see where the maximum is, but it's not a straight line.

Uh, the my argument is not it's a straight line. Sorry. My argument is that you don't take the closest point and say that's the setback. You especially in the situation where you do in in situations where the setback needs to be a certain distance or greater. I agree you should use the closest point but not for this part of the code which says it's zero or six. It doesn't follow that that's the appropriate measure because it's an eitheror. Then what it should say is a continuous at either zero feet or or a continuous setback of either zero feet or six feet. Correct. Or could it be both? Could it be zero at one point and or and six feet at another? What's

I don't think so. I think it's either or. If we were to allow 258, hold on. If we were allowed 258, the property, the next property down close to W Chong to build up to the lot line and we were allowing the building as currently presented to go up, would we be creating any pinch points, any safety hazards? Would there be between that? If there was a straight wall, would we be creating any safety issues? Not to my knowledge. But if there's, if I'm not mistaken, there are some very close

right. Am I I'll allow you to present the drawing, but I want to keep this in mind when we review this. Are we creating any pinch points or safety hazards? If 258, which they are allowed to do, were to build up to the property line, right? They can build they can build up to the property line. They could build the entire building at zero feet. Yeah. So, we need to keep that in mind, I believe. Exactly. And I think that's part of what Mr. Enwally is talking about. The reason why it's 6 feet or zero feet. If they build up to the property line and the other building builds up to the property line, you're not creating a safety hazard or pinch point. If one side is six feet uh or the other, you have enough room for the fire department or other safety professionals.

I I'll let me just continue because there there are other parts of this that I want to describe. Respond to the safety is you know this is really not a safety issue. Safety issues would be determined by building code fire code requirements. But I think this side issue speaks to a safety concern, right? Well, the the purpose of this code,

the reason why it's 06 and this persists in all sorts of I've got examples here and I can I can talk adnauseium about why this exists. This is a very straightforward eitheror proposition in downtown locations where it's either zero or it's some safe distance. You don't go in between the safe distance. There there are there are ways the international building code allows you maybe to go to three feet, but you'd have to do some pretty drastic things with respect to the makeup of that building. You'd have to close all the windows off. You'd have to increase the fireproofing. There's a I agree with you. There are a lot of code issues that need to be dealt with, but the purpose of the zero or six feet is specifically about safety,

but safety is an issue that's really addressed by the building codes and the fire codes. And that we're going to have to comply with all of those building permits. I have to say when I when I did speak to the zoning office about about this, they they indicated in prior years that it was really for maintenance purposes and for appearance purposes that to have less than you if to have less than six feet, particularly if you have two buildings next to each other, you wanted to get some light in there so you can have some landscaping grow. Um, you did not they there was they did not want it to be to have the two buildings so close together to attract litter.

That's another reason purely aesthetics, right? But that could occur if 258 builds up to the lot line at some point. Right. So, we need to consider that. But I think that's the type of issue that the zoning department they're not considering that that building has the right to build up to the lot line. They're just considering what exists there now, which is plenty of space obviously. Chair brother. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Inwell, I I just have a question. So if this is uh twist turning on the question of fire safety. Well, it also I I agree it's it's also light and air. I have a very simple question and litter which is that

would our requirements of the construction change if there was a uniform wall either 6 feet or at zero. In other words, like are there Well, yeah. at 6 ft the fire requirements be less than if it were party wall. Party walls would be very no windows. No if it's if it's a party wall and it went all the way back that the construction would have to be different. Well, there would have I don't know it's whether it's four hours or six hours. It would be a higher rated with obviously no um no openings. No. So the wall So the wall

again I can't I can't speak to the specific code. What I'm trying to do is justify the fact that a variance is needed to be either zero or six. You can try to get a variance through this board at three, but I just want my argument is that I believe that it either has to be all zero or all six. Okay. Okay, I'm still answering asking the question about like let's say this building right now as it is currently designed is the portion that is at a with a zero setback is that designed differently in terms of its NFPA requirements or whatever it is and the answer is yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So the second page is West Orange codes, the same as ours essentially where the sidey yards um are measured continuously from the front yard um to the to the rear yard. Um the the third page is Bloomfields. Um Bloomfield's commercial district, if you look at letter F, um no sideyards are required. Um but they will allow a side yard of not less than 10 ft. So Bloomfield is actually more um it it requires more say you know more space. Ours happens to be um 6 feet. Um and you can actually see the um uh the the the next page is West Orange Code. Um, I showed you the definitions two pages before. Um, for minimum sideyards in the B1 district, which is commercial. Um, um, if it's non-residentidential, which, um, in in their code, it's zero except 6 ft minimum for any sideyard provided. So that's in West Orange. Very similar very similar to ours. Um, in New York City and commercial districts, that's on page five. Um, no sideyards are required. And interestingly, you know, Nerk has has a very precise definition at le at at least eight feet wide at every point. So they make it very clear that it has to be at every point, but it's also clear that um it it's either zero or six. It's not zero zigzagging all the way to six or wherever. It's either zero or it's six. Um and then um this is the the last um uh letter or

the last piece is the letter that we received um from the Monontlair Fire Department. And if you go into uh let's see the second page number six, exposure protection. The proposed setback along the southern property line, that's the line that we're talking about, presents a mutual exposure concern between this building and the adjacent structure. In the event of fire, either building, radiant heat transfer and limited separation could accelerate exterior flame spread and respect firefighter positioning for hose and ladder equipment. While a rated exterior wall and protected openings may satisfy code minimums, it is re recommended that the applicant evaluate whether a modest increase in setback or inter um enhance exterior fire resistive construction could better mitigate these risks and improve long-term fire safety. I don't think that this came out in October. I I didn't hear testimony the last time that that was this was never really discussed and this is a letter that was written to um us. It was written to the planning board's um technical review committee. Number seven says um firefighter access and setbacks. The south elevation is proposed at or near the property line for a 29 ft length. Um limited setback resists ground l ground ladder placement exterior hose operations. The fire prevention bureau recommends maintaining a minimum operator operable corridor for ground ladder access on all sides of the structure. The lack of setback along the south property line also limits exposure protection to the adjacent buildings. at either structure um experienced fire involvement. So this was written to us and this is gerine because I believe if we um made it zero which is one of the options in our code this all of this would not be an issue. I also believe if we chose the Si or if the applicant chose the six which is the other opt remember it's binary it's either zero or

six then this any concerns that I believe any concerns at the fire department would not be um you know would be satisfied I agree with that

and I think to have um if it's the same structure we've got zero which is pretty much up against the next h the the house next door that also has an overhang that comes over and then you've got about 1 and 1/2 ft. Can you imagine a person trying to get back there and negotiate equipment hoses through um 1 and 1/2 ft? I don't think that's the case cuz that's the that's the the remainder of the setback that's given where the whole thing should either be zero or six. But if it's zero then can't they can't get any hoses there either. like every building on Bloomfield Avenue with the zero setback. They follow they follow the code and that's appropriate.

It's not as appropriate as what you have and that's in between the zero. I disagree. Um can I respond at this point? Okay. So, all right. So, first of all to go back to the definitions and Janice was reading from this definition. I mean there's a definition for yard which applies to front side all yards and yeah there's a I said this before and I need to repeat there's a definition for yard for front yard there's a definition for rear yard and there's a definition for sidewalk there's nothing that says that what is stated definition applies to the sideyard sideyard has its own definition

but the but the first point is what's a yard okay and a yard is defined is open unoccupied space on the same lot with the building situated between the street or the lot line and the parts of the main building setting back from and nearest to such line. So, you measure the yard from the nearest point between the building and the and the whatever the line is, front, rear, or side, which is what I think Janice was saying, which is the way it's always been interpreted in every application where you're talking about yards and setbacks that I've ever been involved with, and it's the way it's dealt with in other towns. I cited the definition sections in in in other ordinances. I don't think it's, you know, I understand you're throwing out, you know, West Orange, Bloomfield, New York for what they require, but every town could require something different. It's really what's a yard. And you measure the yard from the nearest uh the nearest point between the in this case the sideline and the building, which is zero feet. In our uh interpretation. Um, again, then with respect to the fire department, the comments you just read from in the fire department, those are recommendations. Um, I mean, the fire official who wrote this acknowledges, you know, basically what he's saying is, and no one can argue with this, that, you know, the furthest apart the buildings are, the better it is. Well, okay, but we have we have a requ or six feet or whatever, you know. So if

we comply, he's basically saying while a fire, he says while a rated exterior door and and protected opens may satisfy code minimums, it's recommended. We're only required to satisfy code requirements. You can't take you you can't ignore a code requirement. Says, well, this complies, but you know, we'd like it to be further apart. You know what? If a building wasn't built, there'd be no there'd be no fire hazards either, but that's not the point, you know. Um you know it's a recommendation and the same thing with respect to the second comment you know he says limited setback restrict restricts ground ladder placement and exterior hose operations. A zero setback which is permitted would restrict ground ladder placement you know would prohibit ground ladder placement and exterior hose operations. fire department recommends maintaining a minimal operable quarter for ground letter access, but code doesn't require it. There's no fire code that requires it. There's no building code that requires it, and the zoning code doesn't require it. So, you can't just ignore those and impose a higher requirement on this applicant or any applicant because you just think it would be safer. Obviously, it would be safer if the buildings were further apart, but that that's not the issue.

But it's not just they're further apart, right, Mr. Tre, can you address um Mr. Ian Wallally's point about the binary choice of 3 ft of 0 feet or 6 feet? Because it seems to me again if the building next door, which has a right to build up the property line or 0 feet as well, that takes away uh some of that fire risk right on the side of the building. But if you have um six feet, if they do build up to the lot line, you have six feet, then the fire department is able to get in. Can you address Mr. Ian Wallally's point that it seems like they gave uh a zero setback or six setback binary choice do you on for the side for the sideyard because you you addressed this definition of of yard, but what about the definition of sideyard? But sideyard is a yard. So you have to go back to that the definition that

fair point. But I can see the the logic in the zero the zero setback or six setback. Right. Is there do you have a different interpretation of that? My interpretation is it's zero or six feet but you define the yard by based upon the closest point between the building and the line. I think it seems to be a contradiction to me, but I I will keep that in mind when listening to the testimony. It's the way it's been interpreted in every other every other sideyard, front yard, rear yard that Janice, I think, would be most appropriate to answer this. She's, you know, reviewing applications.

I think it would be appropriate at this time for the board to decide whether really whether or not a variance is is required. And if the variance is required, then you provide the testimony for the variance. That that's ultimately what I was going to ask Mr. Ian Wallally is is is your point to this that you think a variance is required? Yeah. Yeah. Because it's a binary choice. It's either zero or it's six, right?

And I need to say it again. There's a specific definition of sideyard. You don't need to worry about a yard because a sideyard is defined. And I disagree with that, but I do disagree with that because the definition of yard applies to all it applies to all three. It's an open area. And then the sideyard is has certain requirements versus a front yard has certain requirements versus a rear yard. However, you may be right. You know, we've never identified this as a variance in in my experience here in Montlair, but it may be something that the board in this instance because it's an issue. You may say, you know what, a variance is required. That's simple.

Okay. And I'll go back to the definitions where a front yard, the definition of front yard mentions the shortest distance. The definition of the rear yard mentions it. This yard does not purposely make sure, Miss Willis, that you're and if you can move the microphone close so we make sure we get your comments on the record.

I think Mr. Wallally's point is well taken because it does read a yard situated between the principal building or building on the side of the lot extending from the front to the rear. So it does not says that it has to just be up one point. It says extending from the front to the rear. And it would seem to me that there is a good point being made about the distance being something that would allow someone to go from the front to the rear of the building. So I I I think that the point is well taken. If it were a zone where other properties could not build up to the property line, I think your definition makes sense, Miss Tally.

I think where one property or both can I think we have to have other considerations for say that. So I think I think it does. So I guess I think I think it does. All right. And I think we probably need to take a good look at making some changes to our ordinance if that's the case so that it's clear that it's continuous because it just makes a lot of sense in terms of safety. Yeah.

