Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We're good. Okay. Good evening everyone.

Good evening. Welcome to the December 1st, 2025 regular meeting of the Township of Montlair Planning Board. In accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to newspaper to the newspaper designated by the township for notices. This meeting is being broadcast live on channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube. This meeting is a quasi judicial proceeding, meaning that the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law, and we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Fire exits are to my right, which is your left, and also the back of the room where you entered. And as to the order of the evening, each application hearing will begin with the applicant or their attorney giving an overview of the applica 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 at that time may ask questions of the applicant, the attorney, and their expert witnesses. And if you're a member of the interested public but not a witness in the case, you'll have two opportunities to speak at each of the applications. 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 us what you think of the application or make comments. That will come later. Uh and to ask questions, you'll have to come to the front of the room here, give us your name and address, and then ask your questions related to the witness's testimony only. After the applicant's witnesses, if there's any objectors or objector witnesses and they've been heard, then the members of the audience will have their second opportunity to step forward. And at that time, you may express your opinions, positive or

negative, about the application. Comments are generally limited to three minutes per person. And then at the close of the applicant's case, and if there's any objector case and the public comment, the public hearing is closed and the board members discuss the case and vote. At that time, you'll be able to listen to our discussion, but you will not be able to participate. And next up is roll call. Um, Mayor Baskerville present. Mr. Forchoff here. Mr. Campbell, he is on his way. I have been informed. Okay. Councelor Damato here. Mr. Vice Chair Graham here. Mr. Ian Wallally here.

Mr. Filelets. Uh, Miss Willis is excused. Mr. Neman here. And Chair Broaddock, I'm here. Okay. Next up, we have the swearing in of our board professionals. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you may give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Okay. Uh, the minutes are going to be carried to the December 15th meeting. So, we don't have minutes. Do we have a resolution for 82 Pine Street? A request for an extension of approval. Gotcha.

Yes. I believe um you have the paperwork on this and uh yeah, Mr. Trenulac is here to represent the applicant on this extension request. Good evening everyone. Tremulac appearing on behalf of um Pine Street Meadows LLC. Um in 2000 October of 2022, a little over three years ago, the board granted site plan approval for some uh um proposed additions to this property and some site improvements. Um, you know, and under municipal land use law, the the there's a 2-year period where the uh application is protected or the applicants protected from any zoning changes. It's called referred to as the, you know, protective period, if you will. Um, again, that's a two-year period. Uh uh the municipal land use law allows for the planning board to grant up to three one-year extensions of that uh uh protection period. We applied for the first extension a year ago. The board granted that in October of 2024. Um, I sent a letter requesting um a second of the uh three allowable one-year extensions um to extend this for an additional year. And the reason being primarily due to economic conditions, my client hasn't um started this project yet. they intend to go forward with it, but they're uh anticipating hopefully that u interest rates will come down, which will allow for uh less expensive construction financing, and they would hope that they would begin the project um uh within the coming year. So, we're asking for an, you know, additional one-year extension, which would extend the uh site plan

approval or the protection period for the site plan approval um to essentially October 17th of 2026. October 27th. Sorry, is it October 27th or the 17th? Uh well, the resol did I say the resolution was adopted on October 17th, 2022. Okay. So, give or take, you know, October 17th of of uh next year. Okay.

I don't think there's been any zoning changes actually that would affect this approval. But regardless, we're looking to just maintain that protection for uh another year till we can get started with the project. That's that's what we're here for. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board? Yeah, I mean I don't I don't see an issue with it personally. So, one question. How many units there there's an increase in the number of dwelling units for this project? Correct.

Um I think that's correct. I have to go back. I um I have the resolution. um seeking to construct a three-story addition containing three two-bedroom units resulting in five total units on the property, which I think is an increase. Um Okay. All right. Yeah. So, the only the change that we made to the inclusionary zoning ordinance doesn't affect this. So, and actually the second reading on that ordinance is Is your microphone?

Yes, it is. I'm I'll speak louder. The amendment to our inclusionary zoning ordinance wouldn't affect this because it only affects applications before the board of adjustment that include a use variance. So I think um our anticipated zoning changes do not affect this.

All right. I would move to approve an one-year extension to we say October 17, 2026 for this second applicant. All in favor? Opposed abstensions. Thank you very much. Welcome. Next up, we have application 239261-167 Glenidge Avenue. I'll just say on advice of council I am going to recuse myself from this. Okay. And I'll also note Mr. Campell joined about 710 give or take.

Good evening everyone. Gregory Misera Batten Road McDonald and Misera. I'm here this evening um representing the owner of uh 161 167 Glenn Ridge Avenue. That's North Willow Construction Company. Um if um members of the board recall um I was here in September on behalf of this owner and the reason for my appearance in December, excuse me, in September was that we were requesting um the board's determination on whether the applicant had um completed construction and enough construction so as to um be determined by this board that um the applicant could continue based on the 2016 planning board site plan and variance approval. Um we had conceded that there was had been a delay, a significant delay. The township issued the first building permit to to the property owner on July 3rd of 2017. Um thereafter revised plans were submitted for um the foundation which was approved on December 6th, 2017. Um the footings were ultimately approved on January 16th, 2019. Um there was a lapse and on May 7th, 2021, the owner submitted an application for alteration to the building, a permit application. Um and that permit ultimately was not acted upon. The applicant now wishes to continue construction um on the property. The question arises of whether the applicant is um in is permitted to construct the property pursuant to the 2016 planning board approval. Um in July of this year, the applicant um sought to obtain um additional permits and the permits were

not issued uh because of the very fair question of whether um there had been too much of a delay to allow the applicant to proceed. Um that's what brought us before this board. Um it has been our position that because the applicant did substantial construction and that is poured the footings um and the foundation that the applicant should be permitted to proceed. Um there are questions of course of for this board in my view to decide um is that substantial construction? Um, and I can say that there wasn't only was not only this construction, but the township continued to inspect the property um after 2021 and continue to use the applicant's escrow to pay for the cost of those um inspections. Um so it is our position that um the property owner substantially relied on the township's determination in 2016 issuing the permits and then thereafter and proceeded. Um the board will will please recall that COVID uh caused a substantial um delay that my client twice was hospitalized with COVID both times for over 30 days. That was the end of 2020 and the be and also in 2021. Um the also um there there were financing problems that developed because of COVID. I was asked in September to present uh proof of financing. Um I did um forward to Miss Tally today um correspondence of of preliminary financing from um the property owner. It's um certainly showing in good faith um that the

property owner intends to proceed um with with the construction. I did send, as the board knows, I submitted a memorandum of law to Mr. Nice. Uh Mr. Nice responded with a memorandum that I received over this weekend. I think the the three important cases um that I that I cited in my memorandum of law are STO versus Edinburg Apartments, Tar Trarco versus Garcia and GOIL versus Vogle. The overriding principle in these cases is that a property owner can have vested rights under the municipal land use law if the property owner can show that that he reasonably relied upon approvals from the township and and based on that reliance the property owner took substantial action. um in this case is uh the board needs to determine in my view whether pouring the foundation is substantial action. Um we also know that the uh that the town did inspect continue to ex inspect the property and continue to take escrow. So there was no indication to the property owner that the status of his applicant of his application um was in jeopardy. Um the sodto case is interesting because there the appellet division held that just doing soil borings was not sufficient to um to satisfy the substantial completion application that it did not um constitute construction work. However, in that case, the court cited the Gulf Oil case and G Gulf Oil said that work work should be deemed commence commence under a permit if there was a substantial overt act material to the effectuation of the project and manifesting to the municipal authorities

that work is going forward. Well, in this case, the applicant got inspections for the foundations. in fact had submitted revised plans for the foundations um and they subsequently were approved 2021 submitted another application for a permit and because of circumstances beyond the applicant's control then could not proceed. The applicant then waited until 2025 also um after 2022 or so because of economic factors as we just heard in uh that Mr. Trembulac explained to the board that there are still some economic issues that are preventing people from moving forward. U my client fortunately now um is ready to move forward. Uh so it's our position that the uh municipal action tacitly affirmed the approval. Um the um so that that's what we are asking the board to confirm. And then with regard to the protection um that again Mr. Trebulac just uh um spoke about to the board. Um we would technically need an extension um from the board if the board were inclined to determine that um yes, we do have substantial completion. Then just to dot the eyes and and substantial work, excuse me. Then just to dot the eyes and cross the tea, uh cross the tees, we would ask for an extension um under the the uh um municipal land use law. And um for that, I would point the board to um the um Toll Brothers case from 2007. In a Toll Brothers case, um the the site plan um the court said that boards have very broad discretion in granting extensions beyond the statutory

minimums. Um now again, there's a balance between equities and and what the statute says. In this situation, I believe that the equities favor uh the property owner to u allow the property owner to proceed with the plans that were approved in in 2016. Mr. N, do you want to add anything from your memo? Uh in Yes. Thank you.

No. Um I crafted the memo based on the memo that uh Mr. Miss Sarah had submitted. Um I did not reach the question of extensions under um I think it's section 52 of the MLUL. So that's not anywhere briefed in my memo. Um I would agree with Mr. Miss Sarah that uh the board is in the position where it like a court has to evaluate the statute versus the equitable side of things. which is why I prepared the memo putting in quite a bit of, you know, citations and actual quotes from the case law because I I felt that the board needed a little bit of guidance to help understand how to apply equitable principles and how the courts have done that. Uh but the ultimate decision making as as always is the boards. I think it's helpful from both parties because I don't think a lot of times we're balancing equities in our decisions here. So, um, appreciate you adding that in. Appreciate you preparing this memo as well.

You were here in September, was it? September. Yes. Yeah. Chair chair, I just want to point out one thing. This application dates back to 2007. I think that's when it was originally um, submitted. There was an approval in 2009. 2009 and then uh it came in for amended site plan in 2016. Um so the the reason I'm saying is the zoning that applies is the zoning that was in place in 2009 which was when we didn't have a 20% set aside for affordable housing. It goes back to our 12% set aside. So for the application you're saying for the for the site plan that was approved

for the site plan that was approved and that where the the footings report the zoning that was applied goes back to 2009. So that's why the when you look at the numbers they don't look anything like what the numbers are right now in terms of our affordable housing requirements. And as you know, subsequent to 2016, we then reszoned the property so that the building is can no longer be five stories. The maximum height um I believe is I have to double check if it's three or four stories. M Mr. Chairman, um the the approval was 2016. So presumably, I don't know whether nine and 16 were the same. Presumably the inclusionary housing was the same. No, it was not.

