Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening everyone.

As you can see, nobody else has shown up. We have tried to reach out to them.

and we are unable to get anyone by text email phone and therefore look we're not we're not taking comments at the moment i just got an email santiago can be here at 750. five zero seven five zero he said 750. okay

knew that was going to happen sorry we're still good right you can start whenever you want yeah it's not a problem okay you want to wait till santiago said he'll be here he said he'll be here by 7 50. i'll tell him we're waiting tell them it's a real 750. okay all right well i guess we will have somebody here at 7 50. so we will give it another 11 well now 10 minutes

Okay.

So we'll adjourn for the next 10 minutes. Okay. Good evening, everyone, again. And this time, welcome to the September 14th, 2026 regular meeting of the Township of Montclair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, the official Electronic Publication Act and the 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. and 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 the back of the room. And as to the order of a typical evening here, each application hearing begins with the applicant or their attorney giving an overview of the application and the variances that are required, if any. We then hear from any expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why variances are required. The board members may ask questions of the applicant, the attorney, and their expert witnesses. and in a typical application if you're a member of the interested public but not a witness in the case you'll have two opportunities to speak at the end of each witness's testimony you'll be given the opportunity to ask the witness questions about his or her testimony and that's not the time to tell the board what you think of the application that'll come later To ask questions, you have to come to the front of the room here, up to the lectern, give us your name and address, and then ask your question related to the witness's testimony only. And after the applicant's witnesses and the objector and objector witnesses have been heard, members of the audience will then have their second opportunity to step forward. And at that time, you may express your opinions, positive or negative, about the application. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. And at the completion of the applicant's case, objector's case, and public comment, the public hearing is then closed and the board members discuss the case and vote. And at that time, you'll be able to listen to our discussion, but you will not be able to participate. Next is roll call.

mayor Baskerville excused mr. Borsch off here mr. Campbell excused councillor D'Amato excused miss Gaines excused mr. Graham excused mr. Ian Walley here miss Willis excused mr. Orbea Ms. Wallace? Here. And Chief, uh, Chief, I'm sorry, Chair Brodock.

I'm here. All right, next up we have the swearing in of our board professionals. Good evening. And Mr. Roballi, make sure your microphone's on, if you would. You didn't swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do.

I do.

OK, next up we have our minutes from the meeting of August 31, 2026.

there any i received uh changes to the minutes uh from chair brodock are there any other changes can i have a motion to approve the minutes so moved is there a second second all in favor aye opposed abstentions next up we have the council referral the adoption of a municipal complex redevelopment plan resolution

and i received some changes uh to the resolution from chair brodock some i just had one i just wanted to make sure no um in the whereas statements uh sorry the last whereas um you have an idea chair to have not just somehow have the whatever structure is built have it be encased but then also have it in case that it blends in do you feel like two plus three makes that clear to me it seems like buildings should look like buildings and structure should be encased do you think those go together and say structure should be encased in something that looks like a building would be more clear because i think that was the intent of the board yeah if we could just make it a little more connect to the three a little more closely that that even if you're just building structures and they are enclosed that that sort of that enclosure itself is built to blend in with the immediate surrounding neighborhood what if we just combine two and three into one statement i think that will make it clearer okay that works um so

I have the unchanged version. Also, I voted no for this. I can still comment on the resolution itself, right, since I witnessed the creation of the resolution? You can comment on it, yes. So it says, to the extent a structure or structures are built, the same shall be fully built to ensure that all equipment associated. It seems like it should say if think if equipment is provided then a structure should be built to enclose them because it It by leading with the phrase to the extent of structure are built It makes it optional So if you build a structure then put stuff inside as opposed to if you're gonna have stuff put them in a building and

It's a good point. So maybe utility equipment should be enclosed within a structure, and that structure should blend in with the immediately surrounding neighborhood?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that that was the suggestion that the board made. It was. Yeah. OK. Yeah. So I would make it more definitive that. Can you tell me what you wanted me to do?

Can you tell me how you want that sentence to be worded?

Yeah, that electrical equipment. I would say utility equipment. Just in case it happens to be a different utility. Utility equipment shall be enclosed in a structure or building.

Okay. Should be enclosed in a structure and door building, and that building slash structure should have design standards that ensure that they blend. Should be designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Right. Yeah.

I think that's clear. OK. OK.

Thank you.

So with those amendments, I would move approval.

Is there a second? I second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? OK. OK. All right.

Next up we have application 2945, 580 Valley Road, BG Valley, LLC.

Good evening everyone. Alan Tremulak appearing on behalf of the applicant PG Valley LLC. This is a continued continuation of the site plan application involving the property at 580 Valley Road. What we have in store for tonight is first, some brief testimony from Mr. Genova regarding the final, what should be the final revision to the site plan as a result of a meeting which took place several weeks ago. And then following his testimony, we have our final witness, Peter Steck, who will provide professional planning testimony. And once Mr. Steck is finished, I believe then that will conclude the applicant's case. I expect to move on to public comment.

I would expect to move on to public comment as well. And then I would expect that we would probably adjourn given the hour that I'm expecting that we're going to get to by the end of public comment. Hopefully we get through all the public comment. I would try my best to make sure we get through all of the public comment this evening. But given the late hour that I expect, given our delay here in starting, I expect that we're going to hold the vote, the deliberation of vote, until a continued meeting.

We think that we're in favor of holding the vote because we spent a lot of time And my clients incurred a lot of expense presenting this application, and we would hope to have a full complement of the board members, you know, nine members or as close to that number as possible, able to comment and vote on the application. So we would be in favor of postponing the vote.

Mr. Tremblay, can you agree on the record to extend the time?

Of course, yes.

Thank you.

okay so that's that's the order of the evening to the folks in the public that's what we're planning on doing and uh off we go okay all right so i'd like to recall uh david janova somebody been sworn let me just put that on record you were sworn previously sir okay and you understand you're still in real for this evening i do thank you

I distributed them. I'll take one. The board has them, yeah. Janice, I'll take one.

And we'll mark that into the record?

Yeah, this is marked as 837. And the engineer's report reviewing this is 838. OK. These were sent to you in your minutes.

Sorry, Janice, what was the marking on that again?

A-37.

A-37.

And the engineer report, which you received, is A-38. Yes.

I'll take one, Janice, and more.

Mr. Genova, could you discuss the most recent meeting that took place at the property which i think was discussed at the last meeting that there was going to be a meeting with you and municipal officials to discuss the issue of the driveways you know particularly sharing the driveway in and out with the fire department sure talk about that meeting when it took place

was present sure at the last Ford meeting members of the board I think specifically brought up situation a scenario that we hadn't plotted for properly on the ingress and egress of this site members of the public brought this up as well which was how do we prevent we had focused our energy and efforts in accommodating the fire department's ability to cross onto our site during shift change to egress their personal vehicles from behind the fire station Through our site to get out of our site in the rear on Upper Montclair Plaza And it was brought up that there may be an issue with people from our site crossing on to their site unintentionally I think specifically what we were talking about was if someone pulls into our driveway and and either is waiting for a car to exit the parking lot or ends up in any kind of queuing what would stop from somebody from crossing over and trying to utilize the fire department's driveway and additionally how do we delineate our sight line from the fire departments given that we attempted to accomplish a flat and and flush transition between those two so that they could cross our property line to leave and since we're moving the sidewalk and we've adjusted the sidewalk to run flush against our building that's somewhat of a new condition because the sidewalk that exists now goes from the parking lot in a straight line along the fire department's property line to Valley Road um so janice had reached out to to me and our civil engineer jerry at jermel kaizel and asked us to meet on site with with the fire official engineer town engineer norberto and herself and i met with them i guess about two weeks ago i don't remember the actual date of the meeting on site we met and And we came up with a plan that, and I'll let Norberto answer this, but I think came to everybody's satisfaction on that particular point, which was to install flexible bollards, the bollards that kind of collapse and come back up if someone were to drive over them so they're not destroyed and they're not firm. from the entrance on Valley Road to the rear of the fire station building so that there is a physical delineation between our site and the fire department mostly because the fire department had not requested to cross over to our site on that run they had requested a scenario where they could cross over in the rear where their vehicles are parked so this would create a a physical barrier between us and the fire department from valley road to the rear of their building and you can see on this plan it says install three by 36 inch flexible bollards part of the reason they're flexible is occasionally the fire department washes a fire truck or an apparatus vehicle on their driveway and sometimes that impedes onto this property line as well they do that off hours they don't do it in the middle of the day i wasn't aware of that scenario until this meeting on site and so fixed you know concrete bollards of some sort might present an issue for them so the flexible bollards were agreed to because they can simply go over them with their vehicle if they need to but it creates the kind of visual delineation and physical delineation that we thought was the request of the board and brought up by members of the public Additionally, we decided to construct a flush curb along that line and a fire lane striping scenario from start to finish with the words fire lane, no parking on them to create another visual barrier that extends past where the bollards would be. back to where where their property line ends in the rear so that the personal vehicles can still get out but there is clear markings and clear lines delineating that space between the two and what you just described is showing on

The plan from Jarmel Keisel. It is. That was marked 837. That's correct. OK. So that's pretty much the changes? That's the changes. OK. No further questions.

Questions from the board?

Can you really drive over bollards? I mean, you can lean into them, right? But I've never seen a bollard that you can actually drive on top of. They crack, don't they?

I pulled the spec sheet on this particular bollard. It's for this purpose. It's a spring-loaded mechanism that allows for it to go fully down and pulls back up.

And then the fire lane is really skinny. And I guess, would people get the message not to park there if it's so thin? Yeah, it's more of a question. Because normally when you see fire lanes, it's a pretty broad. Actually, maybe nor better. Maybe this is something that you're more familiar with. because it's only about a foot wide or so.

Yeah, I mean, the reality is the driveway itself is only 14 feet wide. So reducing it any further would actually, I believe, create a waiver condition. Okay. So the 12-foot minimum is really as far as you can go. But I think for the purposes of getting the point across, I think it would accomplish that.

know the striping will be yellow high visibility paint um but the bollards i think should be a strong enough deterrent okay thanks other questions from the board um thank you where so it says end bollards right around the e in the word lane um what's the rationale for ending the bollards there

that's where the fire station building ends and so the personal vehicles start immediately after that point and they can again i think we've brought this up in previous testimony they're not it's not a perfectly striped or engineered parking lot that they have in the rear so given where they get into and out from a shift change their cars could be anywhere from that point to the rear We were told they needed to manipulate somewhere between six and 10 vehicles. I think when we were on site, there were six or so there and it appeared as though they needed some additional space closer to the building for additional vehicles that they need to cross.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Other questions from the board? Are there any questions from the public of this witness about his testimony this evening? Come on up to the lectern. Please give us your name and address and ask your questions. And if you're the first one, you have to make sure the mic is on. Good evening. Thank you.

I'm Holly Felber. I own Barbara Eclectic, 594 Valley Road. I was wondering if the audience could see what these bollards look like and if we could actually put it on camera so that people who are watching this at home could also see it.

I mean, we may have some extra copies. Ms. Talley might have some of the extra copies that Mr. Kremulak has.

i've never seen bollards that they it's like a clown thing right you drive up to it and you okay i thought it was intended to spring back up if they are depressed but yeah i don't think it's a way to bring it up on the camera though okay but is for all of us who are sitting here there's a couple of physical copies there hold it up where So this actually isn't a rendering of what the bollards look like.

The bollards in the top right corner.

OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

yes if I could just mr. Hernandez yes these these for the benefit of just visualization these bollards are not dissimilar to what the township has been installing townwide at intersections I believe if you just look at the corner North Fullerton and Claremont here you'll see it's very similar plastic bollards or delineators as we call them installed at the corners so if you're looking for like a visual like what is this going to look like it's right outside of this building okay what sorry question for those installed by that township with the intention of driving towards them and Those are not spring-loaded as described there. However, they are movable. They have a portable base so they can be moved as needed. So there's different types of applications and different mechanisms used to install them. So again, it's really on a case-by-case basis on what you're looking to accomplish with these. So in this case, they're designed and they'll be upright just in the event that, you know, the fire department needs to access and get over, it's not a totally preventative measure. So it's a little bit more flexibility.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Liz Zazie, and I'm an Upper Montclair resident. So hi, David. The bollards, as I'm understanding them, is there the potential for somebody maybe driving over it and it jamming under their car?

Is someone driving over it and jamming under their car?

I mean, it's meant to be a deterrent, I understand that, to not have people wander into the fire department's lane. But if somebody were to do that out of exasperation or whatever and try to get around it or pass it or over it, isn't there the potential for that to jam up under their car?

I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. It's designed for this purpose.

It's designed to be run over.

If you look at the spec sheet, there is an image of a vehicle over it and at different levels of it, including driving all the way over it on the spec sheet from the... manufacturer so it is designed with that in mind i can't it certainly wasn't designed like those uh spikes where you go one way and then the other way right but i mean that's sort of what have a punitive purpose to it but i couldn't speak to whether right yeah no i i mean that's just what i'm picturing and i know that's a comment not a question but the question i think isn't answered which is isn't there the potential for that to like jam up under someone's vehicle They're being installed in a place you're not supposed to drive. Gotcha. That's the first part.

