Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Janice, are we on on your end?

Okay, great. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the August 31st, 2026 special meeting of the Township of Montclair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, the official Electronic Publication Act and amendments to the notice provisions of the municipal land use law, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building. on the Township of Montclair's official internet website and on the statewide legal notices listings of the New Jersey Department of State. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube. This meeting is a quasi-judicial proceeding, meaning that the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law, and we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Fire exits are to my right, which is your left, and also in the back of the room. Next up is roll call.

Mayor Baskerville, Mr. Borschoff, Mr. Campbell, Councilor D'Amato.

I hear.

Miss Deans. Present. Mr. Graham is excused. Mr. Ian Wally. Here.

He's here.

Miss Willis.

Miss Willis is here.

Miss Wallace. Here.

uh chair brodock i'm here and i see we have mayor baskerville here correct okay so we do have a quorum do we need to swear in our board professionals for this yeah i'll yeah okay you'll swear i'll swear do you solemnly swear or do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give tonight will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you very much

All right, next up are minutes from the meeting of August 17th.

I'd like to note that Mr. Campbell is here.

Mr. Campbell is here. Good evening.

All right, are there any changes to the minutes of August 17th? If not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Okay.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Okay.

Next up, we have the council referral regarding the adoption of a municipal complex redevelopment plan.

OK.

Ms. Talley, do you want to start off with any introductory remarks, or should we just ask the board what their thoughts are?

I know we summarized the plan at the last meeting. I would just like to state that this plan, in my opinion, is consistent with the township's master plan. It reflects the underlying zoning or the zoning of the surrounding properties. So the uses and the intensity of the use is consistent with the recommendations for this land use district in our master plan.

Thoughts from the board?

I just wanted to ask. So it seems like it's sandwiched between two zoning districts, the OR3 and the R2. Yes. And the adjacent.

which was reference y and y well it's based on the ro3 zone because it's got an office building on it right now it was previously zoned or3 before we changed it to the p public use zone and in fact the drive-through bank property where the building was demolished is currently in the or3 zone so that was the basis of the density and the land uses that are proposed in this redevelopment plan and because office is a potential use is that why that's what it was actually this building was originally an office building so yes and it is not this building now so and it seems to be appropriate okay and it allows alternative uses residential municipal facilities public utilities there's a variety of uses that are permitted for this property. And I think I mentioned at the last meeting, there's additional requirements for the relocation of Cornerstone House, for the provision of public parking. Those are the two main requirements in here, as well as support for the relocation of the municipal building if necessary.

I have no comments, but lots of questions. I'm not sure if they're appropriate or not.

I'll ask them and then... Well, here's what we're... We're tasked with evaluating whether this plan is consistent with the master plan, and then we also may forward any recommendations we like to the Township Council. So if your questions are...

related to things that we may recommend to the Township Council and it's by all means it's in conform why is it in conformance with the master plan and it's in my opinion the master plan calls for this to be a district that permits office and residential development if you look at the master plan and The proposed use is consistent with the recommendations in the land use plan for this property.

But the public utility aspect of it is not consistent. So just wondering, I mean, there's a bigger picture behind this right now, and that's why it may not be appropriate for me to ask too many questions in terms of what else is going on. It feels like we're seeing one piece of a puzzle. You know, there's lots of other things that are going on. So I guess the question would be, you know, part of it anticipates a new, you know, this building. So first question I have is, well, are there engineering studies that have been done on this building that, indicate that it's not structurally sound and can't be renovated. You know, questions like that that I can't help myself and ask because we're just sort of limited in saying, okay, this could be this. It's 1.8 acres. A lot of the uses probably will consume quite a bit of parking if there is police headquarters here. you know even a simple study in terms of if there's no garage here how many parking spaces because I think that in a lot of these sites parking seems to be a driver in terms of how large the building could be sometimes it's not the height and the use of the building but I don't know I can go on and on in terms of you know and also you know just this is more of a You know, everyone got their tax bill that is high. You know, it's much higher because of, you know, the school thing. And I guess the just general question, don't take it the wrong way. So is this the right time to be building a $50 million asset that will potentially create higher taxes. Again, I don't know. I mean, if I knew that this building seems to be in reasonably good shape, I know that there's some issues, but there isn't. Anyway, this may be going too far, but I thought, you know, I just have questions about it.

So the redevelopment plan doesn't have any specific uses for this building or a specific plan for this building. At this point, it is general because there's no specific plans, reuse plans for this building. There's options. That's as detailed as we went in this redevelopment. And if we get to a point where we need... to come up with a more more detailed requirements because we have a more detailed proposal we can amend the redevelopment plan we can provide additional details in a redevelopment agreement i think a lot of those questions that you're raising tony are valid but we don't have enough information at this point to develop those details

If I recall from our, when we reviewed this as a potential area in need of redevelopment, I remember the study that was done here, and I don't think it was an engineering study, but more of a survey, I'll call it. One of the ones that always stuck out in my mind was it looked like the wall was starting to separate from the floor, one of the upper floors.

It was parapet.

Was it a parapet? I thought it was.

The wall was separating parapets.

thought it was the actual floor not just the parapet and if I remember the recall the meeting correctly it's not uncommon it originates I looked at the building it originates from a parapet wall that usually it's usually the cap of the parapet that leaks and then water it's a freeze so it's not again I'm not that uh it's hard just to look at but i think a study there it's fixable you know it's that's it's it's common yeah i saw it when i walked around at the very top level you know maybe maybe from the roof it's it's um this is evident reported on the third floor yeah third floor yeah that's where i saw it right but again not too much detail to go into here but um

But just to be clear, this is not the first step in any plan to spend $50 million. It is the first step in a plan to save money and to get the most possible bang for buck that would be cheaper than rehabbing this building, which we have looked at. And it's no secret that part of the reason for this redevelopment plan is as a potential because of an approach that we got by the utility for use of this land.

That would drive income, I suppose.

It would be an asset transfer to do something else on good terms, which is why we were looking at this. and we have um and it but it's nothing is close to being signed or anything like that it's just an important first step to get ahead of the eight ball and crucially you know we looked at some things so i was pushing and as an amateur but it was a good question you know well can we like up zone this and and then if it's that you know you know there's an appraisal Wouldn't that be great? Our staff and the manager and the planner said, well, you can't do that. There's case law that says, and there actually is recent case law that you could get in trouble. For example, Mr. Rubacki, who's always got a tight eye on these kinds of things, his comments to us really specified on the top about increasing the density and the coverage from 40% to 60% and then asking why We were at 18 dwellings per acre, and it could be 30, and that was correct, but we are probably obliged to hold to the logical zoning that we would have absent any transaction which is going to be the surrounding zoning so it's it kind of falls together i would also say that if there are any questions about the thinking of the council and especially the committee on facilities it's not only me i did drag councillor toller here away from i guess it's not monday night football but Not yet, but I don't want to answer all the questions that she may have things to say about it, but it's the first step, and it just has to conform with the master plan.

Ms. Wallace?

Yeah. I know that we are at a very early stage in discussing where this is going, but I did have some of the same kinds of issues that Tony was beginning to raise, and also the idea of the police department and all of that together with the council. I know it's been discussed when we were doing Lackawanna, but I would like to hear a better, fuller discussion of that as is it the only way to proceed. But before we even move further, I wanted to say that there are members of the public here tonight, and the question is, Is this a time or an evening in which the members of the public will be able to voice any opinion about where in our agenda tonight, if it's possible? Regarding the redevelopment plan? Yes.

Typically, that would be the council is where they would do that, since this is a council-led document.

Yes, it is. But I was asked if the public will have a chance this evening to say anything or not. I'm not asking.

Typically, no. Typically, no, we don't. take public comment on the redevelopment plans where we're not the primary author because our role is only consistent or inconsistent.

Well, I wanted to answer the question because it was asked.

Carol, can you move your microphone a little closer to you? It's on, but it's... I know. Just move it closer to you. I need to move closer to it. It'll pick up a little bit better. Thank you.

Okay. That's better. Yes. Dr. Willis, I'd just like to join Planner Talley and Councilor D'Amato in assuring you that there's not a... set plan at this point in time uh... that that we can describe to you and even the plan that you're talking about that i understand because i was on the council when we first started having those discussions is not the uh... main main thrust of discussions at this point in time and so if the idea of having you know a major complex with the police and all those different things as a concern of yours I just want to let you know that at this point in time while we have not locked in anything we're still exploring that that's not the hot topic there and that's probably the most concise way that I can say that with that

The police department very much would like to stay in their own thing, and there is a belief also among members of the Historic Preservation Commission that preserving that building, and I believe this too, as a municipal facility in its only great classic municipal building would have great value. Sort of leaning that way myself. Yes, that's the general approach.

Just wanted to let you know.

I'm just still a little, so it's a OR3 zoning, but I see small wireless facilities. I don't see public utilities. That was added. Okay, so it's not the OR3 zoning. It's OR3 zoning plus.

It's based on, I should say, it's based on the OR3 zone. We added some things like the public facilities, public utilities, and we changed some of the bulk requirements, particularly for setbacks. because this is a property with frontage on three roads and to determine what is the front yard side yard versus the rear yard we got very specific about setbacks from residential properties versus um front yard setbacks on roads so do we get any

information from the council about why the addition of public utilities it doesn't seem like a use that fits this area and it's not permitted under the zoning so there's a there's an opportunity a possibility of using putting a public utility on this property right but is that that's is that envisioned by the master plan because it's not included in the zoning so we're saying is it the master plan is pretty silent on specifics for public utilities but everything else is consistent i know i'm i think my concern is that one thing i don't have a concern with the other proposed uses mr campbell you look like you have perhaps something to say are you still ruminating

I'm a curious soul. I guess I'm grasping for the part of this that is, I guess, on the line of being conforming versus non-conforming, and that part's not as clear to me. If someone could even give me an example of what within this recommendation is sort of causing the rub.

I mean, causing the rub that Ms. Wallace just described? Yeah.

I mean, is there anything, like, am I missing something? Is there something more than that?

Not from my view. I mean, my own view is similar to Ms. Wallace, that it's, you know, the public utility, I don't think it was really envisioned in the master plan. So if I were to couch this, and, you know, I'm not making any sort of motion at this point, but if I were, I'd use the terms, it's generally consistent with the master plan.

Okay. So it is that. Okay.

For really that reason.

Okay.

Then I'm good. and and since i'll i'll just continue like i don't think utility use is the best use for this property but i understand it might be a necessary use for the infrastructure of the townships and you know my my recommendation around that would be require the utility to make it look like a building if if they are putting utility here and that's what we're going to do with this large property Make it look like a building where you don't even know there's a utility.

And that's why we have design standards. We added design standards to this redevelopment plan. So whatever is built here must have a base, a middle, and a top. It must be comprised of brick materials or similar materials. It must have windows. So it's going to, whatever comes here, whatever is built here will look similar to the larger apartment buildings that are in this area.

But is that only if... If they're putting a building here, it has to have a base middle top? Is there anything in this plan that prevents them, let's just say in a very extreme hypothetical, from putting just transformers throughout the property on the surface and not having a building around it? That was my real concern.

I think I added language that it must be screened.

Yes, and I would go as far as not just screened, but make it look like a building. Again, it's not what I would like to see happen at this property, but if it is to happen, and I understand there's reasons why we have electrical issues in town, let's say. If that's what we ultimately need for the good of the public, then I think it should look like a building.

So this is what the language says. On page 10, it says, public utilities, as a principle of permitted use, provided that equipment associated with the public utility shall be appropriately screened with a combination of opaque fencing, walls, landscaping, and other suitable materials as permitted by the planning board.