It was not it was it had changed. So the the zoning that was in place in 2009 was what the approval was based on in in 2016. I'm talking about the inclusion area in 16. Did that change from nine? It did change and we we were okay. My client would be happy to add an affordable unit um to this project and meet the 20 the current 20%. The 20 the 20% would would be happy to do that. We can't, you know, make that a condition because we're just asking to go forward, but we can make a representation that he would add a uh a an affordable unit. Yes. How many units total are in the uh proposed development? 17. 17.

And what would be permitted under the current zoning? Do we know? It's it's um right now it would be one affordable unit with the 20 would be actually um 17 would would be three units be three and you're only the approval was only for two. So I wasn't I wasn't clear under the current zoning if it was forced to be reduced to three or four. Do we know how many units that would be? And then would we lose one or two affordable house uh unit? We would I don't know what the number would be because the density is lower and the buildings are lower in the in the current zoning. Okay. So, it was approved for two affordable units and you're correct. Saying you're representing that you would add a third. Absolutely.

Okay. Mr. Yanwallet, you had some questions.

Yeah. Um I've got Arthur's memo which I think is public information. Now, this was on the website, I think. And um and Arthur, you attached the resolution from January 11th, 2016 with which gives the permits. It seems to be that there's a couple of meetings leading up to that resolution. Um two two planning board meetings probably in 15. The last set of architectural plans that are cited um 60 um I'm on page eight of the resolution 820 16 sheet architectural plan set prepared by Larry C. Johnson um that it gives his address. Um that is the latest set of plans. My assumption is that's what's going to be built because that was the last set of drawings. Do we have those drawings? I know we saw some renderings, but do we have that actual architectural set so we can connect the dots between the exact thing that was approved in 16 that they're wanting to get an extension of?

We have Yeah, we have we have the plans. It was it probably was not those plans because they I believe they came in after the approval and went to the revisions committee and there were some changes that were made but it wasn't a change to the number of units um or the facade of the building. But that that happens quite frequently. What what actually after the you they get their site plan approval on their drawings.

My question is we should know what was approved if we're extending it. We should have an absolute if the facts are here that there's a set of plans that are dated 1124 2015. These have a basement and um the footings that I saw, they didn't quite anticipate a basement to me. Um but I I again I'm just looking at I don't I don't know. I mean I think a fair question is does the building have a basement or not? I mean, I I just don't know. I don't have the capacity right now to say yes or no if the basis is that everything that was approved in 16 has stayed the same. All we want is just an extension. And I'm not quite there with the facts yet.

But I understand, but we're not seeking reapproval. I understand. Right. I'm just seeking what was approved. I I mean I have a rendering.

Okay. My client is in in in the revision. The basement was um was removed. So there is no basement that matches the footing. Are there drawings of the revision? Do you have drawings? If he's going to he has so far he hasn't spoken to us. So if he's going to speak to us, yes, he'd need to be sworn in. It's up to Mr. Masher how he wants to proceed. M Mr. Nice, can we uh swear, Mr. Quoko? Sure.

Sir, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Would you please state your full name and your business affiliation? Just make sure the lights on. Thank you. Alonso Quokco, Glen Ridge and North Willow Construction Company, Inc. And uh we're located in Clifton, New Jersey. Sit down.

Mr. Koko. Um, a question has been has been asked about the plans. You have building plans with you? Yes, sir. Can you take out a set and u show the board? May I first show Janice the tally so they can know that this was the the set and then I'll pass that around. Janice, you want to look at these first? Okay. Are these copies?

Okay, then let's I guess I don't mark an exhibit because it's not an application. It's not an application, right? So you actually these were stamped. These were the ones that we did all the revisions with. Okay. So you made did you make copies of the revised plans to distribute to the board members? No, these are these were stamped plans from back 16. You know they're dated. Oh, so they go forward in time. They're not they're not identical. Okay. We had several We had several times. Let's make sure you're on a microphone.

So, this is dated September 15th, 2016 and January 11th. Yes. So, this was this was what Okay. This is after uh

I'm sure this is what was approved by the revisions committee because again following the board approval we worked with the applicant there were a series of revisions that would have been reviewed by the revisions committee at the planning board. So that's why I say it would be a little bit different from what was approved uh per that resolution. Mr. Foco, are those the same as this? So, you have copies of what was Okay, that that's fine. I just had Can I just finish? These are plans.

Is your microphone on, Mr. Nissa? I just want to make sure. Yeah, these are plans that are all stamped September se. So, they're identical. these packets that you that you're handing out are all identical. That's what I'm trying to get. And and you're representing that these plans that you're handing out are the latest version of the of the plans of the um of the site plan construction plans because um but they're Yes, these are the ones that after we did all those back and forth revisions with the revisions committee. Okay. So, this is ultimately if there was nothing else, this is ultimately what will be built. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify the record.

As is a followup to Mr. Ian Wallally's um question. It looks like there's a basement plan on this set. That's that's correct. But then it was taken out and I um after that's these are the ones I just recently found from like cuz I saw that the stamps on them. But then we took the basements out and added um additional storage on each floor. The basements were meant for storage and for safety and fire. uh we made a decision to make the units a little bit smaller and put storage outside in the um in the uh in the hallways. So So this is not this because it does have a basement plan A8 is a basement plan. So

and the storage would be different on each floor too. Correct. Right. So this is not an accurate representation. That's okay. Thank you. Keep that if you want. The architectural set that's listed in the resolution, the architect is Larry C. Johnson, Camarav, Somerset, New Jersey, 16 set architectural plan. These are prepared by unlimited house design. So, normally when there's revisions, it's the architect who does the plans, continues to do the revisions. Did you hire a different architect to produce it? Miss, you need to speak into the microphone. Mr. Quoko,

Mr. Johnson got very sick and then he stopped practicing. If if any board members rem I don't think any of the board members remember he was he was an elderly gentleman. Okay. And um he came to a point in his life that he he promised me he would get me an approval and then you know Okay. All right. So then these are what you're testifying to is that these are even though they're prepared by a different architect, they're an extension or they're the basis is what's on page eight of the resolution and these have been revised with you this architect and the committee.

Okay. Do do those committees keep minutes or is it just I mean what I mean does the planning department have a copy of this someplace that says this resolution passed and then the res the the divisions committee approved this or we have any record we have a series of plans that were submitted post resol post post approval and these are changes that don't generate um a site amended site plan they're minor enough that they can be typically approved approved by the revisions committee and these there's a series of changes to the plan that were approved by the revisions committee and we do keep it in our records what was approved

but Janice do we have a copy of the record that says there would be no basement there'll be changes to storage do we have all that on file I'd have to double check I don't I don't have that information with me right now okay and then assuming that this is what is going to be built um would you testify that the footings in the ground match ach this architectural set and that you don't need new footings. The footings that are there will support this building. Yes, that is correct. If you notice the uh letter from the uh the engineer, he verified but he did he didn't reference what was to be built. Uh I'm just trying to create the link between the footings and what is and what was approved. Is it a little bit? Yes.

But the footings don't match the set that you have. The footings they do. No, they don't. Well, they can't cuz the footings, this set that you have still has a basement. No, the revisions page A8. The set, what I'm saying is the set you have is not the latest. Right. Right. It's not the latest version. The footings would have come to the building department. The building department would then had sent the the footings plan to my department for review with consistency with the latest version of the of the site plan. So there are procedures in place that before they could get um sign off from a zoning perspective on their footings plan, we would have had to make sure that it matches the plans that we have on file.

And you will see in the U I believe was an attachment to Mr. Nice's memo. Uh but there was uh there was a modification to the foundation plan and the and the modification then the permit was opened and then closed with the modification to the foundation. So there were actually you know was two iterations of the foundation and the foundation as it exists now is for the building. When was the permit closed? 2021 I believe 2021.

20 I'm sorry it's in uh it's in my memo. Hold on. Yeah, because that's one of the the issues like all the case law like the Gulf case and I think it was the Tarco Corporation case there were active permits involved, right? And then I believe there was some kind of subtrafuge, right? I I kind of just got these cases recently, but uh with G, if I'm not mistaken, the mayor made a false representation that the change to the ordinance they were doing would not uh impact G's property. Right. So the permitting was an important issue was an active permit and that's that was one of the things they focused on. Then you had another case I think it might have been Sodto where there was um a permit that expired after 6 months and in that instance the court decided even though I think they put in a wall to establish a foundation that there was no real taking there and that um All of the cases seem to say that there is an interest in municipalities um controlling development and growth uh for the general welfare uh essentially and that um when a permit was expired that's where they were had more leniency uh in terms of allowing the municipality to enforce new zoning code. Well, that that is partially correct in my opinion. Um, SOTO turned on Sto said specifically that soil borings are not good enough,

right? Not a foundation, but soil borings. Um, there is a case that said demolition is good enough. So, there there was but that was the Trarco case where uh they had an active permit. They were removing piping. they were removing bushes, preparing the building for demo as was considered best practices at the time. So I think that uh case was a little different where Sodto there was not an active permit. Um it had expired. UCC uh uh I think prescribed 6 months uh uh but he let it expire

um the the builder. So I think that was the determining factor there more so than than the substantial step that was taken uh because it even stated that he put in a wall to secure and dug a foundation and things like that. Tarco says I think what's clear for this board quite honestly there is no easy formula to govern every case.

Absolutely. I mean and you know that so that's the equity um and then Toll Brothers um you know talks Toll Brothers allowed um an extension and allowed an extension scenario just like this because the economic crash 2007208 and then Toll Brothers um um extended significantly the time for Toll Brothers to complete their their uh construction. Were there zoning ordinancation for that case? Toll Brothers versus It wasn't in your No, it was Toll Brothers versus West Windsor. It's 2007.

And were there zoning uh changes that would have impacted uh the application or um was it um essentially just a continuation of um the old zoning code? Well, Toll Brothers, yes, I believe there was a change in zoning. I believe I'm not positive. Okay.

But again, the principle was boards have very broad discretion to grant extensions beyond statutory maximums if substantial reliance and good faith and external delays. And it did say the extensions aren't permanent. So there has to be action. What we're what we're seeking from the board tonight is let us get started and let us get finished. I mean, so we're not looking for a permanent extension by any means.