I mean to me the definition for sideyard references a yard which then I go to the definition of yard which strangely the definition for rear yard does not reference yard. it references a space extending across the full width whereas the sideyard says a yard situated between the principal building or buildings. So to me sideyard does reference the definition of yard. Therefore it would be setting back from and nearest to such line is a lot line in this case and extending the length of the building.

Right? extends while setting back from and nearest the line. That to me says it's the nearest part of the line. Sorry, the nearest part of the building to such line is how I read that. I'm looking at a definition on page one where it says sideyard or yard side. a yard situated between the principal building or buildings on the sideline of the lot extending through the front of the yard to the rear. So it sounds to me like that is not just touching someplace but it extends the whole length with that distance. Right.

So therefore I think Tony's point is well taken. So then I think the question becomes if if if the board agrees this needs to be a variance. I guess the question is what is the variance? Is the variance for

that is well let me just try to outline. Let me see if I can outline it between um for everybody here based on what I'm hearing. If if the board feels that this is needs to be a variance, is it a variance because the nearest point of the building is not at zero or six or is it because the entire line of the building on the side is not at zero or six? I think that's the one we're looking at. Okay. Can I ask question? Absolutely. I'm catching up here, so I do apologize if if you guys have the background already, but the building appears to be zigzagging along that line. Correct. Correct. Are there apartment uh units along that zigzagging line?

There's I believe there's hallways and apartments along that line. No windows. And no windows. There's no there is That was my question. There are no windows. No, there's one. There's one bedroom which was rendered without a window. Without a window. That's right. There was a bedroom. Yeah, it's that was rendered without a window. Correct. That's also Did that change in the recent update? Yeah, I did. Yeah. Oh, so we have we have the architect So currently there are no windows on that side at all. There may be now and and the architect's nodding in the audience that there is a window now and at the point where there is a window, how much is the setback to the property line?

Let's let's get the architect recalled and on a microphone please this up. And you can either use the handheld that's on the cart, you can come up to the lect turn. It's your choice.

And before you provide any testimony, let's have the attorney just confirm you're under you. You've testified before during this hearing. Yes, I have. Could you please identify yourself for the record? My name is Gregory Schwitz, sir. And you recognize you remain under oath? Yes. Good. Please.

So, I think the question you're asking is whether or not if there are windows on the southern elevation of the building, and the answer is yes, there's several. Um, the building code says that we can do it provided that we provide a fire separation distance of a minimum of 3 ft and that is in an unsinkler building and 4 feet in a sprinkler building with a no greater than 15% of that elevation in openings. and we've complied with that. Okay. And that that 3T and four feet that you referenced, that's from the lot line itself. That is from that building.

That is correct. So if so those distances would be maintained if the adjoining property owner were to build right up to the lot line and if the adjacent owner were to build a building next to it that space would be defined as a court where it is enclosed on three sides and open on one which is also in Montlair zoning ordinance as well. So there' be no means of egress from

absolutely correct because no one has a way of getting into that area. It's going to be open to the underside of our building. It's a landscape buffer area and the rear yard is wide open and the underneath of our building is open to the street. There's no gate or anything that rolls down. So, anyone that walks underneath that structure can walk straight out back to the sidewalk through a 24 foot wide uh pathway which truncates to about 18 ft where the curb cut is. So the definition of a space in between the two buildings is called a court when another building were to build one near. It's very common and what it's used for is to allow light and air and build in buildings where buildings are adjacent to each other. Quite a few buildings in my clear has it currently.

So I would imagine this still requires a varian. Is your is your microphone on? It still requires a variance I suppose because you're speaking about well the setback is shown as 1 and 1/2 ft because columns extend beyond that line there. There are columns that are outside the building line. Setback is one and 1/2 ft there which limits the passage and 3T is not zero or six. So it still requires a variance. I my my disagree, but

my concern there would be like if there is a building next to it that builds to the line and you have a bedroom that has a 3 ft separation to a blank wall, it's not a great space to live in. That's that's all completely understand. Yes, permitted. That's not my point. And there might not there might not be a new building built. the applicant in choosing to build this building accepts that risk.

I think that would be part of the variance testimony if the board decides that a side dart setback variance is required because it doesn't meet either the zero and the six. It's it's a com it's somewhere in between. It's a variance. You provide the testimony. Very simple. Yeah, I would agree with that and I think it's it's consistent with other applications we've had. I mean, the one that comes to mind is Warner Communications on Lraine. That one they if I recall correctly, they specifically the applicant specifically requested a variance to build 6 in off the property line just for construction purposes because there's no way they could pour a foundation right up against the other building. They wanted to move it in for that. And they what they did is they made sure that there was flashing or something over the top of it so you wouldn't get rain in there. and there's no way to access it to get trash and such.

Wouldn't that be then the hard precedent? I I don't know if it's a hard precedent here. It's something that was granted under specific conditions. It's not a precedent. You have to look at the um characteristics and situation on a sights basis to justify the variance. That's part of the process per the municipal land use law. Yes, that was their their set of facts is what they argued why they were entitled to a variance in that case is different than the set of facts here. No, but I'm just saying I didn't mean legally a precedent. I meant that like

does the fact that that Warner had to that Mr. PL had to ask for a variance to build that minimum amount off the lot line rather than to the lot line suggests to us that that's a thing that you you were either going to be at the at the lot line. In other words, why was that very You know what's different about this one? Usually in this one um the building is cut out, right? So it's not

it us in in that case like the water it was a straight line even if it was at an angle whatever it was a straight line here you have it's a little bit different because it's cut out so you have different setbacks at different points you know pretty significant different setbacks at different points along the building. So I think it's a a different situation and you know based on if however you interpret it they may need a variance because it does vary between zero and what 3 feet.

It seems to me that they would need a variance for this. So assuming you're prepared to have Mr. Stimmel or or somebody else testify to that I'd say let's move forward on that basis if the rest of the board is yes in agreement. I'm in agreement very much. Okay. See, mostly had Well, if you have if you have an opinion, you're certainly welcome to, you know. No, no. I mean, I wasn't present in all the other Right. So, that that means you can't vote, but I I believe you can. We'll we'll still take your input certainly to this. Mr. Trumpak, did you have a question? No, I was just considering the issue you were just discussing. I mean, he's not qualified to vote on the application, you know,

but he can make comments even though he hasn't heard any of the testimony from the prior hearings. He's a member of the board. Make comments. I'm trying to discourage him as a new board member, but I didn't mean to. And just as we consider the No, I was going to say as a new board member, I'm able to ask questions. Is that correct? We discussed it beforehand. I don't know. I I'm not really seriously against it. It's more of a legal issue that I'm curious about since he's not going to vote on the I don't see it as an issue. I mean, the fact that he's not going to vote and he he knows he's not going to vote doesn't preclude him for from participating in the discussion. I also think he has some specific expertise that seems to be gerine to this exact discussion right here.

Yes, maybe understand. Okay. Um if you just allow me just um 30 more seconds. So the the code um for the NC is this. A minimum sideyard of eight feet is required. We're joining a residential zone. To the south is not residential. It's not it's not 8 ft. I think they did 8 ft on the on the north side. Noard guide is required otherwise except that we're provided such sideyard shall have a minimum width of six feet. Period. It's pretty clear. Not three. So I think we've decided at least as a board how do you define the arts which we've already beat to death. So

we can take it for another lap if you want. No, but I assume you want to get to Mr. Anderson here who's been patiently listening.

Right. Um, just wanted to look up one thing before. Okay. All right. All right. So, um, getting back to where we started a while ago, um, I'd like you to just review for the board the latest revisions into the site plan that were submitted um, a couple of weeks ago subsequent to the December meeting.

Oh, I'd be happy to. Um, I have SP3, which was submitted to the board up over here in case anybody needs to see it. They don't have in front of you. uh not to go over the issue we just talked too much but there is a corbling which the architect will describe in detail that is zero uh feet so at some point there is a zero foot setback and that has been reflected in our zone table

that was the first change uh secondly uh we have added a sign that was requested so people will understand that there is parking for the restaurant in behind the building so there's a small sign on the left side as you enter the building area that is uh directional in nature to says that parking is available. Uh third we have added uh these vertical lines here are speed speed bumps. So they are strategically placed so that somebody coming out this door here will not be hit by a car going rapidly through the parking lot because the speed bump is there is going to slow them down. And similarly over here for this this bump here, it's going to slow people down before they get to the stop bar to provide some safety for pedestrians on Park Street. So, we put those those three in there to slow the traffic down, traffic calming, if you will, and to make it safer. We did have a discussion with the adjoining owner who put in the in uh sidewalk lights and he's had tremendous difficulty with them and he's had numerous complaints about them going off uh you know at times that irritate people in the evening. So we said well if we have a better way to do it uh we will try that. So that's this is what we believe is the better way to do it. people physically feeling that and slowing down, giving an opportunity for the pedestrians to actually see it. And uh the last thing that we revised was the lighting. Uh before you go on to that, um Paul, you may you may have already stated this and I might have missed it, but with respect to the speed bumps, was was that also um were they also installed in order to provide some safety with respect to that rear entrance door to the restaurant that comes off the driveway?

Yes, that's why we have three. We have one uh on either side of the door that comes out and we have one immediately before the uh before you get to Park Street. So that when the rear wheels of the car coming out is going over Park Street, the front of the vehicle will be still short of the sidewalk and you know it'll be still moving slowly and the person there can see it. So we believe that does provide that safety for both locations. Yeah. Okay. Uh Mr. Anderson. Um, what what other issues were reported to you by the neighboring owner with regard to the embedded lights?

Well, the first non nonconsequential was is extremely uh expensive and the service was has been terrible in terms of getting replacement parts. And then in terms of the complaints from the neighbors when they flash apparently they shine into windows or they do irritated someone. So he was of the opinion that he wishes he never had to do it. There was some other alternative because it's just hasn't been he tries to keep them operational and it does not seem to be going well. So is is the sense that the technology is not where it should be.

I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's just they get damaged uh when people drive over them or what what the story is. Um, well that's that to me calls out the technology because that's their purpose. Yeah. And and they are supposedly made for traffic locations, you know, so I don't know what the the issue is precisely. So you your plan has taken those out in favor of the speed bumps.

Yes. Instead of specifying those, we put in uh or a chirper, which the the board chairman was saying that's just irritating as well. Uh we thought this the speed bumps would be the best alternative because people will feel them and they will slow down. How high are they going to be? Uh four to six inches. Do I recall correctly that there's some sort of warning height warning device in the canopy in the driveway? Is the height device um for oversized vehicles? Uh I I don't know. That's not part of my plan.

Okay. Um, and the last revision I made was to the lighting. I tried to get rid of some of the dark spots that were on the side. Excuse me. And you can always use the handheld if you'd like.

Change it. And because it's such a narrow site, it's it's been a difficult design. So, we have added some ballard lights along this pathway here. Uh, and I think uh and that has provided adequate lighting for that area. There's a couple spots that are a little bit hot at property line. Um, I will point out that those are at 4t high. So, it's not like uh, you know, a 12 or 14 foot high light that's at a bedroom level on the upper that's that's shining. It's going to be low to the ground. Uh, I have not investigated dark lenses on the property line side of it to to further limit that. I think that's probably something that should be done. The last part uh that we had trouble with was back in the area where we were talking about the uh the compact spaces is still 2 and 3. Um but depending on whether the board would like to have those spaces or whether they would prefer to have less impervious, you make that choice will determine that design. Um, I could relook at some other lighting options. Right now, we have one on the back of the building. I need to look at moving it over if those spaces are retained. Uh, we have, I believe, resolved the issue in the front yard by adding more light in the front driveway area. Uh, so I think that that is okay. So, so, uh, I think we've made progress with the lighting. I don't know 100% at this point. Um, and if the board is okay with design as is, that's it's fine. We can leave it. If there's some direction uh as part of a resolution, then we can certainly uh look to achieve that.

Yeah, I think investigating, you know, some sort of cut off for the adjoining property, you know, darker lenses, whatever that is, you know, physical shield, um, I think would would be helpful. And then it it looks like the lighting is still a little low in the driveway on the south end. You know, 2.3 from what I'm seeing. Yeah. But right right at the at the curve line. Uh it it is it cuts off pretty quickly. Seems like it.

