Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Janice, are we recording on your end? Uh, yes.

Okay. All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the February 9th, 2026 regular meeting of the Township of Montlair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to the newspaper designated by the township for notices. 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 and reaching a decision. And the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. The fire exits are to my right, which is your left, and also the back of the room where you entered. And next up is roll call.

Mayor Baskerville present. Mr. Borchoff is excused. Mr. Campbell is excused. Councelor Damato here. Uh Vice Chair Graham here. Mr. Ian Wallally here. Mr. Files is excused. Miss Willis here. Uh Mr. Orba is not here. Uh and chair uh Broaddock. I'm here. Okay. All right. Next, we have the swearing in of our board professionals. You're it. That's just me. Do you do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you may give this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yeah, I do.

Thank you. All right. Before we get into the rest of the agenda here, one announcement that if anybody's here for application 2940, which is 260 Park Street, that application is being carried to February 23rd. Is that correct, Miss Tally? That's correct. February 23rd with no further notice required. So, the next time that applicant will be before us is the 23rd of this month. Okay. Next up, we have minutes. And I received uh some changes to the minutes um from several board members. Are there any other changes? Motion to approve. So moved. Second.

All in favor? Opposed? Abstensions. Okay. Next up, we have a resolution or discussion related to application 2931, which is 400 Orange Road. Good evening everyone. Sarah Sarah on behalf of the applicant Sky Corporation. How's everybody? Well, as long as you're doing well. Light is on and we can hear you on now. It's on. Good.

Gregory Misara Bannon Roy McDonald on behalf of the applicant Montlair Sky Corporation. Um, Mr. Chairman, the um the applicant was uh appro the applicant applied for a subdivision. The subdivision was approved um and then memorialized by resolution in October. Um the applicant has since the time that uh the resolution was passed and subsequently published. The applicant has submitted a draft of the plot plan um to Mr. Hernandez. Um Mr. We asked Mr. Hernandez to review that plot plan prior to the applicant preparing the formal the formal myar. The myar is uh what actually gets filed with the county. It's signed by the township engineer. It's signed by the planning board chairman. Um and it also then has to go to the Essis County planning board for the planning board approval. Um

just note note for the record, Mr. Orba is here. The um Mr. from Sarah.

The um the applicant did not submit yet formally until Friday informally submitted to Mr. Hernandez the u the plot plan. There was work to be done with the plot plan. If you recall, there was a corner that had to be identified and and and rounded etc. Um I had requested by letter to the board and um through uh correspondence with Mr. an extension of a period of time in which the um the plat had to be um prepared and submitted to the town. I did that with an abundance of caution because the statute is ambiguous in my opinion and I believe in Mr. Nie's memo very thorough memo on all the issues but the conclusion was there is nothing that is required what is definitely required is the applicant has to file the pl the plot plan with the county within 95 days of when the planning board signs the the the uh plot plan the bylar um there is not a formal 95day requirement for having to present it to the board in There is no requirement. However, as I said, in abundance of caution within that 95 days, I asked the board for an extension, an extension of what really again abundance of caution and to keep the board informed as to where we are. So, I'm here tonight to notify the board that Mr. Hernandez has received a copy, has not review, in fairness to Mr. Hernandez. He got it Friday afternoon. So, I'm not expecting that it would have been reviewed already, but that we do expect to have Mr. Mr. Hernandez's comments and then any revisions if necessary. And if no revisions, then we'll have the myar produced um in

accordance with the town's ordinance. Um also has some specifications as far as what uh the thickness of the myar and things like that. So we'll make sure obviously it's all in accordance and then we'll present it to the township for signature then go to the county planning board for approval that we know the 95 days ticks and then presumably get the approval and the signature and then record the myar. So that's the reason for being here this evening. It's not to formally request an extension um because in my opinion a formal extension is not necessary but just in case here we are. Um and again I I believe that's in accordance with Mr. Niss's very thorough u memo that says you know this the statute is silent on that issue. So I'm I guess I'm asking for the the planning board's blessing at this point. So you'd like a formal mean you're not here formally but you want something formal.

I don't Well, I actually had suggested that I not appear and we just go with it and Mr. Nie suggested that I appear in front of the board. I don't disagree. Right. So, you know, I said fine, you know, and and here I am thankfully this evening because originally we were going to kick it for two weeks. Um but that's why I'm here. So if the chair believes that a a a formal extension is necessary certainly we would uh request a formal extension otherwise um you know we can leave it at that. So I don't know that there's a procedure to request a formal extension.

I don't know either mayor. Um yes please um chair um would you or you or anyone please explain to me so is there no um time period required we can just drag this out and out and out because in here you're asking us for additional six months well mayor I don't need the six months by any I I understand that so I'm trying to understand is there no time requirement at all to get these done they can just go on and on and on and on.

Well, Mayor, um, some boards of that I represent and some boards that I've appeared in front of would put a condition in the subdivision resolution about how quickly that it must that it or or a time limit for when it could be. I've never seen this board do that. Many boards don't. So, could it go on and on? Well, my next uh client, we're going to have that discussion about whether it does lapse just because action and inaction. So, can it go on and on indefinitely? No. But, you know, is there um a time period, a specific time period? No.

And I ask because it's a blight to the neighborhood and you know, it's been sitting there for years and years. And so, as would be expected, you know, many people are are very excited about this and would like to see it move forward.

Yes, ma'am. The the the applicant has every intention, as I said this evening, the plot plan has been prepared. So, it's no longer Oh, we're getting to it. We're getting to it. It's been prepared. It's in Mr. Hernandez's on his desk. And, you know, so we're waiting for Mr. Hernandez. Um, if the board would like to uh put a time limit on Well, we do have the 95 days from when um after the the after the the uh township signs it. So, that would that's a hard deadline. Um that's a statutory deadline. So, um you know, but but after the tortured history of this um my client is not going my client's not going away. I assure you. Yeah. Right.

No. Well, thank you so much for explaining it. Okay. Did you have more, Mr. that you want to add? Uh no. Uh I was I was going to just add to the explanation to the mayor's question, which is as Mr. Misera says, uh the statute says that after the board signs the uh plot plan, they have 95 days, right?

But before then, I didn't see anything in the statute that governs when they had to file it. And Mr. Miser is right. I generally don't include time periods to present the plot plan to the board because people are pretty motivated to get their projects going. So I I haven't done that and uh perhaps in the future I'll give it a second thought. Thank you. So nothing um with respect to the um the approval of the subdivision that we made. There's no time limit then. It's a weird loophole. I mean there's a

I don't disagree. It is kind of strange it's not in the statute forever because you know if you did want to take as much time as possible I think the MLUL does speak to extensions of approvals but that's different than what we're talking about here. This the the two-year period what you have a two-year period after the plat is submitted and signed I guess right? No, it's 95 days from the date of signing that they have to to move forward. They have to move forward under 54. What's the two-year period then? You know, the applications that come before us, they they've gone longer than a certain period of time. What is that? What is the start of that period? We had a couple of applications

from the from the usually from the date of the memorialization of the resolution of the resolution. But in this case, that doesn't apply because this isn't for a site plan approval. It's for just a sub. Mr. Mr. Anoli, I believe you're referring to the two-year protection against a change in the ordinance. So that you would still be right. I think that's what because we've had that extension of the approval. Okay. But that's different than what we're doing. Well, just how come it was delayed? And is there something wrong with getting the plot done? Because it's just a survey. Wouldn't you just

Well, it's it's a little more than just a survey because there had to be some changes for the the post approval conditions. Um, but Mr. I know that there's no, you know, it just took longer than than what was expected, you know, with the surveyor and the dialogue between the surveyor and the engineer because the boundary just defining the boundaries of the property. Is that is that the only Well, there there's the meets and bounds descriptions and then there's the the corner. If you recall, there was a ship the corner. Um, it's not too hard. No. All right. Yeah. I mean, I think I share a little your what I assume is frustration of like that it took so long. Like it it really shouldn't take this long. I don't think we should be here.

But at the same time, in my opinion, it it's in at least it's in as a draft. You know, hopefully Mr. Hernandez can get through it quickly. You can produce it quickly and you don't need too much more time. No, it it's um in fact the surveyor called me today um to ask if Mr. Hernandez had done the review because he's choing at the bit to finish it. So, which is what I would have expected over the last nine months or sorry, three months. That's what I would have expected. So, that's that's why it does seem a little odd, but that you know, whatever it is, it is at this point, you know, it's in it's moving forward. Let's keep it moving forward. You know, how much time do you think you need? And I know it's subject to whatever Mr. Hernandez needs. But

the surveyor left for vacation today. He'll be back next Monday. No, he'll be That's why he was trying to get it in, right? So, he'll be back next Monday. And I I believe a week after, you know, he gets the comment a week after from Monday. Um, but it's I believe, you know, my expectation is Mr. Hernandez is going to find it satisfactory, you know. So, that's I would hope so. It seems fairly straightforward, right? As long as it closes correctly, right? And it's not his first plot plan that that uh our surveyor drew. No, it's not. So So would you expect that by the time the board's next meeting this will be organized in two weeks? Two weeks. Um it depends on Mr. Hernandez's response time. Well, he's pretty good about that.

Yeah. I mean, but I don't want to, you know, I would hope in two weeks. Yes. I mean, I would hope I would expect in two weeks. M I tal when I spoke to uh Mr. Fleshman today. Um he said he's going away and I said, "Can you get it done within the first couple days when you get back?" And he said he, you know, he said he fully expects that. Yes. Well, there's a surve. Is your microphone on, Mr. Andy? No. There is a surveyor convention this week in Atlantic City. So, I think he might be going there. No, he went to Florida. Going to Florida. I mean, what what if we gave you to the end of the month to get the draft or to get the final plot plan into the township? Sure.

And then, you know, I'll sign it whenever is convenient. And um that's absolutely fine. I'm generally around the rest of the month. So, okay. I don't see an issue with that. And assuming Mr. Hernandez as well, that gives you right basically three full weeks to get it done. Absolutely. That's, you know, provided provided we have a week from Mr. Fernandez's review. Right. Right. Do we need a resolution for this? No, it doesn't seem like it. Okay. I just want to make sure. But is everyone generally in agreement with that approach? Yeah. Yes. See head nods. So yes, that's your informal formal. Absolutely. Okay. Something about feet and fire. Right. Right. Yeah. Get it done so we don't have to do this again. Absolutely. That's absolutely

excellent. Okay. All right. That's that one. And uh you'll chair I think you might want to announce one more time that um 260 Park Street will not be heard. Yes. So if we have anybody that's here for 260 Park Street that is not going to be heard tonight. It will be heard on February 23rd. So two weeks from tonight if anybody's here for 260 Park. Yeah I saw some folks walk in but then I think they were informed and left.

Okay. Good. So make sure. Next up, we have application 2392 16167 Glen Ridge Avenue. Mr. Chairman, Gregory Misera again on behalf of the applicant 161 167 Glenn Ridge Avenue. Uh Mr. Chairman, this is uh you want to swear the witness in first, Mr. Cro, please. Uh were you here? You testified before, have you not, Mr. Quo? Yes, sir. Okay. You may have to push the button. Yeah. There you go. Yes, sir.

And you recognize that you remain under oath in anything you say here tonight? Yes. Yes. Great. Excuse me for uh my work clothes. I we you got kind of I'm thank I'm very thankful that you're here tonight. Sit down. It's okay. Thank you.

Um Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of a request for an extension of the approvals that were um provided to the applicant 161 167 Glenidge Avenue in Monontlair. Um if the board recalls, Mr. Iani um um asked that the applicant submit the full prior pra uh prior package that was approved that application that u um uh was done. It was um um accomplished by a meeting with the applicant and Mrs. Tally. Um and then there was a uh a full package that I think the board members received in anticipation of the January 26th meeting. Um, so we're here tonight um to pick up where we left off with regard to our request. I think the the essential or the the the uh most critical question was what's the building going to look like? Um you you I assume have a table in of contents in front of you that was prepared with just a summary of what we've gone over before that um the site plan was submitted in 2016. There was a summary and recommendations in November of 16. Um the planning board committee uh met and there were some revisions requested in the facade in January of 17. Um and they later approved that in February of 17. Soil conservation approval was issued on in June of 2017. Um there was engineering site work approval and an escrow payment June 24th of 17. There were revised plans April 4th of 18 um and then soil conservation extension April 15 of 2021. A revised foundation plan was approved April 21st of 2021, soil conservation again June

20, 2024. So the um to refresh the board's memory, the request was to allow the applicant to proceed. Um the applicant has a um request obviously that it continue. Um we can we'd be happy to um agree on some deadlines if the board were inclined um to to vote that um the application has not been um um dismissed or the application was not withdrawn in any way by certain um admitted um inactivity. The board will recall that um Mr. Quoko suffered severely from um COVID twice. Um and when I say severely, we're talking severely. Um but they acknowledges some delays because of the um uh the economy during certain periods of time. He is ready to proceed. He did he did submit with a prior submission um his his financing um and what the applicant would propose if the board is in inclined and if the board um can endorse what uh the plan that was approved would be that to to resubmit the uh foundation plan by May 15th and to agree that he would have construction and engineering plans by August 15th. The construction and and and engineering plans take um um probably four months to draw because they're the plans that need to be approved in order to to um do anything um more than the foundation. So there'd be structural engineering engineering um but we would submit the new foundation plans by May 15th if the board were so inclined to uh to allow this project to continue. I think the board can see that the um um that the the plans um through the um through the revisions committee and the

architectural review are something that that certainly um fits in with the area that the the the um the massing is not so great and that it it it reproduces um it tries to reproduce a building that previously was on that site. So, just to interrupt you briefly, if anybody's here for 260 Park A, it's going to be carried until February 23rd. 260 Park A will be heard on February 23rd, not tonight. The applicant requested to move it. Thank you. You're welcome. That's what I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mer, I believe at the last meeting um your client um agreed to meet with our current affordable housing set aside requirement at 20%. That is correct. That is that that's you didn't mention that tonight. No, that's stand that was like picking up without question. Make sure. Right. Without question. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Okay. Questions? Um, comments? I the financing is in place and we've received a copy of that or Janice has a copy of that. The the he mentioned the the letter we submitted that letter I believe last time. The letter the the

Okay. It was in the last packet. Yeah, I I believe so. It was intended to be before I appeared. That was back in October, November. Yes. Right. But there is there is a commitment letter. Um it is not a formal commitment because that's subject to formal application and and the plans. But uh I think Mr. Quoko can represent to the board this evening and please represent that financing will uh financing is in place as as as much as it can be at this point in in the uh procedure

even more so I've had I had a meeting after the first of this year because they they had called me up and said you know what happened with the with our application here because it was pending the application they they were excited to try to get it before you know the end of the year you know I guess they had their numbers to I said, "No, I God willing, it'll happen uh in 26." And they said, "Okay, that's that's fine." Um, so they have plenty of funding and they they're well aware of of uh the validity of the project. And I have and I apologize that I don't have that letter on me today, but it was it was submitted and and it is it it was signed and and I have done other financing with uh with this group. up.

Yeah. The letter essentially says Mr. Quoko has a line of credit. Yeah. With this company. Credit line. Okay. Yeah. Um and then um and I apologize because it's been been a couple of months. Um Arthur, would you mind um um I think it goes to the definition of what substantial construction is. Did you want to revisit what we're um is your uh microphone on? Oh, it just went off. Yeah, now it's on. Did you hear me? A lot of apologies are going on here tonight. Mine's going to be one of them. Okay.

Um when I when I heard that the applica I thought the application was going to be adjourned. Um and therefore I took all of my file out of what I brought over here. Did your microphone like microphones are just going off here? Yeah. I apologize. I just turned off my mic. Right past it. Not that I not memorized it, please. Yeah. No, I mean, I did this memo back in November, the end of November. Um, if you give me just a moment, I'd just like to That's probably online, right? That's probably in Do you think that's not on?

Because this is not an application. None of this stuff is online. It was just distributed at a previous meeting. That's all. I can't understand it.

It's all coming back to me now. Um, much of my memo is predicated on Mr. of Miss Sarah's memo, but uh I I always hearken back to uh our ordinance which is in pages one and two of my memo. If you have that memo, uh if not, I'll just read it. That would be easier. Um might be easier for everybody if I just read through it. Yeah.