Yeah, I would change permitted to be as required. And I would even go as far as saying, and the planning board may require a building or the appearance of a building. Because when I read that language, when it says as permitted by the planning board, well, yeah, we can permit a 12 foot high fence. And that wouldn't be my vision for this property if it were to be electrical utility.

OK.

So there is one other factor here, which is that we are talking about critical infrastructure, most likely, that there is some belief, reason to believe that at the end of the day, there's an element of force majeure or something where they can tell us where they're going to cite something ultimately.

Not a public utility.

It's the regulated public utility.

Utilities can use that public interest for private property. Ironically, they can't use public domain over a public property because it's already in the public interest.

In any case, there's a critical need. There are apparently not many... places that would fulfill it they are in the process of figuring it out of what makes sense and um it is it's just a high value need in terms of otherwise we're looking at blackouts that kind of a thing yeah that's like so it is right and then um we have not been given any um uh uh renderings or anything like that But we've seen things that they do now. I have seen things. And it is highly advanced in terms of what they're doing to be able to screen and build inside of buildings. And I think that that is their preference for security reasons to do that.

Eric, you mentioned last meeting the existing facility that's on Valley Road. That's a building. That's a building.

But there's some things next to it that are not. But we haven't talked with that unless, I mean, you remember, Counselor, otherwise. We haven't talked with them about any of that.

No.

So.

Well, technically, yes and no.

We understand.

Yeah.

some of the underground concerns they have. Should we get you on the microphone, Councillor Toller? Just so if people are watching at home, they can.

We don't have a microphone. Here we go. Thank you, Rick.

Thanks, Rick.

You don't need to raise your hand. We did have some conversations regarding some of the underground infrastructure and what would be feasible and not feasible, what would be the best option, what would take What will be required for, I'm trying to find the right words here without putting the cat out the bag, if you will. The concern really is about the congestion under our ground. And going one place versus another could be costly. It could be a lot of detours, unnecessary detours, road work, things of that nature. So that's part of the reason we have this crafted for approval. I'll try to answer another question if you have one.

I don't have any more questions. Yes.

Well, with this discussion between the two counselors, it seems as though there is some type of a plan that is happening here. If you're discussing utility as a possible venture at this location, there is some kind of a plan. Also, with the possible police station being on the property.

I can assure you our police station is going to stay where it's at. Our police enjoy being there. We decided we would like for them to stay where they are on Bloomfield Avenue. So nothing's happening to the police building at all.

So if the zoning changes and it seems as though you are looking or speculating at a possible utility, you want us now to recommend... and change those zonings, correct?

That is correct.

So you have a possible plan.

We have a possible plan for reasons that we must keep things confidential. I don't want to disclose them here, but I'm thinking maybe perhaps the chair of our facilities and infrastructure committee can write a confidential memo

the planning board and kind of share where we are with things but we don't have a firm firm plan but we're trying to get ahead of it it's a difference in terms of a plan and preliminary discussion rights and moving towards you know something that has been discussed is not a plan in place at all there are preliminary discussions that have been had for a while And they have changed. As we stated earlier, now the police station has been removed from the most recent conversations and some other things, but it's not a plan. Sure it is.

It is a plan if you now want me to recommend to the council on specific zoning to fit, to fit, what you envision coming here. And when you say asset transfer, then you have a plan. I honestly believe that.

It's like literally not written. There's not a plan written down. It's an option.

It's an option. It's an option.

They came and they said we need a place to do this facility and then there are only a few places in town that fit the bill. This is one and then the planner and the manager said well let's not rush at the end.

And there have been other discussions too about other locations and other things but you if you believe that that to be a plan then you know that I have a difference of opinion because I know what I would consider a plan something that you have in place and you're ready to move and you know some direction that you're going into a little bit more than where we are so yeah it is in preparation for what may be a plan

It's really, all of this is making it sound much sexier than it is. It is just somebody said, we might like to take this property and do something with it and may need to. And that in order to have that as a possibility, we need to line up, you know, the legal framework in which to do it efficiently so that we don't lose money and lose time. So that's all it is.

And it may be here and it may not be.

Yeah. so what do you think that when um because the redevelopment plan can be amended right i mean suppose you suppose you um suppose it was done without the utility and then when the plan if it does become a reality then you'd be able to show the public a bit more of what's going to happen and then you can amend the plan when there's more evidence to correct yeah i mean you know that way it would take some of the mystery out of well what it could it could be just a 12 foot tall um you know smaller thing or it could be you know i again i'm not and i and i suppose that also the other side is that may not be necessary because the township owns this property and can decide what it wants to do with it so it may not be necessary It's not as if you can't control a private site that would have this zoning overlaid on it. The township does control it. They balance out.

Well, what you're really asking us to do is to approve the possibility of putting a utility Correct. Yes. Actually, what we're looking to do is. That was not a really, really good idea.

I think what we're really looking for is just technically a response as to whether or not it's consistent with the master plan. That's really what the request is for. so is our vote a thumbs up thumbs down and that's all you can give it it's it's a the referral from the council is to review this for consistency with the master plan and you feel free to add whatever recommendations to your comments so you can go beyond that yes okay

I would just say that the criteria under the statute are that the plan is either substantially consistent with the master plan or designed to effectuate the master plan. That's the statute. Those are your choices in the statute.

Ms. Talley is absolutely correct.

Can you say that one more time?

The statute says that the plan, the redevelopment plan, shall be either substantially consistent with the master plan or designed to effectuate the master plan. And of course, as Ms. Talley said, the board always has the ability to make recommendations of any kind to the governing body when it transmits its its conclusion about the plan any other comments from the board regarding this plan on um looking at the uh

There is a sustainability amendment to the master plan which talks about energy supply. Well, that's storm resiliency. Analyze current and future threats to vulnerabilities of the municipality associated with climate change. Nothing that says specific. Oh, identify critical facilities, utilities, roadways, and other infrastructure for... Well, nothing hits it on the head, but this – I think I'm looking at the right thing. This is – it's an adoption of an environmental sustainability amendment to the unified land use and circulation element of the master plan. It does talk about some element to sustainability. It doesn't hit it on the head, but it could – B, what was your term? The second term that was designed to effectuate the master plan? It's not substantial completion.

Could you read it out loud, the section you think would encompass the public utility? Or could?

Identify critical facilities, utilities, roadways, and other infrastructure that is necessary for evacuation purposes and sustaining the quality of life during a natural disaster to be maintained at all times in an operational state. Now, again, this amendment has to do with environmental. It has to do with climate change and environmental stability. Nothing here says that we need more electricity because people are using more electricity now. There's more demand.

Sorry if I may, but the sustainability element does call for electrification. That's correct. And that is absolutely crucial. I drove here in a new electric car that has a 240 charger on the side of my house that dims the lights when it goes on. So I think that this is crucial. So on page... the statutory basis on page two, right at the top.

Page two of what?

Of the sustainability and resilience amendment. F1, smart growth, which in part shall consider potential locations for the installation of electric vehicle chargers in many The township has been proactive in providing electrical vehicle charging stations. In accordance with recent statewide EV requirements, all new development projects, not just mixed use, are required to include EV charging infrastructure. So, I mean, it goes on their 35 mentions of electricity.

But not just EV chargers.

It's a ton of electricity. I know. I have an e-car myself. That's not my question.

My question is the language just talks about e-cars. It doesn't talk about electricity delivery.

But they're installing, they said that they're permitting one per day.

Who is they?

The building department is permitting one electric charger, you know, 240 charger per day.

I don't think the public is buying e-cars as quickly as they're permitting. I hope so.

They really are.

This is public utilities. Can it be qualified?

Public electric utilities?

Public electric utilities.

I mean, I assume that's what we're talking about.

I assume, too, that public utilities could be a waste water transfer station. I don't know.

That's true.

So public utilities is a very broad term. It could be water. It could be electric. It could be a nuclear power. I don't think it is, and I know it's not, but I'm just saying it's not a very specific term.

Could be. Small-scale nuclear. Yeah. Okay. Small nuclear.

So on page 16 of the element, it is a whole page on electricity resilience.

Can you just say where it is?

It's on page 16.

Of the sustainability. Sustainability. Okay.

Yeah. Montclair is taking action to strengthen its energy infrastructure and reduce power disruptions. So from tree maintenance to underground power lines, utility coordination, alternative energy, and infrastructure resilience. It is partnering with PSE&G to modernize substations and strengthen the grid, particularly in vulnerable areas, which this does.

And I rest my case. Well done. The last paragraph on page 16 says, the township is working closely with PSC&G to upgrade existing facilities, including substations to safeguard energy supply.

liked your comment about but that's helpful Eric think counselor tomato thank you I liked your comment about having it fit more into the context and so there's not a permitted use in either of the adjacent zoning districts I thought that is a smart one if we're saying it's consistent with the master plan and or the zoning.

Other discussion? I think back to Keith, your suggestion about it being a building.

Can we just be very direct about that? If it is, it should blend in and not be something that has to be hidden by fences. Because anything that has to be hidden by a fence is ugly. And then we just look at a fence. And then put the bar high, and then if something comes in, then it could be...

Yeah, and that's a recommendation I'd like to see that we pass along is that it looks, you know, whatever's built here, if it's a utility, any of the utilities, it looks like it fits in. It's a building.

And sound. Sure.

But sound. Yeah. What is it, EMF? That's another one that I know people would be concerned about if it were an electrical substation, let's say. EMF, just somehow making sure that the appropriate studies are done, kind of like what we did with small-scale wireless, that there wasn't any issues or risk to the public surrounding the facility.

I would be comfortable with designing or giving permission for us to support sufficient, sustainable electricity for Montclair. But I'm not sure that we are at the stage where we need to say that we need to change the zoning of this particular site so that it could be here. Isn't it possible for us to support the need for, which I certainly agree with, that we would have substantial improvement in the electrical services without designating this as the site? or exposing this to be the site.

May I, if you don't? Sure. Thanks. I understand what you're saying, Dr. Willis, if the board can give us other recommendations in town or other locations for consideration.

There may be other places. I understand from what was said earlier that there may be other places, and I think picking the appropriate place is not something right now that I'm, feel a little bit hesitant to say that what we should do is change the zoning here so that it could be here or that this is the best place so I certainly agree that we need to have improvement but I'm not so sure that we're ready to pick this as the site I just wanted to just remind the board that the infrastructure underground

what the utility is calling congestion, certain areas in our township are not viable. So we're very limited where we can possibly go, if you will. The congestion underground is what's kind of driving this. So again, if you have recommendations for other locations, we can talk about it. But I can't be certain that the underground infrastructure and congestion that the utility company is mentioning is going to be the best option.

chairman yes what are the alternatives with a utility are there any other thoughts suggestions on what else may be at this location at this moment not to my knowledge so again my question is the plan that everyone is speculating is a utility to be on this property somewhere in the future and you want the zoning to allow that to happen correct yes and no

okay more yes than no thank you chair you're welcome and i just wanted to add i believe the redevelopment agreement that you crafted for us um we can pull it if we need it is that correct we don't need to utilize it down the road it can be you mean the redevelopment plan the one you crafted for this area the redevelopment plan yeah yeah it's you're in control because it's adopted by the council as the redevelopment agency for montclair okay

But as I recall, I'm sorry.

Please go ahead.

I was looking that way. As I recall, though, there was some things in the plan for this area where you mentioned even expanding the pool of two-family, the stock on two-family houses. And I thought that that was interesting. There was a list of other things. It wasn't just one thing in there like, you know, we're just moving, thinking,

Only about the utility and I thought that you gave a long list of things that were right That's why it was based on the or three zone It permits multi-family dwellings assisted living facilities all of which are permitted and all of which are consistent with our master and business offices Professional office all of which are prevented in that zone district.