But it's it's it's hard. If I let it go too far, it spills over the property line. So I I try to cut it off rigorously and then it gets a little bit low right at the curb line. But, you know, otherwise I think it it has sufficient lighting. questions from the board or do you have more testimony, Mr. Anderson? That that's all I that's all all the revisions that I had made to the plan since last night. But but before you finish, did you you heard the discussion about the sideyard setback issue and perhaps repositioning a building, whatever. Anything you wanted to say about

I Well, I've never first I've never heard this argument before. uh and I've been doing this for a while. But uh if that's is how this is read here, then uh certainly the solution is to slide the building over uh so that is uniformly zero ft and or and then maybe have it step back to six feet if it has to step back in the back. Uh and that would meet this new rigorous standard. Also, I I believe and uh Greg can verify this is if we are only, you know,.3 ft off the property line, I think the fire safety, the firewall is going to have to be the same as it is if it was zero feet off the property line. So, it is in terms of fire safety, I don't think that's an issue. That goes back to a building department review.

Okay. So, let me have a question for you then. So you've represented um owners of buildings that have built in either zero or some some number 6 8 foot in these either zero or some number setbacks and you've been able to achieve setbacks in between those two numbers with no variance. You said you'd never heard of this before. Was it that have you actually had the experience of getting um projects approved with this sort of with a similar zoning? So what we have is we have a zero foot setback for the first part of the building to the coring to the but I'm not asking I'm asking have you been able to Can I let me finish please

to the nearest point? Okay but there's other points below it above it within that same section that are a little bit nonzero. they they step back a little bit and then further back it is not zero or six and you have you've had your extended discussion about whether it should be uniformly zero or uniformly six and that's the part I have not heard I have had numerous applications where is zero at one point and it goes back to two and then to three and then back to zero and it comes in and out because the building articulates and we get those approved without variances. So um the definition

when the zoning code says either zero or six or zero or some number you get it approved without variance if it is zero at one point and it meets the zero requirement by that nearest point there's no variance required in my experience in other municipalities with their definitions including a similar zone where two buildings could essentially meet at zero. they have a almost identical uh setback requirements zero or six or 08 like was mentioned before and uh yes I mean if you have zero at some point that's what they say is the nearest point and that's how they have I have always seen it interpreted

and to Mr. Considering Wally's point, you've had applications in similar zones where the two points could meet. Yes. Yes. So, I mean it in in those zones, those those buildings can touch. They might touch at one point and then deviate and other points, but uh that's how that was interpreted in in other municipalities. Okay. Other questions? So, they could touch at the front and the back and leave a gap of a foot in between. That's what Yes, that is how that seems pretty dangerous. I don't see how it's dangerous. People can't get in there, but um if the firewall over seems like that would create a chimney.

Well, that's the building code will interpret that what has to be built firewise there. So, that's more Greg's field. Other questions from the board? Mr. Trumbulac, is Mr. Schwitzer going to testify after Mr. Anderson? Yes, he will. Okay. So, so even though he's Okay. So, I'm going to He's got more. He has more to go through. Okay. So, I'll I'll hold questions from the the public for him until after he testifies. So, uh, anybody from the public wish to ask Mr. Anderson questions about his testimony tonight?

If so, please step up to the lect turn here. Yeah. No, not yet. Well, so so right now is questions about the expert witnesses testimony. After all of the expert witnesses that Mr. Tremulac has, then there will be a time when you can make a comment on anything about the application. If you give us your name and address, yeah, make sure that green light's on. That'd be helpful. Green light's on. Thank you. My name's Eric Nevoi. I'm the occupant owner of 262 Park Street. So the

the last name on the other side, not the southern side. My last name is N. Financi. O W R O J E. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you. Welcome.

Very quickly, Mr. Anderson, just one question for you. Um, you were speaking about lighting and I assumed you were speaking about lighting on the southern side where the driveway is. What is the lighting on the other side facing my property? So, I was actually speaking about lighting on the entire site and one on your driveway is one of the areas that uh still has 1.5 ft candles and 1.7 foot candles at two points coming from a Ballard light that's 4t high.

Okay. and and so that exceeds the limit and I still need to look at possible ways to refine that by either cutting off the light on the on your side or do something. But uh it was asked to have more light in those areas because it was too dark in at the past meeting. So I was trying to get safer light on the sidewalk on that the uh sidewalk that's between this property and your property. Okay. And is it a fair expectation that the light will not spill over into my property and will be um subject to whatever the metric is, the code metric?

It it is a fair assumption. Right now, if you look at the drawing that's behind you on the board, those those numbers that uh Could you show me? Yes, I can. Thank you.

So, this is your property line and here is your driveway. So right now we have at the curb line 2 foot candles and point 4 foot candles at the property line. So this is should be.3 and and but this is a very light amount and by the time it gets across your your driveway it's virtually gone. Okay. And what is the requirement for the light crossing the battery line? Three.3. So you're over here and you're over here and here.

Correct. Okay. And how do I verify that the the lights will be corrected or is there some way in which you know we can get confirmation that these will be reduced perfectly? Well, if the board chooses to approve the application, then there would very likely be a condition that those uh standards are met. Okay. And if that's the case, then that design would have to be go forward and be built uh reviewed. The plan would be reviewed and uh you know and built in accordance the property would be built in accordance with the plan so we meet that standard.

Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. Um Mr. Chair, could I ask that the board please consider that in any approval process that the lighting be reduced to the required amounts the areas where it goes over? They would have to. Yes. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Could uh could I ask a question following on that? Uh did I understand you to be saying that you're still working out that design for for that area of the of the site?

I I have I have safe and adequate light there. It's just a little bit too hot in a couple spots and I'm working on way I am working on ways to eliminate that. I wanted to present this to the board. We got it in 10 days prior to it. Shows some improvement. I don't know that it's all already all the way there yet. So, um, so it it it needs a little bit little bit more work. Other questions from the public for Mr. Anderson. Hi, Mr. Anderson. Hello, Claire.

Claire Silata, 279 Park Street. Um, the question I have, Mr. Anderson is that with all of this talk about access by the fire department, you have one, two, three um electric, you know, for for electric vehicles, right? Yes.

And they're all the way at the back. I'm trying to understand where they are. Are they under the building? Are they outside the building? Because that to me would be a major concern for an electrical fire. because if there's one of those and and a car is attached, you've got a huge fire. So, I'm trying to understand how people will how the fire department can get there and whether they're placed in such a way to minimize if that happens to minimize what will happen to the building to the building next door.

So, M I haven't heard that discussed at all. So, I'm I'm trying to figure that out. Well, I I do think we discussed it briefly last time, but I'll be glad to go over it again. So, we had initially all the EV charging stations up in the what I'll call the front of the lot right next to the building where it comes down near the commercial space. The fire fire department had an objection to that because they always do. Every fire department and every community is concerned about this,

but we're obligated to have at least one EV charging space by the ADA space, which needs to be the closest proximity to the door with an accessible pathway. So currently we have one EV charging station that's next to the uh handicap space near the commercial space in the front and we have one that's outside the back of the building the farthest possible space in the back. Is that a state law or that you said you required? Yes, it's state law to have the EV charging stations.

So how does that fit in? See, I'm like, "Okay, so now you have a handicapped person and a car on fire and you're very close to the building." I help me understand how that makes sense. I I think they don't want to discriminate against handicapped people who may have an electrical vehicle and have the ability to charge their vehicle. Okay. Um so on that side though, is there easy access? because I get confused with the two sides with how much with is there easy access for the fire department to get in there should there be a fire.

Well, first I don't I mean not a fireman in Montlair I or anywhere but I I don't see people driving fire trucks under the building. No, no. I I I just meant and and so I think they're go if there was a fire in the building, uh they would likely be dragging hose right down the driveway, which is 18 ft wide minimum all the way to the back where you have an access aisle and then and then using those. So in terms of ease of access, yes, they would be have easy access to get in there that way. Okay. And if they needed to get in from the sides, well, if you have a zero foot setback on one side and somebody builds the building, you're not getting in from the south. Okay.

But that's that's that's built that's a building code issue as opposed to the zoning board. I find it extraordinary that the building code holds over common sense, but that's another story. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Good evening. Evening. Hello. Hi. Um Donna Picket, 255 Park Street. Uh you mentioned um this was a difficult design. Can you explain that what you meant by that

for the lighting? It's a narrow site. You have a a ceiling uh that sets the height of where lights are mounted and you have a strict cut off at the property line. You have a building that goes you have to have light uh at immediately underneath the building at all locations to uh meet the lighting requirement to have of a safe to have a a a safe and adequate lighting for the people using the building, but it has to be cut off directly in a very short horizontal distance.

So maybe the building doesn't really belong there, but that's besides the point. Um, did you read the master plan on page 22 uh the ordinance about uh light pollution in Montlair when you were doing your lighting design? No, I read the ordinance requirements, not the not the master plan. Okay. So, I would just take a look again at that ordinance and then I would just ask the board to take into consideration our goals for noise and light pollution with this project. Um, so you mentioned lights going on and off possibly.

That was with a safety system that was employed on a project adjacent to this or ne one property removed. Is it a definite that the lights so cars going in at nighttime? It's seven what? Seven apartments. We got Amazon ride shares visitors. So you need to take that into consideration about lights going on and off if someone's complained about um I guess it was the West earlier or some other lights. Yes.

Um so I'd like the board to take that into consideration. New way of life. This is just you know constant traffic in and out of this building. people visiting, coming in and out, working. Like I said, Amazon, UPS, ride shares. So, so when you think about the lights, we don't want them flickering all the time. I would think something soft and constant. So, so if I can just clarify, maybe you misunderstood me.

I So, I I specifically said we did not want to do that. and put in speed bumps which are physical on the ground so lights do not go off and on and irritate people which is your point. So I think we've Okay, so that's that's good. Yeah. Okay. So then I misunderstood that. So that's good. Um unknown caller. All right. I think that's all the questions I have. Okay. Thank you. But do please do look at the master plan page 22. Okay. I'd like to for us to adhere to our overall goals of what we want to achieve here in Monontlair's as far as livability. Okay. Okay.

Smart department. Jay Turner, 274 Park Street. Jay Turner. Um Mr. Mr. Anderson, I just wanted to go back over something I think you said. Did I understand you correctly that you reached out to the owners of the Westerly to ask them about the lights that they embedded in the sidewalk? Yes. Yes. And they they presented to you that those lights they put in worked and then they broke and they got parts for them and fixed those lights and it's been an ongoing maintenance issue for them. Is that how it was presented to you?

Yeah, I don't know. the blowby-blow, but that's essentially correct. Okay. So, all right. I just wanted I'll be back for a comment at the right time on that. Sounds good. Thank you. Any other members of the public want to ask Mr. Anderson questions about his testimony? Okay, I see none. All righty. Okay. Then I would um recall Gregory Spitzer.

Sir, you've already put your appearance on the record and acknowledge that you're under oath. Yes. So, Greg, uh, I'd like you, you submitted revised plans a couple weeks ago, so went to the last meeting before this board. Yes. So, just as I did with Mr. Anderson, I'd like you to um discuss with the board those areas or portions of the plans, your architectural plans that have been revised since the last meeting.

Sure. Uh just want to start I guess with the landscaping portion of the pro project. Um we have close to 50 uh evergreen trees that we are planting between our property and the adjacent residential uh property that's next door to us to create a barrier between uh our property and the fence. Um, and should the fence ever decide to be moved, then we'd have a natural uh barrier there in place. Um, so that's on the north side of your property. That is, pardon me. It's on the north side of your property.

That is on the north side of the property. Yes. Um, since the last uh iteration of our drawings, we also removed the uh balcony, which was on the southern portion of the building to the northern side of the building. Um you should be able to see that in the drawings that was presented to you. That would be on sheet A102. And it would be the uh north elevation which is the one the long elevation in the center. And uh moving from right to left, it is the balcony on the uh second floor that you will see there. Okay. Um, also just in response to uh some of the fire department comments, um, just wanted to um, reiterate and acknowledge that the building does have an automatic fire sprinkler system. The building is designed with two means of egress. Uh, one does um, eress through the parking area. the other egresses directly onto the sidewalk that's on the side of the building on the northern portion of the site and egresses straight out to the uh sidewalk. Um we are also installing a fully compliant uh fire alarm system in the building. We do have NOX boxes that or a NOX box that we will install in the building lobby. Um, for those of you that don't know what that is, um, particularly the public perhaps, a Knox box is just simply a box that, uh, a key is placed in that gives the fire department secure access to the apartment, uh, building above. So, and all of the doors and locks that are within the building. Um, we also spoke about um relocating the refuse storage uh containment uh from the exterior rear yard to the inner portion of the building.