Yeah. And what it is is section 202-20 expiration of variance. And that's from uh the township's land use procedures ordinance. It's not in the zoning code. quote, "Any variance from the terms of chapter 347 zoning hereafter granted by the board of adjustment permitting the erection or alteration of any structure or structures or permitting a specified use of any premises and I've underlined the the next couple of sentences shall expire by limitation unless such constru Construction or alteration shall have been actually commenced on each and every structure permitted by said variance or unless such permitted use has actually been commenced within one year from the date of publication of the notice of the judgment or determination. And then it continues um uh the planning board whichever gave I'm sorry the board of adjustment or the planning board whichever gave the original approval may grant an extension of time beyond the one-year limitation upon written request of the owner. End quote. It was primarily on the basis of that ordinance that my conclusion uh to the question does Montlair's variance expiration ordinance apply to the facts of this matter as to preclude further

extensions and my answer preliminarily but it it was my answer was yes and it was based on that ordinance precludes it meaning does Monontlair's variance expiration ordinance apply to the facts of this matter as to preclude further extensions and I I concluded that it did

based on the on on this ordinance. So as a result, does that mean art or that they would require uh to submit another application? If the board, as I understand it, if this board did not, as the original granting board did not grant an extension, the applicant would would not be precluded from filing a new application, but yes, to answer your question, the variances would have expired and you'd have to apply for new variances because the zoning changed

because correct because of the zoning change. And so at this point that seems to indicate that we're not even able to grant an extension. Is that correct? It's within your discretion as to how every fact, every application, every situation that comes before you has to be addressed on its own merits. So we do have discretion. Is that you do have discretion? Okay. it. And that's what the last sentence of the of the the planning board may grant may grant an extension of time beyond the one-year limitation upon written request of the owner. The main grant is the discretion.

The only thing that I was Okay. Okay. So, the only clarification I have is there's been a there's been more than one year, right, between since the last um actual event, if you will, on uh or related to the property. Yes. And we didn't need to. Okay. And there's no time period within we need to grant an extension like if it were 20 years from now, could we actually grant an extension based on the wording of the ordinance? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

And I' I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, remind the board that the the township issued permits after the year was up. So there was substantial reliance on the applicant that the year expired, but the the permits were then granted. So that extension, whether granted intentionally or not,

was de facto granted based on the township's actions. How long after the expiration were the um permits granted? If I recall outlined it for it was um it was if I recall it was about 16 or 17 months. There was another four months but but please keep in mind that the the applicant during the year period met with the architectural review committee and then revised the plans. What year was that? That was 17. 2017. Okay. So Right. But 16 was when the was when the approval, but the first building permit was issued July 3rd of 17. Okay.

So, you know, the the um so that there was reliance on the approval and continued motion forward with this and there was motion forward for a long period of time. And

I'd like to also rec remind the board that the township acted not only by granting permits but continued until last year to pull escrow from the applicant's account because it continued to inspect the premises. So there was no reason for my client to believe that anything had expired or would expire because all he got were notices that the engineer was billing for inspecting. So the township did not close the file. Which was that? The board engineer or was that the township engineer that it's a township engineer? The township engineer is out inspecting

inspecting because that's through the construction department, not the planning department. and and we never close an escrow account until a project's done or withdrawn. So, right, I I recognize that our board engineer in 22 went went by the site to see what was going on, to see what the status was. I don't know why. It's not the current board engineer. Um, but you're saying that there were other inspections from the building department.

And what Miss Tally said, they never close an escrow, but that's different than continuing to draw on the escrow. There's a huge distinction in my mind. Okay. The applicant was being charged as if because the the the application the the the project was open. So there's a big difference between closing an escrow and and drawing continuing to draw on an escrow. But was that in was that around the time 2019 2018 that the township was continuing to draw on the escrow? Continued until 2022 or three. Correct. Right. So then in 22 or 23 when they stopped with drawing escrow did you take any action after that?

What do you mean by I don't know about the inspections but the if when you get the escrow statement from the bank they send it to you every quarter. So when those ceased did you those ceased when I put the application in for here. I stopped getting statements from the bank. I contacted the bank and they says you're going to have to deal with the municipality. Can you clarify what you meant when you submitted here? Are you saying when you submitted a subsequent back in August when I came? So they so they were withdrawing. I I stopped getting um the it's ironically I stopped getting the statements from but just to clarify so until August of 25 is when you were getting

I would say I probably got the last one um the quarter before uh in in 25 you're saying correct.

Okay. was that so to explore this is I'm looking at the land use pro this is the document I think that shows the permits that had been issued and perhaps some of the inspections that the township conducted you had you had applied for and were granted a permit on May 7th 2021 looks like it was closed July 1st 2025 so do you think it's around that July 1st 2025 five date that they stopped sending you bills in escrow statements. Yes. You're nodding, but I just to Yes.

Okay. I guess when when when I want to make everything because this whole came about because the lender just wanted clarification and verification before they issued uh you know from like two 300,000 that we needed to to keep going and that's when I came to Janice's office kind of pushed the process to where we are today. That's why I was kind of anxious that I agreed. I'm very happy that you guys agreed to let me come back here um tonight so I can get this foundation in um during the summer and then we could start doing the framing and in the fall. It's I I really don't want to do that. I want to get it wrapped up so we're not dealing with ice and snow like we're doing this year.

Did you have more vice chair that you wanted to ask? Just wanted to clarify. So you said um you know so when the township you notified the township and that's when the escrow withdrawals ceased uh in July of 2025 is what notification did you I'm going to say if if used the quarter I I would say the quarter before that um but no but I'm just trying to understand so the application was open from 21 to 25. I'm just trying to understand what the incident was that uh was there something that alerted the town to close escrow or was

I'm so or stop withdrawing stop withdrawing escrow was we only withdraw escrow when there's activity at the site or sorry J is your mic on we only withdraw escrow to cover costs when there's activity at the site or if there's a legal issue. Um but we don't we don't but Mr. saying that he was having monies withdrawn from 21 to 25. Is that accurate? Then it was because there was an inquiry about it. It's we don't we don't send the engineer on a monthly basis to go check what's going on when there's no usually from what I remember it's usually like an annual thing that they were doing

and because when I applied in 24 for the extension on the um soil conservation if you look at the the the document that it was already that was that that was already sent out to uh the township. If you see it says notification to the township and the county on the form. I I apologize. I I don't know all why and how. But so were you being build quarterly or were you being build annually? No, they would charge I guess when they would go out. But you he was saying he was receiving quarterly statements. That's what I'm trying to understand. No, he said well quarterly statements. That's just to let him know. But we don't he But there were no withdrawals.

There's no not it's just a statement. There may be no withdrawals. There was a withdrawal up until about I believe it was uh it's not done on a regular basis. No, it isn't on a regular you get a statement from the bank from work done at the site. But you're saying there were annual withdrawals is what you're saying. I I didn't bring them with me. So I I'm going to say pull it up on my

Okay. I just want I just want to understand. So the statement was made that they were uh the the project was escrow was being withdrawn on the project. I I want to understand when and why and I want to understand why it ceased. That's that's you know really the long and the short of it. So why did you didn't close the account correct Janice? So it's still open. The escro account is still open here. Yeah absolutely. So when you say it was closed or withdrawals ceased. Can you clarify that and explain? But maybe before you do I think there may be two es two different escros we're talking about here. There's the planning board escrow. Then there's a what I'm hearing is a building department escrow. Oh, is that correct? Are there two? No,

not for this. There's no separate building department because this is the building department doesn't collect escro. They pay fees. Any engineering review is paid out of our escrow account. Any engineering inquiry is paid out of our escrow account. So, would that be tracked on your statement? I'm going to pull up my balance. I'm going to pull up the balance sheet if you just give me a second. Okay. cuz I have the balance sheet and I don't see anything except for you know so withdrawals from the escrow at least the one I'm looking at in 1781 19 and then one in 22 which is the one that I mentioned was okay a status the board planning board engineer went out and was like wonder what's going on here

well Mr. Chairman, the two things just to to clarify the date of of when this um when this was revisited. Um Mr. um Nice on on his bill um began research July 5 July 15th of 25. I have the balance sheet up here. So there was an engineer's fee in 20 in 2022. I'm not sure why in March of 2022 it was for was that to check on the status of the project is $146. Maybe there was an inquiry. I I can tell you I mean I have the the chair has it here. Yeah. Let me

Yeah, let me grab it. So there was a half an hour from the inspector, the resident engineer, and the memo was site inspection dash status. And then there was also a quarter of an hour charge by the project manager to quote setup job and record inspection status. What date was that Mr. Chair? That so the resident engineer visited the facility on January 11th, 2022 and the project manager did their work on January 14th, 2022.

Okay. So, the permit was closed July 1st of 2025. The um alteration permit, it was taken out May 7th of 2021 and then was closed July 1st, 2025. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to like the escrow is only one part of the of the issue. It's was there substantial work and we had talked about what is substantial work, right? And in my view, the cases support that foundations are substantial work. We had brought that up, you know, that um with with case law of of what is substantial work. Um and cases show that building a foundation is substantial work.

There had been some distinctions though. I think that one there was also a bad actor, right? That was the um the uh gas station one and they tried to take the permit from the person if I'm not mistaken. I have to review those cases. Yeah, but that was but they were drawing distinctions um between what was substantial work and this the the the overall circumstances came into play if I recall. Um well overall circumstances always come into play, right? I mean but but the language in

but there wasn't a hard and fast rule like foundation is sufficient. Well, Toll Brothers versus West Windsor. New Jersey Supreme Court held substantial progress can justify extensions beyond statutory limits. So, I mean, you know, significant work. I'm using foundations, but Toll Brothers is one. I believe we talked about Palentine. Um we talked about um it wasn't Pizzy but it was uh um Charco about vested rights. Sautto was the Gulf oil was the one you're referring to. Uh Mr. Graham a port foundation satisfied of its continuous inspections further reinforces that the town viewed the project as progressing under the approval. But if I recall in that case, there were promises made to the applicant. Um, and then the permit, which was still open, was was withdrawn a few months after. It's been some time since I read that case.

Yeah. But I mean, that's still But but that was that was more had to do with fraud than the foundation or not fraud, but uh bad actors rather than the uh pouring of the foundation being dispositive.

Well, the foundation in that case was deemed to be substantial. I mean, so you know, I'm I'm sure the court relied on other factors, but I don't think it can be disputed that the foundation was substantial pro was substantial work. I mean, again, to so we're not keep beating the dead horse, you know, the work was begun, permits were taken, the foundation was modified, and a new permit was granted based on the on the modified foundation. The applicant Yes. for a period of time sat on his hands. But you heard testimony one of the previous meetings. There was financing, there was COVID. Um, we're not suggesting that we're entitled to this. We're suggesting that the facts warrant that he be entitled to proceed based on his good faith reliance on the township and based upon the fact that as late as June of 2024, he went to the soil conservation district.

How much of the foundation has been is is down? It was the four footings. We have pilings and concrete that we poured in for those uh there's 20 close to 20 of those columns in there and they they they're significant, but they're they're all underground 100%. Yeah. When were they put in? Well, I I didn't bring the permits as we just estimate started I I would say we started like the dates have here uh all the way up till probably the last uh inspection was done 1920. I recall there were four footings I thought. Yeah. So, is it walls, slabs, and the 4 footing?

No, ma'am. We put up we put up the the steel excuse me, we put the concrete

um excuse me, we put the concrete uh pilings into the into the ground to hold up the steel. So, the the that was going to go in and then we were going to obviously set the the the steel and then set the foundation around that. So, the first step was to put in the concrete lines into the ground. Does that um the is that considered foundation if you have no walls and you have no slabs and from what I recall it was it was a while so forgive me. We talked a lot about the footings that day. So it's still even if you don't have any walls and you don't have any slabs and you basically have footings that's still considered foundation.

That's an amazing question. So if you were to define it, I'm not a structural engineer, but if you could define it as the walls themselves, the blocks, the foundation around the the the perimeter would the the the main structure uh holding the building would be those concrete pillars that are in the ground. You'll see them. I have the steel bolts coming out of it and the plates. And then we would set the the steel columns in, weld the columns in, and bolt those in. And then the framing gets put in. And then you put together. Um,

Mr. Chairman, for clarification, the permit was issued May 7th of 2021. That was the permit to alter the previously approved foundation. It's an alteration cuz we had a fill in all this concrete block. It was going to cost me twice as much. So, we figured, and I apologize, I made a mistake last time

on on why we did it. It was a cost factor and a structural factor because of all the weight and the brick that that those walls have to be basically solid concrete. So, if you can imagine laying the block going about four or five courses and you got to call the concrete truck, it's a lot of money and time. So, that's why we decided to go with the uh the board concrete. And u madame mayor just again for clarification the permit says footingfoundation updated revised plans from foundation to poured concrete from block for rose air building. Okay. So thank you. Thank you. So the foundation was put in in 21 you said is that

the permit was issued in 20 May 17 May 5th. Soon after that put the footings. Yes. But it wasn't closed. Yeah. It wasn't closed until July 1st of 2025. So the substantial the substantial construction of the building happened five years after the permits, right? Is that Well, there was originally there was a different foundation, right? Right. And then it got modified. Well, I mean, I'm just talking about this, you know, basically you got approvals to build a building and then the plans that we have, the original plans had a basement and then in 18. So, couple quick questions. It went before the planning board revisions committee. Did Did the planning board revisions committee eliminate the basement or did you guys eliminate the basement? The

because it was approved with a basement. Correct. The basement was storage. The basement was created for storage. Then we revisited instead of putting in the basement, but it had nothing to do with the revisions committee. You guys did that on your own, right? Because the And but then I submitted those uh revisions showing that we had My question is did the planning board revisions committee have any interaction in suggesting that the basement be eliminated? No. Okay. So you got through that and then after that a new set of plans, well it wasn't that new, but you just took the basement out. You still had the access coming from Glenidge Avenue for the residential access and you put the storage on the upper on the upper floor on each floor, which no one I guess no one that's really not

So there's a little bit of a revision in the in the building plans that came before the planning board, but it was just just for facts. The only thing that changed it seems was that storage was removed from the basement and put upstairs. So, it reduced the size of the units a little bit because it had you can't put them in the hallways. They saw the um there are some in the hallway if you look at the plans and if you look at the how big these units are. We took the the cubic feet of what the requirement was and we made nice big closets.

Do you still have handicap access that you have coming off of Willow? Yes, you still have that. So, that did that that won't change. Actually, there's two act Yeah, there's on North Willow end and Yes, there the access comes in through North Willow. The door from Glenidge Avenue, I think you have to go up. You have to go up two stairs. Yeah. To get to get in. But I remember speaking to the engineer back in uh November and October, and I believe when you come in through the garage, he's uh they're going to require uh the handicap ramp uh to get into the the building where the vestibule is for the elevator. So, yes, there's you couldn't figure out how to make the main entrance of the building handicap accessible, you know, to make it kind of a

they would have to go through they have to go through the the the pedestrian gate and then right through the ramp into the building. So, no, in other words, you'd still have to go through the it's like a kind of like a secondass entrance a little bit for handicapped people. You have to go like around instead of coming in the front door. I think that's what the planning board approved though. That that's the way it was. I don't recall the handicapped access that was approved. I'd have to look through the Yeah. The six these plans the 16 plans have have it in the same place as these plans which are the 2018 ones. Then that's what the board approved. Yeah. So there's nothing we can't do anything about that obviously. That's

it might have to do with the elevation of the streets too because maybe Glenidge Avenue is a little bit lower there. and the parking ratio. Um, whatever parking was promised for all the units or so. I think you turned your mic off, Tony. About 30. The same number of spaces from the original application. That's correct. The park has same number of units, same bedroom, same correct except an an additional affordable

counselor. Janice, do we have any process that you know of by which permits are closed for other types of permits for like residential buildings? like if they're close to the inaction. I know there have been some complaints that people will go out of their way not to close a permit in order for the assessor not to come and look at the thing, but like is there a mechanism by which a permit if people just drag their feet is closed?

This is a building department issue. I do know that there's circumstances where applicants receive permits and then they're never closed until you find out, you know, six years later or tenure that the applica that the permit is still open. So, it's an ongoing issue. It's an ongoing issue, but they don't do they have any rule set which closes permits or forces, you know, per people to do something with a permit that's opened.

I don't think so. I think what usually what happens is they they try to get financing and somebody says, "Oh, they there's there's something that triggers it for people to look and then they realize, oh, my permit was never closed. I forgot to have and neglected to schedule the final inspection." So even though it may uh cause a burden on the township on the township's fisk because our tax assessor does is not able to re to to revalue a house. We do not close those permits. I believe that the permits are closed upon final inspection and I I don't know

which is requested by a good point. I mean that's a very good point. I don't know exactly for this evening but I see where you're going and and u it's it's just if we're doing it you know goose and gander.