Yeah and chairman it would not any of those Would not enhance our electricity, correct? I

they would not no okay thank you which we desperately need desperately need something done brownouts the blackouts and all of the same streets that get hit every time the wind blows to tell you about it and we did you know ask utility you know aren't there other more you know industrial kind of

by the railroad tracks and stuff like that. and they basically said that they were just technical reasons why a lot of the things, a lot of the places that seemed like they would be really good, just in our case, weren't. And it has to do with things where they all tie together.

It also has to do with proximity to the existing substation. Correct. Yeah. They looked at the DeCamp bus site. That didn't work for various reasons, part of which was too far away. As well as train wires. Yeah.

Something about the signals would not work.

It would not work.

Do you – does anyone know what the footprint of the facility would be? Because, you know, if – theoretically, if one could be safe and be here, the PNC Bank site has been added to this, so there's more parking. So let's say all that happens is a utility that's safe and so forth can – and this building is renovated. Is – after that's done, is there sufficient parking that would allow this to continue to operate as a – Because if the footprint of the utility is too large, you could basically take away the usefulness of this building without parking.

They haven't provided us with any footprint, any design details for this property.

No, but their target for this type of facility that they want is roughly five acres.

Whoa.

Yes.

This is only two.

Yes, because they work with what they can get, but it's not like it's a five-acre giant thing on five acres. It's that you are putting the actual facility in the middle away from... the lot lines because of both, because of a desire to have the noise be zero at the lot line and the electromagnetic field to be zero. So it's a new thing, you know, they're not, it's just really in the middle And we, earlier on, did see a very light rendering of what the thing would outline would be if it had been on Portland Place. And it was basically just a thing in the middle, if you can picture the lot, the police station parking lot. Again, the same amount of space and we would have lost and it was just in that like a lozenge in the middle With it and there was plantings around it and there was like a perimeter road there was like a perimeter walkway and they just wanted to keep it away from the you know from the fence and So it's not some hulking enormous thing, but they do want a big site. So I

chairman just wanted to add for portland place we would have two families would have lost their homes that's how much space they would have needed on portland they were going to have to buy two families out

And the parking is not for the facility. The parking, and this is completely kudos to Councillor Tolar, it is to take care of people who are using the parking at 205 currently. That's what it's about. So it is so that there's the minimal disruption for the neighbors.

So this building can continue to be used?

No, this building would not be used.

Oh, this building would be torn down.

This building would be, yeah, gone.

The parking lot is used by the apartments that were built in this neighborhood were built prior to the automobile being popular and there's no on-site parking. So parking for those apartment buildings are provided on this site. So that's why it's included in the redevelopment plan that however this site be redeveloped, they're going to have to provide for

the parking for the the people who use it right now overnight 87 spots total i'm sorry what did you say 87 spots for everything i think the requirement is for 30 because we did it we did it it's a total of 87 spots here um some are residential as you mentioned and the rest are for staff and employees but it's a total of 87 spots

Mr. Campo. Is it the responsibility of this board to bring forward alternatives? I heard it mentioned. I'm not sure we broke up the first time.

It's not our responsibility. We can if we want to. We're allowed to make any recommendations we'd like to the governing body. Okay.

And then the second question, is it possible for us to get even a cursory view of the plan that's being contemplated?

There is no plan.

Clearly.

I think it depends on how you define plan. It doesn't sound like anything's been written down. Sure. And I think what you've heard tonight is the plan, if I can.

And just so you know, the planning board has 45 days to make their recommendation, and the due date is September 25th.

Chairman?

Yes.

Councillor DeMotto mentioned... The transformer, were you discussing what the design of a transformer would look like? If you were, the township of Belleville has a new transformer, if anyone was interested in looking at that facility. And you will see how it's really encased in the community. So just FYI, just in case we have a plan coming down the pike.

Is that a nice thing? I mean, is that a positive? I'm not understanding. Is it something that you thought was nice?

It's acceptable in a community. I mean, it's not overwhelming. I think this encasement does decrease the noise level. It is a pleasant look. There is some green space attached to it. So if this is where... We are headed. And I think it's one of PSEG's most recent transformer developments. So I think it would behoove us to look at that and see how it was accepted in the community. But we don't have a plan, so I think we're just speculating now moving forward. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the info.

You're welcome.

it is there would be site plan approval with us i mean i think that was part of the redevelopment plan is that any application would come before the planning board it would come before the planning board absolutely yeah and as i said we went into this knowing that once we have additional details we can amend the redevelopment plan and or address the details in a redevelopment agreement for the first the substation so this was the first step

Right, but that's also why I'd like to see some additional protections, as I mentioned tonight, included in this version.

I hear you. I've got your comments.

Yes, because nothing would stop them. Say the governing body were to approve this, nothing would stop the utility from tomorrow submitting the application. I mean, highly unlikely, but.

Except that we own the property. That's the key thing. The township owns the property.

True, but could they submit their application and say that's the application, now consider it according to the redevelopment plan?

Not without the approval of the township.

Okay. Okay. Mayor.

So does this body have the ability, or you, Chair, to make an amendment to this before this group?

votes to add what you just said i mean we have the time to do that i think miss tally just said our response is due to the council september okay so we won't be voting tonight i would i mean i personally i think i don't see why we couldn't vote tonight i mean i think we've had a healthy discussion here and and it sounds as if i mean i think we could vote tonight it's

I think you could vote and just express the recommended changes that you have for the redevelopment plan. And that would go in the resolution of the board to the...

I think even if it were... revised i don't know if it would be revised to include everybody you know to everybody's liking so what i would say is you know take take everybody's recommendations and the recommendations you've heard from the board and that'll get captured in the resolution and submitted to the entire council okay i'm a little uncomfortable feeling that i have enough information to vote tonight i guess what i'm hearing is that there's some trouble with

finding a site for a very big need on part of PSE&G for a place to build this thing.

Correct.

And that this is the only place at the moment that seems like it's feasible.

Correct.

The only place. At the moment. Right. So that if we say tonight that this is the place that we want to change to make the zoning possible to do that, that we're actually approving that we look no further. because we're saying the municipal building will no longer be here. It's more important for us to find another place for our municipal building than it is for us to look for alternatives to this one place that PSE&G thinks is the best place, in fact, the only place they're recommending. So I feel that we're really moving ahead. to say that we're supporting that P.S. this building now be used for that site. Because it sounds like there's nothing else at the moment that seems to be feasible in the opinion of those who are making this decision.

Maybe I'll try and put it into a motion and then Hopefully, maybe that would capture your concern, which I kind of share your concern. I mean, it is in a way changing the zoning to include the utility here.

Right. And now that it can be included, we could submit this.

Right. And I think as Ms. Talley and Mr. Neese had said.

And I'd love to hear some of the other choices. But right now, I don't think that there seems to be, in the opinion of PSE&G, another place that's feasible.

I will say that in facilities and infrastructure, we did discuss other places, but we realized it wasn't going to work. The utility did not come to us with other places either. So again, I'm just trying to remind this body of the infrastructure and the congestion underground. The further you go, the more problems we will have moving things. So that was the first question we asked when they... Yes, Madam Mayor.

And I think also that some people, and I might be in this group, saw it as a type of a win-win doctor, not just that this was the only place in the world that they could possibly put that. It's just that the township owns this property, and the township owns the next-door property, and the township needs some revenue in order to help us to move forward with a building that the township needs. both things you know things were just happening together it's not just like they came to us and said oh this is what we want we have needs very very many needs I mean there's so many issues that that need to be addressed here and I just think it seemed like something that that definitely needs to be explored further in terms of how do we get from point A where we are now

where we need to be with the needs that we have for a municipal complex right and I I know that you've given a lot more thought to this but I I feel that a vote tonight oh yeah is saying that the township definitely would not benefit will benefit more from starting over than in trying to improve this to make it serve the town and that it's very convenient to that we get rid of it as a town building because PSG has no place else that they really want to put their facility. So I do feel that voting today is to say we approve that plan because as soon as we say it's zoned properly, I would suspect that PSAG, being where they are in their present frame of mind, will certainly take advantage of it and that we as a board are basically supporting that. That's what we should do.

well I would be very happy if that was the outcome because as you know we have been going through these discussions and trying to figure out you know whether to you know renovate and maintain whether to do municipal comp I mean for years for years 2008 when I first came on council we were talking about this so at some point in time I do think that it is prudent for the governing body to take a stance and decide This is what we believe is going to be in the best interest and then move towards it and not spend the next 20 years trying to guess, have no elevator. This building is really not the best place to be if you're not freely mobile. And so we want to do something that's going to be safe for all who come in and out of here and something that is going to have a good ventilation system so people would have to stay in here for eight hours a day. can rest assured that there's not different particulate matter that maybe they don't want to breathe every day. And so I am in favor of moving forward. And if the utility comes up tomorrow, if we vote and they say, yes, now we're ready to talk and we do have a great chunk of money that can purchase this land and maybe the next door spot or whatever that might be, have to let you know I would be very excited about that as long as we have a plan which I don't know counselor I don't know that there's a plan as long as there is a plan for you know where we go from here and I don't know that that's you know I know there's discussions but I don't know that there's a plan in fact I think that there's not that plan so you know maybe tonight is not the night but I just want to let you know I'd be a happy camper if they came pulling up here with a truckload of money

The truckload of money and knowing what we want to do, I think that's what I would like to hear more about, where we would move the town. Right now, it seems like we're doing half a plan because I think that as soon as we say yes to the T-S-E-N-G, this is a beta complete for this place. And the question is, where is this better place? And what is the negotiating possibility for getting what the town would like to have for its municipal buildings? in a place. I'd like to hear the other half of this plan because the first half seems to be pretty much in place.

Well, we went in January and February, we did a series of public sessions where we talked pretty frankly and brutally about what the options were. And it's not too mysterious. There are a couple of buildings, existing buildings, that we've looked at and costed out. And we can't really say... We haven't decided, and we can't get too deep into the weeds about which one is better, but all of it is based on not building something from scratch, unless we had to, unless we were paid a lot. And we're certainly not going to sell this building without first having something lined up. That is good. That's among the choices that were spotlighted and talked about. The other thing I would say is that the utility expressed concerns to us about the capacity of the township at any location to be the home of a new facility that is needed for our own safety and the habitability of the town. And we Counselor Toler, all of us, we were like, wow. So if we're acting in concert in a way that you don't always see on TV, it's because we're taking that very seriously. That we need to show that we are grown up. Because there are places that will just say no, no, no, no, no. And then the lights go out. So we're taking this seriously. We're not going to say yes to something without something else in line. And this is not being rushed. And I will say one other thing, which is that they came in the spring, and we were talking about, you know, we have to test things, and they're looking, and they're still validating it. But they were talking about a timetable that was very much tighter. I remember saying something like, oh, well, we'll see you in 90 days. And they were like, no, no, no, you know, because they want, but now it's been more than that. So it is, you know, and again, we had, it's been a year, it's been decades working on it. But in this current cycle, it has been quite a long time of looking at all the things in publishing And that for this, again, there's no contract, there's no nothing. This is about just getting it, the first stage set up, and then also so that this parcel can be evaluated and evaluation is made of it. And that's what I was saying before. I was like, well, we should, you know, say we're going to build a hundred story skyscraper and that'll be worth a billion dollars. We can't do that. So we're just taking the middle path to say it could be a utility because we need it. If, and, and then that's it for now.

Um, counselor to model, you spoke of $50 million. What does that translate to or from?