That was part of the last revisions, right? That hasn't changed since December. That is correct. So, we already reviewed that. That is correct. And then what I'd like to do just um there was a graphic that was issued that was incorrect. Um, and it simply shows um the uh western um street elevations of the uh building. Uh I think that uh the images that you may have are incorrect. Uh we spoke about that previously and I'm bringing the corrected version of that just so you can have it. Should I pass this out or how would you like to do you have sufficient number for the board?

I do. Okay. So this just to be clear um the prior the streetscape that was previously presented did not actually show the actual setbacks between the buildings and the lot lines.

Uh it's it's some it's somewhat it did um it's it's it's an odd situation. Um the fact is is that the actual lots are not perpendicular sorry perpendicular to the street. So when my drafts person did the drawings, he did it from the street and not from the actual corner or the point of the building and creating parallel lines. So this shows the building at the zero lot line. Can you put that picture up? I marked this as

I don't know if your microphone's on, Miss Tally. Um Mark this as a 19 a21 21.

Thanks.

Thank you. So hopefully that graphic will clarify um this building in relation to relationship to the other properties on that same elevation. And it also shows where the property lines are. That is correct. That was not shown on the prior plan. That is correct.

Okay. And we also showed the 8oot property line set back on the uh northern portion of the building. Um, I'm also, uh, I guess I need to clarify what the corbling is. There was a question about that, but basically the corbling is a decorative motif where, um, you have just a very flat face of a surface. And let's say that we wanted to put a crown molding if you would, and there's a projection of stone or cast stone or brick or whatever it is, aluminum, whatever it is, it projects beyond the actual vertical face of the wall. That portion is called corbling and we cannot allow that corbling to extend beyond the property line. So that's where that zero point start in our building design and it's always been that way even from our first iteration of the design. So nothing has changed there. It's just I guess clearly understanding what the question is and answering it to hopefully your satisfaction.

Sorry just to clarify you're saying it's.3 on the side because of the corbling. Is that Can you just clarify that the distance? Yeah, it's it's about 3 and 3/4 almost 4 in um where the corbling actually interacts with the property line. Okay.

And then the corbling comes around and then it goes straight down. And that's where that question initially came about the property being at the zero property line. I was asked during my initial testimony whether or not if the building was built at the zero that that zero point and I said yes. But then there were questions about it because someone had questions about well there's a 4-inch deviation. I wanted to explain why that deviation was there. So I guess in effect both questions are correct. You know both answers were correct. So the corbling's at the very top of the building.

It's not just at the top of the building. It's also um detailed ornamentation that occurs along that entire freeze and then it comes all the way down and and then there's some projections as well. just before the building lands onto the cast stone at the base. So, it it creates a a really nice line. Otherwise, it would just be a brutal hard line stop along that property line and it would look quite odd and awkward. Um, and that's one of the reasons why we we did that to really tie that in and finesse the the design to make it look continuous around.

Is it possible to create that effect without the um the uh protrusion the Um, yes, it is possible to do that. Um, my gut is telling me that it's not going to look as nice, but um, that's an architect, right? But you could there because you could lose it when that other building comes up next to it anyway. So, exactly. Exactly. And just so that I I am clear, it's the corbing that that meets the 0.0. Absolutely. Yes. the rest of the building, the the foundation of the building is

set back. And that's another reason why you kind of captured some of that information earlier with the foundation and the construction of that sort of thing. That also gives us that little variance of 4 in to do what we need to do without extending a footing or anything that close to the property line. So, um there there's a whole bunch of other subtle nuances that would um benefit from that building being set back at least that minimal dimension. Yes. I have a question. Sure, Mr. Schwer. Um the 17 Taylor junipers that you have on the south side of the at the lot line.

Yes. What is the actual? So they are screening the garage area. Exactly. But even existing now there a lot of a lot of this plant is going to be in a in shade. I mean but you have I'm sorry. A lot of this plant is going to be these plants will be in shade and certainly if another building is built like these plants will not survive another building being built to the lot line. Correct. Yes. Probably not. They probably not. I mean that's you told me about this.

Yeah. So will they by definition you're showing I mean they they will at maturity at fast growing plant trees will extend over the lot line by necessity as in yes as in most you know natural growing things we it it's uncontrolled they can spread in any direction. Yes. Um, okay. The the plants if you just to

are the trees on the north side. Are we talking? Oh, south. Just just to to if you if you look at the drawing that was submitted to you at the bottom there images there of the Taylor Greens. And if you'll see, they're very uh tightly uh grown and they go straight up right. So, it's not like what is the setback here? Let's say at the, you know, where it says it's pretty straight going back from the lattice area after that, you know, when these when you have these this row of 17 trees, what is the actual setback that they have at that at that point from that little wall which is I guess a knee?

It's it's approximately four feet. Yes, it's four feet. Yes. I thought did you say it was three before the windows are 3 ft from the property line?

No, I I said that um we built the uh south elevation to code and I stated that um at 3 feet we would be allowed to put windows into the building if it were unsprinkled. I'm sorry, uh unsinkered. Uh we but at four feedback with the sprinklered building we were allowed to put 15% of that side we we were allowed to put openings in that side based on the building code. Okay. So the setback um the setback is 4T. It's zero you know close to zero toward the front then it goes to four feet.

It's zero at the front then it goes down 29 ft and then you have substructure that goes along. So technically the spaces in between the um the uh the building or the property lines that's that green area that we're talking about. Yes. So that's 4T except the columns the columns jut out. That is correct. And that's a part of structure on the site plan you got one and a half ft for the columns. That is correct. But above you're saying is that measured on see the the architecturals float in space. The the architecturals really aren't. We have the garage on the on the site plan but we don't have the building. It's hard to look at. Yeah. If you look at the floor plans for example, uh,

let's just pick one and see whether or not if we clearly identified the dimensions here for you. Uh, let's suggest sheet A101. And when you look at the south elevation, I'm sorry, you said A101. A101. A is in apple. 101. Okay. So, the columns themselves that you see projecting from this or the structure that you see projecting from the building at the upper floors or two uh 30 in alone.

So, okay. When I look at the plan though, the lot line isn't shown. So, what's the best plan that you have that shows the building and the lot line on the same plan? Well, actually, if you look at sheet A101 and look at the bottom plan, um, and I stay in corrected here, it is 3 ft 10 in um the setback and it's dimensioned in the far left corner there and that's in alignment that dotted line that hold on and it's in alignment with the um the corner at the end that ah okay so that so that little dash there

is 310 to the to that other well it's a little dash that's what it looks like. It doesn't look like a property line, but if that's what it is. Yeah, the property line um is illustrated on uh I would assume L101 which shows the overall site and it would be that solid line that separates from front to back um directly between um the twotory frame dwelling and the twotory frame building in the rear. There's a straight line that goes from front to back.

Yeah. So this is this is the property line supposedly with no label. Um was it is that the property line or is that just the edge of the building? Um well at the front it just keep in mind as we stated that I should say is that where the corbing is that to the corbing or is that to the main wall? I trying to use your terminology here just so it's clear to the board. Valid it is to the corbling. That is to the outside of the corbling. outside of the corbling which is structure. That is correct. And that is the lot line as the lot on the lot line. That is correct. Thank you.

Do you have more to present to us? I see you have a material. Yes, I do. Um there was also a request for materials um to be shown. I've brought them here. I'm not sure what is the best way to to illustrate this, but I'll just start by um holding them up and showing you and then I can bring them up to you and you can pass them around. Sounds good. Okay, good. So, um first card here is of the uh brick. And do you want to mark these now? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh that would be um 22. Yes. A22. Can you

A22 for both? No. Or A22 and A23. I think it's better to do A23. Okay. So A22 is the red brick. What it looks like. Yes. And then A A23. 23 is the cast stone. Cast stone. Yes. and it's uh indicated on the card with an arrow pointing at the actual color sample. Okay. And then I brought a uh sample to show you the color of the cement um board uh material that we'll be using on the side. A24. Yes. Thank you. So I need to explain what A22 is first.

Yes. So A22 is the predominant uh brick masonry that's used in the front and on the sides for that first 29 ft um wraparound from the front facade to the sides. Then it steps back and then we change the material particularly on the upper floors to the cement fiberboard uh material that'll be on floors one and two. I'm not understanding these are different. It is all different, but what you're seeing is a variation of how this would show up on site. It's not one uniform color. The built it has a whole bunch of striations and textures um in the masonry. And this is just giving you a general idea of what that is.

Pardon? Oh, sure. But it is brick. It is 100% brick. And what happens after a year, two years, three years? Does does the brick absorb the the the detritus in the air? And and does the coloration uh subside from its light red color to something less perhaps?

Well, the the brick in general is somewhat um porous. Um, you know, we try and get a product that, you know, stands up to time. Um, when I say that as in not absorbing too much moisture to where over time it just becomes, you know, weak and and and crumbles. But, um, this is very hard ventrified um, brick units. Um, they've been in kils. They're dried. Um, it's, you know, pretty st solid and stable. And I would suggest have you know a lifetime of well over a hundred years. Um I don't expect anything unusual to occur with this. Um this is

is this similar in makeup if you know to the Westerly brick. Um it's the same manufacturer to be um yes it's the same manufacturer of the product. It's just a different color way. Yes. Did you say it's going to be thin brick or full brick? Uh, it's full brick. Okay. Yes. Now, what about A23? A23 is the cast stone. This is used primarily at the base of the building. And you're referring to the the arrow refers to the stone that's named was it Savannah? Yes. What's it called? Savannah. Sav H S H S H S H S H S H S H S H S H S H S Havana or Savannah. Savannah. Savannah.

Two great places. And then the uh Yeah, sure. And then for the public, it is this color along with this. I'll just put this up again. Thank you. You're welcome. And this is the concrete board. And where will that typically be found on the building? on the upper floors. Um starting about uh twothirds of the way back and wraps around to the rear all the way around to the opposite side to where that 29 ft of uh brickmasonry wall where it meets at the zero property line

with the corbling. With the corbling. Thank you. As as you're picking up, we have to be very exact. No, no, no. I respect that. Thank you, Mr. Speer. You'll have to leave those samples with my office if need. Does anybody from the board want to see those samples? We pass them around. You want me to pass these? Figured I' I'd ask. No one seems to be jumping at it, so

do you have more for us, Mr. Schwitzer? I I am um substantially uh finished with my um testimony. I don't see anything else other than what I presented to you um as a material change. Um I don't believe that I've missed anything. And if so, I don't think you have. It's um it's certainly I think you've covered everything. There are only a few revisions that you discussed. So it's all I have. Okay. Questions from the board? Uh I I guess if you I respect the artistic vision, but if you were to remove the core, could you move it up to the uh property line the building? Absolutely. Yes. Thank you.

Other questions from the board? I would just ask you to repeat what you ask. So the building we're measuring where it hits the property line from the corbelling and if we were to remove the corbling the uh foundation itself could be moved up to the property line eliminating uh the issue that uh Mr. Ian Wally pointed out uh the concern about um that zero or six and creating a a gap that could cause a safety concern. I think we still need to better understand those other three feet. Um, if I may, um, and just add just something simple,

courtyards. Courtyards. Yeah. This the the area that we're with the area that we are trying to call a sideyard. A sideyard is typically continuous from the front all the way to the back. Mhm. And the fact that we have structure that actually impede into that area, it's actually an extension of the structure. So, it's not really a yard. Um, it's open to the outside, but it's still a part of the architectural structure. So, those peers or those columns that you see along that side, it's structure. It's not yard.