No. Understood. Well, on the um permanent ext when you say permanent extension um Mr. Misera, can you elaborate on that? because there was that Demetri case cited in the Palentine case uh that discussed a permanent uh or essentially a variance that had no limitation, no time limitation, but they were still required to follow zoning code changes um because they did not act timely essentially to start building the garden apartments. Right.

So when you say permanent extension, can you elaborate? Well, there has to be, you know, there there has to be um some kind of whether it be continuum continuity um with without an excuse. Okay. Now, we're coming before this board this evening to say, excuse us. Um you know, yes, we did not act as fast as we would have liked, but from 2020 to 2025, economics have have prevented that. from 20 late 2020 to mid 2022 medical conditions and and COVID prevented that.

I grant the co but there was a substantial um I think uh number of builds in 23 and 24. Um all right I'm going to think about that a little bit further. Thank you planner Kelly if I can ask a question. Yeah. Can you uh lay out with as much uh reasonable detail as possible the other changes in zoning that have happened? Specifically, the down zoning. It was it was this this is on Glenidge Avenue and following the um I believe it was in 2018 the township amended the master plan, right,

to uh create a new zoning district for Glen Ridge Avenue. believe it's the C3 zone district. The council subsequently uh adopted the zone change. So that all happened after this was approved and it went from a right now it's a six six stories is permitted because it used to be the C1 zone down to I believe it's four stories. Um and it also reduced the density. It was previously 55 units per acre and I don't know offhand right now. I I can easily look that up, but we actually decrease the density as well.

So that's really the crux of the issue here. If if the applicant is cheerfully um adding the unit that brings them up to the 20% threshold and there's no 25% because there's no use uh uh seeking of a change of use, then it is the height. And so this is a five-story building and we don't know if it was because that that's that's the primary reason that you would be seeking relief. Correct. Okay. So just so we know what it's about,

Miss Excuse me, Miss Tal. It looked to me that u the C3 central business zone was enacted on June 21st, 2016. Do you think that is that correct? I think you just said 2018. That's what the zoning ordinance says. That's that's what I thought I saw in Yeah. And this was approved in January of 2016 was when the resolution was. So, yes, it was that same year. Okay. So, but then Mr. Mera, you said that the when was the permit issued to install the foundation? Um, the permit was issued um July 3rd, 2017. Right.

And then add and then additional permits December 6, 2018 and March 20, 2019. So, was the initial permit issued after the zone was changed? Yes. Okay. Because that seems to contradict your Well, that's based on what Miss Tally just said. Yes. Can we look at it? Can we look at this? That's what I'm I'm trying to understand because I there was a note I think in here that said the foundation was poured before Montlair enacted new ordinances on building height and inclusionary housing. And I'm not sure that's the case. Inclusionary maybe maybe on inclusionary, but inclusionary is not really an issue if they're willing to do it. It's the the inclusionary zoning had take took place in 2009. Oh, okay. That that was a long time previous. So the foundation was not poured before no that change.

Right. No, that was 12%. Correct. It was in 2000 when they first got their approval because they I believe and this is all prior to my time, but I recall that the application was made in 2007. It was approved in 2009. Back at that when it was the application was made the set aside was 12%. And it was 20 20% in 2021 or 22.

Then after they submitted their application and I believe it was 2008 um because that's when we got substantive certification that set aside was increased to 20% but because they had made their a complete application in 2007 they were under the 12% inclusionary zoning and not the 20% all along. So it gets very convoluted. But the main issue remains the height and and therefore the three or four units of that and the entirety of the of the of the drawings.

Yeah. And any other changes to the zoning ordinance which we may not be aware of. That's I just want to make that part of the record. Well, that's our position would be that's what we're asking to allow the the prior approval to survive. So, just to emphasize, it's now three stories. The C3. So, it is it's two full stories that that this building would be would lose. Correct. Although, I believe there's a setback. There's a Janice. Isn't there a um Can you go more than three if if if there's a No. Minimum the maximum building height is three stories, 37 feet.

Okay. Um and the maximum density is 40 units per acre. So under the current zone, right? Um and also to establish just that you are not uh you know you say that like things stop you know for financial reasons or for medical reasons and Lord knows I've read stories about how Montlair had to move. it's township hall um from 2012.

Uh so things take time, you know, on our side too, but other things change as well. So if you're building this building now, there's going to be building code that will have changed substantially and you will have to comply conform with that. Yes. Right. So there are things that you are acknowledge that you're going to have to comply with. Yes. This may be in a slightly different bucket, but not fully. So this is the issue is whether or not that was an important change and I mean the people who are going to be asking us from the public for relief or or something we'll be focusing on that. So it's you know just want to make sure people know why we're here.

Well the zoning was also adopted by the council right. So I think that's a significant policy consideration um that was the will of the council uh when they made that change. So I think that's something we have to take into consideration here as well. Isn't that part of balancing the equities? You know what? Yes.

Who who you know whichever decision we make, isn't that really the test of the equities? Who's harmed more? Who's likely to prevail? Things of that nature where you know is is this property owner harmed if we say no. um because you know they're out the money for foundations and and anything else or perhaps you know the lost revenue of a smaller building versus what what the public and my recollection kind of clearly said. We want Glenidge Avenue downzoned.

I'm going to go back. I'm just trying to get the pieces of the puzzle lined up. January 16th. Tony, your mic on. January 16 got approval. You may have to move it closer. Thank you. January 16th. That was that was approval for for these plans. I think the date of the resolution after the date of the resolution, the applicant came in and working with the revisions committed. These are the plans. There's testimony that these are the plans, right? I pulled the wrong box and I apologize when I left my office. Those are not them.

That's all I can Um, I'm back to square one then. I mean, if we're approving something that happened before, let's see what happened before because we we have this lack of I mean what because there was a set of plans when the building department approved of the location, the strength, the diameter, etc. or whatever you put piles in or columns. There was a set of plans that was presented to the building department that should have matched some architectural set of drawings. Although you want your columns to match up, right? So there was some set of architectural documents that were used to generate those foundation plans. Those are the pieces of the puzzle that I just love to see to make sure that there's a continuation of effort even though there's little breaks in time that the footing the footings are a huge um um important factor in this because that's to Arthur's definition of that construction has started and actually commenced on each and every structure permitted. I think there's only one structure. It's one building. So the footings are really really important to link to whatever was approved at the time the resolution being you know in January of 16. So um I mean I was I didn't realize that these might not match exactly but um

I just just one comment I I know you there's one building but there's multiple structures. There's also the surface parking lot associated with the parking variance that's part of the application as well but that has not started nothing. Where's the That's the first floor of the building, isn't it? No, because the building, the parking lot extends beyond the building. As I as I recall, a structure would be anything of any material that is built upon the property. You're probably not going to have footings for the park. The that'll be an on. You're talking about one building, not one structure, structures to to use technical language.

I'm trying to make it easier for you. I know to use technical language you're talking about there's one building. It seems like there's one structure to me. If there's a surface parking lot that doesn't that doesn't require footing structure and and the board and this is one of one of the things that tripped over my my department. We granted a parking variance. the parking variance is reflected in the in the parking lot because the parking lot ex I don't know if you were on the planning board when this was approved because the parking lot goes over the culvert

and the and so the parking lot that's part of the structure and the and the parking variance is a is is part associated with that. So again that part of it was not was not started and there was a variance associated with that. So that was one of the things that gave pause to to the zoning officer quite frankly as we were going over these plans. So So then so it doesn't meet the definition of each and every structure then that was the concern. So then we can't say yes based on that. I'm just you I don't follow the

well um Arthur's memo says that the approval shall expire by limitation unless such construction or alteration shall have actually commenced on each and every structure permitted by said variance that's permit I don't think the intention there is to because under the municipal land use law a structure is defined as anything that is built upon the property. So it would not be a parking lot generally is done last. So it would not be that you have to start the parking lot because nobody starts the parking lot the same time that they do footings. Well, that's where I was going with it because I thought that

I was trying to get over this qualification. I was thinking of it as one structure. You're done. You got that. Okay. But my question is what is the structure that you're building? I I keep coming back to that because, you know, we're saying that, okay, you can go build this building, just connect the pieces of the puzzle to what was approved with revisions. So, we have some evidence that whatever we're allowing 10 years later was indeed what was approved in 16.

Well, I think that's historically that's what the file that's what the file says. I mean it's a very large file with all of the changes that have been made and ultimately the revisions committee did did approve all of the ch or multiple times the changes. So we do have that as you can imagine it's a very thick file in my office and when they came for their uh inspections and approval of their footing and foundations plan that's what we looked at to make sure that it worked.

Is it hard to just show us whatever the results of that? I mean to say here's a set of plans after revisions that you can testify to that link to this uh January of 2016 um planning board resolution. Simple as that. We can we can look through the I was kind of hoping the applicant could bring their plans to you um because the file is very extensive. we can go through it. But, uh,

well, when you set out when you set out to start building this building, you know what you want to build. So, if you saw those plans, you I mean, I'm sorry. I I don't want to make it seem like I'm oversimplifying what I'm looking for, but I I'm just trying to get out whatever was approved before, some evidence that it's been reviewed and approved. If this set that was mentioned, this Mr. Johnson, whatever his name was, the architect. If that still existed, then there'd be no issue because we have evidence in the in the in the um resolution about what set of plans were approved. But we what we've been presented with is doesn't connect.

But then but then permits would not be would not have been issued if they didn't match. But then what was what was presented? I don't think the permits were supposed to be issued anyways. I'm sorry. I I'm not sure the permits were supposed to have been issued anyways. And what based based on the expiration of the variance section 202-20 of our our ordinance or that they were more than six months. Yeah. I I don't think I mean that we can look at Januch versus Verona. I mean reasonable reliance and I I don't think No, no, no. That's not that's not the chair's point. That's not Yeah. I'm not I I understand where you're going with that and your argument, you know, is that we're stopped from from um

taking action against you, but um no, my point is I don't think that the the foundation plan was supposed to be approved because you're past that window where your variance was had expired, but it did get approved, which is where your case law, right, what you're saying. But I'm my point's slightly different, but I think what Mr. Ian Wallally wants is some comfort that the foundations that were put in match the building that was approved as revised.