It's we early on a year ago did research the committee that showed that looked into buildings that were being built from scratch municipal buildings in North Jersey or maybe the state as a whole and On a per square foot basis, that was about $1,000 a foot more than $1,000, a little more than $1,000 a foot. The combined usage of the municipality and the police is about 50,000 square feet. So it works out to be about 50 million, roughly speaking. And people ran with that number and they said, oh, this is what they're going to do. And that was never, you know, we would never... The whole point was to avoid that.

Thank you.

I think it's timely, this conversation, because something, at least maybe one or more than one of the listening sessions for the second half of this meeting was about... utilities and power outages and so the dovetails nicely with the second half of our meeting about what needs to be in our master plan and something we heard from our constituents is shoring up the power grid as well and thank you Eric for making it fit nicely and tying it back to the master plan I think that's helpful for me to get to a comfortable place to vote personally

So I'm going to make a motion and see where this goes and see if folks want to amend it in that I think that this redevelopment plan, I would find that this redevelopment plan is in substantial conformance with the master plan, including the public utility. But that I would caution, the recommendation I would pass along to the council is to weigh the things that the board has discussed tonight about whether this is the highest and best use of the property. Because I'm not personally convinced that it is. but I recognize it's a critical infrastructure need in the municipality, and maybe this is the only place. But before you all as the council make that decision, you've heard questions about what else is out there, what are the other options, and to the extent that there comes a time when you can share them with the public or with this board, I think that would be helpful for folks to understand the balancing act that you all are clearly trying to do you know provide for the municipality both fiscally infrastructure wise and and the like but just take that into account and if you do decide that this should be a public utility have them make sure it blends in with the surrounding neighborhood and you know I I think should look like a building and not a fence that's my very long motion second Anybody want to discuss that before we take a vote?

I would like to have a little discussion about what the town has in mind. I hear this idea that you'd like to have a substantial price paid for this site that would be enough to make it feasible for us to get a better town building with all the features and amenities that we would like. I don't hear anything about a contingency, but I know it's too early to really define what all of that is.

And that's part of the reason why I'm making the motion tonight is that I'm not sure we're going to get a lot more detail in the next three weeks. I mean, it'd be great if somebody tells me otherwise, but I'm not thinking that we're going to get a lot more detail on What are the other options or what are the considerations for moving the municipal building that have been thought through?

Can we require that?

We can. I mean, we can make recommendations. We can't require anything. Frankly, as a board, we could say... We find this inconsistent with the master plan in the township council. The governing body can say, OK, we've reviewed it. We disagree. And we still vote in favor of it. So ultimately, the power for this and the decisions for this rest with the governing body and not this board. That's why I'm pushing the motion or making the motion tonight is that I wish I had more information, Ms. Willis. It doesn't feel good necessarily to even say this motion because I wish I had more information.

Is there a possibility of getting more information about what the potential is for the need being satisfied to give up this building and there's something coming that will take care of the town's need for also having a municipal building. Is there nothing that can be shared that would give a little confidence that we're going to be okay doing this in this lack of information setting? I don't know.

Sounds like it's not guaranteed. Sounds like we can ask. Am I understanding correctly?

I think that was part of my motion is that if there is something that can be shared, then that would be great. I don't see any heads bobbing up and down like, yes, in three weeks we'll be able to share something. So I think silence means there's likely nothing that can be shared beyond what's been discussed tonight. And that's why I pause for a long time that somebody can interrupt me and tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing it. And by the way the mayor's laughing, I think I'm probably correct that we're just not going to get that level of detail in the next 24 days.

I think when we have been asked, you know, historically about, you know, redevelopment plans that are being adopted, we provide our opinion. We know what the uses are. We know what an apartment building is. We know what office. They're very, you know, we sort of get that. don't get this and that's the dilemma because we're saying yeah that's okay but we don't know what's okay we don't know what it is so that's why I can only vote on what does not really vote but I can only give an opinion about what's in front of me and right now I really have nothing in front of me that's gonna say yeah it's okay to do it here okay you can always change it later you know after after the plan comes forth then Here it is. It's beautiful. So let's do it. Let's change zoning. And utility can probably tell you what they want to do. They know how many homes it has to serve, how big, how much voltage, how much power, and so forth. They could probably put something together without too much difficulty to say, because they work all over the state. They know their business. So they could say, we need this size, this much power, and this is the distance. I don't think it would be too hard for the utility to do that, unless I'm missing something. because they build them in different places I'm not sure why our electricity is different than than others and so yeah it's gonna be three stories it's gonna be you have to say this this far apart from it and out of the 87 parking spaces you're gonna lose 20 oh and then that means you can still have your building you can still know but no they were very clear about one thing which was that there would not be

I mean, it was only in one meeting and it was oral, but they said that the parking would have, you know, that there wouldn't be parking on site for anybody else. Yeah, they would use the whole site. They would use the whole site. The setbacks, I don't know if you cleared with them that are in there, but they would, they need big setbacks anyway.

they were they were reluctant to provide any details at this point but they did say they needed the whole whole site so we provided along the corner of um yes and we provided so we provided the the parameters in terms of the setback as you can see with the setbacks and the materials and the design and the screening and the safety issues and all of those things right do you think that they were putting a standard suburban substation with multiple transformers that are

air-cooled as opposed to gas-cooled. The ones in the buildings are, it's almost like they're air-conditioned in a way. They're more expensive to run. But do you think they want to put them on the ground and have a, you know, from the air you would see transformers?

No, they want a building. And I think that they're willing to work with the town. They're certainly willing to work with us to design it. This is the impression I got. with our conversations. They're willing to work with us to design something that works.

The site is odd shaped. You can't drop a square building in here because the PNC site is sort of like a little 90 foot wide jut out. So that's not going to be efficient for constructing some sort of structure. But the parcel that this on is and so if they have the land plan they can't draw a box on it and say this is

They did not.

Well, if they know that they need the whole site, they know that they don't need half the site, so they have to have an idea of how big the building is.

No, because they know that they would be able to do it. but they haven't gotten into that detail because they're still digging test pits to see if the site actually works. So they are reluctant to spend a lot of money and time on further refinements, not knowing for sure that the site works or that any site works. Now the question is if this site doesn't work and they've said that other sites don't work, But we haven't really, you know, that's not something for us.

And those exploratory, those are off-site to see if they could bring electric?

I think they're looking to see.

Or is it test pits on this site to see if they?

It's test pits in the right-of-way, in the public right-of-way. To see if the utility map on the public right-of-way is actually accurate. That's one. So what I think happened was they dug test pits near the other site that they liked or even the map itself. When they finally got their hands on the utility map, they said it wasn't going to work. But we both saw, and you have, that very simple original rendering of like a site plan almost, a concept plan.

They had two renderings. They had one for expanding the existing facility and then another one behind the police station. So we've seen two renderings.

they just haven't been able to develop one yet for this i think the only thing i'd add to my list of recommendations is that the building be kind of fully enclosed or at least so neighboring property owners don't see it right it's not just a streetscape it comes to my mind first but also Neighboring property, you know, folks, they shouldn't be looking out of their bedroom window seeing a substation if it happens to be one.

Good point.

And with that, we've got a motion. We've got a second.

Who seconded it?

The mayor seconded it.

Oh, mayor, I'm sorry. I missed that.

And so I would say call the roll at this point. Let's see where this goes.

OK. Mayor Baskerville.

Yes.

Mr. Campbell. Yes. Councillor D'Amato.

Yes.

Miss Gaines.

I am first going to say that I am totally voting blindly and that I hope that the design standards would do the community and this neighborhood justice with an encasement of any of the utilities that would be on the property. I vote yes.

Mr. Ian Wally.

No, I don't have enough information to be able to recommend that this site be used as utility.

Ms. Willis. I'm going to vote no, I don't have enough information.

Ms. Wallace.

I vote yes.

And Chair Brodock.

Yes.

Okay. So the recommendation passed.

Okay. Thank you. All right, next up we have our master plan re-examination report discussion. Let me ask folks in the audience, because I see there's people here. Did you all come here tonight expecting to make public comment? If you did, we have one person raising their hand. Raise your hand if you expect it. No, there's more people. Oh, that's what I'm asking.

Yeah.

So we've got three people. Didn't think it was the board's intent based on our last meeting to and this is now for the board I didn't think it was our intent to receive public comment this evening I thought the intent was that We didn't feel that the two meetings beyond tonight were going to be enough for us to fully discuss the comments received to date and to be able to put together the master plan reexamination report. And so that's why we decided to have this meeting. And there was more of a really a working session for this body to discuss the master plan reexamination. So what I've advertised is exactly that to people who have asked me is that we wouldn't open up for public comment tonight. I understand from speaking with community members and other board members that a different message was put out into the community that we would receive comments tonight. And so I wanted to find out from this board, it's not just me making decisions like this, but that was my understanding. On one hand, we have a limited number of people who would like to make a comment tonight. But on the other hand, we've told people we're not going to do that tonight. So I feel a little conflicted. On one hand, it would be easy to say, yes, come on up. On the other hand, we've prejudiced people who we told that was not going to happen tonight. And so, you know, I'm leaning towards not receiving public comment and using this as the working session that I think we envisioned two weeks ago. But I don't want to make that decision in a vacuum. I'd like some feedback from the board.

One question. When you said that the word got out that we were taking, word got out formally or just chatter on Facebook?

I do not know.

I meant, I guess, Frank, did it come out?

no it's not on the the public notice was not on the public notice okay does it does it matter to the board why or how it got out come on up

Councilor D'Amato shared an email with the full council stating that this meeting would be a public hearing. I inquired about the time. He was uncertain at the moment. He did not say in his email if it would be or would not be public comment. I told him to check with the chair because there was some discrepancy on whether it was going to start at 7 or 7.30. I assumed you spoke with him, but it was just a misunderstanding on public comment. So I put information out on the Montclair Water Cooler email website stating that there would be another public hearing here today, and the assumption of public comment just went with it. So that's the confusion, and I own it.

okay okay thank you I don't see any harm from the public having a chance to speak there's you know we've had our discussion there are people here who hope to speak and I would I'm in favor of allowing that to happen okay mayor I agree with the good doctor

from one doctor to another I'm just concerned with time we if we could limit comments to a certain usually to three minutes if we actually held to that okay I could be I just think we scheduled this so we could talk about it at this meeting and I'm worried I mean it's 830 it's 830 we don't have the September meeting to talk about this do we have the second September meeting to talk about this

There'll be this, but we also have an application on that night.

And I thought that was the whole reason. But I hear if I feel... It does matter to me if it was...

There are people here, so I... Well, it's more that they were...

Told.

Right.

But I would say, as a chair, I would be comfortable only if it was really held to three minutes max per comment.

OK. Personally. What date was the public expected to make comment? Tonight. It was tonight.

There were people here tonight that would like to make

comes through a miscommunication, correct? Correct. Correct. So what was the intended communication?

And I appreciate Councillor Tuller, who's been very good at sharing the public and giving the public opportunity, and I think it would be a disappointment for those who would come expecting to speak, and what harm is there in it?

I'm sorry, can you clarify? The folks that did not show up because they did not believe that tonight was their night, what was their intended date for comment?

No date. Submit comments to Ms. Talley, who is collating everything and forwarding it to the board. Got it. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Yes. But I'm not taking questions right now. So I'm sure. Yeah. Yes, absolutely. Yep, that's been the message. And Ms. Talley's been posting them on the website as well.

Yeah, all the comments that I received prior to late last week.

Last night.

Last night. Yeah, we got a lot last night. Have been posted on our website and distributed to the board.

Yeah, so everything's moving along.

That's acceptable to me too.

Yep.

But all I ask is that we establish a deadline for receiving comments so we can actually work on the report.

And Chairman, I would recommend that tonight be the last night for public comment on the matter.