Oh, no. Fair enough. But I think we're still thinking about the idea of um the adjacent property can be built up to the property line. So if we do have that corbling, we still create the chimney effect that Mr. Inwall discussed. Understood. Okay. And I think there's a real concern. I mean, if right it leaves or something, you know, somebody throws a cigarette, who knows, right? So I think um I think uh eliminating that corbling. Um I think I think we probably do need to better understand the courtyards, the 3 ft courtyards. I I think that we're looking at this kind of wrong because it isn't two buildings. Can you move the microphone? It's not it's not two buildings in a city.

It's not two buildings pushed up to each other. At the bottom, at least we're dealing with something that is different than a traditional building in a city because it's a can of levered building that's open on the sides on both sides. Correct. But my concern is that so there's no court there's no air there's no air shaft. There's it's wide open. Right. But the concern is that two uh 58 is permitted to build up to the property line built to it. Right. It would be on the ground level. It would be a brick wall against one side of a garage. It's It's still It's not a wall. I'm not sure I follow when you say it's not a wall.

I'm saying that people when you look at it because of the schematics that you're forgetting that like the first 12 ft is wide open on both sides. It's only above. So the the traditional way you're thinking about a building, it's that it's going to be touching going down to the floor. And here we just have a very different situation. So for fire suppression, for example, you could have a firewall here, but like let's say in the horrible situation that you had a car fire or something, it's wide open to the next building. It's, you know, you could have a block of them and you could see down the whole block. Correct. That is correct. So it's a I'm not you know I'm just saying

and it's consistent with even what's at the Westerly now. It's open on that rear yard side at the back on the south also. Um no I don't believe so. Um there is Yeah. Yeah. So that counselor is the concern, right? On the south side, it's not as wide open, but it is wide open on the south in in the parking structure after 29, but just not in 29 ft. Yeah. The the front it isn't. But as soon as you get underneath the deck, you'll see that it's open and you're not. So, in other words, if you needed to get for fire suppression to the side of the building, you would just walk right in through the garage and point up like

or you can walk along that 8ft path that we've created on the side of the building. No, I'm saying on the south side. Okay. On the south side, you would go into the garage and you would just spray up there wide open. It's not a building. H and so unless there's a fire we should wait until uh question be fully sprinkler the building is 100% sprinkler in fact sprinkler would be in the apartment as well as the parking area below and any crevices or um spaces or pockets that's required by code to be just so you said the the parking area will be sprinklered as will the entire building. Yes. Okay. Yeah, that was part of my earlier testimony

that that constitutes fully sprinkler, right? That is correct. Um, I have just a quick question. I thought I understood you to say that if the building is up against the property line that that creates a problem for construction purposes. Is that not No, we're talking about foundation and footing and placement during the initial construction portion of it. It's best to have an offset footing there. And that's part of the reason why those peers are set back just a little bit because with the spread footing, it's going to go beyond. And what we're trying to do is make sure that we keep our footings on our property and not go beyond and onto the other property. A

and I think I appreciate that. But getting back to your question, if the corbelling is removed, yes, I think you testified that you could move the building to the property line. We'll we'll figure it out. Right. But that's that was my question. Isn't there a consideration for construction purposes at that point? Yeah, it's just a matter of, you know, I guess more elaborate detailing and structural um drawings that would illustrate a a foundation wall that could um you can rest masonry units on top of and build upward. But again, the building itself only has 29 ft of that on one side.

The front of the property is clear and free, so we can pretty much do whatever we need to. And on the north side of the property, that's the same because we have that 8ft setback. So, it should be pretty easy to do that. It's just that 29 feet uh at the uh southern portion of the building um that you know just a design challenge. But just to clarify that 29 ft could be moved to the property line and eliminate that that issue. I'm sure that we can have masonry units go along that sidewall and do what we need to do. Okay. Um it's it certainly isn't a problem. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you.

Um so where are we with the variance?

Back to if a sideyard is no sideyard is required except when provided it shall be 6 ft. That's clearly in need of a variance. I didn't hear any testimony that a variance is needed. It seems like the presumption from the applicant is that we don't need to talk about it. I don't believe we have a sideyard because a sideyard conti is defined as a continuous path along from the front yard that extends all the way to the back. And what you see there is a 29 ft solid wall which breaks that. So that's not side otherwise we would be building that front portion of the building in the sideyard which would not be permitted. And then we have structure that extend along the side of the building as well um in the form of those peers that extend or cascade along through the rest of the length of the building. So theoretically there is no sideyard

zero. What is the sideyard? Is your microphone on Mr. Ianwall? Mr. Ian Wallally is your microphone on?

So there's no measurement of the sideyard. Um there is a space that is between the building um and the property line um that is approximately up to 3 ft 10 in the widest point and maybe just about a foot uh to the property line, but that's not a sideyard. And again, there's structure there. Those peers are structural elements that are dotting that entire length of that property line there. So there really isn't a sideyard. I'm not sure if structures are are excluded. I know that fire escapes are there's certain things that are excluded from where a yard is measured, but that's not the point. I mean, my point is that the code says where there's a sideyard, which is the distance between the building, um, it either has to be zero or six. And nothing, no argument, I have not heard any argument that, yeah, it's okay to be 3 feet. So, we've got a portion of it at close to zero and some of it at three.

It's not zero or six. You haven't heard our planning testimony yet. We'll talk about the variances. We think there's only one, but he'll talk about two of them. He's not here to justify the variance. Okay. So, the planner will So, then you're agreeing that a variance is needed. No, you're not. I just But the board's already made its determination on that. I just I respect the variance needed or not. But that that was the general sense of the board when we had this discussion the beginning of the night is that I think I don't think we've solved

well loosely I think everyone's kind of head nodding like yes but I don't think we've solved whether it is needed because the nearest point is it.3 ft outside of the corbling. I'm leaving the corbling issue off the table for the moment, but the.3 ft or whether because it undulates along the entire length of that lot line, is that a different variance than the 3 being the nearest point? But I think in general the board felt that a variance is needed for sideyard setback and the applicant disagrees, but the applicant also said, as Mr. trying to be like just reiterated. They will provide expert testimony regarding um either the need for that variance or justifying it under I assume C1 or C2.

We don't think it's a variance as I said right in respect to board's determination. If it is a variance, we think it's a minor variance that's easily justifiable and we'll present proofs to councelor Damato's uh earlier point about the majority of that south side being open. um uh parking lot area. Is there any other area that you could think of that could be a pinch point, that could be a safety concern, that could be a chimney to Mr. Ian Wallally's point? No. Okay. Do you agree, Mr. Ian Wallally? um with with your microphone on

I suppose but we're not interpreting is the zoning code of either zero or 6 feet. My belief is that the zoning code is put in place to predict um proper safety, but I'm not in a position to answer questions about whether it's safe or not because that's not my role. No, understood. I I I'm just trying. You'd mentioned the chimney concern. I was just wondering if uh you still see it as as a

because that's a that's why it needs to be zero or six. I keep going back to that point which is rather clear. Um a lot of downtown buildings are touching or if they're apart, they're apart a sufficient width for light air safety and so forth. If we were to suppose all buildings were 1 foot apart, that'd be weird. But if we were to um remove the corbling and move it up to the lot line to zero, uh would that eliminate much of the concern? No. I mean the concern is that um it's not zero or six. I mean if you call the the first 29 ft if it's zero, okay, that's zero, but the rest of the building is not zero or six.

No. Understood. And then we would have to grant a variance at that point if if we think it's if we think it's acceptable. So yeah. Would it also be would you consider the peers that you see along that side to go all the way to zero as well? I mean if if the peers along the property line at the southern portion of the building the structure because it's really structure because that what you see there is not necessarily an enclosed wall but it's supporting the structure above and at that point of after you've passed the garage the building steps back right just here and then you have windows. Mhm.

So my question to you is if we were to bring those peers and plant them squarely along that that that zero degree line um would you consider that being that it's structure at this point that's continuously going there whether or not if there are openings in it or not um as being built on the uh the side on you know the side that would mitigate the sideyard question you have would that address that? That's hard for me to answer because um the code says that the setback has to be zero or six. And um very simply it's the building line. You know when you when you when we talk about these downtown districts they could be three stories and if you're building on the property line these buildings are generally touching in three stories or two and a half stories. They're not maybe not touching on the first floor but then they're closer. You know you look at look at look at Bloomfield Avenue. the buildings touch.

They don't have these varying gaps. And I think that this zone,

the neighborhood commercial zone was expanded by a couple of lots in different directions. And Wong Plaza's buildings basically touch each other or they have walking paths. Like if you go I forget Blue Stone, one of the you know what I'm talking about in Wong Plaza. And and when this zone was expanded, my assumption was that it would be expanded and it would replicate the characteristics of what Bloomfield what Wang um center is, Wong Plaza is. So this building if it replicated the other neighborhood commercial would probably touch the other building. We have a continue. It would probably be out to the street and it would touch the other buildings just like Wong Plaza, all the other Watch Plaza buildings, the bank all the way through. Um, we do have a couple of alleyways um that allow people to walk and and lighten air, but we don't have too many situations where there are these odd

odd gaps. you. So this building I mean we have to face a fact here which is that this building is on some levels a logical impossibility in this zone because you cannot have a block of these buildings uh with zero setback because the building is so deep that you to make it work am I correct there needs to be you need to have windows on the sides. Absolutely. So in order to even make it an occupiable to make it an occupiable building, they cannot be stacked next to each other. Cannot. So literally it does the the zoning that's why the zoning gives you either zero or six because six works beautifully.

No, six doesn't work in this building. Well, it certainly works for windows. So you have an option of going six. The when it gets tighter, it's more difficult. So and I think that's what the zoning predicts. make them touch each other or make it six so that it's comfortable. It doesn't give you any leeway. My reading again, I don't want to repeat myself. Well, you guys are going to throw me out of here pretty soon, but but you know,

I just want to just challenge you with just one thought. So, let's say at the zero line that separates the two properties, we built a 4ft wall. That's theoretically the same, right? There's nothing in zoning that suggested that wall has to be 10 feet high, 20 feet high, 40 feet high, but I don't think that's its intent, but I I'm arguing against intent before and I can't argue, you know, so touche.

So theoretically, I mean, we can easily put a 18-inch curb along there and its structure, it is built 100% zero from the front all the way to the back. And we've we've actually met the zoning code by definition, but that's a it's it's a it's a useless waste of money and time and it's not really you mean I'm sorry to to have a step back then in the second and third. No, I mean he's saying that we have to build structure along the property line at zero. That structure that structure could be 18 in tall. Who's to say that that structure has to there's there's well I think the presumption is that the you know in

we can't make assumptions I know I know I know we can't make assumptions but if you but in downtowns the building's generally for their height touch and I think in the question and this goes to your question you know the building line you can they can build you measure the setback at the closest where it's closest to the property line so perhaps vertically it goes in it doesn't have to be zero going all the way up. That's the point. It could be 12 in. There's nothing in there that's set it's it's me sideyard setback is measured at a point. And what you're we're trying to do is instead of having it a point where the building is closest to the property line, you now want to make it continuous at multiple points.

Correct. Where the building meets the is adjacent closest to the property line along the entire but you can't do it in the third dimension. vertically. Why not? Why not? Because there's no it's there's no basis for that. There's no zoning basis for that. The same zoning code that you're referring to has to stipulate that if you have to build at zero property line, then that wall must be at minimum that eliminates stepbacks or 20 ft tall. We see all the time. Yeah.

But um well, okay, along those lines, if the we know that the southern property could build they they could build a party wall. Basically, they could build zero for three stories if they if they chose to. So, if this property decided to build a wall and then just set back one foot, then you would think about it. It would create windows that look out one foot to the other building. And I think what the zoning attempts to do is that when you put them together, there's no windows, there's nothing to worry about or it's six feet. Even if that other building, that's where the fire separations come in that I spoke about earlier

where the setback allows us to step the building back three or five feet and place windows or openings into the wall. So that's already defined by building code. So we can actually do that. Um, but I'm I'm trying to understand if if if that didn't exist. I understand. But I'm just trying to interpret the zoning code, which is zero or six. The zoning code doesn't give any allowances if you do this fireproofing or not. Agreed. I read it as zero or six. If you don't have zero or six, you need a variance. So, would you be satisfied if we built the 12-in wall from the front all the way down to the back of the yard aligning the property? That's

it is the building that would be that would form the building line, right? That wall is attached to the building. The structure that's building part of the structure the building line.