And I understand that it's meant to not have people drive over it. But to me, I'm just wondering, because that then possibly creates another horrible traffic jam with somebody's car jammed up with bollards. Thanks.

Other questions from the public for this witness? Yes.

Excuse me.

Good evening, board members. Don Felber, born and raised in Upper Montclair, business owner of 594 Valley Road. David, how are you? Good. um i believe last meeting um you were we spent a significant amount of time on the curb going for the sidewalk going from valley road back to the back parking lot and we didn't come up with an answer then you've since visited the site with others and at the time you weren't aware of the Belgian block curbing the sidewalk and the crushed gravel and then the Belgian block curbing that are on the fire department side but now that you have been there you were able to this plan incorporates the proposed changes in fact because it was believed that there was no curbing at the time and there was just a sidewalk but it's actually quite wide at one point there's about four feet of crushed gravel and Belgian block, the sidewalk, and then the Belgian block that goes from the fire department's driveway all the way east and west. But that's been straightened out. You mentioned bollards. There are going to be three of them, you said?

No, they're bollards every... Oh, they're three inches in diameter and 36 inches tall?

Yes.

They are three inches in diameter, 36 inches tall.

And essentially, will they be going? See, we don't have anything to look at.

These were submitted to the town. They've been online.

I understand, but you have a computer here.

I didn't bring a computer. That's not my computer. Okay.

It seems that a witness should be required to project things on screen so that the public and the public at large who are watching from home should be able to view what we're talking about because we're all flying blind here. Even though it was said that you published it online, there had been times in the past where things weren't properly published. But in any event, so it's going to be going from the bollards go from Valley Road down to the back parking lot?

The bollards go from Valley Road to the end of the building, to the rear building line of the fire department.

So about where the grill is back there?

I don't know about a grill.

Okay. And you intend on striping the road with paints and fire line? Correct. And... While it was asked earlier that will it hook up underneath a car if someone drives over, it probably wouldn't if they drive forward, but if they realize their mistake and they hear something tapping underneath and they put it in reverse, it will definitely hook up underneath the car. Do you agree? I don't. You don't know. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sue Van Inwogen from 12 South Mountain Avenue.

I have a quick comment, really, to make. You have to ask questions of the witness at this point. I have to look at him? You don't have to look at him.

What am I doing wrong?

You said you have a comment, and I just want to make sure you have a question.

Can you give your name again? Susan Van Inwogen.

Okay. Are you aware, although you've made it clear you're not, that these ballards can do damage to cars? A quick Google search just confirmed that for me. We're learning this real time about the ballards, so I couldn't.

Well, what's your question for the witness?

Are you aware that these can damage cars?

I'm not.

He sees not to be.

So now we know. He's not aware. Well, I know. Yeah, he answered the question. Yes. Any other questions from the public for this witness? I see none. Mr. Tremblay.

The next witness is Peter Steck.

You can even use your stick. You can raise your right hand. You just want to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do. Can you state your name for the record, spell your last name, and give us your business address?

And use the microphone if you wouldn't mind.

My name is Peter Hustek, S-T-E-K-E-K.

I'm not sure the mic's on. It doesn't, or you have to get it closer to your mouth if you would.

Like I said, my name is Peter Steck, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey.

Thank you. Mr. Cremlett, you're with me. Okay. Peter, I know you've testified before this board on many occasions, but I'd like you to set forth a summary of your background and qualifications as a professional planner for the benefit of the newer members of the board and the public, for that matter.

So by way of education, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's in city and regional planning from Rutgers. In terms of experience, I served as an associate planner with two consulting firms in New Jersey, Alvin Gershon Associates and Malcolm Kessler and Associates. I was at one time the planning director for the township of Montclair more than a decade ago. uh... for the last uh... license as a planner license number seventy seven seventeen seventy six which i received in nineteen seventy six and that is uh... in good standing this evening uh... by testified in Montclair before both boards on several occasions and in approximately 230 other municipalities in New Jersey and been accepted as an expert witness in those jurisdictions as well as in Superior Court and in New Jersey Tax Court.

Chair, I offer Mr. Steck as an expert in the field of professional planning.

We'll accept him.

Thank you. Mr. Steck, You're familiar with this application, obviously, as well as the subject property, correct?

Yes. I reviewed the applicant's materials and I was present during most of the hearings, but the hearings I was not physically present at. I listened to the YouTube videos, so I'm aware of the proceedings so far.

Okay, and you've obviously visited the property, I assume?

Yes, on several occasions.

And did you also visit any of the other swim class locations in other municipalities?

Yes, I visited all of the other locations, Livingston, Milburn, Westfield. I did spend some time at the Milburn facility talking to the staff and watching the operation there.

Okay. All right.

should begin by discussing the the subject property and then the you know the application of what the applicant seeks approval for now I have a handout that I'll hand out to the board I have a few extra copies also when I get technical help we'll put it on the screen mark that as 839 I printed out some and I'm just going to describe it for the last meeting which was not distributed and I'll just describe what the change is. So I have some hard copies. I'll need technical assistance to get it up on the screen. I'll first describe the exhibit in general. It consists of seven pages. It was prepared by me. This one is dated September 14th. And on the first page, I have a portion of the zoning map on the left and the tax map on the right. On the next page- Mr.

Stuck, you might have to hold the microphone closer to your mouth.

On the next page, thank you, I have a drone photo that was taken August 12th of 2026. Below that is a Google Street View showing the frontage of the property. The third page, and these are labeled P1 through P7 in the upper right-hand corner, is the site plan that's being proposed. And the only change from the earlier document is I showed where the fire lane is. But you see the pool in blue, the building outline in yellow. uh... and the facade below that uh... the next page is a this is already largely covered in the parking studies but uh... these are the public parking lots in the area and the signage that's associated with those lots. I'll spend some time talking about this. These are the relatively few properties in the Upper Montclair Business District that have close to or conforming number of parking spaces. As you know, they're relatively few. One dramatic exception is the theater redevelopment property, which essentially has no parking associated with it. I'll then spend some time about talking about what the public policy is on parking as expressed in certain public documents. And then I'm going to conclude by talking about some master plan policies, just highlighting certain aspects of it. So let me flip back and leave that on the screen for a moment. So although I'm sure the board and the public are familiar with the property. I just want to give some basic facts. This was a Chase Bank, been vacant for about 10 years. It's a, approximates a rectangle, 95 by approximately 170 feet. It has just under 84% impervious coverage at the moment. It has a relatively small building, which again essentially accommodated drive-through traffic for the bank. There is, I understand, a deed restriction that it cannot be reused as a bank, and I find that typical in many banks. They don't like what's called competition. There are 11 parking spaces now, two driveway openings. The property slopes downwards from Valley Road, and this backs up to the Montclair Plaza. parking lot, and there's been a lot of discussion about the interconnection, at least from a vehicle point of view, of this property and the fire station to the north. I'm going to flip back to the tax map, and as you note, there are a number of properties that abut the railroad right of way. that have no frontage on a public road. And as I understand it, this is a result of prior development of the Upper Montclair parking lot, and essentially it's treated as a street for those properties that would otherwise be landlocked. So, The Board is fairly familiar with this application, but just to indicate again for the record, the bank on the property is being demolished. A new building of 7,740 square feet being constructed. with 11 on-site parking spaces that are to be reserved for attendees of the swim quest and not for employees. Only one driveway is being proposed, accessing from Valley Road with an egress to the upper Montclair parking lot. The pool covers a substantial portion of the building. So not typically floor area, but the blue diagram on the third page of the A39 exhibit shows you the size of the pool. And that's kind of a limiting factor. It's indicated that most of it would be, I think it was 18 students in the pool. This facility, the proposed use, tends to concentrate on helping younger children learn to swim. It starts at six months and goes to eight years. As indicated on the prior testimony, the sessions are for 30 minutes. There is a high ratio of lifeguards to students in the pool. A typical stay in terms of getting dressed or drying your hair adds another 15 minutes. So we're talking about a typical turnaround of someone on the premises taking advantage of these instructions to be 45 minutes. This is not a you go to one session, learn how to swim, and go home. Learning how to swim requires multiple sessions, typically. And so once someone accompanies their child, the answer is they will do this multiple times until the child learns, hopefully, adequately swimming techniques. to understand that the water can be your friend. So this is a repetitive market here. Once someone goes to the place, learns where you can park, where you can't park, they will adjust their habits over time like anybody that repeats going to a place. Of significance is that the peak activity, as you would guess, because these are students or young children, is after school. The applicant wishes to accommodate parties on the weekends, and that is two to three per month, up to 20 kids. The applicant has, recognizing the nature of Montclair, as you know, wants to accommodate up to 100 children per year who could not normally afford to take these lessons. These children will be integrated into normal classes. There's not a separate class for these. They're going to be integrated into the normal lessons. There are a number of variances that have been cited, and I'll just summarize them, is that the impervious coverage is increasing slightly. It's going to 97%. There is 11 onsite parking spaces proposed. where a minimum I believe of 38 is required. There is a state law that says when you have a EV charging space, it counts for two parking spaces. Now that's, you would say, illogical. You can't fit two cars in an EV space, but it's an indication of an incentive that the state of New Jersey requires. A developer that provides an EV space can count that space as two spaces. Now I'll grant you it can't physically permit two cars, but it's an illustration of how there are public purposes other than just parking. A waiver is required because the spaces are proposed 9 by 18 feet rather than 9 by 19 feet. That 9 by 18 is a standard space. In fact, a developer of at least residential use is entitled to rely on that standard by New Jersey law. There was an issue of lighting intensity It's at an area that's not going to disturb any residents. There are no residents in the area. The applicant, as you know, has already been through the historic commission review. And there is also an issue that a parking area is supposed to be not closer to four feet to side or rear property lines. And because this flows into the firehouse, that four feet gap will not be there because not only is that the existing condition, but the applicant wants to accommodate the interests of the fire department. part of my analysis was to look at the uh... entire business district and uh... part of what i did is i put together a lot of aerial maps of the whole business district. And I took a day off. I guess I actually got paid for the day. But I walked the entire business district to look at parking that was available for different types of uses. The district, as you know, is focused on Valley Road, which is a county road. It is a very compact area. The pedestrian highly active area is a little north of this, and there's kind of a gap. Once you get to the fire station and this property, there's kind of a gap in the flow of pedestrians, although one could say it's reactivated with Starbucks. On the other side, you have an automotive dealer You have the St. James Episcopal Church, again, not a retail commercial use that at least throughout the day generates pedestrian traffic. Most properties do not have enough on-site parking where they built anew. I would guesstimate probably 95% are non-compliant in terms of having enough parking on the site. I'll go to another exhibit. So on the fifth page of my exhibit, I list sites that are pretty much known to have code-compliant parking. uh... you have what i call the pevel site which is the old warner communications building and that's on the upper left hand corner uh... with the street address of two thirty seven uh... two forty nine uh... that's at the periphery of the district and that's a a uh... two-story building with some parking underneath uh... if you move to the uh... south and let's skip over uh... most of the some of the properties have no parking whatsoever or just a handful of parking and what that really means is that most properties rely on public parking or on street parking to operate as you move south uh... you have the uh... bank of america building used to be montclair savings bank many years ago uh... that has code compliant uh... parking CVS is probably close, but I suspect it has an open parking area, but it may not exactly meet the code. Further to the south, you have an office building which has under-building parking, a number of medical offices there. that may well have code-compliant parking. Now if you move off the exhibit, you know you have the shopping center that used to be an A&P, and that has code-compliant parking largely and a big parking area in front. But what's interesting is while if parking were your only dream in the world, the only thing that meets a public purpose, you would say that that shopping center is great. There's a sea of parking in front. Generally, there are spaces available. But what's interesting is your master plan doesn't like that property because it likes the pedestrian flow, it likes a building meeting the character of the area, which means the building is up toward the street. I did look at your master plan and I'll just summarize some of the goals. It clearly wanted to encourage a variety of land uses rather than a monoculture. It promoted economic viability. It wants uses to be active, to be profitable. Among the objectives of the master plan was to encourage a wider mix of what it termed contextual commercial uses. It wanted to strengthen neighborhood commercial centers as economic sub-centers, focusing on unique market niches. And of reading the description of the area, it said that the pedestrian activity is important. It says that the interests of pedestrians is negatively impacted by uses such as uses with drive-thrus. So not only are drive-thrus discouraged, not permitted in the zone, but the master plan says we don't like them because they're kind of anti-pedestrian. It recognizes that large surface parking lots as well as drive-through facilities are discouraged. They don't want open spaces that disturb the pedestrian flow. And it recognizes that shared parking, first of all, there's some influence because of the train station. I'll grant you that for this use, because it's not an office use with, let's say, commuters, presence of the train station is not going to be that helpful, but it does recognize that business districts that are close to mass transit tend to take advantage of that and it suggests that the suburban parking standards like along Route 22 where each building has its own parking, that kind of parking ratio is inappropriate. So while something like the CVS use or the shopping center at the south end of the business district clearly are more comfortable for someone that relies on an automobile, that's not the icon of the district that the master plan is looking for. One of the comments specifically about this district, which was labeled a C4 village district in the master plan, is that it said it recommended that permitted uses gravitate to more generic categories of uses rather than naming the specific use itself. And as you know, there was some discussion in the beginning of this case. It's been resolved that this use is a permitted use in the zone. It's not labeled swim quest or swimming lessons is not labeled, but it's been ruled that this is a permitted use. And that fits in, frankly, with what the theme of the master plan recommendation is. We should talk about categories of uses rather than individual uses. So in terms of zoning, we're in the neighborhood commercial zone. This use has been classified as an educational play center. And uses that have drive-throughs are prohibited in this zone. The only zone that permits it in Montclair is the C1 zone. In terms of the relief that we need, I note that let me flip to the right page here. There are existing conditions. We have an impervious coverage issue that is a bulk variance. We clearly have a parking ratio issue. We only have 11 parking spaces, whereas technically 38 or 39 would be permitted, again, ignoring the fact that when you have an EV space, that counts as two spaces. When looking at the site, several things that are happening that obviously are of public concern, issue of traffic has been brought up, certainly the issue of parking, This has already gone through several reviews with the Historic Commission and I think we've arrived at a facade that now is an active facade with a front door that does face a valley and it has been adjusted to the, I understand it, the recommendations of the Historic Commission. When looking at any kind of variances that are needed, and the parking variance is clearly one of them, there are two ways to justify it. There's the so-called C1 hardship practical difficulties variance, and there's a C2 where the public benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. We're tearing down the building, so we're starting with a clean slate on the property. And we could build a building on this property that's 100% conforming to your code. And to get you to visualize this, if you face the property, we could build a three-story building abutting the right property line. So that's permitted by right in this zone. Obviously, that's a little bit inconvenient for the fire department, because now they have only one narrow driveway going to their rear, and they're stuck with that. They'll probably have to wash the fire truck somewhere else. They would have to, as indicated earlier, when shifts change, they would have to move vehicles out first and then move other ones back in. But your code allows a zero side yard setback. And that's by right. The three story building would be a mixed use building. It had two stories of residential over some kind of retail or personal service use or a restaurant use. Those are permitted uses in the zone. It would have a combined entrance and exit at the southern end, and we wouldn't necessarily connect to the parking lot in the rear. That would be, and as long as we met, again, the 80 percent maximum impervious coverage, we were four foot back from the property lines for at least the parking area, one foot setback for the driveway, that would be a 100% conforming scenario. And while the board certainly has discretion from a site plan point of view to talk about landscaping and aesthetics, that's an application that can't be denied. We comply with all of the standards of the ordinance. That's why you have your standards written rather than floating around in someone's mind. In terms of Public benefits that arise from this use, they come from purposes of the municipal land use law. And I'm going to cite, and this is in NJSA 4055D-2, and I'm going to discuss and cite purposes A, C, G, H, and I. Excuse me, and I. Purpose A talks about encouraging municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner that will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. As I think of promoting safety, public health and general welfare, I would place a swim club like this, which its focus is not competition swimming, its focus on staying alive in the water. That's a pretty important feature in terms of public safety. I would suggest to you in terms of promoting public safety, the only other use in the... Folks, let the witness answer and provide his testimony. If I would look at all of the uses in the Upper Montclair District, the only use that surpasses this in terms of, in my opinion, promoting the public welfare, would be the fire department next door. Clearly, their sole purpose is to protect... Folks, please.