All right. So, that's one issue that I have, which is that if they're not if we're not doing it in other cases, I'm not saying a commercial building is the same thing, but you know, if we're leaving it open, we're drawing escrow off of it. If it's being inspected, if there was never any notice from anybody, um, and it was just business as usual that it was going on and you said there was that 4mon period where they issued it and there was never any complaint. It is, but there are facts on the ground. Now, does anybody dispute that this is we never really came to closure as a body as to whether or not the the footings and the pilings represented whatever the word is not substantial.

Substantial. I don't think the case law is clear. There were cases cited that even had um walls put up that were not considered. Yeah, I'm trying to remember the case. I I I'm not familiar with that was um Oh, god darn it. I need Do you have the the case loss? Let me look through. While while he's looking at that, I just want to It wasn't a wall, but it was um they started putting in the foundation for the wall, if I'm not mistaken. I got to find the case. You're saying it was not substantial. The readings, it wasn't sufficient to keep the permit open. I I'll look it up.

I'll give you just one second. But in in my memorandum on uh in in acknowledging the May 7, 2021 permit, the the way I worded it, I think came right from the permit. Quote, "As no work under this permit is executed and accordingly, no inspections, the permit was closed on 712025. Resubmission will be required." That wording suggests to me that it was closed on 2025 and that there was some there was there was some indication that there should have been some indication

that was after Mr. Quoko had spoken to Miss Tally about it because on July 15th is is when Mr. Nice build for services July 15th. So unless it was in that twoe window, which I don't believe it was, there was conversations which perhaps led to closing the permit based on, you know, what other what what whatever factors. I'm not sure the exact date that Mr. Quoko appeared in Miss Tally's office, but

I understand. So your supposition is that is that the normal course of business in which the permits would be managed through the building department as an ongoing building project was in some way shortcircuited through the intervention of another department. I don't think short I think shortcircuited is I'm not trying to I'm just saying that somebody then realized the permit that the work had not progressed as expected and therefore closed the permit. Well, then then we are where we are and it's a and then it's closed. Well, that doesn't mean that substantial work was not done.

No, if if you're saying that I have to resubmit new permits, I have to I have to resubmit the new plans and and updated the permits, I have to. Yeah. Okay. I think Okay. I just have one other question which is slightly unrelated which is two questions. One is do you foresee any substantial change in the substructure of the building? In other words, like of the work that that we are pondering whether or not it's substantial, will that change? No.

No. Okay. And the second one is, do you foresee uh I didn't get a chance to really drill into it, but Mr. Smith's memorandum from 2016 about the the architectural um um character of the building and the and the suggestions that were made and responded to um will there be a a a reprise of that? Do you expect and we may I think we may have discussed this when you were last here. Do you expect that the building would be substantively different in appearance? No. No, the same. The same.

Okay, no more questions. Uh, just a question. Mr. Sarah, you said your my first billing date was 7:15. Was that on a August 1? No. Uh, on an August one bill from my firm. It says date 7:1525. Research and render preliminary. What is it you're reading from? Your bill. That's what I'm asking. What's the date of that bill? The date of the bill is okay.

So this is building September. Well, but the service was July 15th. I get that Mr. Bill. I just Well, we can't hear you. You're not on the microphone, so it's not on the record. So there's some change in we changed the zoning in 2017. Yeah. And that's and that's gets to the that's that's one of the issues I have is that you know it it doesn't look like any substantial work was done since 2019. Right. You put in foundations 21. No no he's right.

I'm I'm saying 2019 is what I'm seeing. Yes. You filed for a new revised foundation in 21. You filed for reertification of your SCESC in 24. But actual work 2019 and that's where I I struggle, you know, and I understand COVID and and being hospitalized, but you know, to me that's since since last year, you know, that's that's six years of nothing happening at the site. Yes, there was a an inspection and if I remember correctly with the board engineer, they did that for every single site that was still open and hadn't closed out. So I think that was routine. They didn't go because there had been work done. And as Miss Willis had just raised, you know, after shortly after this project was approved, the entire zone was changed, right? So this building as as as approved back in 16 would not be able to be built without additional variances today or even in 2017.

And so Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. The board is supposed to take into account equities, right?

And equities in favor of the municipality, equities without question that the zone had changed. That's why I think Mr. Auli rightfully said, "Hey, you know, show us pictures." Um, you know, we were we were hoping that the the architecture and and the presentation would be something that would persuade the board that this is appropriate for that area without going, you know, without going to the zoning board for for a height variance because it's more than, you know, but um, you know, we believe that there was adequate reliance and because of that adequate because of that reliance, equities tilt in our favor. We believe there was substantial work done. That's subjective and totally up to the board. But, you know, Mr. Quoko was here this evening saying, "I'm ready to proceed." Yes, there were delays. There were financing delays. There were, you know, without again rehashing everything, there was, you know, a year that he lost because of COVID. Um, you know, we're not here saying, as I said before, that we're entitled to it. We're here saying we would very much like to proceed. We think it's a good plan and and we would ask that the board would would um you know grant the the extension to allow him to proceed.

Right. And that's what I'm trying to balance too is you know you're saying the equities tilt in favor of your client. I'm wondering do the equities tilt in favor of the public and in the community because you know I I would if I recall it was this application that got approved that was the impetus for changing the zoning along Glenidge Avenue. So I can't that's just and that's look this is 10 years ago so I I don't want to quote it but I feel like the timing lines up right and so uh that's that's not necessarily knock against your building but as I as I compare equities and I say well a decade ago or nine years ago the community said we need something different here

and you know when when progress was continuing along until 2019 and then really nothing happened in in my opinion substantively in construction. Nothing really happened at the site since then. The only there only two two good things that happened and now obviously it this building and in my opinion

looks like Montlair and I'm not trying to sell you guys. Everybody else is trying to make everything new and I I I brought it to where it should be and the amount of money that I took to get to this point and I and I with all due respect and and I appreciate it. It's beautiful. I mean, it's not st like look at all the other buildings. You don't know where the commercials located. You don't know how it looks on the corner. You you got this this this is has an open area where you can pull in for parking with with trees and it's going to look so nice, God willing. And the other part is I'm I thank God I made it that I'm here that I'm God has given me the grace and and the strength to survive and I'm going to build it and I will make everybody proud on this board. I will not disrespect anything about this township. I have a a lot of love and and and and respect. I'm not I I never lived here, but I want to live here. And I'm not going to just build this thing and rent it out and and make it look like I'm a multi-millionaire cuz I'm not. This has been in my family for many years and we've seen a lot of a lot of death, a lot of a lot of good, a lot of birth and and I I God willing that you give us the opportunity to give this our our family and uh some some future in in in Monontlair and and and and that's the truth. and and I understand if you vote either way and I respect it and thank you for all this time you've given us a lot of time and I thank you.

Well, thank thank if I can just I thank you very much for for saying all that. Uh that is moving. Um just Mr. Mascara just to be to reiterate. So you said you don't believe that you're entitled to No, not at all because you did say that. I'm sorry. You did say that. I did say we're not entitled by any means. It's a it's a balance of the equities. Okay.

And and there's decisions to be made about whether there was substantial compliance or substantial construction. There's decision to be made on whether, you know, the fact that permits remained open and there's balancing on both sides. So, we're we're certainly not entitled to it. If I believe we were entitled to it, um you know, I think Miss Tally would have said, "Yes, you are. I mean I respect her opinion and you know Miss Tally said no come before the the board because you know there's a question of of whether there you know the that these questions have arisen. So you're trying to you're persuading the board to help allow this vision to go forward.

Yes. But but there isn't you don't believe that there's a legal case that would compel the board to compel. Absolutely. But a legal case to support our position. I think we have cited legal cases to support our our our position. Um we can expand it further to go to the estoppel arguments that arguably you know the the board is stopped from preventing us from moving forward because of the escrow issue or because of the permit issue. But that's not but then what did you mean by not entitled?

Well, we're not it's not a byight position. For instance, to go back to to 400 Orange Road where the applicant applied for a subdivision, there there it complied in every respect to the burrow ordinances and to the and to the municipal land use law. You could say that that applicant was entitled to a subdivision because there was nothing that the board could have put their their finger on to say no, you are seeking relief. Okay. here we are we are seeking relief. Okay, we're asking for an extension and we are relying we're are basing that request on facts that have happened in the past and so so we're certainly not entitled to it. I think if the board granted it, I think it would not be arbitrary, capriccious or unreasonable and you know the board is is not allowed to make decisions that are arbitrary, capriccious or unreasonable. I think this is a good case that that hopefully goes our way. But if the board denies it, I would have a very difficult time to say that the board arbitrarily denied us. you know, I think it's a it's a case that that you know, warrants deliberation, some thinking and I think everybody on the board has has has done that and as as Mr. Koko said and and you know thankfully I mean Mr. Iani last meeting said no I'm not ready I want more information and I think rightfully so. So that's what leads us here tonight. Yeah, I think we all need to figure out how we how we balance these considerations. You know, the things that Mr. Misera said, the things that, you know, I raised about, you know, the zone plan and impairment of the zone plan by having, you know, this building be built. You know, what was the community vision? You know, when we talk

about balancing, and this is me trying to pretend I'm a lawyer, but you're talking about who who would be more harmed one way or the other, who, you know, do all of these things weigh in favor of? Those are the types of things that we as a board need to consider at this point, I think, because I think Mr. Miser is right that it's not clear, right? There's no there's no easy answer on this one. That's why we've had it briefed by council. It's why it took two months to brief by council and why we're still here asking similar questions because it's not easy and it's not straightforward. But, you know, it's our job to balance those things out and render a decision one way or the other. Um, I have a couple of uh thoughts that maybe would help balancing a little bit. Um, the building that's proposed is 60 feet, I think, in terms of it's four stories over one. There's a fourstory over over one building right across the street. I'm assuming that's going to be six 60 ft. You know, the loft building that's there. Um, looks like it has about the same street frontage that was built even before. Well, obviously was built before this one. So you do have a building across the street which is the same size as this building. They face each other. It's not as if you got farmland, you know, you got, you know, lowrise on the other side. Um the uh the other the building across the street, I'm assuming is 60 ft. It might be a little bit shorter. Um you know, we now this is going to I feel like it's completely inappropriate to make these suggestions, but I'm just throwing them out there. if there were um stepbacks at the top floor that would be placed on this building that although the height would remain the same, especially maybe on the Willow side because the Willow side

going to ask what? Yeah. What the maybe not so important because it it it faces the other apartment building across the street, but maybe on Willow to kind of open up that corridor a little bit. But even actually even on Glenidge Avenue to a certain extent because just because you have one building on one side on the north side you you kind of create this tunnel that you would drive through. So again, you know, I don't even know if this is even workable because we're not doing a site plan application. But uh those

see that's the problem. This there's already an approval of a of a designed building in place. It's and what what what the applicant is before you tonight is not for you to redesign it or to make it better or what have you. That's not the purpose of this. It's it's all or nothing basically or all or all resubmit. The the the focus the focus of the board is on a very narrow question. Got it. As to whether or not it complies with the new zoning. Isn't that No, because we know it does. This is five stories. We're down to three stories. Well, that's my point. My point is is that building will be there for a long, long time.

And we will not be in comp. Is your microphone on? Just to make sure we You have such good things to say. I want to make sure they're on the record. Miss Willis. Well, it's not lit up.

There it is. Okay. Well, what I'm saying is is that u the decision is is that since the zoning has changed and it's not it it seems quite possible to just build it at the new height. I'm not sure why we would have to or why it would be a good idea to go back and destroy what is the plan for how that neighborhood will be for a long long time. So it doesn't seem as though it's he could he could build it just at a at at the appropriate height. It just seems like one thing that's possible solution.

And that's one of the equities to balance is the the new zoning was contemplated by the public. Yeah.

Sorry. That the new zoning is how many stories? How how many feet tall? Three stories. Three stories, 30 ft tall. Some three stories and 37 ft. 37 20% of floor. Janice, is that zone C3? Is that the No. What's the It is the C3. Yes, C3. Okay. And what is this? What is this building?

This is five stories. And how many feet? It if we count up. So,

it should be in the resolution.

61 ft 61t 8 in 61 ft 8 in 61 What? 61 feet 8 in. Yeah. Do we know how tall the building is across the street? Not off the top of my head. Well, it's five, you know, including the first floor and there's four there's four levels of residential over the lobby parking. Two levels of parking. Two levels. Yeah. The one across the street is two levels of parking. So, it's it's taller. No, I don't think it's taller. No, lower. It appears to be five stories.

Five stories. Okay. Yeah, the there's a slight Well, it's Yeah, it's five stories. So, it Yeah, the the um is that five? Yeah, it's f Yeah, retail. Looking at looking at maps or street view, it's five stories. Yeah. Yeah, it's right here.

Okay. So that's what's before us this evening. Balancing all these things not easy. I have a sidebar question. Um is there a conduit or any uh waterway that passes through here through the site? We're not building over it. not building over it. So, do you have a plan which shows where that is relative to the building?

Sure. If you look at the parking on here, but if you look at the site plan, it's to the right. So if you look at it A2 if you look with a vehicular track uh interrupt traffic only um it goes through there and then this set this set follows no no A2 in this in the set A2 in that set the first set the first set we'll look at the parking

A2 um this like this. It's not shown on the plan. It's just but it avoids No, it's on the It would it's on the engineering. This is just the Okay. Okay. So, it it it goes right through there. Okay. I think it's roughly where the building lies. You drew couple feet. Yeah. Was inside the It's inside the property. No, it's inside the It's You can't build the building over the cover. Correct.

So, the cover is roughly where the building line is. It's underneath. Well, I feel feel more comfortable when you said if the building is 5t away from the but it is. It is. Okay. Is there a plan that shows um I mean someone should have asked for this, right? Wait, can we clarify? I just want to clarify that point. Janice, you're saying it's over the cover culvert or it's 5t away? Oh, it's 5t away. Okay. We don't know how many feet away it is. How many feet away from but it is away from some distance away from heard over. That's why the build the rear of the building was located where it is because they couldn't build on top of the culvert. I don't know how many feet it is, but So, the foundations are in and the culvert's okay. Okay.

What's that doing? The piles are driven. Covert's fine. Everything is good. So you guys Okay. So all the foundations on that side have been driven or I'm not sure if your piles are they're poured concrete. Yeah, those are all they're all there. And then the first ones. All right. If you do notice across the street, their building is right up against the ground. Right. Correct. I have a I have a quick question. If if you were compelled to do three stories, would you proceed with the project?

Probably not because I'm very short printed on the on the footprint that I can build on. So if you understand that I can only build maybe less than 40% of the I don't know the exact number, but I look at I'm conricted with a covert. I couldn't build what kind of a building could I build.

Could you build this at a lower scale? Then we would be able to re If you look how I did the plan, you got the three bedrooms up on three bedroom up on this on the top floor and then we got the affordable housing. The numbers are tight and we bunch, believe me, before I came the last time to agree to the the other affordable housing, I did let them know the lenders. So that's now agreeing to it.

When all said and done, taxes between 250 and 300,000 and maintenance costs have got to pay the bank every month. So it's it's It's it's it's a hard number to her to to get. I if I if I had that whole property, I I'd say yes. And we talked about it years ago with Janice, you know, about trying to shorten and you would don't even know. We had a plan even before that that we, you know, that we were going to build over the covert and then of course all that you can. So

we can add that to the hardship equities on our column. Mr. Chairman, we we've been through this a thousand times inch by inch. And if you do that, if you cut it like this, it's everything changes. Aonsa, how many what's your total unit count? Seven. 17 17. And how what's the square footage of the retail space,00

H?

I just Okay. I see you reviewed the plans before tonight's meeting. Okay. Yeah, that's the that's the corner piece because we got mechanicals and what percentage of the foundation do you think let's say if the piles and columns are the foundation. How what percent are you complete with all the piles in the in the foundation?

All the piles all the time you're Yeah, I'm just looking at an overhead. So, you've got them on the edge of the building, too. You know, where it meets the street, the sidewalk, they're there. Or is it just So, when I walk by, I see

um if you look at the U at the plot, the steel is going to Yeah. So, um this if we're looking on Yeah, there's uh we've got one closer to closest to Glen Ridge and North Little Corner. We've got another one to the far right. And then there's the the four sets there. And then if you look to the left where North Little, we got one, two, three, four. So, That's your That's That's the uh base of the structure. Correct.

Yeah. Is that 101? Uh I have a mark. It's number nine. Yeah, but it's F10. It's the big number nine. Well, I was I was trying to relate what's in the field to what's on the plans. I know what's on the plans, but how much of this plan And again, I'm just going through memory. When I drove by or walked by, I just didn't happen to see perimeter piles. I saw interior piles, but not perimeter. Do you have perimeter piles around, you know, where the edge of the building is? The the wall comes down. The steel is the the columns are going to sit on these on these concrete pilings.