But they just to know just to know what was intended to be built 10 years ago because we're saying yes to that. So we don't we have this which has a basement in it. They're not building a basement. We don't have a set of plans to know. There's one other complication here and it's it's uh shown on page three of my memo and specifically up at the top where it says July 3, 2017 permit 17-1462 issued and then I I drop a a foot uh after NJAC 523-16 I drop a footnote and tell you what that uh what that regulation says and That suggests to me that uh what can be permitted at that point in time may not necessarily be what is ultimately going to be uh the building. You can read it.

Okay. So that creates Is your microphone on? Just make sure. Yeah. So that creates the possibility that the building could change in the future. I believe that's what that means. But that's relative to whether or not you can get a foundation permit, not relative to what was approved in 2015 leading.

I just wanted to give that gloss on that. the foundation. I'm I'm sorry. I'm just I'm I'm trying to follow. But the foundation was approved. The foundation had to be based upon the final plan that was submitted. They have to match. So I'm not sure. I'm sure

my question is let's see the final plan. Simple as that. whatever whatever the applicant put forth before the building department that positioned those the pilings. um let's just have a look at that and have a reasonable assurance that it matches what cuz we're saying we want to keep alive the okay the action that the board took in 16 I think I mean I understand okay that's not unreasonable let's see what we have and then we can

what Janice said that there is a file that exists and there was a review there was a review committee so there must be some memo Oh, said the revisions committee has done this and here's a set of plans that resulted from it. There is there is we we do have a file and we do have documentation. Um I am looking now Janice at the footing and foundation plan that was approved April 20th, 2021. April 22nd, 2021. That was approved by the building department. That's approved by the building department. Okay. So that's is that not helpful? No. Okay. Um Mr. Mr. Chairman, we'll ask Miss Tally to dig into the file and we'll come back. I mean, okay,

I hate to waste the board's time and I hope I hope this at least was not a waste of time. I think we know what the issue is. Um, so we can come back and uh um, you know, hopefully present it to the board beforehand. Um, Miss Tally, is that okay? I my problem is I probably only have one copy of a big plan of that. Does do you want me to provide copies to all the board members of for this future date? I think that would be helpful. Okay. So maybe Mr. Quoko has a copy.

I'll work with Mr. Kuoko to to to make get those copies of the final um ver the final the version that was finally approved by the revisions committee. uh to the board for the next meeting whenever this is continued to. Okay. Okay. We'll need 15 copies. Mr. Neman,

I just I may have missed it. What date was the foundation actually poured? Because I know those plans are from 2021, but there was a permit alteration in which no work was done and there were inspections for footings in 2018. And the note in the memo just says foundation poured. It doesn't have a date anywhere. So, like when did they actually go into the ground?

I've got uh inspection 320 19 sticker. Um these are ones are added trailer to keep these are the site that has to stay on site and before then it was 12 61 18 and you actually made and you poured the foundation too. We we pou well more than that we put those concrete pilings all the way in the ground. Well yeah that's the found those are the footings. That's the the footings. You got the footings and you poured the foundation. Correct.

Was the foundation ever approved by the building department? The footings. Only the footings. Okay. Only the footings. So the foundation was never approved. Correct. Was foundation poured at the same time as the footings or at a later date? Just did the footings. Okay. So when was the foundation poured? Foundation was not poured yet. Oh. Oh. Okay. Yeah, it's the footings if you um so solely the footings. That is correct. Okay. And that was in 2018 and 19 and well 19 they were Yeah. Okay. So So you got a permit for the footings and the foundation but you only did the footings. You never did the foundation. That's there's no foundation.

But that's what that's what your memo said, Mr. Misera. Foundation poured before Montlair enacted new ordinances on building height and inclusionary housing. That was my understanding because the foundation permit had been issued and approved. So that should be footings. Footings. That's what footings. Well, footings are a foundation. I mean, it's part of the foundation, but it is part of the foundation. So it's not the foundation is kind of encompassing the whole thing. Yeah. I don't know if I want to split too many. Theoretically, I would imagine you're going to have to

place a steel. These are the foundation because it would be a steel structure. The the the the concrete walls and the block walls that we put on the outside would just be all the weight's going to be on steel. So the next step would have been raising the steel on this and then put the So there's no more excavation, no grade beams, nothing like that that need to get poured. Sorry. Do you have any grade beams? I mean, now I'm getting probably a little too far in the weeds, but Sorry. No, I mean, we we have we the the footing and foundation permit, which I have here. We have

it shows everything the the the all the concrete that we we were going to pour for for the walls. Okay. The only thing that we didn't have, right, was the steel, right? The steel drawings weren't done yet. calculations were done based that's how we we the calculations were done for the footings of course to all the weight but uh no like the physical walls would just because we put walls all the way around because part of the structure is parking and for fire safety and then of course the ground floor has the elevator entry and the store. So just to make it easier and smarter and structurally safer because we're putting a lot of brick on it, you know, the lift would come out, we'd have all that that concrete block on the bottom to hold the weight for all that brick going out too. If I may, I think Miss Tally's suggestion is probably the best one, which is why doesn't the applicant work with her and provide to the board the the most relevant aspects of the file? And I assume that your office has that and to the extent you don't have, Mr. Quoko has expressed a willingness to provide it. And that way we can all be on the same page, including Mr. Ian Wallally having answers to his questions. Mayor. Um,

yes. Um, Attorney Nie, can can you help me please with this? I'm trying to understand um because we've been presented with some case law and some other things. Um, does that mean that the um the changes in zoning, the three stories versus five and the 40 units per acre are not are not relevant here at all? because I'm just trying to figure out do we have any um dialogue conversation with that or no because he's presented some other cases where it was okay. That's the issue right down the middle of what you just mayor. So when do we get get with it?

It depends on how the applicant wants to proceed. The the goal here is to determine whether or not there has been sufficient development in the property so as to allow the applicant to have the issuance of new permitting based on the plans that exist back in 2016 or 2017. If the board determines that no, there's not been development, there's not been anything going on, we're we we don't want to have new permits issued in connection with this because of whatever the reasons are, then the applicant would be required to come back before the board with a new site plan that is based on the zoning as it currently exists.

Okay, we're just not there yet. We're not there yet. You're still talking about the footings and and what year. Was it foundation or was it was just footings? Okay. By talking about the footings, we're getting into the weeds. I get it. And no, I'm with the weeds, but I'm just sitting here trying to figure out if we go back and then they come back with some more plans and then this body says, well, that's all fine and well, but we are not with the um five stories. We are now looking at the three stories. We've evaluated that for that extremely dangerous traffic intersection there and we think that it will, you know, do more detriment to the neighborhood to have the five stories and the three stories. So, we want to get on with with that. That would be coming later.

That will come later. Okay. I presume that's the equivalent. Okay. That would be it. Okay. Now, there would be nothing that would be done because circumstances. Okay. I'm just trying to get the the order. Thank you. I appreciate trying to get to the pul. I appreciate you. I'd love to get to the pulse. Thank you.

One more smaller question, which is the the basement was taken out between these drawings and the final site plan approval. Is that correct? So that site plan would have indicated somewhere that those that that storage base cuz in other ones that I've seen we've had to compel where the storage for the unit, right? The the final plans will show the storage space as well. And it did and it did so when it was approved. No, that's the was my the plans that are in the site plan approval will have a basement. Yeah,

the basin was taken out in revisions later on. That's what we're trying to find. Right. So there and there are going to be other revisions too, aren't they? They were approved they were approved by administratively, not as part of the board's approval. Right. I understand. Right. I think so. This set here it was the board approved a set of plans. Later the applicant came to the revisions committee of this board and said look I I've got something that

I think is small enough that doesn't have to go to the full board. It can be handled by what we've set up intentionally with this board to handle small revisions that you know the revisions committee. I think it's up to them in conjunction with the planning office to decide whether that committee feels it can handle whatever revision comes forward or there have been times where that committee goes I think the whole board needs to see this and then that applicant comes back before the whole board but to administratively make the process go quicker so that these meetings also don't go till 1 in the morning every night we've set up a committee to handle what we feel are minor revisions

right their contention is that nothing has changed that there was just a pause we're going back to 2016 and I just suspect that over 10 years there will be other revisions just the state-of-the-art of the way things are built just the aesthetics of the way it may look and so for us to pretend that you know you can't have it both ways either time stopped or it didn't

there's a difference between the architectural the building plans and the site plan the architectural building plans are totally different. They're much more detailed. They might change. Yes. But the plan, ultimate site plan that was revised and then approved will not change unless we go back to the revision committee, but it may have included the change of the basement. It did. We It did do that. Yes, that was through the through committee. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, I think maybe an example of one thing it might have changed that this board doesn't handle is say the building didn't need sprinklers back when the this board approved it, but now building code would say has to be fully sprinklered. That's not something we get involved in, but something that certainly can change once definitely. Right. Construction officials definitely get involved with that. Yes. Right. Right. Does anybody else need other information? Is there anything else that we would like this applicant when they come back to bring to us to provide beyond what we've already discussed? No. Okay. So, what date should we have them come back?

Do we I don't know if we need a date at this point. Why don't we once we get the once the information we get the copies, we will put you put this on a on a on an agenda because honestly, we don't have our calendar set for next year. That's also true. Okay, it's a good point. So, okay. Okay. Yeah. Does that work? Thank you, Mr. Chair. That works fine. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you for the indulgence. Appreciate it. We will have the calendar at the next meeting. We'll do the calendar at the next meeting on my my administrative assistants put it together today. We're tweaking it and then we'll have it at the next meeting. Okay. All right. Um I mean, there's only changes. Yeah.

Let's let's take a quick 5minute break. Come back and next up will be 260 Park Street. 5 minutes trying to surprise people.

Miss Tally, are we back on the record on your end? Okay, welcome back everyone. Next up is application 2940 260 Park Street, 260 Park Street LLC. And I'll note for the record, Mr. Borchoff is back on the day. Um, okay. Mr. Tremulac, good evening again. Uh members of the board, Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of the applicant 270 Park Street LLC.