I'm trying, Mr. Turnblak. I'm trying.

So that's an important feature of this use. It's not just a hair salon. It's not an exercise place. It's something that I think has special attributes. One of those attributes is the issue that the applicant is volunteering to accommodate 100 children for each year. That's something that's not required in any ordinance. It's something that the applicant has decided to do because that's kind of the theme of Montclair, kind of sharing the facilities that are available. We also don't in any way have to accommodate the fire department. If the fire department really needs side access, I suppose, the town of Montclair could condemn the property. They have to pay for it. But if this property were essential to their operation, the town could condemn it. The answer is we're accommodating the needs of the fire department informally, and it's not costing them a dime, but it does have an effect on how this property is designed. We've specifically designed it to allow that access. That's another public purpose. to accommodate the needs of the fire department. This type of use, Purpose C talks about providing light, air, and open space. We comply with the setbacks except for the forefoot from the parking area, but this building essentially is a one-story building, and that's been the nature of this part of the business district. If you look at Talbot's, if you look at Starbucks, these are at least on the front facade, one story buildings. So it's in keeping with that lower height limit. This is a use that's found in other business districts. And as I mentioned, this is not the first facility. This is the first one, the one in Milburn, as you know, it was adapted from a prior use. This is a building that's built anew rather than an adaption to other uses. One of the purposes H talks about encouraging the location design of transportation routes that will promote the free flow of traffic, while discouraging location of facilities and routes that result in congestion or blight. We are eliminating one of our driveways, so it's only an ingress on Valley. The egress is in a lower volume area. Yes, there is activity in the rear parking area, but not the

Folks, if we keep having comments from the audience, we're going to have to postpone this even further, right? The witness has to get through his testimony. We all have to hear it. There'll be an opportunity to question the witness and ask him questions about his testimony. But if we keep having outbursts, we're going to have to postpone and just keep postponing. And I don't think that's anything anybody wants to do. I know I don't. But if we can't have some order here, we're not going to get through the witness's testimony. We're going to have to come back another night.

We are limiting the curb cuts on Valley. We're likely adding at least one more parking space on Street. We are exiting traffic into an area, a thoroughfare, not thoroughfare, a parking area, a driving area that is clearly lower volume than Valley Road. In terms of desirable visual environment, clearly that's one of the major public purposes we're advanced. Drive-in banks not only are not a permitted use, but they're a break in the pedestrian activity. This is one of the wide open lots in the Upper Montpelier District. In my opinion, we're not only removing a prohibited use, but we're adding a building that I think adds to the street frontage that encourages pedestrian activity. Clearly a use that's superior to the drive-up bank. On the exhibit, I referenced what I would call legislative recognition of a parking. Let's see if I can get it back up. So on the upper left-hand corner, I list a number of uses that are permitted in the zone that all have 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area as the minimum required number of parking spaces.

Before you go further, Peter, are you referring to page 6? Yes, P6 on the... It didn't come up on the screen.

Thank you.

Let's see what's going on here.

I like the shade of green, but... Thank you. So this is P6. So what I wanted to emphasize is clearly this use has different characteristics than other retail personal service uses, but There are subtle differences, and one of them is that users of this facility will be here 45 minutes. Other uses are different. If you have a hair salon and you're getting your hair colored, that's probably more than 45 minutes. I don't have that problem, but different uses have different characteristics. The characteristics of this use is that they're relatively short intervals. There are repeat customers. So you don't just go for one lesson. You're there for multiple lessons. And I had mentioned this earlier. That means that once you take your child for lessons and you do it a second time and a third time and a fifth time, You'll learn where parking is and where it isn't, and you plan accordingly. That's not the same for other uses that might be you only visit occasionally. You've just permitted a physical therapy use there. Maybe that's one visit, it might be multiple visits, but there are different characteristics. The characteristics of this In my mind, the predominant ones are that you have parents and children. Obviously, the children don't drive. The parents are there for approximately 45 minutes. And it's a repeat engagement. That's the very nature of taking lessons. There are a number of uses that have a standard of one per 200 square feet. And what I'm suggesting is that your ordinance doesn't make a distinction between an educational play center or a retail store or a health club. While they're different uses, your ordinance says, at least in terms of their parking needs, they're identical. They have different subtle characteristics in terms of who goes and who doesn't there. But this use as a educational play center has the same standard as all of these other uses. The second thing I'd like to note, and again, this is evidence that there are public purposes other than just having code-compliant parking. And for example, on the lower left-hand side, you have the standards for conditional uses in the zone that applies to charitable institutions. And your standard is, for a charitable institution, off-street parking shall be provided for at least the staff members of the institution with adequate landscaping screaming from adjoining residential properties so that doesn't even look at the square footage so when there's a a public purpose involved a charitable institution your code says only provide parking for the staff That's a concession. That's a balancing of public purposes versus having code-compliant parking right on the property. A more dramatic example is the Bellevue Theater redevelopment plan. That site has no parking, and yet there was a strong encouragement to preserve the theater there. uh... the theater had uh... eight hundred and eighty five seats in four theaters with five thousand square feet of retail space and no on-site parking that was recognized and the the public policy of montclair is that if you're going to have 50% or more of the building continued to be used as a theater, you don't have to have any parking. Now that's a pretty dramatic example of the fact that parking is one consideration of multiple public purposes. this tells me the redevelopment tells me we want to bend over backwards to have a theater maybe not the 885 four-plex theater but we want a theater there and to encourage you to do that we're not going to require you to have any parking at all now that's pretty dramatic but it should that's that's that's a legislative recognition that parking is not the total story. You gotta look at a balance of things. So let me summarize what I think are the benefits of approving this application. We're removing a prohibited use, which is, in the text of the ordinance, is a good thing. And in fact, the master plan says we don't like drive-through banks anywhere in the Upper Montclair Business District. We're eliminating one of the driveways along Valley. We're filling up the streetscape with a building that happens to be a one-story building in the front. But this is an area that's kind of a gap in the pedestrian flow. The parking on the site today is very visible. It will be hidden partly on the side of the building and in the rear, so it's going to be less of a prominent feature aesthetically. Not only are we taking away one of the driveways, but we're having it as an entrance-only driveway, and we're exiting onto a lower volume travel path. We are accommodating informally, well, formally in the site plan, we're accommodating the desires of the fire department. They've already been testified that, you know, they have sometimes difficulty getting out of their property, you know, the fire station to fight fires because of the traffic. Traffic is part of life. I was just in Clifton on the Valley Regency looking at the property and it took me a while to get out and turn left because of all the traffic on Valley Road. Now that's an area that's not even in a big central business district. It was tough getting out of that property. And there is congestion in the upper Montclair business district. Something also to be considered, and again, it's under the master plan theme of vibrancy of a district, this is a new use that's not represented here. When you're investing nowadays that things change so rapidly, it's good to diversify your investments, and I would suggest to you it's good to diversify your uses in a business district. You have still an amazing amount of clothing stores, very unusual, that may not last forever. In many business districts, those stores have disappeared. but it makes sense from an economic viability perspective to have different uses and to have uses that attract people from outside the immediate area. This will bring people to the business district at multiple times who they may not the first or second or third time shop in a local store, but they will be visually familiar with what's in the area. It will register in their mind. It's a use that's not repeated. It's not another Dunkin' Donuts. It's a use that's fairly unique and, in my opinion, will draw people from other areas, especially because of the uniqueness of this use, the high ratio of lifeguards to students, the way this facility is run. I think it will rob students from other facilities because from what is described to me, It's a very carefully crafted facility. What are the detriments and how do we address them? In my opinion, to say that you don't have enough parking on site and therefore this use is denied gives you the power to deny, I would say, 95% of the uses in Upper Montclair. most of those buildings do not have enough on-site parking if they did have enough on-site parking you'd be looking at route 22 where you can't walk from one place to another that's the nature of a an intense small scale business district that's how your master plan describes this business business district as small scale and intense the parking requirement is important for new buildings. This is the only site where you're going to see, in my opinion, full redevelopment and that's because the site number one is underdeveloped and has been for a long time and because the use isn't permitted anymore. There is extensive testimony about parking space availability. There was a nearly district-wide study Parking is not necessarily there within 200 feet of the property. You have to walk. And these customers and the staff will compete with everybody else in the area that's an employee in a hair salon or an employee in an office or in the medical facilities. They're all going to compete in many cases for on-street or public parking, but the numbers show that there is a supply that is available. And as you know, one of them even occurred when the theater was in operation. The master plan says that you want a wider variety of business uses. This, again, is a use that is not represented to the area. It's fairly unique. Not every business district has this. There's an excessive amount of impervious coverage. It's not visible from the front of the property. This is much better a design because it tends to be blocked by the building itself, and The issue of impervious coverage is both an aesthetic issue and it's a stormwater runoff issue. And we've had testimony that the applicant is improving the site more than historically has been there because we don't connect to a detention system. There's going to be a new detention system provided on the property. And again, a fully conforming plan would frustrate the courtesy that has been given in the past to the fire department. That's an important use. The applicant is trying to be a good neighbor. So at the end of the day, I know that there's a lot of talk about the traffic on Valley Road. It does stop at the stop sign when there's a train stopped in the area. It does back up. You could close almost every business in Upper Montclair Business District and say, look, enough is enough. This is a generic phenomenon that's happened in a lot of business districts. I happen to live 1,000 feet from the Maplewood Little Village area. It's hard to find parking. I know secret spaces, but it's hard to find parking. And that's because it's one of the most successful small business areas in the state of New Jersey. It's an active area, and yes, it is congested. That's why I tend to take my bike when I can. The theme here is that, yes, we need a variance from onsite parking. There is a functional supply of parking. But in my opinion, you should look at the larger picture. There is legislative recognition of the importance of having uses that benefit the public. And I'm not saying that use is a statutory inherently beneficial use. I'm not saying that. But if you look at the importance of teaching children to swim, number one. That is clearly a public welfare issue. If you look at the election of the applicant to provide 100 spaces during every year for children that cannot afford these type of lessons, that's a significant public benefit, and I think that matches a theme that is characteristic of Montclair. And I think our coordination with the fire department is another public purpose. We could build right along the property line up until we get to the rear setback, which is, I think, if I recall, 30 feet. And the answer is the fire department would only have one driveway in and out for its firefighters. obviously difficulty in changing shifts, they can do it. They said, well, you know, we'll work around it. But the answer is, this is the marriage of a number of public purposes that are significant. So at least in my judgment, The way the application has evolved, there are benefits that substantially outweigh the detriments to granting the relief on parking and the impervious coverage and the lack of a four-foot landscaping strip on the north side. In my opinion, this will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the master plan. In fact, it advances a number of the themes, diversity of uses, the idea of shared parking, a recognition that you want this to be an intense but small scale business district. So in my opinion, the statutory criterion, there is evidence that supports this application, and I would recommend that the board approve it as currently proposed.