I know, but do you have the pilings that are driven by the edge of the building? I see them. That's where the That's where the the concrete walls are going to go. And that's where the the the majority of the weight that's going to be held for that concrete wall foundation is for the brick weight. But where where does the steel go? I mean, you've got a vertical facade that goes 60 ft. That load is coming straight down. Correct. You're not going to canlever it from something on the interior. That's going to drive right down at the base of that wall. Whether the whether the brick is curtain or not, it's hanging on something. And I It'll be a ski a steel skeleton. It's not just going to So when Oh, so you're going to rely on the the structure 10 feet back?

No. And then suspend No, I agree that. Do you have foundations that are poured or driven by the sidewalk edge or by the edge of the building? You don't do not. And do you plan on putting in there? Yes. Oh, okay. So, it goes back to my question. What percent of the foundation is constructed so far? I would say 50%. Okay. So we haven't we substant 50% of what appears on this. Yes. Okay. So So that gets back to substantial construction with the foundation started. So now it's 50% of the pilings, not 100%.

That's what I thought when I walked by. 100% of the pilings, but 50% of the total foundation. You're including the foundation walls. Oh, so so you won't put any piles. You'll have footings around the Yeah. When you do the footings for the foundation with the when you pour the concrete. All the piles. Can I just put All the pilings are in. They're in. No more pilings anywhere. Right. But the pilings unless unless there's an issue I I can't guarantee that. Unless there's an issue with uh if if there's a part like if the column needs to be offset uh two or 3 feet I might have to adjust it uh according to the load but no up to this point I'm not going to say there's no more

right but I think your question was uh the pilings are part of the foundation and the foundation itself% yeah yeah yeah will be complete by the perimeter uh component correct okay I apologize I think I misunderstood.

Other questions, thoughts, comments from the board? I just have one last one which is again just was work work was slowed when exactly co co but I mean all the approvals so you had a the revision the most important revision was in 17 and 18 but but that's a 2-year gap I mean a building the Empire State Building was built in a year. So what World Trade Center? Yeah. So what what happened in those two years?

Um I got CO twice. No, not you didn't get CO in 19 and 18 19 and 20. You were working site work and and we were working on it on on the property doing what? Um we were doing forms. Um we were doing uh I know we had issues to the if I can put it this way had co not happened when would this building have been completed in your opinion? By 2021

21 okay I mean you answer it as best you can. I mean, like I said, it's not easy on this side either. You know, I recognize it's not easy on your side. Um, I think we're all just trying to ask questions that help us get to the, you know, the answer that, um, you know, that we see fit, each of us. Yeah.

And to councelor Deano's point, that is a substantial gap in in activity. So, we're trying to clarify each step of the way and uh especially considering uh the public's interest in changing the zoning and the concerns about the bulk. Um I and I do appreciate your passion for the project and and uh the way it looks and um but I also appreciate the public's concern about I think a a tunnel analogy was used for that section of the of the street. So to the chair's point, this is, you know, not an easy decision for us as well. Um, I respect it. Yeah, mayor.

Yeah. Um, and so certainly it's not an easy um decision and I I've had the benefit of being here and u 2015 when this started out and throughout the year. So, I've heard a lot of what has transpired to get us here and I've been listening when you came, you know, before and for a very long time. You were giving us some case law and we were learning a lot of things. Thank you for that. And so, here we are. I don't like the tunneling effect and when people are now comparing like there's a building across the street as though that makes it better for me. For me, that makes it worse because I don't like the tumbling effect. And I don't think it's apples to apples. That side of the street moves into a commercial zone, a heavily commercial zone. And where we're located now, if you go down Willow Street is a residential area. And so I like the idea of a threestory building with 20% affordable units. I like your project. I think it's very nice, but I am not one that um tends to lean in, you know, higher the height the height and because you have garden apartments behind it. You have the Y which are all on a lower scale and things that around it. I'm not even sure you know what the the sun setting effect what what happens there. I don't remember. I know all of that was discussed when we were first discussing that years ago, but I um I can really um think that this would be an incredible uh design and project if we could bring it down to the three stories with the 20% affordability. And I'm listening to you and you're saying, if I understand you correctly, that so far tonight on the spot, you haven't been able to think of anything creative that would allow you to do that. Is that correct?

What do you mean mayor by creative? Bring it down to three stories. I think someone in here asked that and I'm not sure if you've had, you know, chance to go back and and do the numbers and whatever. Absolutely we did. Okay.

100% we did. And I cuz I took all your all your comments previously. I respect you and I and I understand. I knew that you were already going to have the the thought of well should we be prepared to come up with a smaller plan and I did and and the blessing was that we were able to have some time and I did go back and forth with it. It it gets more constraint, mayor, property. Um, you know, the boundaries get tighter, everything gets tighter. And I I I and I understand and you have every and you you you you here more than I am. You know the township no better than anybody else. God bless you. And and I respect your opinion. It just comes down to can we afford to do it? How how tight can it be done? And and I and we did we in fact we I had a conversation with with our my lawyer o over the holidays and he says bon I mean you're a smart guy. Can't you figure this out? I said yeah we've been trying if we had to to come up with something and I don't have any creative answers for you. Well, I'm I'm trying to understand, right? And you're talking about tighter and and whatever. And um I guess you would be the expert in understanding that term with regard to this project, but I'm talking about a height thing where you would lower it from five to to three and then you would work the numbers on how much I'm going to pay for the three bedroomedroom or whatever.

So, the setbacks are going to change. Um and and that's going to shorten the footprint of the property. Uh it's also going to short it's also going to include what has to the the requirements are going to have to be for uh new calculations. And what about the 50% foundation that you've already done? Would that go in the garbage? That would have to change also. That that will be Jack. So all of what you did would have to now come up and and just be basically wasted. Yes. Close to about 56.

Okay. No, I'm not I don't understand the intricacies. That's why I'm I'm asking and I'm sharing as honestly with you as I can, but I I need to know what that means to you because that's important to me also. Thank you. Well, to the point of not being able to reuse the foundations, if you built the same building but took a middle layer out, can't do that, Mr. Only because the the new zoning ordinances would apply. So there would be restrictions. Oh, I was just I was just the rest of your question.

No, I was just, you know, talking about if you did because the question was if you did change the building, would you have to not continue to use the foundations? And I was just responding to that. Well, you might still could use the foundations if if you did. My qu my my question was based on a previous question, not the zoning, not you know specific. The only creative thing I think I can come up with or I should come up with is that this was a rare find, right? Cuz we included uh two threebedroom affordable units and um I didn't just want I wanted a family to live there cuz I'm going to live there. I there's no other ex I mean we really designed this thing not just to be like everybody else. And that's why I was in more than happy to give another afford not because to entice this this world is changing quickly. And if this if the younger generation can't afford to live in the in in the state and the county that they grew up in, well, we're done. So it and I know that I would have to comply if it's a smaller. It's just it this way I can afford to build this and make it happen and and keep not just a little little bungalow apartment. This these that the those two three-bedroom apartments are are nice apartments.

So, you're going to give us more than 20% that's required. I'm sorry. You're going to give us more than the 20% that's required by law. So, if we do the two three bedrooms and then another unit, you're asking me a mayor for another No, because um unless I'm receiving it wrong, it sounds as though you believe that the 20% that is required is giving us something and it's it's not the way the law. Okay. So I was just trying to make sure that you understand. I mean that's not doing anything. No, I agree. So right. So I I thought you were saying the way you were saying and I wanted to know were you going to give us more than a 20%. You know you want to do more than that. Like

mayor just to clarify the approval has a set aside of 12% because it was under our previous zoning. Right. But now we're going to go to the pres and now he said well he said no it's still this approval was under the exist the the 2007 ordinance he did say and that was a 12% set aside he did say he would meet our current set aside which is 20%. That's how we got.

So that would only only if this B so two yes two things. If the body decided that they wanted to let him do that then he was you know going the extra mile or that might be some incentive for this body to consider leaving it at that which Yeah. Right. But the flip side of that is if this body looks at the fact that in May 2nd, 2021, attorney N said the permit was closed and then some other things happened,

then they might look at it and say, okay, permit closed, the zoning laws, you know, today are so and so and then, you know, move accordingly in that direction. So if I understand what you're saying is you see the benefit to going beyond the 20% maybe to the 25% which is what we require for anything that requires a I'm just saying if they want to get a little point over there you keep it score at least give me 25 okay we do require a 25% set aside for anything that requires a use variance just for reference that's but but uh is that 20 plus 25

no that would work for And mayor, just if I mis misplaced the word more, I I offered more originally the three bedrooms that's what I and I apologize. No, don't apologize. I appreciate that. And just to clarify, that would mean 3.4. So there's three units that are uh affordable housing right now you agree to. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. The the percentage is based on square footage or number of units? It's the number of units. So it would be 3.4 with 17 units. Mhm.

And again, people, you know, maybe at home like we're talking about it's if it's going from 5 to three, it's actually cutting it in half because there's a floor of parking. So in terms of the actual residential square footage, you'd be cutting it in half. And if you're interested in housing for people and affordable housing by cutting it in half and even if you were to raise it to 20 from 12, you're going to be cutting into the amount of units. It's a smaller amount. But I think that the main issue for me is that this board gave its approval and doesn't and never had a a distinct affirmative policy on when that approval was going to sunset, at least one that was not communicated to the applicant in an unambiguous way.

But there's still statutory questions about variances uh expire and when they can be renewed. So there there's again still discretion which gives us the interest. That's right. But but the variances also could be not withdrawn but in other words what the variances that were asked for which I suppose is is the case usually mostly involve parking you know were not large. The main issue for me again is that there if we leave permits open forever as a matter of course then this should model roughly speaking on that practice

but that's a different the permit issue construction permit issue versus the variance issue are two separate questions

as a as a common sense practical thing like to not say this is coming to the end and then I do feel that this exchange where Mr. Koko comes back and says, you know, we're doing something and then all of a sudden it it stops doesn't feel particularly right. I mean, people again, the board voted for this and didn't you voted for it probably if you were on the board at that time. I mean, we voted for it or this body voted for it and it and it does feel like relitigating something um on a technicality of a sort,

but I don't know if it's a technicality considering the time, the length of time that it took and the fact that the public had spoken uh about what it sees and visions for that neighborhood. So, I I I do I do have sympathies for the applicant and the expense associated with this. Uh that is a a check in the hardship column is a check in the applicants column. Um but again the length of time the delay and the and the the public speaking um is a check against. So I I think I think we really have to kind of weigh those factors and come to a decision.

Can I offer a thought? Um when in in my practice as an architect uh we come up with similar Can you speak up just a little bit please?

Yeah. Yeah. H in just in in practice what what I would expect um to convince something like this to go through. We're talking about tunneling effects and things like that. Um, I would expect bit more of a technical uh resolution of the tunneling effects like a wind analysis. I I do recognize that's not what we're here to decide or not, but just as a thought. Um, just understanding where the winds are coming from in the wintertime, how the difference between a a threestory building and a fivestory building, uh, the effects on the ground floor because of the downdraft, it might be significant. it might not be significant in order for me to decide knowing that distinction would be relevant. Uh and I I also understand that granting this uh is a benefit versus the three stories, but there could be a benefit to the community if there's more affordable housing. There's additional things that this could offer potentially, but those need to be a bit more apparent uh to me than than just the design from prior just as a thought. So, how sun shadow effects two three versus five and uh is there any opening to thinking about the ground floor? Um last time I was here, we talked about the uniqueness of uh Monontlair and the design of Monontlair and what's really nice about Monontlair is is this uh pathways and and retail moments that exist even in in that downtown Monontlair area. And if there could be more opportunity of that in the ground floor um even if it is a five-story build could that be a possibility and and and the context has changed right so it's it's one thing to see the building in in itself surrounded by buildings but really understanding the building situated in the current context is also like all of these like three

aspects to me would inform this decision better that's all I want to I agree. I agree. I mean, it's easier, you know, to to be able to visualize. Um, I can't follow up on that. That's those are some good points. But I I do I just want to go through the dates again. I'm looking at the zoning code and article 16, C3 central business zone. It says added 621 2016 by the ordinance. So the the C3 zone on this property was added even before the site plan approval was done on this property. Yes, remember because the Yes, we the zoning that for this property um was based on the time of application. Time of application

and honestly the application was in 2007. Okay. They kept amending it. Wow. So you know my question to the applicant is if you knew that if you knew that the fire is behind you, how come you didn't run any faster? because you know that you've got this really valuable um permit, you know, this sixstory um project and when you were Mr. Did your mic go off again? When you were applying, you knew that the zoning that you got was going to expire. So, I guess what I'm struggling with is how come more wasn't done to really preserve your value? I mean, you're coming to us 10 years later looking for our sympathy. No, but but well looking for

the financing that that was brought. I know, but I guess I'm saying is that um I I just what I'm struggling with is why there wasn't more effort done even just in terms of applications to the board asking for extensions and making it more formal, but it seems like it was sort of forgotten about. I know CO affected, but CO didn't come in till 20. So I feel like yeah, it's a value, but I'm not seeing that you thought it was valuable at the time. Otherwise, there could have been more things that that there there were things that could have been done to preserve that value that you didn't do.

I've never been in that position where I had to either extend extend the the variances. You could use that at, you know, don't forget my attorney. We were in contact. He died. Um, and he was always on, you know, he would have like he was like my right-hand guy, too. I even completely forgot. That's why I have Mr. Misera. Is that Mr. Owen? Who is your attorney?

So, you know, I kind of relied on my attorneys to keep me a breast of what's going on. I I let me tell you I I I would have continued it and and there's there's no other excuse. And then we ran into financing problems. I know the value of the property. It's been on our family for since the 70s and I know how much money I spent on on getting the approvals. I know how much I spent. No, I didn't. Not when did your I would be insane. I know. But when did your attorney pass away? When when did he become ineffective? you know, it's um two three years ago. No, I think it was like 2021. It was after

Yeah. Right after right after co but five years prior to that there, you know, your attorney was practicing well and he didn't give you advice that you had to be really careful about making sure that all the eyes are dotted on this that you would preserve.

We were but there was no Wasn't there a gap in time? If I may, Tony, just to follow on that, the the ordinance says that um it the variances shall expire by limitation unless such construction or alteration shall have been actually commenced on each and every structure permitted by said variance. Based on the history, it looks to me as if the uh notice of the approval, this board's approval was January 21, 2016, which meant that January 21, 2017 was one year. That work had to actually be commenced and the first permit on this project was not issued until 6 months later on July 3rd, 2017. Well, that's the permit. Is that cons permit considered?

But that's calling that actual permit. You can't work without the permit. Well, I know is it work that started though just pulling a permit. I mean, I would think work is otherwise we should throw out when construction actually went in the ground because if we're talking about I'm just trying to figure out

what because when you ask us for judgments, it's hard. We know our board reviews zoning and can give very cut and dried analyses based on you know the you know what's in. So what we're saying is that the pulling of the permit in 6 months later than it should have been pulled that's if that's the only gap and everything else is okay because we're saying that that was the start of substantial construction. Is that what we're saying? I'm not saying that. I'm saying that based on the facts, the actual con the earliest that actual construction could have occurred was when the first permit was issued. But actual construction didn't start until 21.

No, I have all the footing permits that we put in shortly thereafter. 17. Oh, 17. You put these footing 17 started. Yeah. 18 in December. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I I heard you say 21. No, you got a pour. You wait and then you got to have an engineer come back. He resets. It doesn't June of 17. Okay. Now, for some reason, talking about 2021, that was the revision revision to the foundation to the to the foundation. Switched from concrete block to So, did you pull the old ones out and put new ones in? No. No, that's for the the walls. We changed. Oh, so you didn't put the ones around the perimeter, correct?

Okay. So, now that's why it's only 50% because you change. So, you actually started 17 in 17. Yes. Soon after the permit. Okay. I'm sorry. I I was missing that gap. And then Okay. And then I I I know we keep going in circles on this, but again, 17 to 21, what occurred? Why there was there was no additional construction from 17 to 21 until about 18 early 19. We were still working. No, no, I I I understand that. You said you poured the footings at 17. When you say we I know we've been through this, but I need to hear it again because I've been confused and we've gone around in circles on this. Different increments that that the the concrete piling the footings were put in.