You're not saying that's what you're going to do, are you? No, I'm just saying that I'm trying to let him understand that I need a very clear meeting of the minds on what that is because what he's saying is and and I understand what he's saying and I appreciate everything that he said. It's it's it's all very meaningful in this conversation and it also suggests that there are other things that we need to be looking at in defining the local municipal code and dealing with some of these things. But it's clear zoning has in my view certain definitions that obviously we all have different interpretations of what that may be. First being sideyard. Sideyard is continuity from front yard to backyard. If I were to build a shed in my sideyard on my h at my house, you would send and say that that would be a zoning code violation and therefore you can't do that with this building. I'm telling you that it's going the zero lot line. Once we remove the corbulling and push that thing all the way to zero, we come back 29 ft. The definition of a sideyard disappears because it's not the continuity of the connecting the front through the side of the property and all the way to the back. So, the sideyard just totally goes out. Then we have structure that's interrupting that space that 4ft space that we have or 3 foot 10 in space that we have that's separating our building from the building next door. So, if we are to comply and place a continuous structure along that property line and we were to build a 4ft, 5-ft, 2 foot high wall, theoretically, we're complying with the very same argument that he's presenting in that wall is not the building. It the code talks about buildings

um is the we'll go back to the definition of sideyard. It extends from the front yard to the rear yard. It doesn't say it extends 29 ft. So you're we don't have a sideyard there because of that. Well, we're not technically a kind of driving. I was like, I see what you're saying, but that's not what you're representing. You're planning on doing, right? This is more of a thought experiment kind of, you know, looking at No, I just wanted to to uh illustrate another interpretation. I understand of what and I'm trying to pull us back into what what are you proposing and

I would propose that we first of all define or or state that the building does not have a sideyard at the southern exposure because it doesn't. He just also read that it needs to extend from the front to the rear. This building doesn't have that. So theoretically it's already at that zero line. Now, if you want and we have structure that's interrupting that whole southern portion that's just about a foot away from that wall, we can certainly build a wall there to meet that definition, but I don't think it's necessary. Um I think that the building is um designed to meet the local um fire code. It is designed to meet the local building code. Um and referring to the document that the fire department um gave, he also stated in Reddit um that um the fire department even acknowledge the fact that it's designed to code. However, uh if you would like us to increase the fire resistance rating along that wall that separates the southern portion of our property to the adjacent property. That's something that we can easily do and then hopefully that would mitigate the fire department's concern about the exposure to heat from a potential fire from the adjacent property. Um so I mean there there are ways that we can work around this collectively. I'm just trying to understand exactly which direction you'd like us to go with this because it's it's um it's it's difficult. It's a difficult and and I totally respect this point because when he first mentioned it the meeting the last meeting I was like holy crap you know wasn't expecting that. Um, and you know, it it forces all to think about this issue a little bit deeper and I think

that we've done that and it's, you know, we have to somehow you all make the determination of whether or not if you believe a variance is required, whether or not if anything that I've said has is valid and perhaps you may want to reconsider the need for that. But I I believe that we're we're in compliance with everything that has been statutoily outlined for us in zoning, in building code, and everything else. But this is your your this is your house, sir. Our let us know let let us know what you'd like us to do. Gotcha.

And Mr. Turill, you don't have any more for Mr. Schwitzer, right? Does the board have any additional questions for Mr. Schwitzer? No. Anybody? Oh, yeah. People have their hands raised already. So, questions for Mr. Schwitzer. About his testimony. I'm I'm thoroughly confused at this point. Hi, Mr. Schwitzer. Hey, how are you? Good. A couple of questions. For the record, can you can you state your name one more time? Absolutely. Jay Turner 274 Park Street. Thank you.

Um, one thing that occurred to me uh, when listening to all the testimony, did you ever give any consideration to flipping it so that the driveway was on the northern end and the pizzeria, bagel shop, whatever it's going to be, is on the southern end where the commercial district actually is. That is an excellent question. And uh to the benefit of the neighbor with the adjacent property that was here earlier this evening, I also think that he would understand our thinking. If we were to build a wall or a structure at zero degree property line to the adjacent residential neighborhood which starts right at that point,

his property would be facing a brick wall and we didn't think that that was being neighborly in our design process. We were really considering the community with the way that it was laid out. So right now there's a green space, a buffer, a walkway that's separating his property from ours as opposed to a brick wall that separates it based on the zero. Uh so were you aware when you did that design that we have a major problem in our neighborhood with uh Uber Door Dash people blocking our driveways all day long?

I have heard that from testimony this evening and I regret that you're dealing with that. We have a expert that's going to be testifi testifying right after me that's going to deal with the traffic issues. You're looking at the expert. I live right there. Yes. Um so would you not think that it would pose a constant problem for the Elchie and Janet with people Uber drivers, Door Dash drivers parking in their driveway to go into the pizzeria, bagel shop, whatever it's going to be. Yeah, that's horrible. I I agree. My suggestion to you would be to call um enforcement and make sure that that is managed. I thought you were going to tell me to sell my house.

No, no, no, no, no, no. It's It sounds to me that it's an enforcement issue and not a um design issue. As an architect, I'm designing a structure to hopefully rest on this property that would house people that would be integrated into the community and, you know, be, you know, contributing citizens to the Monontlair FI fiber. So, I really hope that that's the case with respect to the Uber drivers and the food delivery people. Unfortunately, um I'm not an expert to speak on that. So when you talk about enforcement, are you aware that directly across the street from the proposed project, there's a sign right now between two driveways that's probably 6 ft gap. Um my neighbors are both here. There's a sign that says don't park here and they put an orange cone in the street every day. And every single day, Uber drivers, Door Dash drivers come and run right over that cone and park right there. And they spend all day calling enforcement.

So were did you see that sign when they were over at the property? Several obstructions that were um not what I consider um approved uh Department of Transportation um barriers to restrict cars from parking in those areas. Yes. So when I I think it seems like a very long time ago now that I was here the first time I feel like we've very long time but I read the town vision or whatever it is for these areas and at the time it talked about areas between commercial and residential were supposed to be soft transitions I believe is the word they used in the town question. Did he read that same document?

Nope. I'm getting there. I'm I'm getting there. So would you consider that to be a soft transition going from somebody's front porch to a pizzeria that's 16 ft away? Um, I don't really, and I know this sounds as though I'm not being um empathetic, um, but my concern is is that um that property or those two properties border um two different zones. And you know there's a residential portion that's on one side and there's a commercial portion on the other side and somehow someway um you know that has to work and I'm I don't know how to address that boundary between districts and that transitional process of making it softer or anything. I think with the design that we presented, it showed the property being set back 20 ft. So, it's not like sticking out because that would have been really horrible then, right? If it

Well, you're not presenting that like you were doing that for the goodness of the community. That's the Are you No. Okay. Um, no. It's it's it's it's required. And that requirement came from a body that thought about what those requirements should be. and all we're doing is just trying to conform to those requirements that have been established. So, respectfully, the question was just do you think that's a soft transition or not? So, that sounds like it's a yes or no kind of question.

I I think having the front lawn as I was suggesting and creating uh the 8oot setback on that northern portion of the property is definitely a soft transition compared to building a wall to or the back of a building against the adjacent property. Yes. You would argue that having the commercial building next to the residential property is a softer transition than just having a driveway there.

I think that um not just having the driveway there. Yes. I think that that would also be a burden. Um but also the property itself, the building structure, the wall. It's It's going to look It would be awful to have this two properties and then a wall that's just right there that separates the residential from the back of what this residential apartment structure is going to be. It's better to create a green space of which we've done to soften it. We've placed well over a hundred new plantings on the property. on that side of the property. We're placing close to uh 50 uh plants to help soften it a little bit more. Um I think that there's a lot of work that has been done to try and soften it as best as we can with the guidelines that we've had to work within.

So would it be possible to flip the design? I could say it's it's definitely possible. not something that we're, you know, that we're willing to do. It doesn't seem like you're willing to do much, but yes. Um, we're willing to comply with the zoning requirements for this property.

That's good to hear. So, maybe you'll comply with the 6T and then my house won't burn down. So, as far as the 1T or 6ft setback, what's the problem with just complying with it? I know the propertyy's on an angle, so it's not ideal for a massive structure like you're putting in, but to comply with it would mean what? You just have to build a smaller structure. Is that the problem? I'm sorry. Could you just repeat what is it that you're I don't understand what the argument is with just complying with what Mr. and Ali keep saying. Why can't you just comply and make the structure either run along the property line at zero or six? What makes that so difficult to do? I think we're we

Is it a size issue that you want to make it bigger and to comply would make it smaller? No, it's not. Then what's the issue there? There really isn't an issue. Um if then why are you contesting it? Why don't you just do it? Let let him let him answer your question.

We we are prepared to do whatever we need to do. Um, we're trying to determine whether or not if we're building a 12-in wall or or or 20 a 20 foot eyewall. Um, there's ambiguity here in the language and I think that it's been acknowledged here and it's now up to the zoning board to help us understand exactly which direction we're going from this point. It's not in my hands. All right. Well, thank you. I I'll go on the record as a property owner that this is a complete loss. I'd like to know they built something that if it catches on fire, my house won't burn. This is the when you have time for comment, that's exactly the thing you should come up again and say.

Hello, Donna. Donna Pick at 255 Park Street. Um, so I have a question for the architect here. Um, you mentioned your design was based on the community and you took that into consideration. I know the last meeting spoke about your building. I we have artistic differences. Um I don't know if you once again I'm referring to our master plan here on page two. Did you even read the Monontlair master plan when you took your design into consideration? My team and I are very aware of that master plan.

So you you know on number two it says uh on page two I mean not number two it talks about um the development making sure that I know you're miserable on page two and page 10 talks about um the preserve the rich architectural heritage of the township. I think we're at fault here at not you know adhering to our master plan in any of our decisions. You're going to ask him a question about that, right? Yes. And that's the question you

I would gladly answer that question. Um everything that we do in this town um we considered a rich architectural history of the structures that we build. You asked me to if if I've considered it and I'm just how old is Monontlair like over 100 years old and we look at our tutors. We look at the coltswalts. We look at Dutch colonials. This looks like a building in Brooklyn. This is not Brooklyn. This is Wong Plaza. And I think he needs to redesign it. Well, that's so for the when you get to the comment portion, we're putting a Titanic I have a resial area, but this is this is not the time for that.

So, okay. So, then tell me again how you took in totality, the community of Montlair and the h rich history in building this god ugly building. And I'm sorry to insult you, but it's it's ugly. So tell me how you took the rich history and the totality of Montlair architecture into designing this box. Tell me how you what was your thought process? I'm not sure how we can answer that question. You designed it. What's your thought process? What did you use? What was your basis? If you use this plan, it doesn't appear your design followed this plan.

Well, let let him answer if you can answer. Quite honestly, I can't answer the question. It's it's directed at me because anger and everything else and I I don't know how to respond to emotion. I don't mean some of the res Mr. Schwitzer, I understand. But some of the residents are frustrated as you can tell, right? I I

I would imagine she's not necessarily angry with you, but angry with the project perhaps. But we'll find out during comment, you know, some more details. But if you can answer that question, I'll I'll attempt to answer as as best as I can. Again, I think I mentioned it in my first testimony, particularly about the way that the building was laid out and the porches along the front and the use of material with brick. Um, keeping it natural. Um, I objected to um looking at um something that was tutorque and placing it on that site. Um, we felt as though um the materiality is warm. We've kept um the busyiness off the the front of the building. We tried to integrate some um uh decorative brick work, corbling, um other materials to make the building um stand out a little bit more, to make it a little bit more warm and approachable. uh we've gone through um a uh a process of uh designing uh landscaping around it to help um blend it in as well. Um there's just been a whole myriad of things that I think I've testified previously about and um I I hope that that was helpful in answering the question. If you're suggesting that I read a book and understand um what's built across the street and how my project relates to that specifically um yes there is a time and place for that but this particular project I think is very appropriate for this day and age and

you think it's appropriate a house next door to me let Herman Hfeld do everyone knows Herman Huffeld who wrote as time goes by that's my neighbor's house I mean there's rich history here. I agree. Right. I live in town. So what what you just testified? Well, hang on. You can you can ask him questions. I I you'll you haveent I'm done. I'm done. We I think it's all clear that this building does not belong. Well, I understand what you're saying, but now's not the time for now. Okay. I I You've heard me say this many times before. There's a comment period at the end. Sorry. I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask him what his thought process was. And that was clear his answer that it was not the right thought process.