And your basis is the C2 criteria? Yes. Just to be clear.

Yes.

Okay.

No further questions.

Questions from the board? Ms. Wallace. Yes.

Just a quick, I missed it. You mentioned A-C-G-H-I.

I got, I missed G. Okay, maybe I missed G. So that is on my exhibit. Oh, it's on the exhibit. Oh, no, it's not. Yeah, I didn't think it was. Okay, let me.

Ms. Wallace, you're asking about the purposes of zoning?

No, no, it was the public benefits, and I think you were reading from some statute.

Okay, yeah, excuse me. I don't find it. G is often referenced in the same breath as Purpose A. Purpose A talked about encouraging municipal action to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. G talks about providing sufficient space in an appropriate location for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, industrial uses and open space both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. This is a use that is found in commercial districts, and in my opinion, it fits well in this district, in this location, and again, part of that is it brings a new audience to the business district. uh... and it is i think uh... inappropriate location to do this because it is nestled with other uses and again from an economic development point of view uh... this is going to expose patrons to the upper montclair business district that would have no other reason to come here other than they want their children to learn how to swim mystery and wally

Is your microphone on? A question for you. The state Supreme Court ruled, I think it was a Montville case this summer. I thought it basically said public uses aren't as important as, this is my interpretation, local zoning trumps public use. And the developers were promoting affordable not affordable senior housing as a desirable public use and I guess it was and I just read a brief article about it it was a setback to the argument that you're making you do you know about that yes that came out about two months ago it's a New Jersey Supreme Court case

As I read the case, and I can be corrected by the attorneys in the room, but what the court case said is that in the SECA case, which is the longstanding case for inherently beneficial uses, they set this four-step process. And it was, what's the magnitude of the public benefit? What are the negative impacts? What conditions can you impose to lessen those impacts? And then the fourth step was, on balance, can you approve this without detriment to the public good? The Supreme Court backed up and said, wait a minute. when you get to that fourth step you can't just say there's no detriment to the public good you have to analyze impairment to the master plan from a practical point of view i always interpreted the secret case to imply that when i testified inherently beneficial use i always say no detriment to the public good, traffic, noise, light, air, open space. And I always looked at the master plan. But the court said, you can't ignore the master plan. If the master plan says, in no way do we want one-story buildings. then even though a use is a good use, like an inherent beneficial use, the court said, you have the ability to deny that inherently beneficial use if it is substantially detrimental to your master plan. So that's the way it refocused the fourth step of the SICA process.

Okay, thank you. What's the quantity, again, just refresh my memory, because you did talk about parking. What are the number of spaces that you're seeking a variance for? What is the deficiency again?

Well, I think it's, let me see if I got this right. I think there are 11 spaces proposed in lieu of the 39 required, not deducting for the EV, but the law says you have to, but we're ignoring that. So that's a deficiency of 28 spaces.

Thanks. Yeah, so again, I have one main question to get back to. But your testimony brought up a question. When we go back to the master plan, we talk about, or you talked about how it needs to be, The desire for the master plan is to have this area, the NC zone and similar zones in Montclair, be pedestrian friendly. But isn't this use, everyone is being driven to this use. This is not a use that... encourages people to walk over and have an ice cream if they're nearby. So this seems, again, I'm just trying to analyze the statement that this somehow comports with the idea that our master plan wants pedestrian-friendly businesses. But, okay.

So, well, two things. It's clear in my mind that the 11 parking spaces are not going to accommodate a full class. So people over time are going to find spaces on the street, in public lots, and they're going to walk to this property. The applicant needs, this use demands a swimming pool of a certain size to accommodate it and it's not the same density of like a hair salon where you have a lot of chairs or a realtor's office or whatever. It's not the same density and there's inherently lower density just because of the nature of the use. It's clear in my mind that on a typical after school time, there will probably be more people parking off site than on the site. The lucky ones are gonna park there, they're gonna walk their children in. Other people will park in legal public spaces, hopefully they're legal, and they will walk to the facility. If you've seen the facility in Milburn, you think that they have a big parking lot next door. that parking lot is a private parking lot for the murray construction schoolhouse plaza you have to go beyond that parking lot to find the public parking lot where you can you can uh... and their people You know, kids are in carriages, mothers walk their kids, so there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic. Clearly this is an improvement over, would be an improvement over a drive-in bank. And clearly where there's this open space, a firehouse to this property, and again, nothing across the street, the church and the auto repair, those are not pedestrian generators.

Folks, folks, you'll have an opportunity to ask questions of the witness about his testimony. I understand I can hear you don't necessarily agree. You'll have a great opportunity to ask him questions as soon as he finishes.

I just want just one. One is about the use. I miss the the ruling on educational play centers. The ruling was done in in here or was it done in private meetings? Actually, just let me get to the question, because when I read Educational Play Center, you know, I think of Jim Rhee, Kidville, and so forth, because it's a multipurpose children's activity space devoted to learning, recreation, and entertainment. And I don't know for a fact, but I think it was created for, just like Kidville is down at ACME. We do have fitness centers, and Fitness centers are enclosed building structures with facilities for recreational activities, and it's specifically named swimming, instruction, may include showers and lockers. So just on the surface, it seemed like the fitness center fits what this uses rather than educational play center. I'm not saying that educational play center doesn't fit it, but it seems like the fitness center is more accurate. Was that the conversation that took place to rule it as an educational play center?

The zoning officer and I met with the applicant, and one of the considerations is that this is limited to children and to education, to classes for children. And the play center aspect was largely from the availability of using the space for birthday parties, which is different from a fitness center.

But from just looking at the words, this is a natatorium, and the fitness center actually mentions the use of a swimming pool. So that's why I'm just puzzled.

But this issue was discussed at length in the first meeting on this application about six months ago. It was a threshold issue, jurisdictional issue, and it was resolved. based upon what Janice said at that time and just repeated, that this was a permitted use, it qualifies as an educational place, and it will properly before this board. It might fit the definition of a fitness center as well.

It's just a question.

The first words of the definition are a multipurpose children's activity space devoted to learning, recreation, and entertainment. And the qualifying issue is the children. This is not a swim club for seniors on the swim team, not at Torium, et cetera. And oddly enough, this is one of the permitted uses in the redevelopment, in the theater, where we just needed a hot tub to teach swimming. This use could be in the theater redevelopment area and not require any parking. And again, that shows you that there's a, I understand that parking is important, but it is one factor in judging the merits of an application.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Mr. Sack, you were talking about charitable institutions? Yes. On P6? Or were you inferring this is a charitable institution? Would you ask that again? Were you trying to say that the SwimQuest is a charitable institution?

No, it's a profit-making entity. I suppose potentially they could make it a 501 or whatever, but the point that I'm raising is that when there is a public purpose advanced, which is the nature of a charitable institution, Governing body said through its zoning ordinance, all you have to do is provide parking for the staff.

But this is not a charitable institution.

This is not structured as a charitable institution.

Right, that's what I'm trying to get at.

No, but my point, I was trying to give examples like the redevelopment plan where there are other considerations that suggest you can relax required parking.

Which is why you're here before this board, right? That's correct. Your P4 exhibit with the different signage for various lots, what are you trying to convey with that?

Well, in the beginning there was a lot of discussion about where the lots were and where the regulations were. I'll note that the signs are, these are the physical signs that are out there, so I just wanted to locate the public parking facilities and at least the information that's presented to the public. Some of these have limited duration in where you need permits. And again, there was some discussion that it's not always clear, like in the train station lot, it's not always clear which spaces you can use. But what I wanted to do, because at that time there was a lot of discussion about what you could and couldn't do, I simply wanted to document what the signs tell the public.

Yeah, I mean, my takeaway from that is there's no public parking in the Bellevue Erie lot, unless you have a permit based on the signs and based on your table below the signs.

But I believe on the weekends are permissible. And again, that would be, you know, when this goes into like a party accommodating mode. And again, I don't want to. trample on the extensive research on parking. That's not my area, but I prepared this early on because there seemed to be some disagreement of what the public was being told. Again, I'm relying on other experts such as our parking expert.

And I can appreciate that. But this seems to answer one of the questions that I don't think we got, at least in my opinion, we got a sufficient answer from the parking expert of what's actually allowed at Bellevue Erie. I mean, the sign seems to be very clear that at all times, 24-7, if you add up all those four different lines, one needs a permit. And I recognize that there was discussion of, even from Mr. Chiosa, that if you're on ParkMobile, you can park for the day. So I recognize that that was there. But as you say, from the public's perspective, only permit parking is allowed. I understand that.

That was covered. I don't think you missed the last meeting, Mr. Chair. I'm sure you listened to it. I certainly did. Mr. Seckler specifically addressed that issue. Yeah, there's some conflict among the signage, because if you look at the signs that's in Mr. Steck's exhibit, you think you need a permit, but you go in the lot, and all the park mobile signs are up, and the fact is, anyone can park there for the entire day for a permit.

And again, one of the characteristics of this is that this is not someone going to a lesson just once. They might go five, they might go ten lessons, and the answer is there can be information provided in the facility. When you're a repeat customer, you learn where to park. When I live near the downtown of Maplewood, I don't have a parking problem because I know where the secret spaces are because I'm a repeat customer.

You can understand that.

Go ahead.

On page P3, this goes back, are there any evidences of swimming pools that are visible right from the street? The bottom photograph shows how you can look right into the pool area. I mean, I know the architect was here before, and I thought that the testimony was, well, if you're walking by, there's some curb or there's something which would prevent you from looking into the pool, but with that guy standing there, it looks like he could look right down into the pool.

I don't think they changed the behind the facade image, and perhaps the applicant can clarify this, but my recollection is that there was a midway wall that blocked a view toward the interior. I think it was after the initial rendering, if you recall, there was discussion about where the sign should go and you should emphasize where the door is. I'm not sure the renderer changed the interior of the building.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. I have a series of questions, but I think they really go to understanding a C2 variance for the public. It really is the basis of the argumentation that you have provided today. So can you go back to briefly describing a building form that does comply with the code and how you think that it is less desirable than the form that you're providing in this application?

Well, first of all, My understanding of the C2 criteria is not that you look at, oh, why don't you have another use for the property? I don't think that's the nature of it. You look at the specifics of the property, And the wording is that the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. So if it's 50-50, if the public benefits are exactly the same as the detriments, We don't warrant an approval. There has to be a substantial benefit. The benefits look at the purposes of the municipal land use law, those letters, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. The burden of the applicant is to demonstrate what those public benefits are and the magnitude of them. Again, we could build a building that's right up against the fire department property line. It could be a three-story building. It could have a restaurant in it. It could have a hair salon in it. It could have an exercise place with different characteristics and maybe people that stay there for longer periods of time than 45 minutes. I mean, there are different subtleties to this, but in my opinion, this is clearly a movement in the right direction because the building is brought up to the front, near the front property line because despite the first effort of the applicant, we now have an active usable door in the front. And again, what's peculiar about this is that there's a swimming pool where you can't have a sloped water surface. You've got to accommodate what water does, which seeks its own level. And that's why, because the site drops down and you have to have some depth, that's why the functional access is logically in the rear. That's how you get to the pool. But in my opinion, And again, it's not a requirement, but we've accommodated, I think, the important needs of the fire department so they operate well. We've accommodated what the master plan doesn't like. It doesn't like drive-through facilities, and it doesn't like large open area parking that you can see from the front. I think these advances those desires of the master plan. And again, someone might not care that this is not a three-story building, but if you look at the nature of uses in this little stretch, I mean, the fire department is two stories, but at least on the frontage, a number of the buildings on this side of Valley are essentially one story on this side of Valley as you go from the center of the business district out. And I think that fits in the context of the area.