You can you can set four or five at a time. Then they got to set and dry. Then the How long does that typically take? How long did yours take? If you don't mind me, good question. Thank you, Mr. Clearly went to 2017. Took about a year and a half. No, I I understand that. But uh was it because um so it went to 17? you said, right? Yeah. To get the footings in. And then I went to 19. Went to 19. Okay. So, um, is it typical for footings to take that long to?

So, I come from an old school. You can you can take this or leave it. The building's going to stand up there for a thousand years. My steel plates are not even rusted. There's actually two of those bolts that are rusted after all these years. Okay. I'm not I I I'm not going to slap it up and then throw up those steel columns knowing that cuz I have to get it done in a quick time. So I chose to take my time to do those concrete. I chose that and I would have continued if I didn't get hit with co and then 19. Well then 19 right is when things ceased. Was that the financing you ran problem you ran into? No co hit 19. It was 20. I guess about 19 though.

We were I don't remember the last set of I don't have the permits. I think the last footing inspection was April 10th, 2019 from what I see. And then CO hits in March of 2020. So from April to March, was there any work done? Yeah, we were constantly doing work over there between uh probably up to about November, you know, we do site work and and then winter comes and then things slow down. Okay. You can't pour. I'm not going to pour. I'm I'm not saying Yeah. pour in the winter. Okay. All right. Trying to get the timeline. Okay. So, do you have a full I think I asked this last time, but I'll just ask again. Do you have anything close to a full construction budget yet? I know you don't have working drawings, right? We do.

Oh, you do have a you have you have a Yeah, that's the only way that would finance. Okay. So, you do have a full budget. If you look at the numbers that we gave, it's over 6 million construction. Yeah, I think the line of credit was 6 million. Okay. Other questions, thoughts? No, I see nothing except Mr. Nie's back.

I know. I'll just say I know that we don't really set precedent hard precedent ever but but it seems to me that the crux of the question is how long can you know can generically variances hold and our resolutions hold um and what substantial construction means and I will descent from others on the issue of the zoning change. I don't think that that's part of the situation. I really don't. I think it's just we have to be able to figure out how long can somebody doawle on a project regardless of what it is and and there and every time shouldn't it shouldn't be groundhog day. You know, we should like have a firmer idea of what it is because the government gets the doawle like we do it to people all the time and like if you know we should make it clear when is the clock ticking and when is the clock running out and

when the rules change. Well, we have No, not when the rules change. No, I'm saying when when the town decides that it wants to change the height in which you are allowed to build. And if you do not if you do not for several years

um that you're under the new regulations that's the question. The question is if you do not keep up with the zoning and you do nothing and there's a period of years in which the rules about what can be done have changed. That's the question. It is sacract that somebody's application is always protected. I mean they you are always when you make an application and the date your application is filed is it's holding.

If I may the we do have an ordinance that Mr. had quoted that says your any variance granted by this board of the zoning board of adjustment expires unless right um you know work was actually commenced on each and every structure uh permitted by said variance or unless such permitted use has actually been commenced within one year from the date of publication that's for the variances but not for the site but I guess that's baked into the site it's kind of I I think they're linked together because you can't have a site plan approval without the variances. Mr. Chairman, but but that is exactly what it says, but again, there was reliance back.

I I understand your point, but I'm trying to answer the counselor's question about, hey, we should have a firm time by saying there is a firm time. Okay. Right. That's in the That's in the My point is that's in the ordinances. Correct. Now, I happen to agree with you on on the point you're making. I don't think you should have gotten a permit quite honestly because you were past that one-year time, but you did and you move forward with your foundation, your pilings, right? And so that that I get, right? And my my struggle, as you've already heard, is the time after that, right? So if that finishes up in April of 19, I get COVID, but to me, nothing else happened after that except for a couple of filings, which to me is not really progress.

Keith, I have a question there. It's it's each and every structure of the foundation plan. Is that correct? What if it's partial? Specifically, it says this, you know, the the let's see, variances essentially shall expire by limitation unless such construction or alteration shall have been actually commenced on each and every structure permitted by said variance or unless such permitted use has actually been commenced within one year.

Right? each and every structure of that variance that that includes the the foundation plan that was approved to be drawn. Right? So if this was built in full, then it it's okay. But if it's been built partially, then what? Well, this it doesn't say that in in the the the question that's been brought up is that it wasn't done within the year, right? But Mr. Riser is arguing yes, but we relied on the township's granting of the approval and then we installed the foundation elements. Yeah. You know, in in part or in whole, right? Doesn't it doesn't say anything about that and there's only one structure. So, we're only talking about the commencement

there. There wasn't more than one structure that we didn't begin to work on because the plan only calls for one structure. I mean, it's a there's a structural plan. There's different components of the components, but there's only one structure being built. Right. Right. That's the definition of structure in the municipal land use law, which is different from the definition of structure in the building code. Right. And it would be impossible to do it within one year if you're saying every structure. Yeah. Because you know every component can't be a separate structure.

Council, did I answer your qu I was trying to answer your very exact question. I I I think that that's very I just want hard rules like and that's a hard rule and it's complicated by the fact that the building department extended you grace fundamentally not legally u morally that gives you something but it's it's still not legal. So, the approval really ran out in 2017. Mhm. And I I mean, that's terrible and I feel bad saying it, but it's compelling to me that that's what happened legally.

So, then I get all my money back from the permits, escros. Is that is that what you're telling me? because we're looking that if if that's the reasoning for your your if that's your reasoning then I I then I'm due my money back I paid you didn't get there yet comment no I mean that's a great I mean at least I get something out of it I'm okay with that no I'm not but better than nothing well clearly the maybe the township and you shared there was doing something there was so Like the mayor says, we haven't gotten there yet. You know, it's early, right? He's like ready to pack up and go home. We I'm not there yet.

Okay.

Well, I'd like to have a question just to clarify board. It's stamped received by the planning department Sep September 22nd, 2016. And then in our packet this week, there are letters. There's a letter from Ira um Smith who made some suggestions about altering the facade. There's a memo from Janice um to the planning board revisions um committee including Iris Smith on January 25th um about talking about the changes to the facade of the property. Then on February 16th, um Janice's letter says um to you that it confirms that the planning board revisions committee met on February 1st, 2017 and um approved the revisions. So um what we don't have is what the new facade looks like. And we were speaking about this building, but is do you have a copy of what the new one?

No, because we were going to follow the guidelines of Okay. Subitted the uh the construction. Okay. I so I just because I was I thought that maybe this is what was going to be built. So we don't really have a rendering of what is going to be built technically. If you read what I wrote to do with the windows and metal

well his letter is three pages long. He made a lot of suggestions but I guess my point is whatever we don't have a copy of the facade. I wouldn't want to do anything on this until I had a rendering of what sort of maybe along the lines of some of your comments that it would be nice to have a rendering of what the facade will look like based on the revisions that were mandated by the review committee. We we have the pre we have a a facade that it's the rendering before suggested changes were made. All right. Well, it sounds like that doesn't exist. The planning board reviewed it in 17.

Yeah, there was a revisions committee. the uh the revisions committee met in February of 2017 and approved um the changes to the changes with the conditions about the I don't know if that was the I don't know if you included the the plans from the February with this so if if you look at our building rendering in his letter. Ira does place in his pen marks what it would look like. Right. Well, those are his suggestions. So, we don't have something from there.

So, these ones are 18. Are these the latest ones? added the storage to the these are just floor plants. So they're not Yeah, it's just the floor plan. Just floor plans. So um so if you look at look at this, it's not much different. It's adding the higher. Yeah, but I can't I can't imagine things. I mean I'll be clear on this. Um I think it's if Well, you said you price the building.

Sometimes those little deviations in brick are quite expensive. That's why people don't Let me just finish. So, I think we should probably see a facade rendering of what was approved because if you priced it, we want to I mean, if you if your contractor priced it, he priced what? If you don't what? You priced it. Okay. So, you you priced All right. I guess I'm sorry. I'm I think it would be good to see a rendering of what is actually going to be built. There's over uh 10 to 12% within that 6 million. So I didn't just say I need 6 million. There's there's 10 12%.

I'd like to bring this to a close. you know, we either need more information or we can make a decision at this point because it's been almost two hours on this one and we've got a lot of other business to handle tonight. Um, so I is people need more information outside of what Mr. Ian Wallally mentioned about a rendering. Yeah. and and also I think um knowing how knowing more don't you go ahead and studies for tunneling and whatnot I I don't know if they're gonna I I mean Mr. Miss Shaken has had like

well I mean that's not I don't think that's feasible at this point. I mean we have the plan. I understand the question for something but there is some you know pen sketch. I think you know the the ultimate building if if the board does allow us to proceed will look substantially like this but for you know some some minor changes to the windows and and you know but this is the rendering with some very minor changes. I think u much of that letter that was three pages had to do with the site plan and not with the architectural. So, um, you know, I I think we do need to respectfully, uh, bring this to a head.

I mean, I know, I know, but the letter did talk about the character of the building and the box and the envelope at the at the beginning of the letter, the character of the building. I I remember specifically reading that, not that, you know, and again, I I I I would like to see this continue. I think it'll be good for the town. I I also I want to clarify like I would like to see more studies, but that's perhaps not what we're entitled to request at this point. My question to us is if we give them u an okay, then it would be built as permitted and with no additional changes

as approved except for he's going to add an extra affordable unit. Right. Okay. Just clarifying that, right? That's that's that's what the applicant has come forth and said is that no, I would build it as as was approved by this body and as revised by the revisions committee, I believe was the correct um timeline plus now one additional unit will be affordable is what they're proposing to build or what they would build. But it's and with time time constraints on getting the permits right to the foundation. We agree to construction and structural

right we would agree to those constraints. Wait, would you do the 25% that Miss Tally mentioned affordable housing? Just for the record, that would be mean you'd be required to provide four affordable units. Financing would be in we squeezed it. Okay. So, it's what? 3.4 units is what I heard. 3.4. Yeah. So, so it' be three built plus fractional payment. You build three and you pay 4/10 of the cost of the of the the additional unit. And is that at the current rate or the past rate? Have we changed our rate?

Current rate, which is we don't go back in time on that. That's affordable housing ordinance. Um, yeah. I just I just want to be I want to just make sure we're clear about what what what that is. Okay. I just want to make sure we get time of application all the way back to Oh, I'm sorry. That's just habit. I as you can see, I I talk a lot of times here because if I don't hold my hands together, I'm going to start going like this and gesturing way too much. So, yeah, exactly. I So, I try and just do this and and hold them together here.

Okay. Um, I as as much as I love this building and I think it looks great, I I still struggle with the fact that nothing has happened since 2019 in my opinion. And like I I appreciate that that you know, there were some missteps on on perhaps both sides in the very beginning around the 2017 time frame. Uh, like I said, I don't think you should have been issued a permit, but you got issued a permit. You installed foundations. you know, I I think you got started on this and then I just don't see that really much has happened after that and and that's where I have a sticking point trying to balance out, you know, the concerns here and and I definitely give you credit for coming through COVID twice in the hospital. I think that's, you know, great. Um and and that certainly counts towards some of the delay, but I I personally when I'm balancing, you know, your your property, the approvals versus, you know, what what what the zone changed to and that this to me would be an impairment of the zone plan like that. I I I tend to come out more heavily on the on the community at this point given all the other things that we've talked about. Um so for me, I would move that we do not extend this approval. Second

based on those reasons. Second. Do you want me to read the roll call or I think you should read the roll call. Okay. So, this would So, a vote in favor of this motion would be to deny moving forward. Just so everyone's clear. Is there any discussion after the motion? Um, I could board members would like to. Yeah. Well, I mean, normally procedure would be to ask for discussion and if there's no discussion, then to close. I we don't normally do that. Okay. Usually with this board motion, if somebody has a comment, you just wanted somebody else to try to disagree with you. That's

No, I I I I also feel like we've heard I I think there are people disagreeing with me and I I respect their opinions, but if someone wishes to be heard, you have heard other applications. Uh I've sat on them for the last several months that I've been back and forth. Well, not several the last two, three board meetings. People are having a hard time even now to get financing. They've asked you for extensions. It's not because I didn't want to build this thing. I understand that. But and you're asking me why the delay it there was nobody lending. Okay. It dried up like overnight

in the beginning of 22. So I had health to consider. I'm I'm just asking you to reconsider because I'm I'm going to be honest with you. This building it's it's better than a thousand times better than what's there. I I feel for your position. I I really do. Like emotionally I want to say yes. I I want to say go for it. But you have every opportunity to use your emotions on this.

I I I do have opportunity to use my emotions. This is one of the tough things about sitting here is that you know and I and I've said this to my fellow board members. I I have voted for things I don't personally like and I've voted against things that I personally do like because of how I see things balancing out. And I wish I could just emotionally say, "Yeah, go for it." And this is going to be wonderful for the township. But, you know, I've got to balance all the things that I've heard over these past few meetings and and that's, you know, where I've come out, including listening tonight, including listening to your, you know, passionate pleas. And and that's just my opinion, right? There's a number of other board members who will vote on this. Everybody may disagree with me and that's okay. I'm giving you what what I what my opinion is based on balancing all of these equities.

I hold your opinion. Great.

And I would say I'm even more I'm even more strongly inclined to want to say yes to your project. I sympathet I'm so sympathetic. But the two things I would want I want here are like clarity of law and clarity of law is January 21st, 2017. That's the one piece of hard red letter law that we have uh was that you know it ran out then. And the second thing is just the common sense. Either you're going to have clear law or a very compelling common sense argument. and common sense after 10 years when we've had zoning zoning changes militates against it. But but my heart is is in the other direction. So I'm with the chair. It's a very hard vote.

Yeah, I agree. It's not easy.

Um I'm having difficulty with um substantial construction. Um I don't feel that I I know it's it's it it's not a specifically uh defined term. Um so even if there was that six-month gap um we can call the footings very I mean the footings although also you know back to what it says it says shall have started on every structure I think the I my interpretation of that is if there's multiple buildings that should have started I think they would want multiple each each building to have been started but there's one building here but um I think that 50% % of the um pilings um you know to support the foundation isn't substantial.

They're 100% 50% of the foundation foundation. Yeah. Well, 50 50% of the foundation and then with that gap, you know, with that gap of 10 years is harder. So, you're voting no. I I I would be voting with Keith. I think we should call the role just to be clear unless anybody else has any any final things, but let's call the role. All right, Mayor Baskerville. I'm voting no. Wait, yes. I'm voting my my motion was to your motion. So, I'm voting yes. You're voting yes. It would be a vote. A vote of yes or I would be to not continue this. I'm voting yes.

Councelor Damato. Yes. Yes. Uh, Vice Chair Graham, I agree with what's been said. This is a very difficult vote, but I'm voting yes with the chair. Mr. Ian Wallally, yes. Miss Willis, I'm voting yes. I feel that the a project that is very viable could be done with a just less in accordance with the height. I think that it is possible to continue with the project but just conform to the required height. Therefore, I'm voting yes that we should Mr. vote in the interest of the community.

Mr. Orba, I'm voting yes as well. I feel the struggle but agree with Bro, yes. Okay. Thank you. That that said, I I hope you come back with a different building. I I know you said you're not, but I but I like I like what you've done and and I think you could do something great here and just, you know, again, for all the reasons. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Thank you.

Okay, like I said, we've got a lot to get to, but let's let's take a 10-minute break. Uh we will hear Night Owl 516 Bloomfield Avenue next and then we've got some other board business to handle after that. So 10-minute break agree with you. Thank you.

All right, you're back on. Thank you, Miss Tally. Are we back on? Um, we will be in a second. Okay. Yes, we are back on. Excellent. Um, not that I think anything changed, but if anyone's here for 260 Park, we're not hearing that tonight. Next up, application 295016 Bloomfield Avenue, Night Owl LLC.

Good evening everyone. Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of Night LLC. Um, this is a I think simple, straightforward application for a conditional use permit uh for my client to operate a retail cannabis dispensary uh in a portion of the first floor of the building located at 516 Bloomfield Avenue. This is the building that for many years was occupied by the CVS pharmacy which move which recently uh um closed that location and my clients uh have a lease for a portion of uh the former CVS location. Um, under the zoning ordinance, retail cannabis dispensaries are permitted uses in the C1 uh central business district provided that certain conditions are met. Uh, and the purpose of this hearing um is for us to uh establish and have the board confirm that we meet all the conditions uh applicable um uh to this use. And I know the board has heard I think three other applications uh under this ordinance. Um and so that's the that's the purpose of the of the uh hearing tonight. Um and I'm my plan is to present what'll be very brief testimony literally from my uh uh one of my clients Eric Payne. Um, I do want to note that the entire team is here, other uh owners of the business as well as their architects who would be able to answer any other questions that the board might have. Again, given my prior experience with similar applications. I know the board typically has questions that might go beyond the scope of of

this particular application. So, we have everyone here to, you know, answer whatever questions the board might have. So, uh, I'd like to begin by calling Eric Payne as my first and only witness really. Actually, before Mr. Tremble, before we do that, Janice, do you have, uh, exhibits that we should mark ahead of time?