That's that's your opinion. He answered the question. This is questions about his testimony. Elrochi 262 Park Street. Again, thank you. Um Mr. Schwitzer, thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate your efforts. Um with regard to our property, um some questions. Will the um plantings along the border between 260 and 262 be the entire length of the property? Pretty much yes. Have you seen the actual landscape plan? I have not. I've seen older pictures.

Um if you wouldn't mind. Um and this is part of the uh plan that was uh distributed to uh the commissioners. It is sheet L 101 that I'm showing him. And it's pretty much a site plan and it shows plantings going along the entire property line here. You can have You're welcome. Thank you. Um and what will the height of those plantings be?

Well, they all vary. Um the uh for example, if you just so you could follow this and look at this again later, too. So I think it'll be helpful if you open this up and then I can show you how to decode some of this information. No problem. So these trees here. Okay. So here we are looking at the tailor junipers. Okay. So here once you've identified the plants and they're all coded by double letters and once you've identified what they are here it tells you their um Latin name and then their common American English name. Tells you whether or not if it's a shrub or a tree. It tells you the size of the root balls. It tells you calipers. It tells you spread. But most importantly it tells you heights

here. So pretty tall. So the junipers that you see here, yeah, these are 15 to 25 ft tall. Okay. So show me the juniper. Okay. So the symbol for the juniper is the JV. Where's the JBs JBs JBs JBs JBs and that's that area is bubbled there. I see. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. Um thank you. Um, my second question.

Uh, my second question relates to the to the balcony. Yes. Um, and and you'll detect a theme in my questions. I'm really concerned about privacy between the two properties. Understood. So, the trees are helpful. Um, the balcony on the second floor. Um, where along the line would the balcony be? So, is it parallel to my house so that someone is looking directly into my second floor? Okay. So, um if you look at sheet A101, and I'm saying this for the benefit of the commissioners,

uh A102, the central elevation is the north elevation. That's the elevation that's facing your home, right? These are all of the windows on that side of the building. And then, um these are the two balconies here. This is the balcony that we removed from the opposite side and put it there. These three balconies were always previously there. Okay. And where does And is this my house here? Uh, no. Your house is not shown in these drawings. These are two-dimensional elevations showing the sides of the building as designed. Do you have a plan that shows the lineup where I could see the balconies relative to my house? Um, on this plan, this is your house here. Correct.

Okay. All of this area here is the landscaped area. Now, just so you can understand and the best way to look at this is that's the north elevation, right? This is just a little trick that I do just to help people understand is I fold the drawing just so that elevation is shown and then I place it against the plan over here. That's right. And then this will show you that those balconies are back here and your house is literally here. So this is what So this this block here is equivalent to this. That is correct.

So this is parallel to my house. My house ends here. Yes. And the balconies are in your deep into your rear yard. And they'll be And are there And so presumably I could ask the trees be higher closer to the balcony. That is correct. And what you have now is a sixoot fence that's there and then we're placing these plants that are going to grow. Okay. So on my substantially I've got the six foot fence and then on your side right the fence will be the greenery. That is correct. Greenery will go to the fence. That is correct. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Um uh next question. And I discussed this briefly with with Gino. Could I ask you how many more questions do you have? I have two more. Actually, three more questions.

All right. Let's we're going to take a 10-minute break. if you can stick around because I I think several folks need to use the restroom. Sure. So, let's let's take a 10-minute break, then we'll come back with the rest of your questions and continue on. Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Tally, are we back on your record? Um, yes, we are. Okay. Uh, we got the mayor, we got Mr. Orba. Okay, we are back. We need Mr. Trebulac. Trembul There's Mr. Trembulac. Okay. So, we are back. Uh, sir, you had some more questions for Mr. Schwitzer. Thanks. Thanks for your indulgence and letting us take a break.

Thank you. No, thanks very much. And Mr. Schwitzer, thanks very much. Um, so just to close out the issue around the plantings that go the length of the driveway. Um, just to confirm that they will then come past the entrance to the proposed restaurant right up to the sidewalk to avoid individuals and traffic coming onto our driveway. What we have shown now does not show that. Um but I believe that you've had a subsequent conversation with the property owner and he's acknowledged that he would be willing to do that.

Thank you. Thank you. Um and then related to the um to the bagel shop uh restaurant area. Um one of the concerns we had was uh pickup from Door Dash, GrubHub, etc. And the traffic that would generate. Um, again, pursuant to a subsequent conversation with the developer owner, I understand that there will be a designated pickup spot on the south side of the property along the driveway um for the purposes of people picking up food from the restaurant. Is that your understanding as well?

Um, I believe that that's a conversation that you had with uh the property owner. I I believe that Okay. So, u could you repeat that please? It's okay. Yes. Uh the design itself has a uh loading zone designated in the parking area for um short-term parking. Uh okay. And the intention is that that would be the pickup spot for the restaurant. That that is correct. Okay. Is that a loading zone or is that the accessible portion of the handicap parking? It is the accessessible. Yes.

Is that allowed to be used as a loading zone? Does that not have to? And maybe this is a question for Mr. Anderson who does the parking. Yeah. I mean, my my feeling is is that um the driveway is wide enough. It's 24 ft. It it allows direction in both directions. And if a person is parking on the property uh just in the driveway there for a couple moments run in and grab then that should be adequate. But but parking is not your area of expertise, right? It is not. Okay. It is not. And that conversation might be between

so it might be a conversation to just verify with the owner and the uh engineer and then you know I you frankly I think they're coming back for another night of testimony because we're not going to get through their planner. I I'll spill the beans at this point. Uh we're not going to get through it all tonight because we've got planner testimony and we've got public comment. U there's a lot more that has to go into this application. So they're going to come back. We'll we'll figure out a date soon enough, but maybe in the inter interim um you can work that out with them and then they can come back and present that to us if that is so what they want to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can just Yes, Mr. Hernandez.

Yes, if I could just clarify for the record, vehicles cannot park within the accessible aisle for the ADA space. Just for the record for loading or Thank you. That's what I thought. Yeah, but maybe they can create a other solution to that issue. Yeah. So maybe that's something we can talk about and um we can raise with Mr. Anderson as well. Is your microphone's not on, Miss Tally? Just take one of the parking spaces and label it for the commercial use and say short-term parking so that that gets the turnover, but it happens inside your property on your in your parking lot. And uh I think that that would work. That's an interesting

It's an interesting idea. I think it would be will not do that. You know that. Um, may I ask if Mr. Hernandez agrees that would be possible? A designated parking spot for pickup.

A parking space that is not an accessible space can be designated as you know pickup short-term um delivery whatever you want to call it, but it cannot be within the ADA accessible area. Got it. Okay. Thank you. So maybe maybe that's a solution. Um, and then Mr. Schwitzer, another question for you. The door of the restaurant space opens on the as you're facing the building from the front, the right side. Is it possible to move that door to the left side so that the door is not cuz right now what it does is if you're on the sidewalk, you're invited to essentially walk across my driveway to reach the door. Whereas, if you move that door to the left side of the restaurant, I think it'll force people to go down the central um walkway that is away from my driveway and so it would reduce traffic crossing my driveway and trespassing.

I think I think that that's feasible um with the permission of the property owner, which he seems to agree. So, thank you. Yes. Thank you. Um And then just a clarification question, Mr. Schwitzer, if you could. The door on the right side of the building directly opposite my house, that is a uh a passageway eras for residents of the building only. Only. Yes. Right. And that door will be shielded again by the plantings. So there'll be plantings between that door and my property. So again, people aren't invited to sort of walk down my driveway.

Agreed. That is what's designed. Great. Thank you. Um, okay. I think that's my questions, Mr. Chair. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Other Can I just add one thing to that? If you have questions for Mr. Schwitzer about his testimony. Yes. This is that time. Yes. Just a quick and if you can just identify yourself.

I live at 262 Park Street like he does. I'm the co-owner of that house. I'm Jam Emer and I. Um, and my question would just be uh is the the flip around of that of the plan where you would put the driveway on the other side is that um that Jay had talked about before so that the whole thing would sort of switch and the entrance for people to the building would be on the other side. um the the um the business would be on the other side. Is that viable? Is that very different? Very difficult. Well, it it certainly

would that in effect it seems like that might be a way to I know you said like you were worried about having to put a Not only that you'll the constant in and out of cars as opposed to pedestrians walking through uh headlights and all of that coming in and out. Um those are also things that you'd have to consider. Yeah, I I feel like that might be less of an issue. So, I'm wondering, I mean, is it if that were better, is it an option?

Um, I can certainly chat with our customer and see what he thinks about that. Um, honestly, uh, it looks like it's could be feasible to do. It's just now redesigning the entire building to do that. No, no, no, no. I I I'm just being let transparent. It is what it is. That's a whole It's a whole new plan, you know. I think he's probably not wrong. Well, again, qu questions for Mr. Schwitz, right? Okay. That was my question.

And you'll have time again. I just just make it clear. You will have time after all the witnesses to say whatever you want to them. Understood. Yeah. Understood. Well, yeah. Okay. not anything but you know relevant to the hearing. Thank you Mr. N.

One more question. Claire Siliana regarding Door Dash and Uber. Will it be the owner's responsibility to hold them accountable to go under the building to drop off or pick up stuff? Because if no one is going to hold them accountable, there is no way on God's earth that they are going to pull in, park their car, walk back out. They'd have to negotiate getting out of that parking lot and leave. They make their money by time. So, is that the question to Mr. Schwitzer?

I'm asking how who's responsible for making Uber come into your driveway to pick up stuff? And if it's not you, I'm not going to do it. So the notion that the answer let let him answer let him answer the question. Can I answer that? Because it's more, you know, I don't know how we could possibly enforce that. I agree. I, you know, just it's reality. I mean, you know, people park, you know, wherever they think. And Mr. Chair, we finally agree on something. Yes. Well, I mean, you know, I mean, look, it's a good solution, but what do we how do we how do we enforce it?

So, when when you talk about it as a viable solution, I have to say it's not. Door Dash and Uber Eats, they park wherever, whenever, and they've got five minutes because that's how they make their money. So, please take that into account because we are all suffering from that right now at Watchan Plaza. the um whatchamacallit the deli gets 165. Now we're starting to get a little too far into comments. Okay. But I'm just saying to you I I we heard I'll go there. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Schwitzer?

Yes, sir. How can we close? J Turner J. Oh, did the uh Maybe hit the button. See if the light comes on. The lights on. Oh, yeah. That's how it works. Jay Turner, 274 Park Street. Mr. Schwitzer, I think I just heard you say something. Just wanted a clarification. There's an egress door for the residents on the northern side of the building. Ingress and egress. Yes. Why is that? Is that required by law? It's the only way they can get in.

I'm trying to understand how else are they supposed to get into the So, I'm I'm visualizing it. If I'm standing at the street, this is a north, this is a south. You have a driveway going in on the south side and then they're underneath the building. Why would they need to access it from the north side? Am I visualizing it wrong? Do you have a picture of it so I could see it? Here's the door. Okay. So, that's the front. The front. This is the door. This is the north side. So, you're they're parking under here and then they walk out. Come in. Why would they walk out on this side if the driveway is on the south side? They would they would literally be walking down my neighbor's driveway to get into the building.

No. Yeah. His driveway is right there, is it not? It is. However, we have an 8ft um sideyard there that that's all constructed onto. So, they're actually walking on this property, not your the adjacent neighbor's property. Theoretically, you're stating that theoretically, correct? Actually, actually, if they're coming out of a door, they're walking down the northern property line. Bear with me for one second. And I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I would I'd like you to show you the drawing and perhaps it would provide you some clarity. Sure.