Right. I mean, I was asking this because I understand it. And reading back at Kaufman versus the Planning Board of Warren, the logic of granting a C2 variance would be that it is a benefit to the community. And it represents a better zoning.

A better zoning alternative, that's how they phrased it.

Connected to the idea that we're not really talking about the benefit is not building or improving on a condition that's vacant. The burden of demonstrating it is not against that. It's against the current zoning. And would it be the burden on you to demonstrate that the swim school is a better zoning alternative than the three-story alternative? I just want to clarify.

Well, first of all, the Kaufman case, if I recall, it was all residential. It wasn't an issue of different uses there. It was an issue of the lot sizes. where the court ruled that this was a better zoning alternative. There are theoretically a whole range of uses that can go onto this property. The reason I talked about our accommodations for the fire department is it obviously affected our design. I think we could have a different kind of design if we chose to build up to the side property line. I think it is better for light air and open space to have a one-story building in this part of the business district. Maybe someday there may be multiple stories on this property, but given what's there today, I think what we're doing is a firm step in the right direction. That's all I can say. The wording is not the best zoning alternative. It is a better zoning alternative, and I think that's what this application represents.

A better zoning alternative than keeping the bank the way it is, period. The way I understand it is not necessarily keeping the bank the way it is, but demonstrating that it is a better alternative than what the court actually wants.

Well, they didn't define what it is. Again, that case was a very narrow case. It had to do with lot sizes was the only issue. It wasn't, you know, different commercial uses. And I don't know if you can leap. I can tell you that every applicant that comes before you theoretically could tear down their building and do something different. You know, it's part of what we are confined to is what the market place provides, and this is a user that has has an affinity for this location. They think that they can do a good business and also accomplish some public purposes here. That's the best I can say. I don't think you have to look at necessarily alternate uses, but is this a better alternative than, again, a three-story building with two driveways together on one side. That's physically possible. It's something that we would have a right to do, but it ignores what our relationship it was the fire department that's probably the premier use for health and safety and we want to make they can't require us to do this but we want to make them comfortable and that's why the applicant in a spirit of cooperation talked to them

Right. Again, I'm just trying to clarify, because to me, this is the crux of this application, like this line of argumentation. And we have the fire chief here, and that was a treat. I believe it was the deputy fire chief. The deputy fire chief. The other issue, you know, Let me finish the question. Again, members of the board can chime in if I'm incorrect, but he did state that if there were a building that would build up to the edge, he would have to comply with his operations. He would. He's not counting on that lot to perform his operations. So if that three-story building were to be built there, he said that for his operations, he would have to deal with that. That was his testimony.

He says, like, if we don't get access, we'll do some gymnastics, you know, to move cars around. You know, they're not going to disappear. I had what I thought was a brilliant thought, but I lost it. Again, part of the better zoning alternatives, and this is something that is real life, there are other uses that can go here, like a restaurant use. that I would suspect might have a bigger impact in terms of activity and potentially parking demand. And this property is going to be put into some use. It's been vacant for 10 years. Something's going to happen here. And when you look at a better zoning alternative, I think what you have to look at is what might happen if this application is denied. I don't know what the future will be, but this property is not going to stay vacant. Something's going to happen here. And again, there may be a use that is perfectly permissible, but you may find that it produces a different kind of demand on parking. Longer term parkers, there may be know more vehicle activity people driving in and picking up stuff so in your opinion the swim school is a superior use than than that one the answer is i don't know there may be other uses that when you examine them or worse my point is it's a permitted use in the zone so the way to address just the better zoning alternatives, I think is, what is the relief needed? And I don't think anybody here is saying, no, you must have that four foot green space between our property and the fire department. I don't think anyone is pushing that, even though it's a variance, because it's logically a superior public benefit there. The fire station's gonna stay there, not gonna move out. But I think you look at it two ways. And again, the nature of the use, in my opinion, is useful in terms of connecting with the variances. How long do people stay? Do people just go here once and then disappear? I think it is a benefit that there are multiple classes. It brings new customers. It brings people that now have experience about where to park. And it allows them to be educated. Go park near the train station. It's OK. Things like that can happen over time. But if this is a use that has infrequent visitors to it, they're not going to be educated about where you can park and where you can't park. If it was a retail use, someone's going to come in and park anywhere they want for as long as they want. These are people that have business on the property. They're not going to be employees here. But this is not a one stop and out. These are people that will be there for a while, and they can be educated about where to park and where the regulations are.

OK. The last question I have was, you kept mentioning the master plan. The master plan likes this. It doesn't like this. a little subjective in a way, but I understand where you're coming from. Although I am not sure if that's really the spirit of what the master plan is proposing and what you cited. You mentioned as well that there's a 1 to 200 ratio in many of these different uses, and it's almost random that all of these are requiring this. your parking demand study does align roughly with the parking requirement. The parking that you do actually need and have demonstrated to want to park in other locations roughly is around the 38, which is appropriate.

Well, the master plan does talk about parking ratios and I'll tell you it's much stronger when you look at its description of the Wachung Business District because it says suburban parking standards are inappropriate. Now, we're kind of unique Again, because you would not have the Wachung Business District. There are very few properties that have enough parking there at all. But if you, again, starting from, if this were all vacant property and everyone provided it on site, you would not have a pedestrian-friendly district at all. And there's a recognition that this district is as healthy as it is because in the past The town has built public parking lots and there's on-street parking. Master Plan talks about trying to prioritize on-street parking, different pricing levels, a lot of things. And it's recognized that it's a tight fit. But the question is, in my opinion, the question is, is that a reason to almost discriminate against this business simply because it's the only property that's really going to do 100% redevelopment down there? Everything else is pretty much built. Someone might add a couple stories like it's Saunders Hardware, but they're not starting from scratch. Okay. I don't know if... It's discrimination, but I can tell you it ain't easy. I mean, it's it's not a It's not a slam-dunk issue, but I'm looking again. I know that there is a tremendous amount of concern on parking I understand that but my concern is that that's not if parking in traffic were the only issue and you would have all self storage warehouses up and down the street because they produce no traffic and very little parking demand and that would be great but the answer is you would not have a business district so I'm just trying to broaden the perspective and I think the municipal land use law as well as the master plan recognizes that there are simply multiple things that have to be weighed

okay i think that satisfies my questions as best i can do that's i think yes i i have my own opinions about how the building itself is guided by the flow of traffic through the building the design is very much informed by the car so If you're not going to find parking, if you're...

But I would suggest to you that in practicality, the majority of people using this building will not be parking on site. I would suspect that over time people will find parking spaces that they know they'll find a space, they'll park there, and they'll walk because it's predictable.

That's your opinion. Did you have a question as well?

Yeah, I just wanted to try to create apples to apples, I guess. So this is how I'm understanding it. Thank you. So let's say you brought up the charitable institutions. So in that case, we have much less parkings required because it's a charitable institution, obvious. For the Bellevue Theater, no parking is required, but very clearly the goal is to keep a theater in Upper Montclair, and 50% of the building has to be a theater. And those are the examples you gave. And then I took my notes on the ACGHI. but you know we we just talked about the fire station and you know while it's um admirable it's you know we heard from the deputy chief it wasn't something he requires um so i guess like of of your public benefits which of these would you say is sort of the most compelling that you know sort of akin to all right well for charities we do this because our charity and we really want to keep this theater so we're gonna and so you know like how would you weight your public benefits in the way that would hit that that level of those examples you gave

I add all three together and I would first of all I would say that teaching small children to swim is a life-saving skill and again of all the businesses in Upper Montclair and I guess it includes the physical therapy I'll put the fire department first. That's their job. But I would put this second. I think it's a very important use. And with that, and again, not a requirement, but the applicant is committed to adding 100 students a year, which nowhere in the ordinance that says it, do it. This is not 20% Mount Laurel housing. The applicant is doing that because that's the theme of what the applicant wants to do. while the fire department, the only thing they can say, they can live with what their rights are. Their rights are they can't touch this property, it's not theirs. If it was a pressing public need, the governing body can condemn our property, they have to pay for it, but the fact that we're designing it to share our needs, I think is a significant public benefit. And I don't want to say it's 60-40-30 or whatever, but I think the three together are intimately involved with the nature of this application.

Other questions from the board? All right, before we get to questions from the public for Mr. Steck, let's take a five-minute break because I have a feeling that those are going to be lengthy. So let's all take a quick break, come back in five minutes. great Janice are we back on on your okay all right we are back on the record and we are at the point of entertaining questions from the public for mr. Steck about his testimony this evening so folks there we go And I didn't mean it like that, but here we go, because I know there's a lot to get through. So just like this gentleman did, please come up, give us your name and address.

Should I be afraid to turn around?

No. I think you can say hi.

I thought there was a long line.

There will be a long line.

It's virtual at the moment.

My name's Justin Jesser. I'm at 120 Chestnut Street. um by the way board thank you i know this has been a long drawn out thing i appreciate your patience i appreciate your insight with this um i know that sometimes we get very passionate about it but i also understand this comes from a point of giving a damn about the community That's why we're up here, too, which I know I do appreciate. So first of all, thank you for at least printing these out. It's a nice little trade. I think that one of the questions that I have is you had on page four, you had all the permits and stuff like that. Do you know any of the application times for the permits?

Um, I, I don't know them specifically. Okay. Uh, again, I, I'm part of my, the reason I'm the last witness in the chain is I'm relying on the other witnesses that came before me. Got it. Okay.

So it wasn't explained that I've been one of the people that have questioned the, um, the parking studies and everything else like that. Totally understand that going to page five, you indicated a whole bunch of places that had parking. that were basically in code, is that?

At least in terms of the number of spaces.

Got it. And how many of these were developed in the past 10 years?

Well, the top site, I call it the Pavel site, that was modified within the last three, four years. Is that the only one out of the bunch?

That's correct. Okay.

I mean, yes, that's correct.

Okay. And then when it comes to... code and being up to code with that is there any retroactive kind of requirements that would come from the board or from the township that would say oh you're not in code with the number of parking spots that your location demands Could they go back to you and say, you know what, you bought the place three years ago, and now you're required to adhere to it?

No, there's a principle with zoning that nonconforming uses are protected. If they're legal at the time, you can change the law all you want, and they're entitled to what they have. They just can't make it worse, can't expand it or eliminate some of the parking.

Got it. So in this case, being that this is a new site, you're going to tear it down.

Yeah, if we were renovating a building, there might be some C1 hardship issues. We're starting with a blank slate here. So that's why there's no really a technical hardship argument.

Got it. So with a hardship, that would be a... if I understand this correctly and give me a lot of space here, this is a self-imposed hardship based upon the selection of the site that you knew and the number of parking spots that were clearly delineated in the master plan. And the decision was to come to the board and ask us or ask them for variances. Is that a fair statement?

There are two themes of justifying a variance. One is C-1 hardship practical difficulties. One is the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. I'm not arguing C1. This is only C2, that there are public benefits associated with this that outweigh the detriments that would occur if this were built.

But would this still fall as a self-imposed hardship? No. Hardship is not involved here. Okay. Got it. I guess the last question I have for you is when it comes to – I'm going to be very delicate the way that I say this – I know a lot of the good that has been talked about has been with the 100 students, which I think is great. I have a four-year-old and a five-year-old that have gone through swim lessons. That is remarkable because I was able to relax a little bit watching them swim, which is amazing. I don't question that. I do question, and I forgot my train of thought here. I do apologize. When it comes to these timelines and these things that you've seen, did you actually watch them get changed and spend time in the place or just on the outside?

I was in the Milburn facility. I didn't watch him get changed. But the answer is I was in the Milburn facility. Actually, I flew a drone to watch where people were walking to get a sense of... How many kids per parent walked there and came out? And then I did talk to the staff also in the facility there. I visited the other facilities but didn't go inside the other ones. And were you able to see the time frames and those type of things that they're adhering to? I don't recall now. The one in Westfield was just recently constructed, but the one in Livingston, I stayed in the back parking lot there and watched that operate. Do you have any idea on times? It was, I mean it was a weekday and it was probably toward the end of the day, like 4 or 5 o'clock. The busy time, yeah.

Yeah. Okay. I was just wondering how long they took to turn over and those type of things, and whether it was enough?

You know, I didn't time the others, but again, as I understand the testimony, the technical lesson is 30 minutes, but...

you got to change yeah certainly um the last question i have and i apologize for going so long with us is when it came to the 100 lessons there was talk that came up to the board as well with regards to busing handling that and making sure that it wasn't kind of i wouldn't say an empty promise it wasn't a promise that was built without the ability to have that executed. And I don't know if that was updated or if you have any information.