In-person public comment or last night to send comments to Ms. Talley?

Exactly, yes. Because we have to move this matter forward, yes.

OK. Well, I think the general consensus is we should hear folks that are here.

That's correct.

Yep. So let's open it up to members of the public who would like to make a statement on the master plan reexamination report. We will time three minutes per person. Whoever would like, come on up. I guess first come, first serve. Give us your name and address, and I'll start a timer. And you may just, as the first person, may have to make sure it's on.

Testing. Thank you. Good evening. My name is David Greenbaum. I'm a Moncler resident since 1966, former commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission. I've worked intensely hard as a volunteer in this town to do many things, and I will not be satisfied until I complete the following. We need to have in the master plan clear language, and I want this on the public record for every resident in Montclair to know. We need design guidelines to guide our planning board, our board of adjustment, and our historic preservation commission with clear objective principle based language that will allow us to have legally defensible, legally defensible objective criteria for which all applications should be evaluated. In addition, all applicants should be provided these criteria in advance of their application as early as possible at the stages of design development so that when an application comes forth there's a checklist and that checklist will go through a series of criteria and that criteria is the same criteria by which the boards and land use commissions will evaluate the applications this will then create an institutionalization of architectural knowledge into the process. Objective knowledge. This has been done in the townships of Madison. This has been done in the townships of Ridgewood. There is precedent throughout the entire United States. The township of bernardsville used the exact same language as we have in our design guidelines the only words we have in our entire design guidelines in section i believe 281 is compatible and harmonious and that was found to be insufficient and subjective in the township of bernardsville and therefore not legally defensible therefore you need to have legally defensible language which is clear and defined and that will then allow for those of you who want to go home early for those applications to be heard and the applications to be completed effectively, efficiently for those township commissioners who are laboring to redesign and revise an application that comes in that has no basis of understanding or expectation when it's created. No filtration, no sieve of knowledge. And because of that, land use boards such as the one I served on spent countless hours having to redesign and revise applications. That's not necessary. It's not productive. And we were doing a service to both the applicant and to the residents to get better outcomes. That's the first of two amendments I wish to promote to the township. But the amendment I'm asking for, I believe it goes into Ordinance 281, but it needs to be listed in the master plan as defined as a need to be addressed. There needs to be reference in ordinance 347 under the Historic Preservation Commission section, and there it should have reference to the very same architectural criteria. That's three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. William Scott.

Just make sure you, we don't have the lectern mic normally. Yep, just hold it and get it up close. It's going to be interesting. Okay.

William Scott. I'm a member of the Montclair Housing Commission and also a member of the Montclair Parks and Rec Committee. I'll start with the Parks and Rec Committee. My understanding is there was a consultant that was going to be working with the Park and Recreation Committee to help us submit some of our recommendations to the master plan reexamination. We never had the opportunity to meet with that individual. We've had several special meetings. We thought that individual was going to show up. That did not take place, but we did have a meeting, I think, this past Friday, and we did forward our recommendations because we were under the impression there's a time constraint. So, you know, we wanted to have the opportunity to have that discussion with that consultant, but that did not happen. And then I'm a little concerned from Ms. Gaines' comment that the final input will be tonight on the reexamination plan across the board, and I think that there's some other issues that need to be addressed because as a member of the Moncler Housing Commission, I think, and I've I really hate to speak for Chair Molloy, but there's been some back and forth, I believe, which you missed a product, that we did submit some documentation going back to 2023 with some various recommendations that were made, and we will be having a housing commission meeting in September. to finalize or update those recommendations that was presented back in 2023. So, again, if this is the final opportunity, we're not going to have that opportunity to address those concerns or recommendations that were submitted back in 2023. So I think that there's an issue here. We need to – I know there's a deadline, but – I don't think the public created the deadline. I'll just try to be diplomatic at that point. Okay? So, thank you.

Thank you. Chairman, can I say I was only making a recommendation of a timeline. Okay.

So noted. I think it's on. I'm sorry.

Kathleen Bennett, chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission. I just wanted to be on public record that the Historic Preservation Commission worked with the subcommittee to revise the current HP element of the master plan. And I hope that you've all received our comments. We have a list of what will be updated in the master plan revised. What we did is we rewrote the Chapter 9 and Chapter 10. So Chapter 9 is recommendations and Chapter 10 gives you a guideline as to what the priority is on those. Our current HPL-admitted master plan is very dense document it was written with a grant that we received in 2016 I believe for $30,000 there was no obviously no money for that to do this year so that's why the subcommittee worked on it so I just wanted to make sure that you are in possession of that. And the list of what we haven't done yet, as we discussed with our secretary, who's also the assistant planner, is really the granular point of the update. So we haven't done that yet. But what's really interesting on the recommendations, number two, number one is to increase the identification, documentation, designation, and stewardship of historic resources. Number two is to protect historic resources while accommodating compatible development, housing, sustainability, and public investment. And A, under that, before Mr. Greenbaum brought up his idea of design guidelines. I mean, we have spoken of this and it really would be extremely beneficial for our applications that come before us if we had some type of matrix for design guidelines it would make our job I think it would not make it not just to make our job easier but I think it would benefit the entire township so what we have said on a is to develop design guidelines for new construction in commercial areas and township redevelopment areas and then Three under our recommendations is to support public engagement and community stewardship of historic resources. I think since I've been involved, we've become much more vocal in the local population, local residents. We've collaborated with the library and the Montclair History Center.

20 seconds.

And we've also promoted meetings with all the land boards, the HPC, the planning department, and also the zoning board, just to give an idea to all the land boards what we do in terms of the demolition ordinance, which is our biggest power that we have.

Three minutes.

Okay, just want to make sure you got that information. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hi, Bonnie Fogel. I live on Forest Street. My relationship with Montclair started like 25 years ago when I would come here to go to work and teach religious school. And then I became an owner, a resident 10 years, 10 and a half years ago. And I didn't hear about a master plan until I lived here. And the master plan was always like held in this like context. Like, you know, this is like a Torah. This is a Bhagavad Gita. This is our guideline. This is the constitution. this important solid thing. But I have to tell you that in the 25 years since I know Montclair, it Montclair doesn't seem to be working out very well. I mean, you have a lot of really fancy restaurants. But I have to tell you, I don't know that there's ever a careful examination if this guideline that's written, if the objectives that are set in it are being met. Because a lot of things have gone downhill. for me and for a lot of people like me, the people who are not the wealthiest people here. For example, the taxes just keep going up, but all this construction, this development was supposed to lower taxes. Taxes have never gotten lower. They just keep going up. The vehicular situation, maybe it doesn't affect most of you, but I can't drive out of my driveway on Forest Street without taking my life in my hands because of the way roadways and patterns get changed and the traffic increases. And I, very frankly, I'm getting closer to not being able to live out my life here because of things like the taxes and the congestion and not having a supermarket and all these other things. So I just don't know what's going on. Has there anybody ever looked at this situation? this master plan to see what are the goals. I mean, if the goals in it have nothing to do with the standard of living, with affordability, with I know there's less affordable housing now than there's ever been before, you know, the needs are greater. I mean, I don't know, you know, if that's really helping us flourish as a community and as a township. Because for a lot of people here, the quality of life has declined. And, you know, I just think everything's just whatever's going to happen is going to happen. But when I hear about when I hear about, you know, you're talking about what it would cost to, you know, build a new town hall on these things, you know. I just don't know if the, I think the financial aspect of this is really as important as our needs to not have the lights dim when we plug in our car. You know, and just a little hint to you, my son's lights don't dim because he's got solar panels and it doesn't increase his cost of electricity. So your lights don't have to dim. You know, you could produce some of your electricity. That's three minutes. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Amina Toler, Fourth Ward Counselor here in Montclair Township. My question is for the attorney. I understand that we have a deadline of November what? Or for the planner? November 15th. So with that being said, is there anything that this council can do legally to extend that date? Because I believe we need more public hearings. There's nothing that we can craft or put in place where we can have this deadline extended by the state for, say, an additional 30 days so that we can have more public hearings?

I don't think so.

Nothing at all?

master plan re-examination went from six years to ten years and it was contemplated that that would be sufficient time to create a master plan re-exam so we're coming up on the ten year period

Right. I understand all of that, but my question still is, is there anything the municipality can do to request an extension?

I could look.

Could you please and let us know?

But I rather doubt it, because I wouldn't even know who to make that application to.

Maybe the planner can help you with that. Because I'd like to see more public hearings from my records. If I'm note-taking the public hearings that we had this summer, the four of them, as of Prior to the Ward 1 meeting, we had a total of 51 people attend, and out of the 51 people, 21 people spoke. You can do the percentage math on 21 people speaking for 40,000 residents. I don't think that's a fair number to even move forward in a discussion on recommendations. So I'm here to ask this board to please consider another public hearing when people are here. Not away on vacation in July and August. This is something that I used to ask. We met in October of 2024 when I first got here and asked if we could have public hearings scheduled. And we wait until now, not you, sir, but whomever.

So my suggestion would be that we don't want to risk the fate of what would happen if we do not have our master plan reexamination completed by November. But there is also the possibility that in the future, not too distant future, it could be revisited. It could always be revisited.

Okay, so you'll look that up and let the council know.

I'll look it up, but I rather doubt that we're going to have any possibility of extending that. Well, that's okay.

Just check it out for us and let us know. And I just wanted to make sure that I copy and paste all of the speakers that were here tonight. I agree with everything that they said. Again, I'm asking this board to please consider another public hearing while people are not away on vacation. 30 seconds. and that we can have adequate input on this master plan that's going to shape our lives for the next 10 years. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Eileen Birmingham from Second Ward. Could you, Mr. Ness, would you mind just explaining a little bit further, like, why November 15th is the deadline? Like, is the other, the 10 years, is it from literally was 10 years ago, November 15th? Yeah. because I think what I'm hearing and you know again I know it was summer and summer tends to be a quiet time but I am hearing that this will be rather detailed process and there are a lot of details that need to go into this re-examination and I guess from the point of somebody who you know is involved in this I would like to just know that it's not a rushed process which is not at all to say that it has been, but again, it sounds like there's a lot of detail that still needs to go into it. And I would just want to make sure that if there is any way to get extra time, we could get it.

There's not. And I'm just going to read a section of the municipal land use law that is directed at this particular point. It's section 89.1, and it says, quote, the absence of the adoption by the planning board of a reexamination report pursuant to section 89, which is the reexamination report section, shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the municipal development regulations are no longer reasonable, end quote. And what that basically means is that if somebody files a lawsuit, if we don't finish the reexamination, let me back up a little bit. In order to file a lawsuit under what's called prerogative writs, the plaintiff says that what the board or what the council or what the municipal entity has done is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. If we don't act, if we don't have the master plan in place within the 10-year period, we lose that unreasonable. They get that leg up on us. Is that terrible? No, not really, because there's not going to be a lawsuit in the time frame, the extra time.

at least in my opinion i'm not guaranteeing that but i don't think that counselor birmingham there's one thing i want to reiterate this is not a new master plan it's called a re-examination report so we are not preparing a new master 20 seconds there's no um sorry there's no new elements i've been asked by all this is is there an evaluation of our existing planning documents and development regulations and a recommendation for future changes or not even future changes, future evaluations.

OK. So I think then we shouldn't look at this as in, like, this is happening on November 15, and then it is locked for 10 years. No. Right? I think that we just want to make that clear, right?

OK. We can re-examine as often as we like. I'll just add my comments. Yeah, I mean, well, we can as a municipality. I'm not saying we should, but we're allowed to.