Okay. So, the building steps back at this point. There's an 8ft yard, sideyard on this side of the building. The neighbor's property and driveway is here, not down here. So when people walk in and out of the building, they walk down a sidewalk that is close to the building that is separating their property from this property with this tree plant line here. And then they enter the building here into an elevator lobby where there's an elevator and then stairs that take them to the upper floor. So there's never any interaction whatsoever with the adjacent property. That would be unlawful for us to place an entrance into a side of a building to where one has to traverse another person's property to enter the building.

So I'm still struggling here. I understand what you're saying. You're saying the building is set back 8 ft and you have some plannings there,

but nonetheless, the residents are going to be walking parallel to a man's driveway. in Janet's driveway all the way down to literally the back of their house to enter the building. I'm I'm visualizing the westerly next door and the residents just walk down the driveway and then that's how they access the building. I'm I'm not understanding why that has to be such a it seems like violation of privacy for people to enter the building. Why did you choose to do it like that? We thought that that was the best solution in creating a transition between the residential and the commercial area. I understand that you've spoken with the the uh the these folks and there's an understanding that perhaps the building would be better situated if it were mirrored, but there are a lot of other potential issues. For example, traffic coming in and out of the driveway adjacent to their driveway, constant headlights going in and out. It's going to be a lot busier than several people walking from the sidewalk along this sidewalk that's on this property into this door. You're gonna have a lot more vehicular traffic. That's

Have you ever looked at the vehicular traffic coming in and out of the Westerly every day? I am more concerned about this particular property. Well, it's the it's the property next door. So, wouldn't you think that that would be a good indication of the traffic that would be coming out of your property? Not necessarily. So, but I understand what you're trying to say. So, you even though they're almost identical properties next door to each other, you don't think the traffic coming out of one would be an indication of the traffic coming out of the other? I believe the Westerly is a bigger building than this building. So, if you're then you would suggest that it would have more traffic coming in and out at the Westerly. Yes.

Okay. All right. So, that there's very little traffic that comes in out of that building, but I'll save that for later. So, I guess I'll just leave it at that. I just I really don't understand why you have the entrance literally coming off of somebody's driveway. That doesn't Once again, that doesn't feel soft. But I'll leave it at that. Any other questions for Mr. Schwitzer? Parking here. Majority of people are going to be coming in. Okay. Well, residents are going to be coming in.

Yeah. given the hour um we're past our usual 10 o'clock cuto off for new testimony and given how uh we're aware of that and um you know I think you know we'd like the opportunity to consider some additional plan revisions in light of the testimony tonight. I don't know whether we we will propose any but um I I think it would make sense for us to break at this time and continue I would agree with that. another date because we'd never get finished with right because that would be we would public comment I mean we'd probably go to 130 if we move forward with Mr. stimul be my guess.

Only the zoning board goes to 130 in this town. So, no, we've we've gone we've gone to one. Yeah, I was like, well, and the council council definitely this this body's going to that's the record for the only land use board that goes 1:30 is the record for for this board at least since I've been on this. Um, Miss Tally, what's a a good date that these folks could possibly come back? And I guess you know, Mr. uh trim that. Think about if if you are going to revise the building, if you have time to submit new site plans, all of that. I I think the safe thing would be to um come back at the February 9th meeting, Janice. Okay. I'll put you to February 9th. All right. So, this Let me just make sure that that's the date.

Yes. Yes, it is. Yes. February 9th. stay till whatever time you run to and we never get to do the public comment all through the meeting. You tell us you have to wait. Yes. Time for public comment. Yes. You're closing this meeting right now.

Correct. They have more witnesses that need to testify. And if we have they it's their case. They decide how many witnesses show up and how many they put on. They have another witness. If we take that witness's testimony, we have to hear his testimony. the board will question him. The public will have a right to question him and at that point we would then have public comment. But once we finished with their case and move into public comment, we essentially have to then make a decision. It's the best practice uh in in land use, right? So that would mean that you've heard us talk for probably an hour on whether this needs a sideyard setback variance. we would have to come to a decision on that in and amongst all of the other questions about this application. So that's why when I say if we move forward with Mr. Stimmel who's their their next expert, we're probably here until 1:30 because we'd have to go through all the public comment. So I I can appreciate showing up repeatedly

because there's no way that I've heard that before. So I really appreciate it because at the age of 80 this late add to my happy I I I understand and and that's part of the reason why things I want to say that and that's part of the reason why I want to you know not move forward with the application further tonight is because I want people to have the the time and the opportunity to provide meaningful public comment and not feel rushed because it's 11:30 12:00 at night and and people are dozing off. Right. I want

I want that as is, you know, for this board and for this township, right? Um, so that's that is the reason. So I I understand your frustration. Yes, sometimes these go on and on and we have many nights of testimony and and hearings, but uh it it really is so that you all as the public and we as the board can get all the information that we need and so the applicant can present their case as well, however they determine is best for them. Oh, I I appreciate it. I just had no idea. Thank you. I just want to Mr. Trembleac, you have no issue extending the board's time. Of course not. We consent.

And so we'll continue to February 9th with no further notice required. We will see you then. Thank you. We look forward to it. Um and then similarly we have application 2950516 Bloomfield Avenue Nightall LLC which I believe is yours Mr. Tulac. That's my client as well and I've already spoke to them. They were here. They've already gone home. Okay. Recognizing that not going to be heard tonight. We hope that could be put on for the U January 26 meeting. That'll work. We will continue that to or start that at January 26th. Okay.

Okay. Great. That'll be on January 26th. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. We still have a couple more things for uh for the board to get through. Um next up we have the fourth round housing element and fair share plan status update.

Uh yes. So, um I wanted to let the board know where we are with our fourth round plan. Uh it was, as you know, submitted to to what's called the housing dispute resolution court, which is a new creature created for this fourth round um housing plan. And the process is you submit it to the court. Um they bring in the fair share housing center to assist them with compliance review. The Fair Share Housing Center submitted a letter asking for a lot of additional documentation. Quite frankly, that's because we have not been involved in a dispute. We have no we've had no lawsuits.

So, we did not have to. If members of the public could um take the conversation outside just because it's a little hard to hear, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

So, we have not been involved in ongoing discussions with the Fair Share Housing Center with our third round housing plan. So this was while they saw some of our documentation in 2018 when we got our spending plan approved, we had to bring them up to speed. So um we submitted all the documentation that was requested by the fair share housing center. Uh we had a series of mediation meetings. Um the fair share housing center is satisfied um with what we produced. Um they've asked for additional time to review everything. I mean there may be some minor modifications on the classifications of units. Um but we came to an agreement. So there was a media a settlement agreement on the mediation signed between the township on by the council and the fair share housing center and the judge approved that and that's what I gave you a copy of. I really wanted to the board to be cognizant of the time frames uh that are in that settlement that mediation settlement. Um number one is we have to have our ordinances in place by March 15th. Now the new um the newest iteration of the uniform housing affordability controls which um dictate how units are created and managed affordable units. They were adopted in December December 15th. So, we've seen versions over the years, but I mean over the year, but uh and I started going through them, but there was even some significant changes in the version that was actually adopted in December. So, working with our affordable housing attorney, we will be working over the next six weeks to come up with amendments to our affordable housing ordinance. It really doesn't affect our inclusionary zoning ordinance. it really affects our

affordable housing ordinance um and how we uh manage our affordable units. So um I wanted to keep you apprised of that. One of the key issues is it eliminates the local preference that we currently have in our on our waiting list. Mhm.

Uh the new regulations absolutely uh eliminate the ability of municipalities to have a local preference. In previous iterations, previous rounds of affordable housing, municipalities can make a case that having a local preference would help create um non-discriminatory housing for their residents based on the composition of their residents. That's no longer even an option. So, that's one of the biggest changes. We're going to have to get rid of that uh in how we manage our affordable housing units. And there's a lot of other things. So, um just want to to let you know that um our intent is to have the draft ordinances prepared by by midFebruary because they have to be adopted by March. Uh we're working with our affordable housing attorneys on that. So, um

can I have a I have a question? Yeah. So, we did want to mention I'm glad they brought up the issue of the of the local preference. So, that that came to light during our conversations with with the attorney with our affordable housing attorney and um it's a bitter pill to swallow and the mayor and I have been pushing back hard to try to think of, you know, ways that we can uh make that transition while keeping some of the the good parts. But will we change will we be removing the preference from our ordinance as a part of that or will it just be dead letter law?

I'm pretty sure we have to remove it from our ordinance. Okay. So when do we have an opportunity to legally challenge that? You can do that anytime you want. Yeah. I think you have to you have to go to the state because it's state law. We can have a a convers I mean I pushed I pushed and pushed to keep the local preference. I spoke to the special master who was involved in our third round and she was the one that said Janice as long as you fully met your obligation you can keep your local preference and that's why we crafted the housing plan to fully meet our I was right there with you. Yep. So

that's what I'm saying. So I don't I don't know unless I maybe this is not the time but I don't know then that that it be behooves us to take it out of there. I think we should leave it in and fight. Okay. We may be subject to challenge like hobo. We've been there before. I agree on that. I support you. Um if we're over our minimum obligation it seems as though and that we can do it then we should do it. Well, that's that that was that was our attorney. I I went I pushed him very hard in person and by email and he was very good humored about it. Uh but he said it is

you you leave yourself open to challenge. I think he probably he said it's done. But I don't think the fair share housing center has a problem with it. No. Right. It's not coming from them. I think he's probably doing his our attorney is doing his due diligence said You're open to challenge. You can do it. He's trying to keep us out of trouble. Right. Right. So, good trouble. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that we'll be working on that. Um, and uh, yeah. Um, do those regulations or ordinances come before the planning board or is that handled solely by the uh, town council? They're not in the zoning ordinance. in the zoning.

They're in the affordable We have an affordable housing ordinance. Doesn't that have still have to come before this board? Even though it's not I don't think we're getting you on the microphone, Mr. Nice. Sorry. Okay. I Why don't we say let me talk to the affordable housing at I would like to bring it to you. Sure. So, um I don't know what the time frame as you can imagine. I that's why I raised

I was going through the I was going through all the regulations today tearing my hair out trying to you know do the cert whatever so yes so that's going to be if I'm not responding to things quick that's because our focus right now is is to meet all of these very tight deadlines which we've had from day one when it comes to affordable housing you know with preparing the plan adopting the plan and now putting the ordinances in place so um we will be working on that. I will share it with you. We have maybe I'll, you know, the meetings in February. I'll I'll be able to get a draft ordinance to you, but also with the council. So,

well, thank you so much. I know it was a ton of work, the whole process. The fourth round process was just a lot of work. Thank you. Um, well, were were you part of the December 31st conference with the judge? I was. Yes. Um what maybe the board would like to know what what did the judge determine if anything about the Avery challenge

the well at that we listened to a uh Miss Avery made her position known. She got her got to prot present her argument and then the judge said we had an hour. The judge said okay thank you. Um we will take this under advisement. we have um the uh the the special master will make their recom who's a a planner will make their recommendation to the judge and the judge will make their decision by uh the end of this month. So it was really essentially a listening session. Okay.

Okay. So, what I have for you so that you're not surprised, I did bring our attorneys um compared a memo summarizing broadly the changes to the ordinance. So, I have to say they worked really hard. Look at the date of this memo that they prepared. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. So, this is for us to review. Just giving you an idea of the scope. Okay. Okay. Um, and that's it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Do we have any committee reports?

It it occurred to me today that we need to appoint people to the committees. Just so clearly um because Jacob's no longer part of the planning board, I need somebody to volunteer for the um the development review committee which meets once a month. It's a great opportunity. Mr. Councelor Namato is a member of the development review committee. It's basically a technical review of all site plan applications. So, anybody who's interested, um, let me know. Um, and then there's a couple of other committees. The zoning subcommittee will be very busy this year because I think we'll be working on some changes to the zoning subcommittee. So, there's a an opening there as well. And finally, there's also an opening with the revisions committee. So, maybe at the next meeting,

maybe the next Yeah, if you can circulate the list of Yeah. openings. done it so we can see where the opening I might be interested in those outings. Yeah. Okay. I will circulate that. Okay, great. We can tackle that next time. Uh do we have bills? No. No bills. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Have a great night, everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much.