I don't have any other information. What I recall was that SwimQuest is not going to be responsible for driving the students, if I recall, but the agency there I think they made a commitment to make sure that the students had transportation.

And is that going to be in the application?

That potentially could be a finding. If the board approves this, they're going to add conditions. That could be one of the conditions. So as of right now, it's not in there? It's a proposal of the applicant. We don't know whether the board will accept it or not. I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

Lisanne Renner, Godfrey Road, Montclair. Mr. Steck, in several occasions during your testimony, you mentioned the Historic Preservation Commission review of this project. And I, just as a listener, got the impression that you were under the impression that the HPC was rather copacetic with this building. Is that your understanding?

I think they require changes and I think the applicant made certain changes to accommodate their desires.

Are you familiar with the March 16th memo to the planning board from the HPC?

Not intimately because I don't have it in front of me.

Okay. I have it in front of me and the HPC makes nine recommendations and concerns. And just going down this, it looks to me like at least half of them have not been fully addressed, and I wondered if you knew that.

I was not at any of the meetings, so I don't know. And that's probably a question maybe for Mr. Genova, because he's intimately familiar with the changes of design that were done. I don't know the answer to which ones were met and not. All I know is that the applicant adjusted the design in the direction that the historic commission wanted. And again, as you know, this is a recommendation to this board. They don't have final say. No, I understand.

But I felt that maybe your impression would lead people to believe that it was totally copacetic, whereas it's not. Also, there's been a lot of discussion tonight about public benefits. I mean, would you also agree that preserving the context and ambiance in a historic district is also a public benefit?

Yes.

OK. Thank you.

gonna say are there any other questions from the public I would have thought we'd have more that's okay that's okay my name is Kathleen Kaye I'm at 141 Cooper Avenue Montclair I have a question but I have to say there I've been bringing my granddaughter to the swim quest in Milburn for two years I'd like the program you have to ask him questions I will but immediately okay

You'll have an opportunity to tell us what you think about the application.

I just wanted to know, I was familiar with it. You had mentioned that the 45 minute overlap, and I agree with you completely, there is. But as that relates to parking, I just wanted to know if you had thought that through, I'm sure you have. but had thought that through because waiting with my granddaughter, getting her hair dressed, all that, ready, the other people are already coming and starting their class. So you're vying for the dressing room, but the parking and the looking for parking and juggling the kids in and out especially those women bringing the kid who's taking the lesson, she's bringing the little baby that's in the carry-all. It's chaotic, I have to tell you from my experience. So the overlap with the cars, I'm picturing the 11 people trying to find that space, finding them all full, which they will be because the other people are still in there. So how does that impact?

The answer is they're going to be in the collection of all customers in the business district. The point that I'm trying to raise is that, you know, the first or second time a grandparent or a parent may realize I'm not going to find parking on the site. I'm going to park where I know there is likely to be a space and I'm going to walk That's what I think is functionally going to happen. I may drive through the upper Montclair Plaza once. If I can't find a parking space there, I'll go to the perimeter. That's what's going to happen because people will be self-educated when they find out

I agree with you if we were adults going to a restaurant, but I'm picturing the young mother or old grandmother with a couple of little kids in tow trying to park at the Acme, because that's the first place she found finally, and trying to schlep up the street with the baby and the little kid in tow. I just think it's a giant accident waiting to happen.

And that'll be a question?

That's a question. Don't you think that will be a giant accident waiting to happen? Thank you. We're on Jeopardy. Thank you. Put it in the form of a question. Thank you. Don't you think? No. You don't. Okay. I disagree with you adamantly, don't I?

What question do you have?

Thanks. I disagree.

Thank you for phrasing it as a question.

Hi, Warren Ross. I'm an owner of the building in Upper Montclair Plaza. I've dealt with you before, Peter, when I was on the Redevelopment Commission myself. I have four questions. A question, are you aware that there are swim facilities at the Montclair YMCA, and also there's a swim club in Cedar Grove near Staples? Yes, I've been...

My foster cat goes to the Petco in Cedar Grove, so I'm familiar with that facility, and I'm aware that the Y has a pool also.

But not- That's why I took my lessons. Second question, are you aware, we became aware here that When there are swim parties, which is going to be a big part of the project, they can accommodate like 20 children at a party, and then another 20 are coming in while the first group is getting undressed or redressed. So there's going to be 40. Then we have a staff. So we're talking about maybe needs for 40, 50, 60 students for parking all around this area that is already congested.

I don't think there was testimony. What I remember is they said a maximum of 20 kids on a party and likely a Saturday, let's say, afternoon. But I don't remember any testimony that would be back-to-back parties because they got to clean up after one. So I suspect proper management would be to stagger the events.

Well, it was testimony the opposite way that I heard. And also you mentioned, you referred to Upper Montclair Plaza as a low volume. And that's what caused the, because it is not. I was just curious. It has lower volume than Valley Road. Okay. So what day of the week and for how long were you at Upper Montclair Plaza?

I It may have been a, well, I go there occasionally for other reasons. I go to Bank of America periodically. I know Mr. Pavel quite well. I've done a number of his applications, helped him out. I spent essentially a whole day walking the whole district because I wanted to get a good sense of who had enough parking and who didn't. But I didn't stand in the parking lot. I know that there are times where the upper Montclair Plaza parking lot is full.

The reason I'm asking you the question, I wonder whether you were there because that's the only exit that I'm referring to. Is that still the same place? That's still the plan. The only exit will be into that closet? That's the only exit from this property. So it seems to me that would be a key spot to be there, witness, and do it. My last question is you mentioned that other businesses already got exemptions and you and you keep referring to my question is you keep trying to refer them as a reason for keep on giving exceptions. Is there not a time when enough is enough? We keep giving extensions and exceptions exceptions and suddenly Is there not a time when we get to a max where the reasoning of giving another exemption is not reasonable? I don't know if that makes sense.

Well, each application stands on its own, and if the applicant couldn't demonstrate that there was at least a reasonable possibility of finding some parking in the district, that might be a reason to not approve the variance for parking, for example. But the applicant spent a lot of time and money studying the whole district. Okay. Thank you.

I'm Geraldine Lear. I live at 48 South Park Street. Given that there are five other swim schools easily accessible to our residents, both at least three in town with private lessons in backyard swimming pools also, and two right over the hill. Do you really think it's fair to you to keep referencing it as special and unique?

From the testimony I have heard and from visiting the Milburn facility, the applicant describes it as a special because of the ratio of students to teachers. They're intentional to keep the volume down.

But that's not the context in which you referenced it.

Let him finish his answer, if you would.

And again, it's somewhat unique in that, again, I don't want to overplay it, but the 100 students that are going to participate in this who wouldn't normally participate. That makes it special. I think that's kind of one of the themes of what Montclair is about.

Doesn't the YMCA afford those children opportunities?

I don't think they do it to the same degree, and I think, I don't remember if it was testimony or not, but I think there are insurance issues that are constraining some of the public facilities, like the Montclair public swimming pools. there are insurance considerations which are causing some of those facilities to pull back and that's why this applicant you know all the teachers are certified lifeguards etc etc so again it's it's a subtle difference but in the applicant believes that this is a you know a a better facility for teaching children to swim than other facilities. And it may be higher priced, but the applicant thinks that people will drive a distance to come here.

Do you think it's fair to talk about what might happen at the YMCA? Do you know that they have pulled back? I don't know that, but I understand from legal situation, shouldn't he stop talking about it?

Well, he's he's he's trying to answer your question to the best of his ability. He is under oath. So, you know, I he I have to imagine he believes what he's saying that it is accurate based on his experience.

For the first-time visitors that you say are coming solely for swim lessons to Montclair, don't you think that when they can't find a parking space within a few hundred feet of where they're going, that they're going to say, oh, no, we're not going to eat in Montclair, there's no parking, rather than making them want to come back?

I think the... marketing benefit is that it will make those people are not going to go to lunch typically after let's say a swim session, but it will make them familiar with the goods and services that are offered in the business district. When I, you know, I'm intimately familiar with the little Maplewood Village that I live outside of. I know all the businesses there. I know all the secret parking spaces. But I think the fact that they're going to, in my judgment, bring in clientele who may not be familiar with the Upper Montclair Business District and the fact that they see the different shops there, they will come back at a different location and take advantage of the restaurants, the movie theater, et cetera.

You said in your testimony that a restaurant, that this is kind of like a restaurant. It has the same effect on the neighboring community as a restaurant would have?

I don't think I said that.

Well, what did you say about restaurants versus the swim school?

I said that there are other uses that are permitted, such as a restaurant, and they're going to have a different kind of impact. You know, it will be, you know, more toward the weekends than the swim lessons are.

Would a restaurant churn 36 cars through the parking lot every 30 minutes?

Depends upon the type of restaurant it is, it might. is is montclair it's and you're the the 36 or whatever 38 i mean that's a worst case scenario there are many instances as i believe you would suspect that parents you know want both of their kids or all three of their kids to have lessons at the same time so it's not necessarily a one for one and and again as since they're repeat events uh there may be you know mothers that share rides at times it's it's There's time to adjust their behavior so that it's more convenient for them. And that might mean walking a block and a half rather than trying to find a space on site.

You mentioned that this isn't necessarily the best alternative.

That's not the statutory standard for granting a variance.

Don't you think the people of Montclair deserve the best alternative?

That's not the law.

Liz Zazie, I live on Amherst Place in Upper Montclair. So you live in Maplewood?

Yes.

On Maplewood Ave?

Yes.

Beautiful. Fabulous downtown. Thank you. Is there a swim school? No. no no swim school on Maplewood Ave correct okay so you know where all the secret spots are in Maplewood I know where my secret parking spots are do you know where they are in Montclair I did it one time when I worked here you are they still there I haven't I haven't researched my secret spots since then But you, if I remember correctly, you love to take your bike because it can be challenging to park in Maplewood, right? And that bustling downtown.

I could park every time I go there because of my secret spot. But I do it because I need some exercise.

You know, I really didn't think we were going to be talking about secret spots tonight, so thanks, everyone.

Well, I was going to say, we should direct this back towards the application. I know.

I'm trying to be funny. It's late. I appreciate it.

I'm not going to tell you my secret spot.

Okay, good. So, but you did say, I do remember that you said that's why you take your bike. I think I'm almost calling you.

No, I'm very close to the downtown. Frankly, I take it on days where I'm only getting one coffee. Days I get two coffees for someone else, I can't ride my bike. Okay. I do it for exercise, and I don't do it in the rain.

You know, I'm glad you're bringing this up, because when I tell my friends, because they will ask me, what happened when you entered the meeting? Because I wasn't able to go. And I want to be able to tell this correctly. So would it be fair to say that the expert... thought it might be a good idea for parents to strap their kids onto a bike and take them to the swim school on Valley Road.

I didn't say that, and your friends can listen to the YouTube.

Oh, okay. So I'll tell them to listen to the YouTube and really tune into the part where the expert talked about the benefits of taking a bike because parking can be challenging.

That's not my testimony. In Maplewood.

okay all right so because I do remember that you said you you're smart enough to take your bike because parking can be challenging in Maplewood what are you asking more question I think so well let's let's get back to Montclair in this application if you would okay so yeah I guess I'm done Because you can't really tell me where the secret spots are.

You have to ask them a question, please.

OK. But can I ask you a question? It depends. OK. So the expert. And you just did. It's not about, OK, here comes another one. So the expert gets to talk for two hours. But when we, the residents who live and work in the area where the swim school might go, we're going to get three minutes. Correct. Gotcha.

Hello, Polly Mars off. I own ampersand interiors on Upper Montclair Plaza. So correct me if I'm wrong. But Mr. Pavel came in front of this board for massive variances for the redevelopment of was it 3642 Lorraine Avenue, And he was required to meet all the parking requirements, if I remember correctly?

He got some variances, but he did provide the code-compliant parking, as is my recollection.

And wasn't that about 60 parking spaces?

I don't have the number in front of me, but there's a picture on the fifth page of my exhibit, and I assure you know that some of the parking is underneath the building also.

Right. but wasn't his building kind of limited to the required amount of parking that the variance was predicated on?

I know he needed some other items of relief, but my recollection is he had code-compliant parking. I think he had to change his application. I think he started with a different application and had to cut back.

That's right. That's right. So he was compliant for parking. And how long ago was this redevelopment for that site?

I'm guessing four or five years ago?

Yeah, seven or eight, actually. time flies absolutely we're all getting older so so massive project all in compliance for parking okay was the Bellevue Theatre grandfathered and not to have parking spaces

Was it grandfathered?

It was a grandfathered situation where there was the movie theater, which actually, I think, had more seats previously.

It had 885 or something seats. Right.

And now it has way less.

They have to use, aside from seats, they have to use half the building for the theater. Right. wonders of a redevelopment plan is that you can spot zone legally so those regulations apply just to that property the governing body could have said you need parking for 400 seats in a movie theater there's no parking in the area we're going to turn you down the the governing body with the recommendation of the planning board made a judgment call. We really want a theater here, and we're going to not require on-site parking or you to get permits for your employees.