Uh this is a uh continuation of our application for site plan approval to construct a new three-story mixeduse building on property located at 260 Park Street in the NC neighborhood commercial zone district. As you'll recall, we commenced this hearing last month. the uh I believe it was a November 3rd meeting. The proposal is for a building that will contain approximately 900 square ft of uh commercial space on the f first floor which is anticipated to be occupied by either a pizzeria or a bagel shop. Um, and then there will be seven residential apartments on the second and third floors with one of those apartments being an affordable unit in compliance with the town's inclusionary zoning ordinance. Now, we've made some uh recent plan revisions uh since we were here last month um in response to uh some questions, some concerns, suggestions expressed by various members of the board and perhaps members of the public as well. Uh so, we're going to start by reviewing those revisions with the uh with the board this evening. I I would just note that one of the revisions, as you've probably already seen, um calls for the uh relocation of the trash and recycling uh from a trash enclosure area that was originally proposed in the uh in the rear yard of the property. We've now moved that to uh be internal within the building and um that eliminates one of the two variances that we required. Um we no longer need variance for the trash enclosure to intrude into the required

rear yard setback. that area has now been replaced with uh some additional um plantings and a slight increase or decrease in the impervious coverage of the property. So again, that leaves us with a conforming site plan application uh with the exception of a minor parking deficiency variance for two parking spaces where we're providing um 16 spaces whereas 18 are required under the uh ordinance. Um, we also need four, I think, very minor design waiverss which, you know, our professionals will discuss. So, I'm prepared to proceed. I don't know if Janice, did you want to mark additional exhibits before we begin?

Yes, please. Um, A15 is the revised architectural drawings prepared by GSA Architects dated November 19th, 2025. A16 are the revised engineering drawings um uh dated uh November 19th, 2025. A17 is the PowerPoint uh dated December 1st, 2025. And A18 is the revised report from Neglia Engineering dated November 30th, 2025.

Okay. Um just putting that down. Okay. Um so I'd like to begin by uh recalling the project architect Gregory Schwitzer um to discuss a recent uh plan revisions. Greg, um you understand that you're still under oath? Yes. Okay. All right. And um your office prepared a revised set of the architectural plans with the revision date of November 19, 2025. Correct. Correct.

Okay. Will you please review those plans with the board focusing obviously on the revisions that were made to the uh prior, you know, plans that were discussed at the last meeting? Sure.

All right. Good evening, uh Madame Mayor, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. Again, my name is Gregory Schwitzer and I'm here to discuss um the changes that we've made to the drawing since my last appearance here. And uh these changes are actual um the direct response to a lot of the comments that we received uh during uh the first hearing. First, the request of the board members with respect to the refuse and waste containment area being located in the rear setback of the property. Um, as Alan mentioned, uh, we've now have relocated this to the interior portion of the building on the first floor, and the trash enclosure in the rear yard, like I said, is no longer needed. To accommodate this revision, the retail space was reduced by about 78 square ft, bringing the retail space uh to a total of 900 square ft, and the building lobby and egress stairs were also reconfigured. Our updated presentation also illustrates a 1,200 square foot basement level which was not part of our last presentation but we did speak of it and I just wanted to make sure that you had that as a part of that. It was also part of the drawings that was previously submitted. So it's nothing nothing new nothing's changed there. Uh the uh basement um in the drawings will show that we have approximately 1,200 square ft of area. um portions of it is uh partially unavated uh where the elevator and the uh refuse room would be located directly above. Interior adjustments um were also required on the second and third floors based on the uh reconfiguration of the building lobby and the stair. Um, we ended up rotating the interior stair in the lobby uh in the opposite direction and pushed it closer to the uh

restaurant area and leaving that area away from the uh the parking side of the building. Um the other interior adjustments um that were required was uh for unit one on the second floor and the third one was on unit five on the third floor. both facing Park Street. The second floor changes includes uh the following changes. The unit was increased from 1390 ft to 146 square ft and the den was relocated to provide window access. The tenant storage rooms were reorganized into four rooms now each provide 39.5 square ft area and a total of 355 cubic feet of storage area each. The third floor changes included a uh new addition. Uh previously we were looking to store bicycles in the uh basement of the building. Now we've included a bicycle storage area of approximately 84.45 square ft. Uh total of 760 cubic feet and that's added near the uh elevator lobby on that floor.

Unit five. You're going to you're going to walk through these uh the projection, right? Sure. If you pull that up. I I think it's going to be a little bit easier to follow. Um suggest Yeah, because I'm not sure I'm following the bicycle store. You might have lost me at bicycle storage. No worries. Nothing against bicycle storage. But yeah, I think it'd be helpful if you're if you're speaking about these slides if you could walk through them and just show us Thank you.

Why don't you go back to the basic um site plan first and just point out you know the relocated trash and recycling and what's being proposed in the area where the trash enclosure had been originally proposed. just with reference to the it's a lot easier for the board to follow. Actually, actually I'll start with this slide which is the basement and then I can work my way up. How's that? Okay. Okay. So, uh this is the uh basement diagram that um was included into the uh presentation and you just may have to shout a little more. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I think so.

All right. I'll try and keep it at this level. Okay. And if you need to get up, there's handheld mics if you need to get up and walk over as well.

Okay, no problem. Um, so this is the perfect. Thank you. The seller and uh or the basement actually. And the stair originally was located in this direction. We actually turned it in order to accommodate space in this area uh on the upper level for the refuse room. The elevator is typically in the same location. And then the storage area that's located in the basement um pretty much remains the same with the utility room closest to the street on this plan. Uh this is the first floor plan. Um this is very uh critical um with the changes that we made because it does show the refuse room now being integral part of the first floor uh of the building. The restaurant space has now reduced as I stated in square footage. Um, it was previously uh 978 square ft. It's currently 900 square ft. And these bubbles, and you'll see these bubbles throughout the drawings, were other areas where there have been changes. There were structural changes to the building as well to where we actually removed uh a set of four columns from the uh parking area to give us a little bit more clear access for parking um planning. This is the second floor plan and the changes here are uh the den was actually moved from this side of the floor and just placed down along the windows and since the stair rotated on the first floor plan, we were able to reorganize the storage in a way to where they were a little bit more uniform and consistent. And this is the bicycle room here with the entrance leading into the room here. These plans, the revised plans show the

actual square footage of the tenant storage spaces. Yes. On the plans, right? That is correct. And I think you gave the uh the amount of the spa, you know, the size of those storage areas. Yes. A few minutes ago. Um what did you say 385? I'd say 355 cubic feet and the municipal code requires 200. So, we've met and have exceeded that requirement for all seven of the apartments. For all seven. Thank you. That is correct. Okay. Okay. And but just while we're on this plan, what are those rectangles to the plan south outside of the building? These? Yes.

These are structural support columns. Are they visible from out the exterior? No, only at the parking level. I'm That's only Yeah, you're not going to I don't quite understand your question. Well, so this is a second floor plan, right? And this is the second floor plan. Yes. So, are these attached to the exterior of the second floor? Those are footings and foundation indications along that side of the building. You're not going to see peers running up and down the side of the building. Let me um see if I can find an elevation for you so you can understand how the building is. This is what you're going to see

in those what look like lighter columns. That's is that a column? Is this Let this Let's just make sure that we're talking about the same thing. I just want to make sure. Are you talking about these vertical? Yes. Yes. That is structure to the building. So that's structure to the building. So that is visible from the exterior. That is correct. Yes. But you won't see that from the street because that's set back quite far from the front of the building. The building is starts here 20 ft back from the uh property line and then you have 60 ft and then these peers begin to appear in the back.

And so those protrude from the facade from the what is it a brick facade there? It's somewhat. Yes. But they're integrated um somewhat. Yes. But they but but your plan view shows them sticking out some dimension. I'm not sure what that dimension Oh, wait. There it is. 2 feet 6 in. Does that sound right? That sounds correct. Okay. So, that is visible and that will stick out from Yeah. the wall for lack of a better term. Okay. Absolutely. But none of that is visible from the uh street face. Okay. Um, yeah, those are shown on the site plan, too.

That's what I I just want to make sure I understood what I was looking at. That's what I thought they might be, but yeah, you know, and if in case anybody in the public is, you know, had questions about that as well. And the the drive aisle is inside those columns. Inside the columns. Okay. And then there's a landscape barrier between that and the property. That's right. Just on the opposite side of that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. The only Mr. Hernandez, one question. Um Yeah. Cuz we're talking about the storage areas.

Yeah. Um, I noticed on your second floor plan you have tenant storage notes as one, two, three, and five, whereas it's unit one, two, three, and four on the plan. Is that a intentional or is that that's that's not intentional. It's it's definitely a typo. There's there's four units and there's four uh storage units. Okay. Because then on the third floor plan, you have tenant storage, four, six, and seven. So presumably that four should be five and that fourth.

There's a unique situation here. Um, and again, this is just how the owner decides to aortion the actual storage units to the residential units. Okay. But, uh, there's one unit in the building that is a duplex. So, one may opt to have it on the upper level or the lower level. I'm just assuming that he would make that determination. Okay. You know, upon leasing the spaces. Okay. And there's also a common tenant storage area. That is correct. Can you elaborate? Baby strollers, things like that. Um, be open to anybody. He's benevolent. Okay. Benevolent or it's required by the ordinance?

Which is it? Benevolence or is it required by the ordinance? I mean he has a he has a pretty large uh I think uh tenant common storage it is required. Yes. Do common stoages. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. But the size is is much larger than it needs to be. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Uh with regard to this um I can go back to my plans. Sorry. So this is a floor plan of the third floor and uh these are the storage units that are located here. And the difference here is we turned the den into a bedroom because of the rearrangement of the stair. it actually gave us a better flow and an opportunity to increase the size of this unit. So we took the additional 150 square ft and we placed it into the apartment and there in lies uh enough space to provide a third bedroom in that particular unit. Pretty much everything else stays the same. The balconies are each 65.9 square feet except for the two on units one and five which are the Park Street facing ones and those are 100 square feet.

So you added a bedroom is what you're saying to that one unit. We added one bedroom to that unit and we reduced the size of the rest the retail space on the ground floor. Okay. And we added the uh refuse room into the uh ground floor. So it kind of plays with the numbers a little bit now. change things a little bit and I assume your engineer will discuss how that may change parking calculations. Okay. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Okay. And then uh with respect to uh all of the other things that we talked about um particularly regarding fire safety and separation of the parking area from the apartments above. we've uh worked out with our structural engineer and the owner has agreed to uh have a concrete slab uh separating those two areas which was not part of the design previously. So now we've uh increased the ability to shield the apartments from the unlikely but possible event of a battery fire uh in the parking area. So um wanted to make sure that I pointed that out. I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that. H what did you do in order to reduce the possibility of fires from the parking area, the the battery?