Just a quick question. What is the last date? If you could just identify yourself for the record. Oh, sorry. I'm Karma Lockman. I live on Walnut Street. Thank you. When is the last day people can have written comments to you?

We haven't decided that yet. Oh, OK. There's been a suggestion that we limit it at some point.

OK.

I think through our discussion tonight, we'll get there.

Thank you. All right. So as I said, I live on Walnut Street. So when I was looking at the master plan re-examination report, I focused on the area that I know, which is Walnut Street. And I also read the foundational document, which is the actual master plan. And it strikes me that we're not making any changes to the actual master plan, right? Even though, in my view when I look at this, it looks like there could be changes that need to be made to the actual master plan. But that's not the point of this. Okay, so when I look at page 10, dealing with Walnut Street, a couple of things jump out at me, and they do tie back a little bit to the basic master plan, and that is that there's an implicit acknowledgement that there may be redevelopment plans in the Walnut Street area. And this is something I think that people are not happy with, having redevelopment plans, especially because they're usually tied into a pilot. And the pilot, the other point to the pilot is that funds don't go to the schools. So, and in my view, Montclair is a very hot town, and I don't know why we need redevelopment plans with pilots. So that would just be one comment. Another comment, looking at the specific notations about Walnut Street, It's called the Unified Plan Walnut Street Station area. One of the things that is New Jersey Transit does not take care of the landscaping around the trains. It's a mess. And I don't know why we don't try to force them to take care and mow the lawns, cut the bushes around the stations. I look also at the area between Grove Street, on Grove Street, between Walnut Street and Oxford Street. The town planted 11 trees there in that commercial area, and eight of them are dead. In addition to that, the tree pits there are full of weeds, and nothing is done about that. And I have complained to the town about that on different occasions. So that would be something I think that we need to make sure. I don't know if the master plan is the right place for that, but that certainly needs to be addressed. Another thing that needs to be addressed.

30 seconds.

Sorry, is that the HPC gave you a nomination for Label Street being an historic building and that was never voted on by the council. What else oh an easy The last thing on the page 10 is that allow for shared parking? Well, all is that is is changing signs to allow people to park after hours at the New Jersey Transit I don't know why that just isn't done Sometimes we list this stuff and we okay three minutes that well, thank you. Thank you. And if I have anything else send it.

Thank you. I Any other member of the public wish to make a statement on the master plan reexamination report?

I don't think so. Hi. Is it on? Yes. Perfect. Sarah Avery. I live on Irving Street. Overall, you know, I compared the 2006 objectives and recommendations to the 2016 objectives and recommendations to the 2026 presentation, which it was dated in April. That presentation was dated in April. So we had months and months for public hearings and public engagement, yet there was nothing until the middle of July. So, you know, it's really offensive that you're sitting here tonight Telling the public, we got to wrap it up. Very offensive. It disenfranchises the community. And I sent you the spreadsheet. Over 217 objectives and recommendations. The vast majority have not been accomplished. You know, the taxes, which has come up a number of times this evening, ever-increasing taxes. There's been a recommendation since 2006, create an ordinance requiring developers to pay their fair share of off-track infrastructure improvements that are necessary to accommodate their developments. This was never done. It was pushed into the unified circulation plan with a should and not a shall. And so for two decades of redevelopment and developers getting pilots, the residents have been burdened with paying for all of the changes to the infrastructure, right? The streets, the sewers, the stormwater management, So I did send you all a link to my website. I've done a whole series called Planning for Failure because that's what's happened in Montclair. And I don't understand why there is no policy and procedure for holding the planner accountable to the residents because otherwise this is all meaningless. But this is supposed to be a democracy.

Didn't you come up and speak already?

No. Sorry.

You already spoke, didn't you? Yeah. No. No. No. It's three minutes per person. Anyone else wish to make a comment on the master plan re-examination report? I'm sure there's too many people left. Seeing none, we will close the public comment portion. I'm going to suggest we take a five-minute break. Is that OK? Let's take a five-minute break, and then we'll come back and discuss.

the standards. Do the standards apply just to...

on the record on your end yeah um we're on the record okay we're on the record there i think we're on the record with uh mr gearhart in the back okay he says we're good all right so we're back to continue our discussion here the master plan re-examination report and i think miss talley you had some suggestions or things that you wanted to get out of this meeting, which I thought were reasonable?

Yes. I know we've been talking on and off for the past three years about the master plan reexamination report. And those of you who came to the presentations, all four of them, I think I actually did five of them, you've heard my presentation multiple times. So really what I'd like to have is we've got a lot of feedback from the public, which I summarized in the report that was distributed to you for tonight's meeting. I'd like to integrate those comments from the public into the text of the reexamination report. And then what I'm really hoping as we move along is to, the crux of the reexamination report are your objectives. And I've said this, what's working, what's not working, what needs to be changed, what are your priorities? in all of our planning documents and all of our ordinances there's there's a lot of recommendations we have a lot of ordinances a lot of records and some have been achieved some have not been achieved because it's that the political will is not always there to advance We spent a year, Tony, I know, and Carol, I believe, we spent a year in 2018 rewriting the entire zoning ordinance, working with a very, you know, a pretty solid subcommittee.

Right.

Which the council said no to.

The council at that time. At that time. It's different than the council now just because I don't want to.

So the reality is it's not like we haven't tried. The reality is you have to work with the political will of the moment. and the zoning subcommittee is working with to come up with some changes some recommendations that were in our existing plans and and read the re-examination reports to see if we could get them through uh this council so anyway that's beside the point i just wanted to give the framework for this um Go through the comments that we've received. What do you agree with? What do you not agree with? And then I think as we move over the next couple of months on the actual plan, what do you see as the priorities that we need to elevate in the reexamination report? And there may be certain elements that need to be amended. My recommendation would be you make the recommendation in the reexamination report and then you follow up next year or the year after with actually making those changes with the proper concentration and evaluation of each element and the proposed changes and having public hearings on those changes. Piling everything into the re-examination report, which is a lot, I would pull them out separately. So that's my recommendation. And I don't know if you want me to go through all of the items that were in the summary that I provided for you.

I don't think.

Nicole's shaking her head.

I mean, unless others feel differently, I don't think we need to go line by line on that. I think there's a lot in there.

Are those publicly available?

Yes, they're on the township website.

Public comments?

All of the comments that we received as of mid last week are on the website. Ones that I've received since are not. But the summary that I submitted to the planning board for discussion tonight, that's not publicly available yet. It's basically a summary of the comments that we've received.

So yeah, I don't feel the need to go line by line at this point. I think if there's high level items that, you know, the priorities that we should consider or that we think should be part of this master plan re-examination report. I suggest that's where we start and then drill down into the details from there.

My high level feeling about all this is that as a guy who talks too much, I'm actually paid to make people write less and edit things down. And it's just such a, everything is so sprawling and that is fundamentally the issue that I'm looking at. That's what I see. So tonight when we were thinking about examining the consistency of this area in need of redevelopment with the master plan, We discovered a whole world of things in the master plan that didn't occur to us about energy. And that was an indication that the thing is so huge and overweening that you're losing, continuously losing, you know, the forest for the trees. And I think as I go through it, I just find, you know, the master plan and the reexamination, I just find all these extraneous things. that I would like to just see cut out. And I mean, I can name a few. I mean, as Laughlin named, there was one important thing, which is that there are mentions of redevelopment plans as if that is an inevitability. And it is not an inevitability. And there's a very clear, in my opinion, will on the part of the public that we not do redevelopment plans unless in extremis or for public things. You know, even in the reexamination, its draft says to investigate a district-wide valley parking system for Upper Montclair. What? No. Cut it out. I mean, like, these are things. Oh, here's one. A tax, have a new tax for public art. No, it's like, I just, all of this stuff is extraneous. I think the master plan should be 100 pages, all of the elements together, 20,000 words, something like that, get rid of, you know, make it harmonized visually so that it's not, and there's not all this artwork, because we have had consultants that are kind of like, feel like they need to stuff things in there, and so that a layperson can pick up one document with all the elements in it and understand what's going on. And I think it should, I also wrote one sentence that honestly, if I could do it, I would sort of have this, which is that the master plan itself would just be one line and it would say, Montclair is a community with an unusual diversity of interests and opinions and nothing approaching the consensus required for a meaningful master plan. Like we just don't have- A populace that has a, you know, there are communities that are really together, that everybody's thinking the same way in Sweden or something. And they could come up with a detailed plan. Everybody would go, yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree with that. I'm Swedish. I can make the joke. But whenever I talk to people, there are very, very few things that they all agree on. They agree, if they agree on anything, that we are overbuilt in certain areas. They agree that congestion and traffic and safety as a result of overdevelopment or being built out not only in our community but in adjacent communities is at a crisis level. They agree on that things are unaffordable but without any degree of consensus on how that should be addressed. Really none whatsoever from what I can tell. and you just go on and on so if there's a master plan should be something that is a consensus document that is something that isn't controversial there should be no part of it that you know 20 or 30 percent of the town would look at and go I don't believe in that and and it should be understandable so I know that that's a lot of like you know go back to the drawing board kind of of stuff which is easier to say than to edit. But that's what I would spend nights trying to boil everything down if I could. And I should talk more like I say that I edit. But that's it. Cut.

I'll tag on to that. Maybe my approach is slightly different. I'd love us to consider what objective key results indicate that we are successful. Sorry, can you hear me? Yeah, that's better.

Much, much better. OK, thanks.

Yeah, I'd love us to consider what objective key results or measurements of success we might be able to hold ourselves accountable to. I appreciate that many problems can have multiple solutions. So rather than spending cycles debating what solutions are most appropriate, if we could align on what the metrics are that we want to hold ourselves to, perhaps getting to alignment becomes much easier.

Yes. I hear you, Councillor D'Amato, loud and clear. I think it's also, I feel like having all these different documents and sections almost seem like they're competing. that you know the sustainability is completely removed from the land use is completely you know and if they could again that would be a just a new master plan which is not the purpose but maybe that's a suggestion is that it's it's not So, you know, a lot of the objectives probably pull in from various of these sub-reports, but you can't read it that way because it's sort of different committees write their different things, even though they might be going for the same goal. And then just in terms of public comment, you know, for the future, it would be good to have online surveys for people to – give feedback I was involved in one in a different community and the very first part this was to do a new master plan it wasn't to do a re-examination but the very first step before the meetings was an online survey that people could fill out and you know I can't tell you what the response rate is my guess is it's higher than the response rate of people that came in in person to our meetings so just using the technology and the way of collecting information that matches people's time and you know whether it's a question year open-ended whether it's rank your top things I just think there's other ways to collect information than having people come out to an in-person meeting Nicole yeah we did do a survey is when we started the housing element and fair share plan and it was very useful

And if this board does recommend that we do a whole new master plan, I think that's an excellent recommendation.

I was going to say, I like the idea of trying to put it all into one document and make sure it's cross-referenced appropriately. I mean, obviously we have challenges. We have technology challenges with just some of those elements being done in one version of software and others in a different software. Sometimes we're not able to edit it. We don't have the original files. I know that is a real challenge. But I think as a goal, it would be wonderful to get it all in one place so it is easy to understand for somebody reading it. Because I think it's difficult enough for us here who do this a lot. To really understand, I mean, we found it tonight, as the counselor referred to, we found a couple of sections that, hey, something was a little more consistent with the master plan than perhaps I thought when I walked in.

I mean, the reality is it's budget driven. We had a grant. That grant does one element of the master plan.

And that consultant does everything in InDesign, and then we can't do a thing because we have no InDesign license.

And they insist on the sustainability element. I was a little uncomfortable with the length of it, but they insisted that if DEP was going to accept it, because they were the ones that funded it, it had to be over 100 pages long. Wow. So I hear you.