Right. But it was grandfathered in originally that Bellevue did not need parking spaces.

That's correct, except that I don't think it was going to reopen as a theater ever without the redevelopment incentives.

Okay. All right. But still, there was...

If the theater could have kept on operating as a non-conforming situation, it's just that many theaters have closed.

Right. Okay. Regarding Milburn, SwimQuest... That is on the outskirts of town if I remember correctly. I've driven by there myself and there isn't really much on site parking but there's street parking because it's mostly residential down that street.

It's residential, so there's the main drag, the business district. This is the street behind, you know, parallel to the main drag. It has zero parking on site. There is some on street parking there, but clearly in competition with other businesses in the area. And again, if you look at the building, the big parking lot to the right, is part of Murray constructions project and you got to go further to the east to find where the public parking is.

Right. It's on a diagonal down the street.

It's on the same side of the street as the building.

Okay. But it's not that far.

It's maybe 100 feet away.

And how many parking spots are there?

I don't know the exact number, I'd have to look at my photographs, but there were, you know, there's competition for parking there. I did see some people parking on the street, but I also saw people parking in the public parking area.

So the location of the Milburn's SimQuest isn't on the main drag?

That's correct.

Okay. Whereas this proposal is on the main drag of Upper Montclair.

That's correct.

Okay. Very different situation, I think. How about East Hanover? Some swim quests. Have you been there?

East Hanover?

Or where is it? East Hanover. Yeah. It's in a huge... Here's my question.

Thank you.

I'm asking the question. I know. I said thank you.

I said thank you.

OK.

Sorry. Have you seen that location?

No, I have not seen that one.

OK. Would it surprise you then that it is in a huge office park with probably 300 to 400 parking spaces?

It would not surprise me. A lot of office parks are being used for other things at the moment.

I can't really ask you the question I'm going to ask you.

Well, then why do it?

Yeah, I'm not going to. I'm going to redirect where I'm going with this. So when did Mr. Genova, are you aware of when Mr. Genova closed on this property? No. But it's probably been in the last couple of years?

I don't know.

Okay. Okay. When is the last time that there was a change to the variance or the building codes that he's coming in front of the board for impervious coverage, nonconforming parking? Do you think there was a change between 10 years since it's been vacant for 10 years and now?

I'm sure there has been some changes. My recollection from his testimony, because he was the first witness, is that he maybe purchased this like two years ago or something. And I don't think there have been many. Certainly, first of all, the building code is different from the zoning ordinance. But I suspect there have not been any changes to the zoning ordinance, except I'm guessing the closest one might be the redevelopment plan for the theater. That was probably the most recent change in the neighborhood.

My last question. You say that the upper Montclair Plaza is lower traffic than Valley Road.

Yes.

However, here's my question. Since you're going to now have... have perhaps 36 cars coming or going at the same time or call it 30 cars or 25 cars going at the same time all funneling down a driveway taking a very sharp right turn Going over maybe a hundred feet and then having to take another right turn and then get stuck on Bellevue Avenue Do you not feel that there's going to be congestion?

There will never be an instance where 38 cars are making that Turning movement kind of at the same time because because they can't fit on the property people will learn early on that they It may be unlikely that they find one of the 11 spaces. Again, these are going to be repeat customers. They will learn what is best for them. But in my opinion, I mean, if this were a lot that were fully conforming that had 38, 39 spaces in it, then you might be right over a 15, 20 minute period. All those people might disappear, except that if there were that many spaces there, I suppose probably employees would park also on the property. But because there are only 11 parking spaces here, there are going to be a lot of people who learn quickly, I'm not even going to try to park on the property, in my opinion.

We all have opinions. Having been a mom with two girls and having done swim lessons, I would say to you. A question? A question would be.

Thank you.

I'm going to skip that. And the last one is, in the master plan, the redevelopment for Upper Montclair, the proposals, isn't green space part of it?

There's supposed to be, if you were starting all things being equal, 20% of the property is supposed to be in green. And that's one of the variances we need.

And so the current condition is, what's the percent?

I think it's 86% is impervious now, if I recall.

And I believe you're asking for 95?

I think it's 95 or 97. Let me look at my notes and I'll tell you exactly what it is. I think my recollection is it's 97%.

So how does this advance the master plan or the greater good for the community?

The reason for having green area, in my opinion, is twofold. One is aesthetics, and the other is stormwater runoff. We've more than accommodated the issue of stormwater runoff. We're improving the situation because we're going to have detention in the back of the property. That green area could be located anywhere in the property. It could be located in the back, so you would never see any of it driving on Valley Road. There are relatively few buildings that have green in the front of it. Your building is supposed to be up to the front property line. So it would be nicer to have more green, but one of the issues is we're not going to have a four-foot strip on the right-hand side of the property because we know the fire department will would like to take advantage of the fact that the pavement area is a butt. So there's a public purpose for not having that four foot wide green strip.

But are you saying it's optional to put the greenery back in?

I'm saying, no, I'm saying that we believe that we have a good justification for getting that variance. And in my opinion, there's no detriment to the plan that's being proposed.

Well, wouldn't you have less stormwater runoff if you didn't have all this impervious coverage?

You would, except that we are more than, there is inadequate handling today of stormwater runoff and we're going to overcompensate for that by the size of our detention basin in the rear.

And that's not connected at all to town?

That's my recollection. It's not connected to the town system.

Is that correct? Do we know?

the system is believe not connected however in the event of an overflow it would fill up naturally and flow into the system in the municipal parking lot as it does today great so the parking lot we just had a massive storm

has anybody been there during a massive storm to see the kind of water that has anybody what have you seen how the water is bubbling out of storm drains just two days ago this well I have I was not there during the storm so I can't answer but I've seen that phenomenon and the as you know the

parking lot is significantly lower in elevation, and it's in a flood hazard area. So you would expect that area to be inundated more than the subject property.

Right. So this is now creating a burden on neighbors.

No. The reason we have an oversized detention facility is we want to lessen the burden on the adjacent properties.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, Sarah Avery, 25 Irving Street, Montclair. Mr. Statt, you frequently made testimony of the public benefits of this plan. In particular, you talked a lot about the free swim lessons. What is the value of those free swim lessons?

It's a public purpose... No, value in dollars.

Let me clarify.

Oh, I don't know.

Yeah. Well, and is it 100 free lessons to 100 children, or is it one free lesson to each of these 100 children? How many lessons are we talking about?

As I understand it, it is a series of lessons to 100 individuals. Those individuals would be integrated into the lessons with people that are paying for the lessons.

Well, if it's a series of lessons to 100 children, Or it's 100 lessons, however many children would use 100 lessons. It is not 100 lessons, period. It is not. Because the school, the swim school on Pompton Avenue sells of- Hold on, hold on.

It's questions, questions.

Yeah, I'm just, I'm coming to my question. The swim school on Pompton Avenue sells four lessons for $134. And so that's $33.50 per lesson. So if it was 100 lessons, then we're talking about $3,350. So my question is, if you are placing so much emphasis on the provision of free lessons then you really need to quantify the value in order to determine, really, if it's a significant or insignificant. Because at this point, based on your testimony, I'm asking him what's the value. I'm asking him what the value of the lessons are.

I don't know what the dollar value is. I know that it is not 100 lessons for the year.

Well, you haven't answered my question because you're not prepared. I don't know the value. Well, you're not prepared.

You may want to listen to the tape when this was discussed at length in terms of the fact that 100 children would participate in programs.

I'm asking what the value is. No, I'm asking what the value is, and you don't know what the value is.

He doesn't know. He answered the question.

So the other public benefit that you've made quite a lot of comments about is the accommodating needs of the fire department, or that it's a courtesy to the fire department. But if, have you ever heard of civic duty?

Yes, I've heard that phrase.

Yeah. So if this hypothetical other alternate plan to build a building immediately adjacent to the firehouse, don't you think that if you did that, you would increase public risk, which is the opposite of public benefit?

it would make it harder for the firemen to operate in that station.

And don't you think that that would create greater public risk?

I'm not the expert in that. The deputy chief said, you know, they would do the best they can. They know that there's traffic out inside, that sometimes they can't leave the building exactly when they want, but they adjust. But in my opinion, if the situation is improved, that's a good thing.

So don't you think that rather than characterizing these concessions as accommodating and courtesy, don't you think that they are more correctly characterized as a civic duty to the 41,000 residents of this town?

No.

You also made a comment about making a left-hand turn out of the Valley Regency on Valley Road. Are you aware that the Valley Regency is adjacent to the intersection of Routes 3 and 46 and also is in close proximity to Montclair State University?

It's down the hill. Close proximity. Probably a quarter mile from the 46th interchange.

Close proximity. Don't you think that those two, the intersection of two major highways and the entrance and exit of a large university contribute to the traffic at that location?

Yes, they do.

So why was your testimony, why were you so put out that it took you a long time to make a left-hand turn on Valley Road as if to lessen the amount of traffic

in montclair upper montclair village i was just indicating that many county roads uh... face the same situation of higher volumes of traffic uh... making left turns out of properties difficult that's that's a phenomenon exists over many sections of valley road and i just mention that because while no one except me was in the parking lot there's a lot of traffic on valley road and some of that traffic travels through the upper montclair business district to be honest really listening to your testimony i think that will this be a question ms avery it's and it's time for questions

and i've been asking questions i know but this start it's starting to sound like you're going to tell him what you think of his testimony well don't you think that weaving other potential uses and adding a sort of extraneous uh testimony that does not directly apply to this application don't you think that that can possibly confuse the public and confuse the board making it hard to sift the facts from the fiction don't you think

no well thank you for asking that as a question i do appreciate that i know it's late i'll try to make it quick i'm jerry bloom north mountain avenue i'm a little confused about the fire department thing On the one hand, it's important enough that the developer was sent back to talk to the fire department. And there are all these understandings, which you referred to as informal. Are they going to be written down anywhere?

If this board is inclined to approve the application, they can add conditions to the approval and the conditions can accommodate the design arrangement that the applicant is proposing.

Okay, we'll see what they do. I also had a question for you about the charitable use thing that you were comparing to because you cited to clause three of the permitted conditional uses, which says you only need staff members. You didn't make mention of clause two, which says one of the conditions is that traffic generated will not have a substantial adverse effect on the traffic pattern in the area. So is the charity thing really a relevant comparison?

Well, first of all, this is what we call an illegal condition of the conditional use because you have to have a definitive, you have to be able to, when you have a conditional use, you have to have conditions that can be understood on its face. This is very general. But, you know, if, for example, well, This suggests that there are instances where even if you provide the parking, there may have to be a substantial adverse effect, whatever that means. It's not specific here. The only reason I brought it up is that much of the focus... Much of the focus here is on the number of parking spaces, and that's why I was just showing that there's legislative recognition that parking is not the end all of everything.

OK. And then my final question deals with, not to beat a dead horse, but on the secret spaces. The concept of a secret space, I gather, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's a space that's hard to find, but within a reasonable distance. And you have those in Maplewood. Is that correct? You personally.

I patronize a business that lets me park in their lot.

Oh, that's a good one. Okay. Anyway, even if such a space...

But I'm not going to tell you the name of the business. No, that's fine.

I don't want to know. I don't go to Maplewood that often. But even if such a space existed in Montclair, is not the problem here that we have not one person looking for a secret space at a time, but 25 or 30 secret spaces? And at some point, is it not secret anymore? It's just horribly inconvenient.

well there are issues of better signage that have been brought up so that you know people are better informed about when they can park in some of the public parking spaces that is a it's not an issue for this board but it's an issue for the municipality to have its parking more efficiently used I just gave it as an example because in The Montclair business area is much larger than the Maplewood Village area. And it doesn't have a county road running through it, which means we have much more control over what we could do in town. But the point that I'm raising is successful business districts don't have acres and acres of parking that's available. It's kind of generic that you have to search for parking in business districts that are very successful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Holly Felber. Excuse me. I own Barbara Eclectic at 594 Valley Road. Thank you, Mr. Stack. I enjoyed listening to you tonight. And I do have a few questions. You said that there is a 45-minute turnover. You said 30 minutes in the class, 15 minutes to get dressed and dry your hair. What about getting the kids into the swimsuits ahead of time? Wouldn't you add maybe 10 to 15 minutes ahead of time?

I didn't do the timing, but I believe that was the testimony of the operator.

Okay. Because if that's the case, I think we have even more people inside the facility at one time and coming and going than 30. It could be far greater.

Is that the question of Mr. Stack? That's what I asked him.

Yes, I asked him. Yes, and my question was, isn't there time? So do you think it could be greater than 30 people at a time?

I'm relying on the testimony of the other witnesses for the applicant.

Okay. And I know you were just asked this, but I am very curious on what day you spent walking the district and what time of day it was. And actually, the specific date. Was it July? Was it May? Was it August?