Yeah, we didn't do anything to reduce the possibility. What we did is separate the spaces with a greater a let's just say a more uh secure or stringent means of construction to separate the two spaces. So instead of having um non-conrete uh slab, we now have a concrete slab separating the first floor and the parking area which was not a part of the design before. Uh the second floor. Second floor. Second floor. That is correct. Separating the the first floor and the second floor. And and so it is a slab. It is a concrete slab.

Concrete. How how how thick how how deep how will that concrete slab? Unfortunately, I cannot tell you that I'm not I don't understand the thickness of the slab at this time. That's something that my engineer has worked on. I can certainly provide that information later. Okay. Um, thank you.

Okay. So, aside from these uh uh revisions, the overall footprint of the building and the project remained the same and pretty much unchanged um from the last presentation. And to the best of my uh knowledge, I don't think that we've introduced anything that's um substantially new or different to the overall design of the building. Okay, Greg, can you go back on the uh on the PowerPoint to um the the you know the first page of your revised plans which show the the ground floor, the first floor with the parking there. Okay. So, um, in the area where the trash enclosure formerly was on the prior plan, um, you're now showing that as what? Landscaped area.

Yes. Okay. Which increases the amount or decreases the impervious coverage a little bit. Correct. Further. Okay. Um, okay. And then also when you look at that sheet, if you recall at the last meeting, you weren't certain as to the uh width of the columns in the parking area. You've since ver have you since verified? Yes. The size of those columns with the structural engineer? Yes. Okay. and

and they're 14 in wide and can range up to 2 feet in length, but that would be parallel to the parking instead as opposed to perpendicular, which I believe was part of the problem that uh the town engineer saw in the drawings. Right. And the revised plan that's shown up there um um takes into account reflects the 14inch width of the columns. Correct. That is correct. Okay. And there's been a slight adjustment in the width of the parking spaces um as a result of the columns. Yes.

Okay. And I know the site engineer will discuss the parking layout, correct? More detail, but I just wanted to confirm that you had um satisfied yourself and uh with regard to the uh the required width of the columns um in the in the parking area. Um, okay. One other thing I think that was was addressed at the last meeting. I think there was a request by the board to perhaps see some of the uh samples of the of the brick that you were proposing for the building exterior. Yes. Did you attempt to obtain sample?

I did attempt but have not received. You weren't able to receive them. All right. But certainly willing to share that once we But you've represented, you know, that the color of the brick will be substantially similar to what you showed in the rendering at the last meeting that was part of the PowerPoint. Um I think that the rendering actually shows it being uh extremely red actually and um Oh, okay. That's a good print out of it. Yes, I'm referring to the last page of the PowerPoint that was Yes, discussed it last week. That is correct. So, it's going to be similar. Very much so.

Okay. Unfortunately, you don't have a sample to show you, but okay. Um, that's all I have for Mr. Schwitzer. Questions from the board? Mr. Ian Wallally? I have four sheets of paper that I'd like to hand out. Is your Is your microphone on? This is all public information. And there's two pieces of paper from zoning and then two of publicly available information. And I think it's important if I pass them around to the board and whoever wants them because I'll just be citing from them as opposed to doing that. Is that per permissible? We'll have to mark it. We'll mark them exhibits. So maybe once it gets around to Miss Tally, she can decide how best to mark it.

And you have copies for the applicant as well. Yeah, there'll be plenty coming around that way. It'll pop out. one. Yep. These appear to be to my Are these the same thing, Mr. Inwall? This is just one. There's Yeah, just take a pack of There's four sheets in each. Um, yeah, one pack. Okay.

I've got a couple extra here in case. So the um these are just questions I had. This might this stuff might be minor or not, but I um the first sheet is from the NC commercial zone. It's the um it's a zoning code. So uh 34790 A3 says any curb cut for access lanes to parking shall not interrupt the street frontage of the building. In this case, it does. So, my question is, you know, how are we to interpret that? So, the curb cut is directly in front of the building and does does interrupt the street frontage.

I think the intent is it's Thank you. The intent of that requirement was that it not be in the the access not be in the middle of the building. And when we say street frontage of the building, well, the the curb cut is directly it interrupts the front.

It's on the side. It's it's actually on the side of the building, not in the in the middle. So, I think any curb cut for access lanes to parking shall not interrupt the street furniture of the building. Um I again I I believe my when we when we talked about this the idea was that it would be not in the middle of the building. It would be on on the side. So yes it is underneath the building not to the side of the building but it's not in the middle. So it doesn't interrupt the facade of the building. I mean regardless of it being in the middle or not. I don't think that's I I just recall the

I'm just Was that about a specific building in uh a storefront on either side and there was a driveway in the middle? I recall that was on I recall that the issues being with the expressed by the board were when the driveway went through the middle of the building. I Yeah, I don't think it was orange. It was Elm. Elm I think it might have been Elm. There's a building on Elm Street. There's a building like that on Walnut Street as well that were where where it was an issue. And it that I think I believe the intent was to get it to be on the side of the building, not straight in the middle.

I recall that discussion too, Tony. I believe it was um two storefronts on either side and they wanted to uh make sure that it was an uninterrupted facade if you had a driveway. Yeah, it probably could be wordsmith better. Okay. But as I recall, that was the intent.

Okay. Um okay. So then um 34795 C2. So the I haven't this one is a little bit um stronger in in my view. The the sideyard on the side not the northern side. The northern side is supposed to be 8 ft because it a butts a residential property. The south side has to be either zero or six. Um, and the applicant is indicating that he basically has a zero setback on the drawing. It's 0.3 ft, but it's only a very small portion. Most of the setback that's on that side, it's not dimensioned, but I think it's about 3 feet. And I know why it's either zero or six because in in many of these buildings in neighborhood um commercial, they abut each other. So, you're allowed zero setback, but it has to be fireproof with no windows and so forth. And if you can't do zero, you have to do six. So, I also want to point out and um point it out to the relevance of that additional space that might be necessary because when you look at the letter that came from the Monontlair Fire Department, um item six, it says the proposed setback along the southern property line presents a mutual exposure concern between this building and the adjacent structure. In the event of a fire in either building, radiant heat transfer and limited separation could accelerate exterior flame spread and restrict firefighter positioning for hose and ladder operations. While a rated exterior wall and protected openings may satisfy code minms, it is recommended that the applicant evaluate whether a modest increase in setback or enhanced fire resistive construction could better mitigate those risks. Um, number seven says the south elevation is proposed at or near the property line for a 29 ft length and that's the limited section.

The the 200 ft is about 3 ft. Limited setbacks resist ground ladder placement and exterior hose operations. The fire prevention bureau recommends maintaining a minimum operable corridor for ground ladder on all sides of the structure. The lack of setback along the south property also limits protection to the adjacent building should either structure experience fire involvement. So I think the the basic premise here is that the setback has to be zero or six. And this is neither. It's it's zero for a for one column, but the vast majority of that doesn't comply with zero or six

and there's no variance as being sought for that. We weren't cited for any, but I'm not saying it was not required, but this is the first we're hearing of it. So, I think that's I think that's because the definition of setback is measured at the closest point to the property line, not that it has to be a continuous setback of zero feet. That was the mindset when you do sideyard setbacks. side setback is zero even if it's only at one point not the entire well I would argue that the purpose of con of having a setback at zero or six feet is because they're both safe

right how you interpret that I think should be with respect to the intent of what was written and the intent is for safety and having a little portion of the building be zero does nothing to make it safer which is the reason why that part of the code is created. Well, that's not how it's measured. In that case, it would have to be a continuous setback. When you measure setback, it's it's from the the closest point of the building to the property line.

And there's nothing that says that it has to be continuous. Unless you're saying that the way this is worded, but Tony makes an interesting point, right? I mean, that's a that's an aesthetic, right? And Tony's talking about safety. So, I think that's No, I'm talking. Yeah.

But the setback also has reasons other than safety, right? Like like health, safety, and welfare includes things like access to light and air. And so the weight on safety may in one direction fall on holding that zero standard for the whole time. Whereas on the access to light and air standard, it falls the other direction where that less than 6 ft but greater than zero is providing that light light and air access that is otherwise desirable in zoning. And so it's not solely a safety standard, right? a safety standard plays a role um and is also considered in the building code. It's also other portions of what we account for in health, safety, and welfare.

So, I think another reason why it's zero or six is that if the property to the south were to build a continuous facade, they would be permitted to build a continuous facade at zero property line. So, with those little columns that stick out, you'd have these little spaces of maybe a foot or so that you'd have to wiggle around to get back through that alleyway. Um, and also the windows would be there would be enough light and air for the windows on this side of the building because they'd been be very very close to that. So, that's why that supports um you know, in in these neighborhood commercial districts, you always have to wonder about what's going to happen to the building next door. you know, I have to construct my facade. Now, if I built the facade six feet back and if they had a zero lot line building on their side, there's still six feet of space that creates a light and air and safety for for an alleyway.

I I think there's I think we're talking a building code versus a zoning code. Well, the zoning code said it has to be either zero or six. And it's zero. Well, well, it doesn't I mean I look at the m the majority of that setback other than a very small point is in the middle that you measure it at the closest that my issue is you measured at the closest point. We've never measured setbacks from anything other than the closest point because it's usually not a straight line. Yeah. And then

but you also when you measure it in an area that says the setback has to be a minimum of this then you'd say okay what's the closest point to that property line it's appropriate to measure it at the closest point but when you have a code which says it's zero or six and nothing in between measuring in that way doesn't do justice to the way this is written minimum side dart setback it's not the sideyard setback I well this has no this Because this doesn't have a minimum. It has an either or. Yeah.

It's either zero or six or greater. I I'll just say that so that no one else is ashamed. I don't really follow this this at all. So what is the sentence? Well, I think boiling it down, it's your setback either has to be zero or six or six or greater. That's it. But it's not It's not really zero.

Well, there on the on the site plan there was one column that's zero. Another one is 0. I mean, this is what it it says a minimum sideyard of 8 ft is required where joining a risen. No sideyard is required other otherwise except that we are provided such sideyard should have a minimum width of six feet. So where there's a where there's a sideyard, this has a sideyard, the minimum width has to be six feet or zero. Well, where there's a sideyard says no sideyard is required otherwise except that where provided such sideyard shall have a minimum width of six feet. So it's zero where the the building adjoins Mhm.

for that one stretch. I guess my interpretation it can be zero and then everybody else everywhere else has to be six feet. Now does it meet that six feet every place else? No. Okay. Okay. So, she's saying beyond the front of the building, six feet. Oh, the third sheet. Is that what she said?