Yes. So I think that would be nice. Again, I don't think that's going to be a metric that we're going to achieve. It would be interesting to put it in there, but at the same time.

It certainly sounds like a great goal.

I think it's a wonderful goal. I think driving readability and using plain language throughout our master plan would be helpful so that the public can understand, what in the world are we talking about? We use so much gobbledygook here of planning, because in a part we have to. Because that's how the laws are written. That's how applicants come forth. But it's still, to be a member of the public, super confusing. As I've said up here before, it's taken me years of being on this side of the dais and spending a lot of weekends to understand these things. And even then, while I think I'm pretty good, I'm still not somebody who does it day in and day out for a career.

Right.

So I get it. It's a challenge. So boiling it down to language that is easy to understand. And yeah, we're not going to get consensus. But if we can craft something that's a vision for what most people or a lot of people would like to see, I think that's a reasonable goal.

And I think, like, Ms. Fogel, who, if you remember, came up and made a comment that, you know, may, in this kind of setting, have seemed off-topic on some levels, was kind of very on-topic because she meant, like, the goal should be, you know, affordability for residents who live here or something like that. I mean, it's like, you know, one, she was thinking in terms of, like, there should be a prime directive and we should try to follow it. And I respect that. I really do. And that's not what the master plan is. And people don't really know what it's supposed to be doing. But they're thinking in good faith that it should be something very basic.

Right. Plain language.

Plain language. Bullet points.

And why couldn't we have that be a goal of the master plan? That affordability for... Members, residents of the township is a goal.

So my question is, how do you define affordability?

Right.

I mean, we know affordable housing. We've talked that to death. But beyond that, what is affordability?

I think that was in one of the pages that we were sent. What is affordability? And that is something I think that we would have to wrestle with.

Right.

But to me, we've heard that comment a lot from the public on applications where that's not the right forum, but where is the right forum? It feels like maybe the master plan re-examination report is the right place to start saying, look, we do need to address this somehow.

I think in all the comments, we received a lot of comments about, obviously, affordability. I think the majority had to do with traffic and parking and congestion.

Right.

And thank God we have a complete streets director now who can help us with that to a certain extent. But the framework that I would suggest moving forward is What can the master plan include that specifically addresses the congestion issue? I mean, a lot of it's already existing.

Right.

But how can we reduce that, reduce the congestion, reduce the traffic, or manage it moving forward, better manage it?

Isn't zoning, isn't that part of the solution? Like evaluating the zoning?

Yeah, yeah. We don't want any traffic. Try and reduce traffic-intensive uses.

Correct, especially in certain areas.

Sometimes it could be restaurants. It can be entertainment-related uses. So on the one side, that's the economic engine, but that also drives a lot of traffic. Right. So I know we've heard about that. I mean, part of it was we've discussed when we talked about – mixed-use development back you know 15 years ago we talked about mixed-use of actually 20 years ago when I was on the planning board and we were working with the Montclair Economic Development Corporation way back when economic development was trying to drive more people to the downtown and mixed-use development was the answer to try and create you know a 24-7 vitality to the downtown and maybe we've been too successful in that and we need to move away from that and that's where some a lot of the recommendations are to try and instead of focusing on mixed-use development maybe focus on residential development without the commercial component we've talked about this as well because quite often it's the commercial component that creates the traffic and congestion issues

so I we heard also talking about the same with traffic is that you know just a lot has changed I mean we've lost bus services we've lost train riders people aren't working in the city I mean we've said this all and all again I just know you know that I just think possibly assumptions we're making on how people are using the streets who are using the streets you know there's there's commuter cut-throughs i mean i live right by wildwood as you know and like that is one of the biggest cut-through streets in this town it is not designed for that there is no stop signs and four-way stop signs so it's just people are using the streets as their design i appreciate we have complete complete streets but but you know people everyone knows they're they're three blocks right near their house and you you see these how they're being used. So I really think to, to, before we make any recommendations, we really have to understand like what's changed and what, how people are moving, where are they moving to and whether the triggers, because I think it's very different. I know it's very different. And I think it's also, um, I just even think the whole time of day has shifted a lot. Maybe the late night is more out of town. The people now in town are just driving their kids from point A to point B. That's a ton of traffic. So just really understanding what... what is causing these traffic, and not making assumptions of how things used to be. Because I think people's habits are completely changed. I think you're not necessarily working this nine to five day anymore. I mean, I know. Don't tell my employer. I will do something in the middle of the day, which I used to never do because I was in the office all day. So just so much has changed. So, you know, we heard this specifically in Ward 1, but I think it's important for this whole thing. Money dependent, of course, is just really understanding traffic and congestion before we try to solve for it.

I think that the master plan should not include specifics, and that is something that is bulking it out. There's in the re-examination report that mentions making space for left turn lanes. I don't think that should be in there. I think that the master plan should be strategy, not a tactic. I think that said, there has to be a line that is added about The future of driving and autonomy, and I will quickly tell a story. Everybody's tired of hearing me talking about robot cars. I saw a member of our community today who recently purchased the newest Tesla, which has the full self-driving capacity, and they showed me the app for their car. and they have driven 3000 miles and 97% of the miles that were driven were driven by the car alone. So this is going to change everything. It will lead to, um, you know, a couple of different things like it's going to make possibly more congestion in the future of smaller cars that will be much safer. and it will radically change the need potentially of parking in certain places. So that needs to be in there, but not any specific thing because we don't really know what it is, but it should be mentioned that we should try to get ahead of that and not behind it. But any specifics about lanes and this and that in neighborhoods seems like clutter to me otherwise. 97%.

I have just one comment on the traffic and parking. Our grid in Montclair is really valuable. So whatever we do, let's keep the grid because each street that we close or each sort of one-way or whatever, I know that we're trying to solve problems. We don't have main roads that have to take all the traffic. A lot of communities, and Milburn is one, and there are certain roads that are completely overrun. But the fact that people have options to drive through the grid and maybe take a right and a left here, and it does alleviate the pressure on Grove, Valley, on Park. So it's probably not... master plan, but I think we should appreciate the grid that we have here. It helps.

It helps filter the traffic.

Helps filter it out and distribute it. Mr. Campo, did you have something you wanted to add?

I was mostly going to agree with Councillor D'Amato earlier. I second your point around strategy versus tactics. I'm curious actually, you know what, come back to my I'll come back. I'll come back.

Where's the master?

Go ahead. Janice, what do you think the overall view of increased density or low density, does the master plan reexamination report on an overall basis suggest less density or more or the same? What do you think?

All I can say, we've talked about gentle density increases in our residential zones. That's the missing middle housing.

We don't talk about... ADUs or... No, that's the thing.

Ever since we were working on the housing element and we talked about housing affordability and how do you create additional housing without impacting the municipality, we talked about rather than going back to what we've done up till now where we had strategic redevelopment to support the revitalization of Bloomfield Avenue. I think we've accomplished that. Now we've talked about, you know, trying to address opportunities for missing middle housing through gentle density increases, areas where it's possible to have two-family homes or three-family homes. When we talk about density increases, I think that's all I've heard reference to are those kinds of changes, except for perhaps certain subject properties. There's certain properties where you can see additional development would be appropriate. and that would be the DeCamp bus site right next to the, you know, to the Walnut Street chain station and something else at the Acme property, which is not the, it could be so much more attractive. We're not talking about a large development, but that can be a much more attractive site. Those are the two areas. Aside from, again, we mentioned, we identified them in the housing element areas where you have, Non-conforming uses where change could be anticipated. They're not large properties. It'll be very small, scattered throughout the township. So.

So there was a comment that was made. That was the chair of the housing commission sent in several previous comments or whatever they are, reports. And one of them was a letter that was sent to the mayor and the council in December of 2024. And this was a, I guess, minority report. the Commission so was the chair and then one two three four five members so I don't know if that indicates a majority of of the Commission you talk about the Housing Commission yes yeah and this is what they said ADUs are currently permitted in the RO, ROA, R1 and R2 zones Building on this, the township should allow for townhouses, cottage courts, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes of 5 to 12 units, and the conversion of one family to multifamily dwellings as principal uses in those zones. So the RO and R1 zone. And I just wanted to highlight this as something that should not be in a master plan. I mean, it is, well, I'll highlight it as something that I believe is a belief that would have 10% or 15% support in the township, something like that. And this is not where we're at. So the idea that in a single-family zone district that we would have a 12-unit building, right, Mayor? I mean, that is not something that you would be for. No. And so at least the board, I think.

What are you reading from?

I'm reading from, it should be. I had it on my computer.

Yeah, I think it's, I believe it's this housing commission recommendations. Yes. That was a hard copy on the dais here.

So it's here. You're right, page three, missing middle.

And Janice, if you wouldn't mind sending those by email. Sure. Later this week, that would be good. Yep.

So at least I have not, I mean, we have some great folks who are YIMBYs who really want to build. And there is a housing shortage or whatever, but there's no indication to me that there's any broad desire to see a radical upzoning of any neighborhood, any of the residential neighborhood. And if anybody disagrees, they're free to, and it's a perfectly valid opinion.

I agree completely. I think that one of the historically people who are attracted to Montclair because there are single-family homes. People are attracted to Montclair. You live in the city, you're on top of one another, and people come here to get a yard and get a house. And I think that's part of the attractiveness of it. So I think that the... the gentle density in certain areas that are appropriate or okay but to to say take ro and r1 i mean there's no there's no limit on this whatsoever this comment says that conversion of all these zones to a zone that permits duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and multiplexes of five to 12 units is really way off the radar, you know, just in terms of what, I mean, the zoning committee wouldn't, that's, if it came to us, we'd say, you crazy? Because, you know, we're talking about adding a few more feet to an ADU and try to preserve the character of the one of the single family home and then have appropriate density um well actually you know what historically a lot of a lot of the two family zones in montclair were really one family homes that were just converted without approval right a lot of the two a lot of the conversions and we have we have that density in in the larger homes like you know if you go from walnut up to

um chestnut it's all two family in there there's a lot yeah a lot of the two family zones you can't tell the difference where the two family zone starts and the one family zone because it's in the original structure of the large house right i mean it blends very well

and in that case you would want I know near me upper Montclair we have some two family homes whether approved or not but you wouldn't know it from the outside right they just you know so if you're doing something like that it's just a design guideline and the same way we would lot with a utility it looks like a house you know that it doesn't look like an apartment building I mean I also think you we here we just talked about congestion and people at their limit on congestion and then it's sort of then putting five to twelve new that townhouses you know we're just there's conflict everywhere and the responses I just want to ask is missing middle is that an ownership goal or just a housing goal as opposed to a rental goal

I don't think it is limited to one or the other. Okay.

So missing middle could be ownership or rental.

Okay.

Yes.

just coming in on the tail end of the up zoning that you were just talking about I'm not certain how that individual was referencing up zoning but I know that from serving on the Housing Commission for many years discussions have come up pertaining to in our OZONES in particular being able to utilize some of the McMansions for something other than just McMansions and such things as specialty housing, whether it's for people that are unhoused, people that have disabilities or different types of housing. in terms of zoning, what that would do would just give those areas an opportunity if they didn't want to continue to have the buried McMansion houses just sitting on acres and acres of land to spread some of the wealth around because we've looked at the where a lot of those types of specialty housing, Ball Mental Health Association has a very well kept up property which is almost right in front of my home. And so as we talked about where those types of facilities are placed, there's a heavy concentration in the fourth ward. And people were starting to say, well, what is keeping us from having a little bit more equal distribution of some of our specialty housing? And we started to look at the requirements in the RO zones. So if you can't put certain types of housing there, and very conveniently perhaps for decades, then all of those specialty types of housing will end up in other neighborhoods. So that's the only way that I'm familiar with that, and I'm not in opposition to that. I think that it needs to be thought out. I think that it needs to be discussed and looked at. so that there can be other areas where you know we can repurpose large buildings you know there's beautiful properties we have unhoused people in our township and I think it would be great if we could take some of those properties and find people who wish to develop them into something that maybe could serve a really humane purpose for people. So that's how I am most familiar with, like, upzoning.