I'd have to look at my photographs because I don't remember the exact day. It was a weekday. And it was in, I think it was midday, but I don't, you know, it took, you know, two to three hours to walk the whole area. So I couldn't cover all the area at once. But it was a weekday and it was a time when the subject facility would be open.

I would be curious if we could learn that date at some point, maybe after he checks his calendar or something. he can't I was just gonna ask a follow-up question would it be the same date that the drone was flown over the subject property no I went there on another date specifically to walk the whole district okay okay in your testimony you stated that you will be adding at least one metered spot on Valley Road

My understanding is because we're eliminating one of the driveways that there's an opportunity to add one on street parking space.

And do you need to go to the county to get that parking spot?

I don't know for sure. We may need to go to the county, but I'm not sure. I don't know the answer to that. It's very likely that we need county approval.

because it's a county road okay you stated in your testimony that there are lifeguards whenever the place whenever the swim school is open how many lifeguards are there I think anyone who's a teacher I think has if I recall the testimony correctly has to be a certified lifeguard okay I don't recall that okay the Bellevue Erie lot that we discussed all of the parking is based upon I think it was established that you could buy a parking it's not maybe a day permit are you aware of how much they cost no okay thank you the egress into the parking lot will be a very sharp turn Are you aware that there are existing one-way signs in that parking lot?

Yes.

Okay. Are you aware of how many people ignore those signs and drive the wrong way on a regular basis?

No.

Thank you. You have stated that the customers will learn where to park. Yes. Right? So you have your students that come in for five, eight, ten classes. So does that mean there will be a new batch of people driving around to learn parking every eight to 10 weeks?

That might be the case.

OK. Thank you. If the board were to grant the variance, would there be detriment to the public good? And in your opinion, would it be substantial?

In my opinion, there would not be substantial detriment to the public good.

OK. And why not?

Because this property is zoned for some kind of a commercial use, because we are limiting the driveway access on the busier Thoroughfare Valley Road, because we have now a reorientation of traffic for an exit to the Upper Montclair Plaza, because I think the building will be in scale with other buildings in the area because this is somewhat of a unique situation where this is the only property I can think of where it is so underutilized and has been for so long that something's going to happen on this property and it ain't going to be a drive-in bank

Agreed. What do you think about junk traffic that will be generated by people searching for parking spots?

I'm sure that it will occur.

And do you think that the proximity to the firehouse will be an issue when people head south on Valley Road and are waiting to take a right turn into the driveway?

So they're coming from Bellevue Avenue. I'm not the traffic expert, but I don't see that as an issue because, again, I think people will get used to parking supplies issue, and they will find what is most convenient for them. And it's probably, you know, if they drive through the lot twice and don't find a space there, they're not going to waste their time doing it a third time, in my judgment.

Okay. Are you aware of how... The traffic backs up all up and down Valley Road, even when a train is not running?

Yes, I've been in that traffic myself.

Right, it can take three or four lights to get through the intersection.

I'm not sure it would take four, but I know that it backs up at least two cycles.

Okay, you stated that there are going to be bollards. separating the driveway from the firehouse and the driveway from the swim school. If someone pulls over or drives over a bollard and then tries to reverse, do you think they'll cause damage to their undercarriage? Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. Take that question back.

And I think he asked the question, or somebody asked the question of Mr. Jehova. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, my last thing. In your professional opinion, is the applicant's generosity to offer free swim lessons relevant to the question before the board, which is whether or not the applicant meets the requirements of the state's municipal land use law and Montclair's zoning ordinance? And I want to say one thing. Are you also aware that every single business located in Upper Montclair donates and supports many, many charities? Are you aware of that?

I think that any business community typically tries to participate. In my opinion, the fact that And this is, I think it's significant that the applicant is volunteering to do this. I think it's a factor, but not the sole factor in justifying approval of this application.

Do you think in your opinion that having an additional, all these 30, 40 more cars will negatively impact customers finding parking spaces to go to existing businesses?

In my opinion, this is a soup. We don't have reserved spaces, and in my opinion, it will add more competition for spaces, but I have to rely on the testimony of the other experts. In my opinion, it will not be substantially detrimental. There will be benefits to bringing outside people to make them familiar with the goods and services that are available in Upper Montclair.

Are you aware of all of the people who avoid Montclair because there's no parking, that they don't patronize any businesses in Montclair?

I'm not aware of all the people, but that's generically true. That's been a phenomenon, that some people who don't have secret spaces, some people are discouraged to go in. my little downtown doesn't have meters once they put meters in so parking is free parking is free there are the Upper Montclair business district is much larger than my little business district but as an example if someone put in meters I'm sure that there are people would say I'm not going downtown

Are you aware of how many people will walk into a business and say, I'm only here because the parking spot in front of your store was open and available?

I'm guessing that there's some people that say that.

yes and are you aware of how difficult it is for the fire truck to leave the firehouse on a daily basis because of the traffic backup I have seen fire trucks exiting when I was there and they had to pause to get the traffic to clear okay one last question there are some major yellow stripes in front of the firehouse it goes out in two angles that's and one of my exhibits yeah and you're supposed to stop and not drive over the stripes because it allows the fire truck to leave the firehouse are you aware of that most people ignore that and drive right over and that is a cause of a of having the fire truck leaving it it slows them down if i can see situations where someone's going northbound on valley they think the light's going to stay green forever and it doesn't it turns red

and they're on the yellow lines, one would not expect them to back up or drive over the sidewalk to get out of it. I just think it's a situation which is a cautionary note, and it's not great, but the answer is the fire department is doing the best they can.

are you aware that people also drive over those lines when they're heading southbound I think that yes I am exactly these are all conditions that exist today without the additional traffic circulation

do something to solve that problem no i'm not asking that the applicants solve that problem i just think we all need to be aware of the existing conditions right now and we shouldn't exacerbate the problems it seems to me that southbound

traffic generally has the freedom to get off the lines, because they're not heading to a traffic light. But that's not true of northbound traffic. You think you're going to get through the light. You don't. You have no choice. You've got to sit on the lines. Right.

The problem is when someone wants to make a left onto Cooper, and the traffic is all the way backed up, and you can't make a left. OK. Thank you very much, everybody, for your time and your attention to this. Thank you.

Thank you for asking questions.

Hi, Arlene Carini, 237 Lorain Avenue. I just want to preface and start with my store had a fire. It was at 629 Valley Road. I live in Cedar Grove. By the time I got to my store, the fire truck was passing in front of me. So it took them that long to get to my store. This was three months ago. So I'm asking him, do you know that it took that long for the fire truck to get out?

No.

Okay. Can you imagine when the swim school decides to go in, if it's approved, what the traffic is going to be like when they try to pull out?

In my opinion, there will be, first of all, it's only ingress traffic to the property. It's not egress traffic. And there may be additional instances where the fire truck has to wait to get out.

yeah okay so that's gonna cause a really big problem in town just saying there is a question do you realize that it's gonna cause a really big problem in town no okay so if I told you because you said it was gonna be a tight fit right you said that putting the swim school would be a tight fit in that space you can rewind the tape and play it back later okay so then I should go buy a pair of pants that are two sizes too small for me

I'm not sure I understood the question.

So you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole?

I don't think so.

Then why did you say it was a tight fit?

Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I... I can't wait until you go home tonight and rewind it. The applicant is not providing... of the green space and all of the parking that is required by the ordinance and is asking for some relief and that has to do with I guess the size of the property in its location so don't you think that asking for three variances is three too many two okay two variances is too many no

You're asking for something to come out of thin air.

It's not a question of numbers of variances. It's the question of whether the statutory proofs have been provided by the applicant.

So you think that asking for 38 spaces out of thin air to be created that don't exist is acceptable? I'm speaking to him. The questions are for him. The questions are for him. I don't know. So hold on one second here. You keep using the term charity and donating, and that's kind of insulting because you act like it's just him who's doing this to the community. As Holly previously said, and you heard her statement, did you hear her statement about all the businesses donating?

I'm guessing that many businesses donate to civic causes.

So Holly doesn't run her business, and I don't run my business based on how much we've donated, or Polly, how much we've donated to the community. But I'm going to state it now. UMBA, as the Upper Montclair Business Association, donated to the Academy's success there to Reverend Shelton.

Is that the question?

So did you know that we donated?

No.

Okay. So it's just part of doing business. Did you know that?

I think that there are some businesses that make it a practice to give back to the community.

It's the right thing to do. Do you think? Do you agree?

It's not required. Some people think it's the right thing to do. Some people can't afford it. I don't know the answer.

Okay. But you would think that if you're using that as your preface, What I'm basically... I don't know how to even put this.

He wasn't saying that this business is the only one that... No, but he's using that as leverage to be approved.

It's a significant part of the application to accommodate...

But it shouldn't be significant. It shouldn't even be part of the application.

That's...

Because one thing has nothing to do with the other. You're here for variances, are you not?

He's offered his professional opinion. You disagree, okay?

Because it's not part of the application.

It is part of the application.

Is it? Is it a variance? Are you asking for a variance for donations?

Hold on, hold on.

So I'm just, I just wanted to put that out there.

Let me, for just a moment. he did offer his professional opinion about it he believes there's a benefit and so as he looks at the municipal land use law c2 whether the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments he's using that as evidence of a substantial benefit that's what he's saying you may not agree the board may not agree the board may agree i don't know that's what he's trying to say okay he is trying to tie it to the municipal land use law

I just don't see how they go together.

And I understand that. But I see the argument he's trying to make under the law.

And you can see my argument.

I see what you're saying as well. But you have a difference of opinion between he and you, and that's OK. You also said that the church is not a pedestrian area.

it doesn't have the same cycles that the business community does I mean there's a daycare there I'm sure Sunday morning there's a lot of pedestrian traffic that happens to be not where the parking problem is in the business district did you know that not not the same as a Friday night Saturday night did you know that the fire department has had issues with the preschool at the church that was part of the record I believe

yeah it was so why do you think that the swim school wouldn't cause another pressure to that area i don't think the swim school will peak at the same time the pedestrian activity peaks with the church oh so then it should be all day long then so from the church to the afternoon it should be all day long then that that wasn't his testimony either there's no re is there a reprieve at any point the nature of the swim school teaching students is that

When students are supposed to be in school, they're not supposed to be in the pool. So there's a...

So they're in the pool all summer long.

But when school is out, they're the operation is fuller for longer hours. Right, okay.

And then you also kind of like, I don't know, like a couple people thought it was like threatening the board that you would probably put something else in that place if the swim school didn't get approved, which I think people would be happier with something else.

I don't know what something else is, but the answer is this is a valuable piece of property. It's been unused for 10 years. That's not a good thing. If this application is turned down, the applicant isn't going to leave it vacant for another 10 years.

No, and he shouldn't. He's got investors that will definitely help him back up to do whatever he's got to do.

right so of course he's not going to leave it vacant it's not a smart business decision is it my point is that what i'm asking for that this is something that's going to happen with the property and and it's not uh it's not one of the statutory proofs that you think you have a much better use the question is this board has to focus on the variances that are needed right and and if we we don't meet our burden of proof we don't deserve to be approved

okay so did you go to the fire department and ask if they had an issue or did they come to you and say if they had an issue I did not talk to anyone at the fire department the applicant did that they went so they went to the fire department right he so I'm just I'm just reiterating it yes I know I'm reiterating I think the applicant became aware like he is he testified this evening he was unaware that the fire department washed their trucks back there so they also did it in the Coles parking lot I saw a bunch of fire trucks getting washed by the some school over there that's great OK. So you constantly keep using Charity as a crutch. You keep using the fire station as a crutch. But when the Chase Bank was there, did you know that they still functioned with two fire trucks, no less, at the time?

And they got in and out of that driveway? I was not involved with the application 10 years ago when Chase was operating.

So it wouldn't really be detrimental if you went right up to their property line?

The answer is they would have to adjust their practices to accommodate it.

Okay. But it works as it is. So it's not really you're doing them a favor.

In my opinion, it is vastly superior to allow this crossing over the property line.

I just, in my opinion, I'm gonna ask you the question. So do you think that using these crutches as a way to get the board to appeal to your application?

They're not crutches, they're public benefits.

Public benefits, okay. So creating traffic jams on Valley Road is a public benefit.

In my opinion, this will not there's testimony on the record about the impact of the traffic. And in my opinion, I'm relying on their opinions that this will not cause substantial detriment to the volume of traffic.

okay so you don't think that 40 cars 50 cars coming and going is gonna cause an impact no but he's been talking about it the whole entire time he's been talking about it the whole night and he's been there and he's been watching saying in response to your question and he's been watching and all the traffic flow and everything and he's commented on it so he can answer the question so you so adding 40 more cars 40 cars will not be added in one short interval in my opinion and they won't be generated from the immediate site they'll be dispersed through the one driveway

Because not every client or patron is going to park on the property.

I'm done here. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry.

I didn't really plan to ask a question, but I'm spurred to ask a question. My name is Ann Reardon. Okay. I'm sorry. Folks, folks. Hi.