Tony, is your mic on? So I think I think I think what this is is it's like you say it's either zero or six and it can be both on one because the building is not in a straight line. So the section that's at that's that's adjoining the property line. It can be zero but we everything else has to be a minimum of six feet according to this. So I do think that's a new variance. Okay. Okay.

Oh, and then the other um the other thing, I don't think this was done intentionally, but the the the last sheet has um the facades of the different buildings on Park Street. And the building that's in question, it it it's probably a mistake, but it seems like it could be a little disingenuous. If that's where the zero setback is, the spaces on both sides of the building that's in question look about to be the same distance from the property line. So, it doesn't really accurately represent if if if the building supposedly has a zero setback. It looks like there's equal space between the property lines. Are you referring to the last page? L102. I think it's L102.

Okay. or if you also wanted to use Western Park Street elevations in this PowerPoint that's was up but isn't up right now. And by the way, I'm marking this B1 B1. Yeah, Tony's handout. Tony's handout. Yeah. Unfortunately, the the exhibit you're referring to is only to show the proportion and scale of the buildings compared to the others on the street base. So, it's a representation of heights. um was not meant to show not meant because if you you go and measure the property widths in surveys and we put the actual widths of each of these lots on this, you'll see that it varies tremendously.

Well, you did put property lines on it. So, I thought if you're putting going through the trouble of putting the property lines on, they would be accurate. But that it's just it's not I think it should be accurate. Right. I mean this this is the visual representation of the street state streetcape and what I'm hearing is that it's not accurate to property lines to site property widths. I mean I I agree with Mr. Ian Wallally. This this should be as factual as it can be. Agreed. We can revise that

just show appropriate. It's really just the setbacks that aren't really I don't think we have a survey. Mr. Ian Wallally, do you have anything else as part of this? No. Mr. Nice. Yeah, just um Miss Tally, you think that there is a separate variance predicated on uh 347-95C2 that Mr. E and Wally brought to the attention of the board.

I do, but I don't see it. I'm trying to look for trying to look for the dimension. Oh, if you're on the uh site plan SP-3 sheet three of nine from the engineering from the engineer and it's I think it's consistent with what Mr. Ian Wallally provided in in his packet one and a half. There's I see the dimension of 0.3 ft and I see the other dimension of 1.5 ft. Right. So I think the.3 ft is is where the uh that one section um where the driveway is. Uh

but the other ones where the external columns is 1.3 ft. I don't think any of it's six feet. And it would be helpful 8 ft. Yeah, it'd be helpful to understand what the dimension is between the property line and the wall, not the column. Yeah, it's 4T, right? You think it's four feet, Mr. Hernandez? Yeah, I believe it's 4T because the dimension of the column was noted to be 2T 6 in. Okay. Prior testimony, I believe. So 2 and 1/2 plus one and a2. Two and a half plus one and a half. Okay. It's about 4T 4 in. 4' 4 in. Okay, thank you.

What is So it's 1 ft 1T 8 in short. So that's another deviation. Okay. What is Was there another one? No, it's it's the it's the you're not meeting the six foot sideard side. Okay. Distracted. I thought I might have missed it. You accept that? Yeah, it's a just a sideyard setback. Okay. And I assume your notice was for any and all variances that may come up. Always have the catch all. I would imagine you did, but wanted to ask. Y why we have it.

Not everybody does it, but most do. Other questions from the board? It's a quick one. How did you calculate the seepage pit that was added after the DRC? That that's going to be our site engineer testify next. He can provide information regarding that. Council

Mr. Schwitzer, do you need a minute before I ask the public? No, no, no. You if you have to confer over something, I'd rather take your time. No, we're good. We're still looking at the sideyard. Yeah, but that's We're past that now. Okay. Um, any members of the public wish to ask this witness any questions? Please come on up to the lectern. Uh, make sure the green lights on and give us your name and address and ask questions about uh, Mr. Schwitzer's testimony tonight.

Push. There you go. Hi, my name is Claire Silata. I was here the last time. 279 Park Street up the block. I have two questions. One about just what happened just now. You get an evaluation from the fire department and somehow it seems not to have any effect on anything that you're talking about. So, I'm trying to understand why you would ask the fire department to evaluate this, but then kind of dismiss what they're saying about what they need for ultimate safety. That's my first question. But we didn't have any discussion about that.

Well, I it was presented. I mean, you read the the report, correct? So, uh, I'm just trying to understand how how that just kind of disappeared in in everything that we're talking about. So, that's one. The second question I have is to go back to the parking spaces, if I may ask, because again, at the last meeting, I wrote down that there were 20 parking spaces reduced to 18. Tonight, you're telling me that there's 18 parking spaces reduced to 16. Three of those parking spaces are EV and I still didn't get an answer last time as to whether I could park there and not use the EV. Whether it's because if you go into town where all the EVs are, it says no parking except using the EV. So if there's three parking spaces reduced from 16, now we're talking 13 parking spaces. and that doesn't seem to leave much for the public in terms of use. So there's that question and then the other question I have just let's take one question at a time like do you want to respond to that?

This this parking area is not intended to be open to the public. It's intended for people who live in the building or people who are utilizing the going to the restaurant or work. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Using it to go to the restaurant, right? How do you know that? How would I know that if I were going to eat there? Because you know the Westerly, as I said the last time, has public spaces, but there's no sign that says that there are public spaces available and most of the time they're used by the people who work at that restaurant.

That lot and I'm familiar with that because that was my client, my application. That not a public parking lot. That is again intended for the use of the occupants of the building, including the deli and the residents. It's not open to the public. comes out that says it's public parking. So, so that's that's my question then is that you're not accommodating the Uber drivers, the pickups for the restaurant. You're not accommodating them at all. the question, right? If those parking p place I'm trying to understand the parking because even even if I were a resident

you're talking two parking spaces per apartment. Is that what you're talking? Well, so I think the engineer is going to be the primary witness to discuss parking and he has not come up yet. Okay. I see him in the audience. I suspect that's how Mr. Trimmlac's going to proceed. So, um, if you if you would maybe we'll wait and hear what the engineer has to say. Okay. And if it's still unclear, please come back up and ask the questions cuz I want to make sure you get your answers. Okay. I I just I don't think Mr. Schwitzer, even though he did

say the word parking, I don't think he's really testified to the details around it and how it's going to work. And I can tell you from looking at the engineer site plans, there's a lot more details about parking. There's signage for residents. Um there's um a few other things that I think he is the right person who will you know frankly tell us as the board what's going on as well. Okay. And I I have one last question because I know there is a a master town plan which I actually took the time to read. Um and I'm trying to understand that that was 10 years ago, right? Or seven years ago that master plan came out and there's a new one coming I think uh in three years. You already started to work on it. There's not there's no new master plan.

You don't do it every 10 years. No, that's called examine. We will do a master plan. We don't rewrite it. It's not it's just an examination of our current planning documents and development land development ordinances. Okay. So, um my thought was with all of this, it feels like everything gets very rushed. If if you can put it into a question for this witness, that would be helpful. My question is, would you still do this if you couldn't have the mixed use? If you could only have an apartment house,

would this be acceptable to you and the owner? If you did not have a mixeduse, if you only had another apartment added to that, I defer to Miss Tally, but I don't think that would be permitted under the zoning. Don't we need to have mixed use with commercial on the first floor? Really? Oh my god. I think Whose idea was that? Wow. That that I can't answer for you, but I believe that was cons I believe what Mr. Trumbul just said was consistent with what he Well, not testify, but what he discussed at the last hearing. Miss Tally may have some more information.

That's true. We don't permit We don't permit apartment buildings in the NC zone. We only permit mixeduse buildings. We'll shut my mouth. Okay. I learned something tonight. Thank you very much. More questions later. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Well, we we have to make sure you're on the mic so it gets recorded.

I don't know if this is the right time, but I'm just so anxious. My name is Donna Picket. I live directly across from 260. I have hundreds of pictures um in the area that I'd like to submit for everyone. This is my all-star picture of Friday of the traffic. Here is a garbage truck and Thumman's. Can I have your name? I think I missed I'm gonna get to the question. I just missed your name. Donna Picket and your address.

P I C K T. Here's a truck in front of the building in the wrong direction. And that's today at 2:00. Here's an 18wheeler. Wait a minute. I'm talking about your mixed use and asking the question. Well, I just want to know where your question is because this is I'm coming up to the You're going to have the opportunity later to put in whatever. Well, I'm building up to the question. Okay. Here's okay build up to this question if it's more photos of here's an eight

parked right in front of my house. I counted the wheels and you can see the 18-wheeler. I'm working up to the question. Well, please please get to the question. I think we understand your point is that there's a lot of trucks and you need to I need my time. You need a witness if you're going to ask them. We also need to hear from everybody else and more witnesses. So I I understand your point. Give me like give me like 60 more seconds. 60 more seconds. But what's what's the question? I'm I'm going to submit all of these. You will you will different mark those. We'll have to keep those if you're going to submit them. Are you going to have Uber Eats? Because here's the Uber drivers. That's the question.

There's a question. Well, hang hold on. Hold on. You asked a question. Let's let Mr. Schwitzer answer if he can answer. Are you going to have Unfortunately, I'm not the operator of the restaurant and I cannot. Well, we need to have that answered because here's the constant illegal parking across from 260 and in front of my house that I can't get out of my driveway and neither can my neighbor. So, that question has to be answered. So, maybe that is something Mr. Turn, one of your witnesses can answer. More pictures. Well, how how will you accommodate, you know, if if you So, we'll have like everyone food delivery services. How will you accommodate them? How's that? I mean,

this town cannot allow it. You can't allow it. You can't I mean, it look at my sympathies for the record. You need to look at these pictures. I can do about a thousand more of these pictures. I'm right there in the heart. I'm working looking out my front window. I see trucks. This this I I understand that here. No parking. They ignore it. You cannot have delivery. You cannot have mixed use. Whoever came up with that rule law, it's stupid. That may be, but this isn't the time. This isn't the time for comments. I'm sorry, Miss Picket. This isn't the time for comments. Question about the Uber Eats. He

He said this answer cannot or this, excuse me, witness cannot. That's a big mistake in this town. You can't say no. You need to look at this isn't this isn't the time for comments. Take this because this is just a fraction of what I have on my phone. You cannot say yes to mix. This is that you have to make that during the comment portion. You can make that comment. Absolutely. And I I encourage you to come back up and do that. And who can I give these to? We're gonna we're gonna mark them. Give them to Miss Tally. We need to mark them. And I I I strongly oppose mixed use. We'll mark them as

Oh, because I assume you're you oppose this. Oh, one. I'll just mark them as one. Mark them as as one exhibit. Yes, I think that makes sense. How many how many pages there are? You need to change the law, the rule. You can't that's not that's not for us to do. I know, but I'm just let I'm getting it out. You need to But that isn't the time, Miss Picket. I'm trying to tell you and everybody this is not the time for comments. This is the time for questions. When I made the comment, is it on record? Your your point is important. So, I want you to be able to say it at the right time. Okay. But is it on record now? Well, it's it's been recorded. Okay, good. But I'll say it again. But please come back up at the at the proper time.