Purpose-built housing, not necessarily just five apartments or anyone who wants to go there, but having admission to the house or the... Yes.

I'm chuckling a little bit because you said McMansions, and those are real mansions. It's not a McMansion.

I don't even know what a McMansion or a mansion is. What makes a mansion?

A McMansion is like a kind of a tacky, smaller, new attempt at a mansion.

Those things are... What makes it a mansion? Is it square footage or just...

whoa all right thank you I received that that sort of dovetails with this you know I work with design guidelines in the different community and just you know I wonder if people's oppositions are to you know I I guess personally like if a home and my neighborhood looks like a house but it's actually a two-family home great right power to them maybe someone's making a little money to help pay their mortgage and they can afford to live here so i wonder if a lot objection could come from a design thing where you know you're putting a apartment building in your residential street as opposed to just adding a two-family option to a house that fits in with the neighborhood so i wonder or even a group home that is within an existing house versus building an institutional-looking group home?

I think the state defines most group homes as a single-family house.

Right.

So most group homes that we see fall under the definition of a single-family home, and that's why we have a lot of group homes and residential health care facilities. They're in single-family homes. They look like a single-family home. They're there already.

I'm not saying people wouldn't object, but I think one objection could be to design that looks institutional or that looks like an apartment building.

Sounds like neighborhood character is still important.

Yes.

And I like the idea of, I guess, maybe switching topics briefly back to parking and congestion, curb management strategies. I think that's a big one. Because I think, at least from my experience, we've got our ride shares. No good place to drop off on Bloomfield Avenue, and yet a lot of people are getting dropped off and picked up there. Pretty soon, you know, I'll be able to just have my car drop me off there, I guess, and then it'll drive home and park there. I won't have to worry about municipal parking. But I still need a place for that car to drop me off along the curve.

Or maybe it could just circle around.

And add to the congestion? Maybe that's part of the thing we need to address, is making sure those cars aren't circling looking for parking. But I think evaluating curb management strategies, I think, is a real critical thing for us, especially in our more heavily congested areas. In our business districts. In our business districts, yeah. Yes.

Something that I heard in one of the meetings and it seems to come up is, you know, this sort of goes back into the housing. It's just sort of the request for variances. And then I don't know. I admit I don't know the history, but I know it came up in the board forum meeting that there was variance. this is given to houses and then developers build those houses and then sell them you know and sort of losing some of the housing stock in the ward four and making it sort of out of the means and and i know there was a report from from our sister um the zoning board but just you know just really looking at where you know i view variances ultimately come down to a lot i know i know like the nc zone and people wanting variants from that i mean it kind of comes a little close to spot zoning if you're just sort of handing out a variance here and a variance here and so really looking at where you know either where these variances are being requested and then tightening the language to make if if there's the council and the planning board or whoever don't want those variances to be given then tightening the language so to make it the criteria a lot harder or rezoning these zones like i know It came up at the NC, whether it should require mixed use or not mixed use, as opposed to then the Board of Adjustments giving a variance and say you don't have to have commercial, and then it's just one spot that's just all residential, but it zones for something. Right. I don't like the idea of spot zoning, and I think it just sort of ruins the whole point of what zoning is supposed to be. So I would say take a close look. I don't pretend to know the history of what happened in Ward 4, but it really caught my ear about how is that happening. And then knowing that like these NC zones, you know, and so I think something to look at is really identifying these areas that should just be tight in the zoning and just not allowing development to happen in this town by variance.

And I'll add to that of, you know, I think. Continuing some of the work that we've done already with looking at transition zones, where we looked at some of those properties near Bloomfield Avenue that were C1 six-story and then residential two-story right next to it. Taking a fairly comprehensive look, again, budget constraints being what they are, but looking at those types of issues, where should we tighten up zoning? Because I don't think we can change how variances are evaluated because it's more state law and I'll stare at Mr. Neese to he's nodding. That's given by the municipal land use law. So there's not much that we can do in terms of a balancing test or, you know, under the C1 characteristics. But what we can do is encourage, you know, this evaluation of our zoning so that it more accurately represents what we in the community want in all of these areas with regard to intensive uses. We talked about that already tonight. You know, what we think is a good use there, heights, those types of things that, you know, still go back to what's the fabric of the community look like? What is the streetscape? You know, how does it look?

One other very broad goal that I've heard over and over, which I'm sure is in the comments, which I just wrote out, is there appears to be a broad interest in creation of housing opportunities for both seniors and younger residents who do not want to move away, which is acutely obvious to me as my son goes off to college and these kids scatter and it's a very sad thing knowing that a lot of them won't come back soon. For seniors especially, this could include condos. As many who are downsizing from home ownership would rather own rather than rent and were constrained here by this strange New Jersey legal problem wherein condos are now very risky for developers because they get sued. I'm not sure I understand. what it's all about but or what a municipality could do about it but for sure in my ward there are people who are downsizing who are not downsizing who would like to and who probably should be and there just isn't and there's nothing and they don't want to rent a lot of them so I don't know how we further that goal but

if you don't zone the promise with zoning you can't zone for ownership you can't zone to create that that's i don't know how you build an incentive to create you know a condo option i mean in the redevelopment zone you can no you if you're working with a developer you can't you can't require them they be ownership units as opposed to you can't require ownership versus rental

You can't negotiate ownership versus rental?

Well, I guess you can negotiate anything. You just can't legislate it.

Right. But if you're negotiating a deal for a redevelopment zone, you can't make it a point or something? I'm curious.

That's different from – I guess it can be – we can say a goal is to provide opportunities for homeownership. Okay. You just can't zone for ownership.

I just meant more the redevelopment language as opposed to the underlying zoning.

Sounds like a redevelopment agreement type of thing.

Not that some of us like redevelopment zones, but I just felt like if that would be the only place I could see the opportunity. For instance? The township is a negotiating...

partner with whoever the developer is on the redevelopment area a lot of the affordable housing projects that we're talking about particularly with municipally owned land we can require those to be home designed as home ownership because we own the land if you're going to put issue an rfp we're going to say this needs to be designed and we want these as for sale affordable units in that context we can require it but on private property

Can we still push for our local preference in a redevelopment plan?

It's in our ordinance.

I know, but wasn't there some concern about whether that was actually going to stand?

It stood. It stood. It's in there. We still have it.

Right, but it hasn't been challenged yet, I guess is what I'm...

Our housing plan was certified. I understand. And that was in there.

I think it's a wonderful thing. I'm trying to find ways to make sure we keep it. And I'm wondering, is that something that should go in redevelopment plans just for whatever reason our ordinance gets denied or whatever the right term is? Does it have a greater likelihood of standing in a redevelopment plan?

um i don't know because technically local preference has to do with your overall housing policy and it's not site specific okay now yeah i don't really want to i don't feel comfortable answering that that's fair throw it out there has to do with fair housing and much broader issues and discriminatory i think if we're I wouldn't use that word you're treating everybody because we have it as our housing policy we're treating everybody the same with the local preference as opposed to just in our redevelopment plan but not everybody place else so because we've made the case to the fair share housing center and the judge that because of the loss of our lower income population, the loss of our historic black population, there's these disparities and that keeping that local preference helps manage that, address displacement.

And that's why I'd like to see it everywhere we can.

Yes. Wait a minute.

I mean, just to be clear, in our settlement with the Ferris Sheriff's Center.

There was no settlement. It was.

Our compliance or consent decree.

It was taken out of it. It's in our ordinance. They approved our ordinance. Our ordinance includes a local preference. They were aware of it. And it was approved. That's what we've been told.

Chairman, I have a question.

Janice, how was our housing trust fund utilized?

uh we use it for a variety of options we've used it for our home improvement program we've used it for our extension of affordabilities program we've used it for uh to purchase property for affordable housing like a market to it's basically falls under market to affordable program we've used it for affordability assistance we have rental assistance we have first-time homebuyers assistance for deed-restricted properties. It's limited, but those are a variety of the programs that we have right now.

Are seniors involved with that, or is it just for homeownership?

Seniors benefit from it. They participate in the Home Improvement Program. I don't think any of the seniors can benefit from the first-time homebuyers, but if they are buying one of our deed-restricted units, they could access it. or if they are, there's certainly nothing restricting them from using the rental assistance.

Thank you.

In terms of land area, what percent of Montclair land area is single family home?

I think, and I don't have the answer to that, I think I don't have the answer. I'd have to look it up. I know about 50% of our housing stock is rental, but I don't have the numbers right now. You want to know the percent that's single family? The land, yes. The land. I might even have that in the report. They'll have to look it up.

other thoughts questions advice on this i would just say the meetings i went to the other things i mean we talked about this i think enough last meeting trees trees trees i just think everyone is unhappy and I know the council's working on it with how trees get evaluated and cut down and I appreciate it's being worked on but I just want to acknowledge that came up um and I it doesn't seem like there's a lot of dissent in it but and then um just it's you know light pollution and noise as well you know quality of life things and it seems like an opportunity to have you know ordinances on that

So what are our next steps now?

I'll add one more, and then we'll jump to next steps. I would love us to find a balance between honoring all of the things that make this town special from a historical perspective with being forward-leaning with our approach to some of these topics, whether it be housing, parking, or something else, because I think we can all quickly agree that the world is changing very quickly around us, so I think we'll need to do more than apply a fresh coat of paint to what was. I'm not suggesting that's our intention here. But striking that balance will probably be, I don't know, many interesting conversations to come.

I lost the rest of your sentence there?

Oh, many interesting conversations to come.

Okay.

Yeah.

Dr. Willis, the question that you asked, the answer is actually in the master plan. I know a I found it According to Montclair's townships master plan the housing element and fair share plan over 60% of the total land area is dedicated to single-family detached housing 60 to 65 percent Thank You Eric for answering Chairman yes, um

Are we still going to hold the timeline of November 15th for the re-examination.

Yes.

I did suggest that we hold off on any public comment coming through, so I was only suggesting. I think the board may want to vote for maybe extend, I don't know, so if Ms. Talley needs additional time or if... How about we give another two weeks?

I was going to say, when's our next meeting on this topic?

It would be, wait a minute.

I like to look ahead and then work backwards.

September 28 is our next. I was planning to put this on the agenda for September 28, but what I'd like to do is give two more weeks. for public comment, and then I will share that with the board. And I would really like to try and get a draft plan to you for the September meeting.

Okay. So by September 11th, which is the Friday, all comments need to be in from the public to Ms. Talley. Okay. Remind me one more time, jtalley at montclairenj.gov. Is that the new one? That's right. Yeah. OK. J-T-A-L-L-E-Y at montclairenj.gov. Send any comments on the master plan to Ms. Talley, and she will send them, at least distribute them to the board, post them to the township website, and then we will work to incorporate those in our re-examination plan.

Thank you. Absolutely.

OK. So we will meet again on this topic on the 28th of September at seven o'clock. And with that, we do have any committee reports.

Um, no, we have the zoning subcommittees meeting tomorrow night, development review committees meeting Thursday night.

Yeah.

Um, so we're busy. We're keeping things moving. That's it.

Great. And then I think we have bills.

Is there a motion to pay the bills? Yes, let's pay the bills. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Yes.

All right, I would move to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Yeah. Have a good night, everyone.