I do. A1 is the application. A2 is the certification of taxes paid. A3 is the proof of publication. A4 is the affidavit of service. A5 are the architectural drawings prepared by T. Leaporta Architects PC dated August 19th, 2025. And A6 is the planning report dated December 2nd, 2025.

And standing. I appreciate that. Sir, do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Using that microphone, would you please state your full name and business affiliation for the record? Uh, my name is Eric Payne. I'm with Nightwal Dispensary. Night LLC Dispensary. Eric, you're resident of the town of Montlair? Yes, I am. Okay. And are you one of the owners of Nightwal LLC? Yes. Okay. And did Nightwal uh apply to the town uh and receive from the town a licensed to operate a retail cannabis dispensary include?

Okay. And you've also uh uh in the process of obtaining a state license or you already have the state license in place. In the process of obtaining the state license, right? All right. And you've uh you're proposing to operate the dispensary from uh the first floor of the building at 516 Bloomfield Avenue. Correct. That's correct. All right. And does Nightal LLC have a lease with the bu property owner for that space? Yes, we do. And it's a portion of the space that was formerly occupied by the CS. Yes. Okay. And you intend to operate this business at any other location other than 516 Bloomfield Avenue? No.

Okay. You're not going to be operating out of a motor vehicle or mobile V uh van of any kind and not operating from anyone's home. No. Correct. No. Um, and you submitted with the application in addition to architect's plans for the space a map uh which demonstrates that there are no schools or licensed child care centers within 250 ft of the entrance to your space. Is that correct?

That's correct. And you uh your company previously appeared before the Historic Preservation Commission, correct? Yes, we did. Along with the owner of the property. Yes. And at that time, the plans for the facade renovations and signage were reviewed and approved by the HPC. Is that correct? Okay.

Um Okay. I um I I don't have any further questions. It's really established what we need to establish. I think Janice's memo was also confirmed actually that we meet the requirements for conditional use. And Mr. Chairman, I just my in my report I did have a couple of questions on page eight. Yep.

Regarding the transparency of the windows and uh I think that there were some inconsistencies between the facade details submitted and the facade details approved by the HPC. So if you could address those. Well, we're going to comply with the you know the facade details as approved by the HPC. To the extent there was any inconsistency the we would be governed and comply with the HPC approval. Uh we're certainly going to comply with the requirement that windows be transparent. Okay.

And then you also indicated you know the as as perhaps conditioned you know that obviously we have to have the licensing in place both state and right um and you'll have to come in with the signage application which would be approved by the HPC's minor application. I think that's already been approved Janice by you already got the signage approved. It's on the figure nine on in your report. Oh, okay. I'm not on that. I just don't I am Oh, you're on that. I'm not on that one. So, I can't I don't recall seeing the Maybe I wasn't at that meeting. I'm sure it was approved,

but you you already you went to the you submitted the all the the the the sign details separately from your approval to the the facade improvement. It was part of the part of the building owner's uh uh submission to the HBC included the sign for Night Owl. Yes. The lettering and Okay. It's shown on the two drawings actually. Yeah. Well, what I see is store three Juichi and then Night Owl. Okay. But if that's not sufficient for some reason, usually our sign sign

the signs um coming it's the sign company that actually comes up with not just what's what but this is this looks like a master signage plan. We usually get the details from the sign company that fabricates the sign and that that's what gets approved by the HPC separately. So, this looks to me more like a master signage plan, although I can't even read the text here. To the extent there hasn't already been a review and approval, we obviously agree to comply, okay, with the, you know, we we're not asking for any variances with respect to the sign and we certainly acknowledge that the signage would be subject to HBC approval if it hasn't already been approved. Okay.

And and we'll present the sign to the HPC. Yeah. Approval. It's a pretty simple process. There's no it's it's a subcommittee. Okay. Okay. So, you know, we're in agreement with with with all of your conditions, recommended conditions of approval. And you don't have any consumption planned at this point unless and until the state allows such and you get a permit for such. So, we have no plans for consumption. No plans for consumption. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Well, we we should get you on the right. I don't think Montlair allows it.

Well, I was going to say that's why I said unless and until it's permitted by both the township and the state. Right. So, I just because I'm reading Miss Tally's memo and it says, you know, the area may not be used for cannabis consumption. I'm not asking you to say we're never going to do that. I'm just asking unless and until there's a permit that's allowed. But at this point, you acknowledge you can't have consumption unless permanent and we have no plans to you know unless until the town then that's a consideration we would have right there's a lot of other factors that go into that and I'd rather not get into that tonight of details of you know um any sort of HVAC modifications. I don't want to go there but you'd have to go there if you go down that road.

Yeah. And this property looks like it's one is it one lot over from South Park Street. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. I'll assume that's sufficiently near South Park Street intersection. Right. I mean, at least it makes sense in my mind.

Any questions from the board? Do we have a limit of the number of these licenses um that the town can issue? We do. Three. And who holds the other two? Well, I know Kush Connection holds one of them. Okay. Connection holds one and then the successor to a company that was called Citrus NJ that I don't remember. Last and you may remember the the successor company to cit Citrus High I don't I don't high or something. Last I know was Citrus the last conversation or I heard from from Gibbons, but I don't know if there's a successor there.

Just in terms of where they are because we we've seen a few of them. I know. I So we saw one on Pine Street. Did that ever happen? That's a manufacturing and cultivator. Didn't they apply for retail as well? They they are in the process of potentially applying for a manufacturing license and we are currently on the council and Kush we saw right that's going to happen there. And did we look on one on Walnut on um on Valley Road? That's Kush or there's Well, first of all, Kush relocated to Bloomfield. We did approve another one on Valley Road, but they never they I forgot the name of that one and they never day. H Moody Day.

Okay. So now with Kush and this will be two, right? That that actually open. No, there's another there's another license holder that has a lease on the former Dunkin Donuts which is Caddy Corner from Midland Avenue. So they're all going to be in Bloomfield Avenue. Yes. all the stores there were and they are within 600 yards of each other something like that. Marijuana alley sort of like right down the Are you concerned about that? I'm just I mean all you know because we also we had the other place across the medicinal place they were going to do a store right but they didn't Ascend to them they they left. They left.

Yeah. Asend had a license then they left. They fought hard to get open and and then they left not long after opening. Really, is the business good? They abandoned their license in June of 2024, having determined that they have a they have a a maximum of three local licenses that any entity can hold statewide and they determined that they would not they would not use one. They would rather have three somewhere else.

Yeah. So this is really straightforward then because there's three allowed and there's no there's nothing in the code which says I remember when the when it was first discussed there was some discussion about maybe one in upper Monontlair and then that area in Valley was approved and then also Bloomfield Avenue but looks like they all wound up here. We don't dictate where they locate we only Yep. We only dictate the zoning which zones they can be permitted in. So, this is really straightforward then, right? It it is. I mean, there's there's few requirements that need to be met. I think Miss Tally's memo laid it out really well. I think the applicant just testified that all of those things are correct.

So, yeah, it's straightforward in my mind. I think Mr. Trumpak is right to bring the whole crew because a lot of times these do go into other areas that are, you know, not spelled out here. But I would suspect given the lateness of the hour here that folks aren't going down that road tonight. So glad. So glad you're prepared though. There was a benefit to waiting it out. Possibly. That'd be my guess. I mean because like I said, we still have more business to get to. That'll take some discussion. So yeah, because this is just a use variance. We don't have to talk about the operation. It's conditional use at all. We don't have to. I mean, if you want to, it's it's our prerogative, but it's a conditional use. Conditional use. Sorry, not a use variance. My apologies. Just a conditional use. There's no variances. Yeah.

Are there any other questions from the board? I actually have one. Um, Mr. Payne, what is your relationship to the LLC Night Owl? Are you a managing member, member, or I'm officer? Uh, a managing member and department. Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public of this witness about his testimony tonight? I I suspect it's mostly everybody from the team, but I I'm I'm obligated to ask in case there are people that aren't because I don't know who everybody is. So, I don't see any um I don't see anybody. Is anybody You don't have any more witnesses, right, Mr. Tilac?

Uh no, that does any member of the public want to make a comment about this application either positive or negative? I don't see anybody jumping up. I I would note one thing which is that the scope of work on this says that it's in Loi New Jersey. I saw that too. It's just it seemed like a copy error issue. It's on the cover sheet. Oops. James, I thought it was on one other place too. Yeah, I I caught it on the cover sheet. I think on another another plan. I saw it as well. Right. That'll be corrected. I assume you don't want to make any other further statements. Submit numbers.

Fantastic. We But we so look forward to your closing statements, Mr. Trim. He also recognizes the I'll have one for you in two weeks. Well, in that case, given the testimonies tonight, um I would move to approve this conditional use application with conditions with with the conditions that the HBC. Oh yeah, the that we well with the conditions that we talked about the signage to the HPC. Correct. Signage will be presented to HPC. You confirm the plans, the facade, the architectural drawings need to be amended to match what was proved by the HPC. But that's Yeah.

What do we see when you're walking down the street in the windows? There's going to be a waiting room. So you will have and the windows will be transparent, but you'll be looking into the waiting room. Is that um okay? So that's um okay. I remember we were talking about something the walkability. You don't have to have walkability in that particular area because I remember when other people wanted to have looking into waiting rooms or whatever of a medical office and other things they were not granted that because they had to do something to make it more walkable.

Well, what we have what what our code requires is that the windows are be transparent so you can see in. We don't dictate exactly what takes place in there. The challenge with cannabis is that you have to you can't look into the cannabis sales area. So my understanding is the way they design these is you can have the transparent window from the street to the waiting area which is fine. You'll see people you'll see it'll look like a little lobby in there. Um but beyond that where you sell the cannabis that those windows will not be transparent. Correct.

So on that list of things that we um went over a few years back to determine walkability was was waiting room on there because and I asked that because when Dr. Davis was opening his medical practice in the south end of town, we had specific requirements that he put different things in the window so that he wasn't you just weren't looking. We had to get a variance to have a medical office use on the first floor. Okay. Okay. And in order to make it not look like a medical office use, which usually has privacy, he had to um put some of his the products that he sells in the windows and kind of create a display area. Okay. That's how we got the variance.

So, this is different than this is a retail use. This is not an office use. This is a retail use. But but they'll be sitting there just people sitting there or will they be sitting there with their products enjoying? We don't say that you have to show. We don't say that you have to have a display area. You just have to have the windows have to be transparent. You can't you can't block them off and make it look um hidden whatever is in in there. So, um in this case it's a it's a waiting area. Seats and I guess tables or whatever. Okay. Thank you.

I mean again I don't remember waiting room was allowed. Well, it it would be nice if it didn't look like a sterile, you know, white box on the inside, but that's not that's nothing we can control. So, it won't Yeah. Art on the wall, art on the windows that are on the inside or some of the product if people wanted to. No, I don't I don't think you can. You can't put that pictures of the product cuz a lot of us have no idea what it is. This This I don't know. I'm one that doesn't know and I'm a 70s baby.

Well, with that, I made a motion with conditions. Second and there's a second. Motion in a second. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. I was thinking about the product display. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Have a good night. Have a good one. That was Next. This is And thanks for your patience over those last couple of uh meetings. I had to come back. This is good. Next. Who are we doing now? Two. Oh dear. Well, it's still a drug store, right? One drug store.

Still a drugstore. It is. That's for sure. I wish it did something for Next up, we've got the Elm Mission New Street redevelopment plan. And I went to the University of Wisconsin. Okay, that's the bigger miracle. I just want to preface. I know that there's Oh, yes. You're very welcome. Good night. Welcome. Life is all about the missions. So, there's we I've got four more things on the on under new business.

Yes. just wanted the the last three items are really just for your information only. The two council resolutions about an area in need of redevelopment and an area in need of rehabilitation. Um it's for your information only. I'm going to be scheduling a public hearing for that in March. Okay. On those two items and then the annual board of adjustment report. I just want to make sure you have a hard copy. They are working on their 2025. Um they're only a year late. Yeah. Well, yes, it's a little late. Um, so I think it's something we should direct the uh the zoning uh subcommittee to take a look at that report. I agree.

Okay. So, that means the only things we have to do tonight is discuss the um Elm new LL mission new street redevelopment plan changes and committee assignments. Okay. So, um, if you look at the memo that we prepared, we try to propose specific zoning requirements that reflect the master plan in the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment area. And, uh, it's creating a new zone district. For those of you who were not involved when we did the master plan, the the um unified land use and circulation plan, we amended that I think in 2016 at some point to reduce the height of the buildings in the C1 zone, which is largely on Bloomfield Avenue, from six stories to four stories. and several times we've proposed zoning changes to the council to make those changes and it never it never got traction. So, we have a new council now. Um, we'll have to I think we'll I've got indications that this council is a little bit more open to reducing the height of the buildings on Bloomfield Avenue. And when I say the height of the buildings, this is outside of the redevelopment area. The master plan recognizes that we have strategic nodes of redevelopment along Bloomfield Avenue. Uh we've created redevelopment plans for all of those and allow the larger, more intensive um buildings in those strategic nodes. But in between the majority of those buildings along Bloomfield Avenue are two, some of them are one, they're two or three stories. Um they're not large buildings and they're on very small lots. So the master plan was amended um several years

ago to reduce the height from six stories and 67 feet to four stories and 47 ft in those areas. Uh the zone the the density however stays the same um because practically speaking you can even at a with a four-story building you can still develop it um at a density of 55 units per acre. Um that's from what we've seen with fourstory buildings. You don't need a sixstory building to utilize. Excuse me. F. I didn't hear you. The F. Is your mic on? Yes. It's a There's no floor area ratio. It's just a density units per acre.

So, um, so anyway, uh, what we propose here is again, we know that the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment plan is dated. uh has not kept up with a lot of the changes. So um if you look on the ordinances that we drafted, this is calls for creating a new zone called the CD center downtown zone. The many of the uses reflect what's in the C1 zone right now. The changes um are that if you can see where we highlighted it um I'll go through some of them. Number one is we recommend not permitting parking decks as a permitted principal use in this area. Uh I don't think we need parking decks. We have them as um um accessory uses in our redevelopment areas. What we would like to see is you can have a parking deck if it's access if it's part of an existing building or integrated into an existing building, but a commercial parking deck we don't think is appropriate and would recommend that that be eliminated as a principal use in this area. Um, we made some a couple of other changes. the maximum density of 55 units per acre for we applied that for assisted living facilities. Uh we reduced the height of the assisted living facility from six stories to four stories just to match what we're proposing for this zone district. Uh so and then we have a section I'm on page six of the ordinance are the areas that

we wanted that we're making changes are highlighted the density standards for principal structures and again matching what the um redevelopment plan says. Uh we've added language here that maxes ma uh matches the redevelopment plan rather than keeping the original density which um says that you have to it's when you apply the density of 55 units per acre to a mixeduse building you have to um reduce the density based on the percentage of floor area dedicated to residential use the master plan just calls for simple applying a simple density rather than using that reduction. So um that was the other recommendation in here for that new zone district and then the other properties in this area would be put into the R2 zone district including those properties on Hartley Street. So, I don't know if you have any questions about our memo or our our proposals here.

There was on page Go ahead. On page six, um where you're talking about the density. Mhm.

U your first bullets, they talk about that if the it's a large lot that there's a maximum density. But you're saying that there should be no maximum density for lots under 20,000 square ft. And I have difficulty understanding what that means because it if you say there is no regulation that presumes that a person could come with even 80 or as big as much as the one that is 20 that's very large. So I'm I'm thinking that perhaps that we would want to set some sort of maximum for a smaller lot. And if somebody had a great idea, then we could do a variance. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there would be no density stated for lots under 20,000.

They could come for 55 units if they wanted to. We could just take that out and just keep the density, you know, 55 units per acre across the board. I don't feel strongly either way. I just feel that somebody's going to come in and say we want so many and we'll have no rule to say they can't. I think well the height might the the height's going to keep it in but it's probably okay just to take it out because it's going to if somebody wants it more dense one based on one based on let's just get rid of item number two.

Yeah. If somebody's got a really great idea for why they should have 70 dwelling units per acre. Great. Putting in micro units. That's still micro units. I we've we've had those applications for micro units. Yes, we have. Yeah. Well, at least we have something that we could judge and say, "Oh, that's a good idea." As opposed to them just saying, "Well, you said there's no limit, you know?" Right. I have no problem to in fact. Well, I think that's fine. I think this is fine. I think it makes sense.

I've got a couple of um just like bigger picture thoughts. Um, I'm not sure if this is really going to get anything done because it's pretty similar to the last one. And the main thing is parking. And also before I say that, we still you still have purple. You have this we still have C1 even further down Bloomfield Avenue. So this doesn't really, you know, you're limiting these properties to be four stories, but right down the street they could be six. So it's a seems a little unfair.

I'm thinking that this is I'm we're right. You're good point. We're just trying to address the underlying zoning for the Elm new Mission. I'm hoping that once we do this, we'll convince the council to apply this new C this new zone district to the other areas in the C1 zone. Um, right now we're just trying to get rid of the redevelopment to do it for the redevelopment area. Just the just just the redevelopment area. Yeah. And agree there may be some we may need to tweak the parking. We can do that as a next step.

Well, right. Here's my issue with Bloomfield Avenue. And when I Carol and I came over, we drove down Bloomfield Avenue. You know, we kind and I said, I want to go down Bloomfield Avenue. We have never built an as of right building in the C1 district ever. I think they've all been in redevelopment plans. Why? Because you can't do the parking. And and then in 2021, we removed when that uh the storage building on Gates was converted to office, everyone through hissy fit. Yeah.

Um and took out the one thing that created a viable downtown in the 80s was that if you change the use of a building in the C1 or add 15%, don't worry about the parking because these buildings pre-existed any parking. So the rub here is that, you know, we've got, okay, we lower the zone and whatnot, but I don't think that you can physically build these buildings without structured parking and it's just going to sit there. So I mean, I there sort of a fundamental thing. I mean, either we preserve the down Bloomfield Avenue for what it is and say, you know, get rid of that ordinance that killed the um adaptive reuse

concept. So, um, well, Tony, is there a happy medium on that one? Because that Gates project was, uh, the parking variance was egregious, right? It was like 80 spots and they had allowed. Well, no, it was allowed, right? But that's why, but if they had needed to do the parking, they would have needed like 80 spots for that place or something. Okay. So, then what would happen to that building? So, I I don't know. But what I'm saying is, is there now you got a building no one's complaining about it's a nice office building that

I'm not arguing with. I'm just wondering if there's a happy medium that where where we can preserve at least uh uh some I mean that that seemed to me you know sometimes bad facts make bad law right so that was bad facts right they came in and again they would have required uh almost 100 spaces right and and they required zero at the end of the day so there's got to be some kind of control and protection right when it comes to adaptive reuse right well that building um that was an industrial building, not the most interesting, you know, it was a storage building, right?

You know, trucks coming in and out. And now there's a a ratable which is I guarantee is valued a lot higher than what was there. It's a benefit to the town. No one's um you know, there's a lot of folks that I I don't know. I'm not making excuses, but that was a way and I think the ordinance worked well. We had this outdated building which no longer served its purpose and it was adapted for office. And I think that if we required structured parking for all that, it would never be done. You could never afford to build an office building and and and create that space now. So it'd be sitting there.

If it was retail, if sorry, apologies. If it was um if it was um uh apartments, yes. Do you think it could have been they could have met the parking requirements? Well, the parking would be lower, but that building occupied pretty much the entire site, right? No, I guess I thought it had had a lot in the back, right? There was a side area. There's something in the back. There's no parking. There's no parking there. There's no parking, but you couldn't get back there. So, that would require a less uh um egregious variance, right? But the demand for parking is during the day. Yeah.

And yeah, would balance out. So, for example, if you have apartments that are going to be built at Lacawana, a lot of those will be vacant. Anyone who has office, and we built a new Midtown deck, we've built we've built lots of parking where in the middle of the day, it's dead. And we fill them up with permits for night parking. So, we we've kind of subsidized the rental housing to a certain extent with these parking decks because they're not really being used as much for the retail shoppers, which was kind of the original intention. We've I think we almost we don't have all the numbers on parking, but there's a lot of permit spaces in in those lots that we're not getting a lot of money for. Um, so I guess my feeling is that um, you know, I'm also by requiring the parking for this new zone other than where the gas well, I'm sorry, the Firestone uh, car repair shop is on the corner and those parcels, that's a bigger parcel. Maybe you could kind of squeeze something in. Um, but it also says that the parking has to come from a side street or something.

Well, I thought they they presented something at some point, didn't they? that that that Firestone there or am I think of a different lot across the street? Next door. It was next door. Next door. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if there's an answer, but you know, but maybe we can talk and figure out a compromise. You know, something because it's almost like why why lower the height when nothing has ever been done. No one's ever built a six-story building on Bloomfield Avenue as of right based on the zone. the argument that the council every time we've gone back gone to the council to reduce the building height from six stories to four stories or like why are you going to do that Janice nobody builds a six-story building anyway but you know what at some point somebody may someone will figure it out

well that that lot across the street from Lacawana Plaza was where they were trying to put in I think it was five or six right weren't they at one point and they couldn't quite park it um and but I think they got an approval if if I recall but they just walked away from the project so it's not like it's impossible They did. I think it was 10. They got approval. There's they I think they're trying to sell it. They're trying to sell it. That's still active. Place was uh No, it's um next door. Uh but that's a four-story building. Was it fourstory? Okay. You can build you can at 55 units per acre. You can build it at a in a fourstory building. Okay.

So, just so you know, this council person, sorry, does have a on his to-do list repeal of 02123, which is that ordinance. Well, the parking ordinance. Yes, especially because of the way it was done as I recall was haphazard. So, so what is it? Now, I'm just curious. What is it that you wanted to do with that?

It's the idea that if you have uh a commercial building and you change its use that and that previous uh commercial operation just functioned without dedicated parking that once you changed its use, you would all of a sudden need new parking. So you were trapping businesses in an a use that didn't make any more sense for them because if they changed it, if you went from being an ice cream parlor to being an office,

an you know, whatever it was, some other thing or vice versa, then you would have to re start the whole process again and you would be burdened with a need for parking which is you just can't even get. And but what we've found is if somebody wants to make minor changes to their to their spaces and I think we have a couple of applications coming to the planning board where if they you know they're coming for they have a variance for one parking space and that's triggering an application and if it's it's just changing the use inside a building and that's triggering an application to the planning board for one parking space. So it makes sense to revisit if it's dimminimous I think it's it makes sense to

to wave the the requirement right to come come before us but if it's you know 50 or 100 spaces I think we need to really take a look at that that's the or the previous ordinance also said if you also add 15% of area to the building don't worry about it because you let's say if you've got twotory and add an apartment up top or something and the all the buildings on Bloomfield Avenue are really shallow too that's another thing that is a limiting factor they're not deep lots They were the original maybe 100 foot lots or maybe

about that. So they don't the the footprint doesn't really allow for um you know you can't build this little spiral garage. It would be all it would be all traffic lanes. You need a pretty big footprint to build a a garage. So I mean it's worth revisiting. It is. It's absolutely worth revisiting. I I don't know if total repeal counselor uh but but I think uh certainly revision is important. I think we should put that that's that comes from a different part of the code and I think we should probably put that on our to-do list at the top of our to-do list, but that's beyond what's here today and just creating this new zone district for what's in the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment area. Yeah.

One small thing on here which is that the most glaring uh undeveloped property which is between Mission and New from what I understand has some like heavy covenants on it. So, it can only be built. Which property is that? The vacant one? The vacant one? There's nothing. There's I mean, it's not Murphy's anymore, but Oh, it's not Murphy's anymore. I thought you were the one who told me somebody bought it. No. All of these years and it's still Murphy's. I I thought it was still owned by Mr. Murphy. There's no covenants on that property. There's just a long history. Yeah. With the property owner.

He won't even let us plant vegetables. Yeah, we always thought it'd be a nice property to acquire for open space or something. Yes. Better than nothing. Yeah. So, Janice, on on on the CD and the former RA, what whatever the resident is the only thing that changed the height, this the parking is still pretty much the same. The lot size is if you have a small lot,

it's only just it's just the height. And what happens by taking it out of the redevelopment plan and putting it into um the zoning it uh all of our other changes to our zoning ordinance, our changes to the signage requirements to the affordable housing, all those now apply. When they were in the redevelopment plan, they did not apply. So, um Yeah. Yeah. How tall do you think that the tallest building that Lawren is going to build? How how cuz that's that's caddy corner from the Firestone property. It's right across the street. I mean, do you think that the Lacawana is going to have six-story buildings in it or was all going to be pretty lowrise? You think

at Lacawana Plaza? Yeah, they they were going to do the second application. They had a pretty tall office building. I thought maybe six stories. No, no, I think it's five stories, but they're tall. They were the height of a six story, weren't they? Yeah. So, it's like I think it's like 57 feet. Yeah. Okay. But it's it's because the the Florida ceiling heights are pretty high. Um I don't know. I mean that that if there was a little bit more density that would be allowed on that. I'm not suggesting that anything go into redevelopment. I mean I that fires place is good to go to. They're very nice. I think it's good for the town.

One thing we might want to add here is um I don't see we should add some stepback requirements. You know how we this is these are fourstory buildings. Step back after the third. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. And I also like the idea of those almost infilling in, you know, where it's C1 between Hartley and new. Thanks. And I know that's you you just said, Miss Talia, that that's not the purpose of this exercise, but I think it makes sense because to change that from C1 to the CD. Okay. Zone. So, which one is this?

Um the the C1 section that's between Hartley and New.

Okay. And then also the one that's, you know, if I continue east on Bloomfield Avenue after Mission, you know, where where the C1's abuting the R2, that's that's where I feel like we need some sort of step down overall because I I am afraid that somebody figures out how to put in a six-story building right next to a two family residential. And I'm, you know, that was that was our I think that was the impetus for this discussion, quite frankly, right? So, so let's This is a very tight neighborhood. You know, this the lots are even smaller here than elsewhere on Bloomfield Avenue. So, maybe we expand it beyond just the redevelopment area and say these properties should be included in the CD zone. And then if there's a further further conversation that we need to extend it further north, then we'll we'll do that as a separate effort.

Yeah, I agree. But I also fear, you know, the person is going to come in and buy up three and four and five of the lots and then get, you know, go up. And so I like the idea of limiting the height.

And then I had a couple of other maybe things to flag or consider in the actual zoning discussion. So under it was on pay. I'm on starting on page two here under um permitted principle and conditional uses number 7B where it says any curb cut for access lanes to parking shall not interrupt the street frontage of the building. And I know I think that was put in as a counter to 10 elm if I'm not mistaken. But I remember in subsequent hearings we've had how to interpret that was not clear. Is the fact that you have parking uh an access lane for parking on say the left side of the building or the right side of the building. Isn't that interrupting the streetscape?

That came up on uh 260 Park. It might be 260 Park. So I'm I'm just my suggestion. It does interrupt the facade. They said no, it's just on the left. Right. I think it came from the building on Glenriidge Avenue where they had it in the middle of the building, I think. And then suggestion was made to put it to the left and keep a more uniform storefront. Right. So why don't we say that the the access lane shall be at a building corner a corner of the building and not in the so it's not related to the frontage but it has to be at the corner of the building

or do we want access lanes in general off of Bloomfield Avenue? I mean that I I think of Bloomfield Avenue as street front and not having access lanes. But there are instances I mean obviously there are instances when you have to put an access lane in like the one that goes to the public school, right? Yeah. I mean I'm not saying it shouldn't be there ever, but I think in general Well, that debates the whole that's another argument that the parking will never work if you can't have an access length. I mean, for instance, even think of the vest street. No, because if it there's no side streets that it could some of them you have the side I'm leaving the I'm leaving the parking for another we can I think parking

the vest tree has parking access from Avenue. Um so just think if you go up on the larger projects it's usually the redevelopment areas where you have larger parcels where you can you have on-site parking you got you have to have be able to have access. That's true. I guess I was thinking more of some of the smaller shops. I just I like that. right look and feel. And they're so small, they're never going to have parking either. Oh, that makes sense. Um, other questions around garden centers and building supply establishments. Is that do do we want that to be a principal use?

We can just take it out. I mean, we took this from the C1 zone. I would take that out if somebody has a really great idea because that also thinks to me, which number which number is that? Uh that is B1. Okay, I'm on page three now. Yeah, that that just didn't make sense to me. Um and we're going to get rid of parking decks, right? Because we don't want parking decks as a Yeah, I I agree with all of your planning suggestions in your memo. Yeah,

that things that weren't incorporated yet. I I agree with those. Um, I I also wasn't sure about the fast food restaurant or bar tavern shall be located closer than 750 ft to property occupied by another such establishment in the CD zone. What is it? This is B2. That's in our C1 zone. We don't want we we it shouldn't say the CDZ CD zone. It should but it's just rep it's just replicating what's in our ordinance right now. No, that's not in that one. So, we can't have food restaurants or bars or taverns located within 750 ft of each other. Let's just get rid of it. Yeah, I can get rid of

then you can't have a pub crawl, you know? I don't I don't do that anymore. But I just like that I didn't I didn't understand what the issue like what what what are we trying to solve by we already have a limited number of liquor licenses. So I think what I think bars next to each other or even you know restaurants next to each other that's okay.

Um what else do I have? Oh yeah, I agree with removing the parking deck. The when I go down to let's see assisted living facilities off says uh 4B all street parking shall be provided pursuant to 347-101. I'm wondering if we should think about and maybe we don't want to get into parking tonight but relaxing parking regulations for assisted living facilities or or looking at that very specifically. We have we have specific requirements for assisted living facilities. Very very low, right? It's very low. Yeah. So, we already that's already addressed. It's I I was looking at it a couple weeks ago.

Two approved. Okay. Good. Because I I that's what I want to try and say. I would suspect there's going to be less Yeah. demand for parking there. Uh let's see here. There's there's something in the height and setback standards for principal structures. It says the minimum front yard setback for all buildings shall be zero feet. Do we want that to be a is that a minimum or is that a maximum along say Bloomfield Avenue? Do we want buildings right on the property line? We do.

So should that be a maximum? Well, you have to allow you got if if for some reason they're off by a foot, we don't want to create some an issue. It's supposed to be as close as possible to the building line to to create like a building wall, right? But if somebody comes in and for some reason they want to do like a little courtyard like you remember Tai chef you don't want to create an issue where they can't do that, right? So that's you see what I'm saying, right? But do we want to I guess I guess my question then is do we want to define a maximum if if the minimum zero

and I don't see a maximum. Could somebody have a 20? I mean I doubt they would do that but 20 foot eight foot something. Yeah. I mean 8t is that I mean it's actually not even a I mean they want to maximize their property. I don't see anybody pushing the building back eight feet because they're prohibited from having parking between the building and the street anyway. Ah okay. So it's so maybe it's a non-issue. I don't think it'll be an issue and then my at least in the mo in these properties these small properties you're not going to have that issue. You might have the issue if it was say you know the path mark which you know had the parking between the street and the building. That's much that's a redevelopment area. So

what is the setback on the front yard for C1 zero? And then my last one was on uh item number five in that same section. So B5 where it says provisions shall be made at the rear of non-residential buildings for off- streetet loading and unloading subject to planning board review. I'm wondering if that should be all buildings. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Why provisionally made at the rear of all buildings? Because not commercial buildings and residential buildings all need loading, right? I don't know why we excluded res.

Oh, no. Sorry. All it's getting old. All buildings. Yeah, I'm probably getting tired and you're looking online. So, I guess your page numbers are somewhat difficult to follow, but I was trying to find where you are. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on page six now. page six um right under it's near the top of the page item number five so it' be B5 but yes I'm on the online version so if I've messed something up it will change the pageionation right because on page six I've got um five then C it's that five it's that five yeah

yeah it's that five item that I'm talking about where it's calls out specifically non-residential it seems to me it would be all buildings Okay. I'm concerned about the mixeduse buildings uh because the mixeduse buildings are usually primarily residential. So when you say in the literature u mixed use and then residential are they really separate in that sense because mixed use is usually like for example on Park Street it's 900 square f feet and then there's seven stories or

it's a very good point. I think I think you want mixeduse buildings on the on the on the commercial districts, but on the side streets you might on the side streets then 100% residential should be fine and you don't need the mixeduse component. So I agree. Right. I agree with that as well. So, but but where we do have mixeduse buildings and everything is to the property line, they're on both sides and then when you don't have a back area either, you've got people living in buildings where there are three sides of walls, right? That's

maybe they're lucky they get a front. And so we don't we need if we're going to use have mixeduse buildings, we still need some setbacks and whatever so that people can have windows and things that that are appropriate. But you have to remember most of most of the buildings along Bloom and these are these this zone district is along Bloomfield Avenue. Most of them are building to building. There's zero there are zero um sideyard setbacks. So we're matching the scale and design of those existing buildings.

It works because you know in upper Montlair we've got um buildings all in broomfield lab we have that but we don't have like we do over on the the one that really got my attention was the one with three sides of walls and you couldn't even get out the back unless you went the building was on fire. You had to walk through the building on fire to get to it outside whatever the 10 Hartley Street. Mhm. They have an apartment there in which there's three walls, right? Solid walls on three sides of the building. And even if you climbed out the back with built with your with your rope ladder by yourself,

if you climbed out the building with your rope ladder, you still had a wall back there. You were trapped back there unless you came through the building that was on fire to get out to the front. So, I mean, I'm concerned about mixeduse buildings in terms of the what happened to having egress windows for every bedroom and what these I I'm really concerned that that's an issue wherever we put misused buildings. I I I have to push back on that because um that's the case of almost all the buildings along Bloomfield Avenue where they're you know the buildings but up against each other and over the years what's made the downtown so active is you have people living above the stores. Um they make it work. You know that's that's what downtown living is. I'm used to ideas that that you don't have sunpowers anymore and you don't have windows on all sides of the building. I'm used to that.

Yeah. But I do think when you get to the point where there's no exit that that's that's over building and and that's what is permitted. Well, the fire the fire egress is is there's a fire code that has to be um you know the building code. Um there are requirements um you know there's uh there has to be two means of egress when you get to a certain height. Um so if one staircase is on fire you have to have an alternate fireproof staircase. So the safety of the buildings is not necessarily related um shouldn't be related to the zoning. Um, so there needs to be um what you're saying about tent heartly worries me a little bit because

well the fire department looked at that and said well the there should be but that we recommend but they didn't say we require but we recalled the fire department that was one reason why they were to make to to say you can't do that and they said well you shouldn't do that but I guess it I guess it meant it meets the building code if it probably met the building code. Yeah, having zero lot line on either side of a building is a very natural like most of the world's cities do that from Amsterdam to New York City that two sides of the building, right?

But when when you looked at the lots that that are mixed use and they every when when the um code says that they can build to the property line on all four sides, but you know, we don't we don't allow they had there's a rear yard setback requirement. They and I was it 20 feet? There's a certain they can't build to the property line in the back under our current code. I mean, some of the buildings do already, you know, that were built many, many years ago, but the new requirements are that you cannot build to the property line in the back. So there's always a rear yard setback for new construction,

but there's nothing like sinister about having, you know, if you think about New York City, it's like you have 25th Street and 26th Street and there'll be a building here and a building here and they they meet in the back sometimes or thereabouts. They'll have a little alley in the back with a little alley usually has a fire escape. I was in New York looking at those old buildings just because I had this question in mind and it was interesting to see that they were like alleys where the fire escape from this building had a space and they could both buildings could come down that fire escape in the center.

But we have the setback here. Sorry. Well, I don't know because at Hartley Street that there was a setback for the backyard from the building that we were looking at, but the building that was behind it was right there according to the plan. Yep. And so they really you couldn't get out of that backyard. You you could park back there. You you went through a tunnel to get to the backyard and then when you got back there, you could not get out because the other building property line was around it. I think the goof the goofball one that I struggle with is is also with Hartley and is with two 60 Park where you have people building to the lot line with windows or even balconies

right and then stranding the adjacent property which is just that's strange one mind on that that's what I'm talking about and I'm not sure what that you can stop somebody from putting a window, right? That's going to be closed up because it's obviously Yeah. you're creating your own problem, right? But it is strange. It looks great now because the other property isn't built yet. Yeah. But when the other person uses their right, then those windows are just a place to paint something on the wall.

Yeah. So, I I think the one comment I would have on all this is that um I like for our rules and regulations to be intelligible to the average person. And when you have a zoning map, like a lot of the stuff about 260 Park was because people didn't understand the zoning map and it's very complicated and all this kind of stuff. So having zone additional zones that have additional definitions and colors on the map, if we start running out of colors for the map, we'll know that that's the end and we have to make it a little more compact. I don't see why in a township of our size we would need, you know, that you could have C1 zone and the C2 zone there and and the, you know, NC zones and the light industrial zone. And I feel like we already should have enough zones or if we can add one more and then duplicate it in other places. But yeah, at a certain point it's just too much. It's too many too many pages of code and um hard to keep up with

on this. My thought was C1 zone with this. Get rid of the C1 zone and just call it the CD zone because we don't we won't need it anymore. That's the plan. Um well, I I Well, I won't comment on that because that's not what

I don't think that's what we're talking about tonight. So on this what I would suggest is that we've got different setback requirements for different uses. Is there a way just to make the same setback requirements for the buildings no matter what? Like there's an assisted living facility um in the principal uses that are permitted and there's a different setback requirement just for assisted living. So, I would say just have the setback requirements be in 347 area height setback requirements for no matter what the building is. Okay.

Um because you've got um and also I think Keith has a point minimum front yard setback should should really be should really be maximum because it's not minimum. Minimum is means that it could be much bigger than that. I think the C1 setback is written pretty well. Um the front yard setbacks um well that does say minimum but it should say well let me say what it says. It says the minimum front yard setback for all buildings shall be zero feet in this but no building shall be set back further than greater setbacks of buildings on the adjoining lots. So that kind of lines up the facade and I think that works pretty well. So if if your building that you're building is next to two buildings that were just one foot back, it's just telling you to line the buildings up to the best you can. So I think replicating except for the word minimum, replicating the existing setback that's in C1, you know, C1's on Bloomfield Avenue, so why not just have the same language apply for all of Bloomfield Avenue instead of making this one different? Um and then in terms of sideyard setbacks, um C1 also says, you know, basically none is provided, but if you have one, it's a minimum of six feet, which is consistent with the other zones that are compact. And I thought we had a different one. Um No, I'm sorry. No, no, we have what is the sideyard? Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's it's the same. It says where a sideyard is provided, such yard such sideyard shall be a minimum of six feet. So, it replicates that. I thought there was one in the assisted living um section, but it's not. Just talks about front yard.

And then the parking the parking still in the let's say if the parking were was in the back and if it was a structure that still has to be set back 10 ft the same right doesn't doesn't matter. Mhm. Um no the parking surface parking doesn't have to be set not surface if it were garage it would have to

it was in a building. Yeah. Part of the principal structure then yes. the word combined. Um um I kind of want I mean if if I were doing this I would after going through all of this and I would probably just put them back to C1 and then just if you want C1 to be different then you know like why create this other zone that you really want to be C1 just put it back to C1 for now because this is what the master plan says just for this area actually The master plan calls for eliminating the C1 zone.

So until you tackle that, if you just we have the C1 zone already, make put all this back to C1, which what it was, and then deal with the C1 all over. I just thought I just thought this was an opportunity be because it because six stories in this area would be really overwhelming for these areas. So yeah, that's what I do like about this that that you do tone it down a bit for this area. Yeah. So yeah, I think you make a good point, Mr. Wall-E, but I think tackling all of C1 right now. Yeah.

I'm not sure that I'm not sure if that's something that's going to happen quickly. This seems like something where we've identified a a relatively urgent need and we could take action to, you know, take appropriate action um and test it out. Well, I guess where I'm coming from is that we're not doing the whole area between Elm Street or Grove all the way down to Maple, you know, we're doing like there's still C1's there. So, if I own a if I owned a property that's going to fourstory and say my buddy down the street, how come he's not four? He's at six and he he's even further down the street. It it creates sort of like this injustice in a way.

Well, I think that's why he suggested that we expand it to include those. to expand it. Yes, because I think I think it makes sense because you've got otherwise you're going to have CD up against R2 and the next block C1 against R2. And that's what I'm trying to solve for is I don't think C1 should be next to R2. Oh, so you see I'm sorry. So I'm I'm saying as as we extend eastward down Bloomfield Avenue, eastward eastward down Bloomfield Avenue, make those also CD. C can you remind me why the these changes imminent? Like you mentioned that it was necessary.

It started because the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment plan um is is ineffective. It's inappropriate. It's basically nonfunctional. And so the recommendation is to to uh to eliminate that redevelopment plan and replace it with zoning. Right. So I was I was thinking about um there's almost like a pilot program for a lower uh height limit, right? To then convince them that the C1 needs change as well. Well, I think that's exactly what we're doing. Right. Right. Right. So, the recommendations backfire though for all of Bluefield Avenue is a pilot program that we're going to do just in this area.

So, my question is what would make the pilot program successful so that like people actually develop this the way we intend to? and and my my my hesitation would be if if it doesn't redevelop soon, then when we try to change the C1, they're going to say, "Look, you changed it there and nothing happened. It didn't fit the market or or something like that." Um, could they argue for that? Could it get stalled?

We're going to see development on Hartley Street. There's already we know that okay there's developers have owned those properties purchased those properties. This may not be done in time for you know before they submit an application for development. So that's the one um I don't know how much change you'll actually see on Bloomfield Avenue. It's a historic district, right? you know, you maybe you'll what this will do um is ensure that if properties are cobbled together that you're not going to get a large six-story building that overwhelms those areas. That would be important. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. I think it's more prevention than encouragement of development. I don't think anyone's opposed to the development but I don't think this is the right mechanism to encourage development there. We've already encouraged we've pushed development to our strategic redevelopment nodes. We really want to it's more like maintenance and preserving historic historic character and scale. Yeah. I think it's to me I keep going back to scale against the R2 like it just if I live there I'm just thinking I looking up at a six-story building possibly like that just doesn't feel right. Yeah agree. Okay.

And we picked this as a project that can be self-contained because we have what we have is a bad redevelopment plan that has not worked and is perhaps might get acted on and things will happen there that we don't want to happen. Exactly. So, it's self-contained and it gives you something that's doable, right? But it seems like uh the interest in having lower building heights is also based on the fact that they're adjacent across the street from tall buildings. So, in other words, like across the street from this proposed zone are several five-story buildings, I guess. the western

it's well there are some over by the uh yeah the eastern gateway redevelopment area the vestri and the monclarian those are taller those are taller but those are also as you know much deeper lots so much they could be and they were part of a a a larger redevelopment plan around the Bay Street station whereas on the north on the the um south side the lots are smaller the buildings are smaller the scale is smaller So it's kind of like stepping it down.

But is there is there an issue because people have sort of phrased it to this this way to me who are like not you know professionals or whatever that we have a canyoning. You want to avoid canyoning. So you almost want to have like one's on one side of the street here, one's on another and then maybe switch them as you go down Bloomfield Avenue. Do you want to have consistency on both sides of the street is the question. Is that a good thing? Is it not a thing? Well, no. We don't want to create canyons. So,

so you want to have if you have tall buildings. So, for example, if we're looking at a redevelopment area or rehabilitation area, can't keep them straight by uh between Valley and um east on the each side of Valley at Bloomfield Avenue, right? Because Valley and Bloom is the tallest, we would want to have that be at a lower height specifically. Excellent idea. Yeah, it wasn't an it was a question really. No, but I think it's an excellent idea or at least have stepbacks. I mean, you may have, let's just say building right there. You've got that.

You know, the Leech building set the standard for sixstory buildings all along Bloomfield Avenue. The whole zoning was created to match the height of the Leech building. Um, so you do have imagine leech up and down, I guess. Yeah. But, uh, yeah. Janice, I have a question separate from this. Has there ever been a wind study done in the downtown areas? A what? A wind study? Cuz I we keep coming back to like setbacks and all of this and canyoning. It's really about comfort, right? Outdoor comfort. And yeah,

where you place height matters a lot, right? um like if the wind comes from the west predominantly in the winter time or the north or the south or the east, it impacts which areas around along the street should be taller or higher. Well, we've done the the the you know the um I forgot what it's called the that's the the the the daylight analysis and that's how we how we did the whole analysis to come up with the stepbacks. So the upper story step back so you get light air and open space. I get that. We haven't done a wind analysis. No, that's something new.

Yeah. Okay. I can I can share some material with you if if you care to see it. I mean we we've done some extensive analysis and and we did a this is separate but we did a master plan on redeveloping a airport and the airport is located at place where like the wind is at its highest right and the runway is like made to like like lift so the the wind is like at the most favorable but now if you place something in it it goes against everything so you have to rethink where to place blocks. Yeah.

And where we place height, uh, again, like sunlight is one component, but the comfort is very much related to the wind. When you're walking around New York City, there are blocks where just like you feel like the air is like what's happening. It's cuz like the air is coming from above and it's accelerating, right? Um, anyways, interesting. Very good. Do you have what you need from us?

I do. Unless anybody has any other comments, what I'll do is draft this. I think um I get I'm going to get the feeling I get the feeling that you're going to recommend this to the council and I'll send it to the economic development committee first with these with the memo and the your your recommendation and the zoning um for introduction. It may come back to the planning board if there's any changes. Uh but yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, it'll go as is basically with the force. But based on what you told me tonight. Yeah. Yeah. With all of our input. Okay. Okay. I would probably just keep it C1, but that's on the min already because nothing ever happened in the C1. So, I don't think there's any risk,

right? For 40 years. It's never never no one ever built a six-story building. So, I just think make it see one again and then figure I think you have we have to figure out how to get I mean if the mission of this is to preserve the character of downtown, we have to do things in zoning that help motivate people to upgrade the properties that are there and preserve them. And the first thing is to allow them to park easily. Yeah. Don't worry about the parking. I think it's an excellent that's that I think is probably more important than worrying about whether they're going to be a six-story. never happened. Okay. All right. All right.

So, with that on the two-do list, the um the uh replacement of the ordinance that had the you know, if you have a change of use and or if you add 15%. That the council might consider that soon or um it is not has not really come. probably a lot of more important things, but there's always something there. Do you want to do committee assignments? Yeah, let's do committee assignments. The most pressing one is we need another member on the development review committee. Oh, you want to go? I'll do development review. Okay. We meet once a month.

Yeah. Although for we've actually been cancelling every other meeting. So, what time do you meet? Because we do meet sometimes during the day, right? What time do you meet? It's 7 o'clock. Oh, because the applicants have been 7 o'clock since then. So, this is a 7 o'clock. It's the first Thursday of the month at 7 p.m. I if this meeting was short, my schedule's like, you know, when I retire, maybe I'm pretty backed up with stuff to do. I have no. So, do you have time? Can we can we talk to Oh, yeah. We getting some other um people maybe. Okay.

I I'll leave that I'll leave that fate because that's the one that's the most active. Maybe can Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. May I suggest that because there are potentially um two possibly three u new individuals that may be joining us in the very near future like after tomorrow. I'm not sure. But I'm just saying there's a chance that we can please discuss these at that time. I think that's a good idea. As long as there's nothing urgent right now, then we could always do something hard if we have to. But yeah, we just said the first priority is to get somebody on the development review committee. Yeah. Oh, that's a great committee, too. I love that.

So, the applicants um they're not flexible in terms of when they come in. They usually require evening meetings. Um, you know, it's we can change the meeting. Whoever it's it's Eric and myself and uh Jerry Simon from it's one member from the zoning board, Norberto and myself. So, uh, but we do it's a it's an official meeting. We have to publish it on uh on on the website and in the paper uh as a regularly scheduled meeting. That's right. I forgot it's public. Yeah, it's a public meeting. So you've noticed you've noticed those meetings for the year. I do. Okay. For already for the year.

I did. I mean we can always but they can be reic. It's not that it's fact that the new notice requirements. It's easy to change. What matters are what matters are treated and how long does it run? The meetings. It's like a technical advisory review meeting. We had one last week. It was an hour for one application. Um, so it's usually it's an hour or or so. If we have multiple applications, it could go to two hours, but it's never gone beyond nine o'clock. Okay. Oh, nice. Little different than our meetings here. Okay. Okay.

They're usually So, the development review committee handles kind of very like a lighter type of application that we've all decided. We can have the DRC handle. And if the DRC says, "Well, this is too much. It's got to go before the full board." Then they come back. So it's like minor site plans with no variances. They can approve them if they can hold public hearings on a minor site plan with no variances, which might be a fence or a freestanding sign, right? You know, in a commercial district, the minor leagues. Yeah, it's very important, but but still important. I mean, and part of the reason we created it was so we wouldn't have to do more more in this

like streamline things. And it's but it's before it can go from the DRC to either Right. Right. Right. Interesting. Okay. We have bills. Yeah. We do. Well, well, well, Mr. I would uh make a motion to approve bills. Second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. Happy this week. I would move to adjurnn. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Great meeting. Have a good night everyone. Thank you. Great meeting. This was a good meeting.