I will. And I'll I you can come back another night and I will bring 19 uh 50 more pictures, a hundred more pictures. It that when we get to that point for comments about this application, positive or negative, please do come back up and make that point. We need to rethink the law. And that's my question. That's not this board. But the question is, are you going to have Uber Eats? And the answer should be no. And the answer should be no. This witness could not this witness could not answer it. And mixed use is that's what the zone allows. Well, we talked about No, no, but that was that that was the question, right? And so we haven't heard from the engineer. We don't know if he's going to testify about traffic or anything. You don't need a traffic engineer. I'm the traffic engineer because Well, unfortunately,

I don't need it. You don't need it. I'm there. I live there. I'm in the heart of it. We've heard it. I got it. I understand. Are there any other members of the public? Yes. Questions? Yeah, brother

Diane Moore wine gas 268 park. Um, two qu two questions to the board. Is there something in the zoning and planning uh rules or requirements that tell that say you have to check impact other than the building itself, the structure, how environment, all the rest of that. Is there something that directs you to check impact in the area or that's not is that part of your the planning zoning or it doesn't affect at all? So you could as long as it fits and you it fits the zoning use you can just plop it in there.

What kind of impact are you talking about? Impact to quality of life the environment around you as obvious the obvious thing is that nobody can get out of their driveways. The obvious is obvious, but I think that's part of the entire hearing process is to discuss the impact of the project with the applicant. So that that's the whole purpose. That is part of what that's why we're here. Well, but the impact has to be judged by the zoning standards. I mean, you can't override the zoning standards which allow for a mixed use, allow for a three-story building, allow for certain density

and say even though that's all permitted, we think it's too much for this area or it's too crowded or too congested. That's a zoning decision. But but what we can do that is a zoning zoning that's a zoning issue. This is a but this is also a site plan application and as we go through the site plan process there we we do work with the applicants to modify the site plan to address these issues that may be relocating driveways, shifting driveways, adding trees. Um I have another quick question. We do what we can but they are allowed to build what's permitted under the zoning. Have you changed the zoning? So, well, that's a whole that's another that's another

and also you cannot change the zoning for an application that's currently before the board because it's illegal to the municipal but we're not we're not taking questions from the audience. When when a site when a plan is uh proposed does anyone or do how many people from the board go to the actual location? How many times do you go? What do you look for in when you're looking when someone does put a plan before you? I I mean that's it's up to each board member of how often how much they want to go do, but that's again this is supposed to be questions for Oh, I thought I could ask the board now. Also,

questions of the witness questions. Could you please when you're discussing any of this, could you show on the screen what you're talking about? like the setbacks. Can you show the setbacks that they were speaking that you were speaking of earlier? Just put it up there so that the public can see what you mean by zero or six. Sure. I don't believe we have a actual site plan with dimensions on it though. Maybe the engineer maybe the engineer can address that in his presentation. Well, it it is. So, the engineer is the engineer coming up next. Is that who you're naturally? Yes.

Okay. So somebody's going to Yes. And it's on the engineer's plans that have the dimensions. So I'm hoping the engineer will speak to that and you also have someone to speak to traffic. You have traffic analysis. We have a traffic engineer who's going to discuss park. Okay. Thank you. Not traffic. Not traffic. Not traffic. You have no no traffic analysis for that. We we have a traffic engineer. Okay. But this is a permitted use in this area. We do not have to demonstrate we do not have to provide traffic analysis. You don't have to show for for a use that's permitted. That's that's the law.

So in other words, forgetting about the parking for the moment, bringing additional traffic to that area, trying to bring in additional traffic to that area. you have nothing that will show what that will do to that particular location. I'm not going to make comments now. I just I'm asking

I appreciate that. I'm trying to respond and I'll also defer to the board's council on this issue. Um we can provide some information about how much traffic might be generated by this use. However, whether the volume of traffic that's generated for a use that's permitted in the zoning and this use is permitted under the zoning. The volume of traffic is irrelevant. The board cannot deny the application because there's too much traffic because that's a zoning determination that's been made by the governing body in allowing this use at this area in this location.

So, a mix. So, if you if I understand you correctly, because it says it's mixed use, it doesn't matter what you bring to the area as far as traffic, it doesn't matter as long as we're the uses that we're proposing are permitted. And what we're proposing is seven apartments and 900 square ft of commercial space. You want to bring a pizza business to this location. This is what I mean. Right. We don't need to go into comments because that's a high impact business in this location. So you don't need to bring anything where do you have a traffic engineer here tonight? We have a traffic engineer.

Very good. Thank you. But we're not I'm just making it clear. Offsite traffic conditions are relevant to this application. They're not legally relevant. I I'd like to know one more question here to the I I may I ask the board a question? How many people from the board come to Wong Plaza have have been to where the location is that this is proposed to be? We all live We all live in town. You all come to the plaza. We all live in town. Great. I went this I went this I went today twice and got out of my car and looked. Thank you. Yeah. And and I really and we'll talk about this later. Thank you. But what the chair says

is important that we that doesn't mean we can break the law. That doesn't mean we get to ride over what the law says. I understand that's a reasonzoning changing things is a different issue. I get that.

Let me just address, you know, you can stay if you'd like, but I just want to address this issue because I had a feeling it was going to come up at some point. you know, the issue about whether um the impact upon traffic conditions is a relevant consideration for this board. And the answer to that is clearly no. And I'm just going to read a section of the Cox and Koig handbook that we all rely upon. um you know and it's I'm reading from page 334 of the current edition of that handbook which re which says as follows quote note however that a planning board has no authority to deny a site plan because of its anticipated detrimental impact on offtrack traffic conditions.

What is the planning? Let me finish ma'am. Planning for traffic patterns is an exercise of the zoning power vested in the governing body. The planning board may go no further than to condition approval on one improvements to on on track entrances and exits something that Janice alluded to earlier and two contributions to offtrack improvements that might be made necessary by the development. That's the law. Can you you said it started with however. What is the context before that? However, I didn't bring the entire Oh, I thought it was on the page before that.

I have two reported cases if you'd like to read them that that I would like to read them. I would like to read them because hearing something that's out of the context of the whole thing. So, I just wondered what came before that. But, I'll be happy to read that. I didn't bring my entire book with me, but I could pull it up on my phone if you wanted to read. I you have it. Right. Would you like to read it, Mr. Nice? Um, what would you like read specifically? I I think the the member of the public wanted like what's the paragraph before that? So, started with however. What was before that? That's how that's how it reads.

That's it just starts however in the middle. Note, however, that a planning board has no authority to deny a site plan because of its anticipated detrimental impact on offtracked traffic conditions. What does that mean?

Planning for traffic patterns is an exercise of the zoning power vested in the governing body. The planning board may go no further than to condition approval on one improvements to ontrack entrances and exits and two contributions to offtrack improvements made necessary by the ontrack development. Okay. But does that mean what you just said that they have to provide besides the in-n-out they have to provide something that will alleviate the problem that it creates? No.

Didn't you just read that in the second part of that? No. What that means is they can I if if an improvement is needed for the area, they can pay their fair share, but it would have to be a proportion of the cost of the improvement that would be generated. So for the police, let's say you needed a police officer at the plaza finally because you had to have one. That mean that would be borne by the No, we're talking about like if you need a new light. We just got a new light. You need a railing on the side of the road or something. Infrastructure infrastruure. Yeah. But and so but if something became so untenable that you couldn't drive there, they only pay a portion of it that's based on the their ownership piece,

the additional traffic from their use compared to the overall traffic in the area. So it's the pror it's all pror. So wait a minute. So you can't put the then the question is obviously this is a different question but the question is if you had to change if you wanted to change zoning for any number of reasons that goes to a different board that goes to the council that goes to the council. And let me also explain that when the applicant filed the application, the law, the ordinances that existed at that point in time control how the board reacts to the application.

Right. I understand. That makes sense. That makes I mean I understand that. Um Okay. That's a as I said what I the other thing is different. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Victor wine gas 268 Park Street I think I have a question for the architect is my understanding is there there's a maximum height to the allow for the site it's 33 or 37 feet is that correct that is correct that it's do you know which it is oh it's 36 feet and as the plan is presented what height does it go to 35 ft okay does that include the HVA system on the roof uh it does not So,

which is uh 80 feet away from the street face. Well, there's my question. In your rendering that we saw that in the last meeting, the rendering clearly showed that H what appeared to me to be the HVAC unit? So, if it's if it's visible, shouldn't it count to the overall height? I don't think the rendering illustrated in the air conditioning unit. Do you have the render? And those are ex Mr. Mr. Wead, those are exempt from the height requirements. HVAC equipment. So that could be right up to the front above the height requirement. No, that's why they require to show on the plans where it's located and is usually in the center of the building and not in the front, but it is exempt from the height requirements. Okay.

So they try and position it so that you can't see it from the street. So it it will you're saying it in all likelihood it won't look like it did in the rendering. Can you put the render? Well, I don't I don't I don't understand what you're you're Well, if you put up the rendering, I think it'll be obvious. Are you talking about unfortunately her thing is there, but you're talking about the elevator thing here? No, I was talking about this is the rendering unit on top of the building. That's the rendering. Sorry, this is the sir, if you could speak into the microphone when Sir, if you could speak into the microphone. Thank you. Sorry. I thought there was a drawing showing the elevation from the front. Last time there was Are you talking about the elevations?

And and an elevation rendering, not an architectural drawing. This is just for This isn't the one I'm referring to. I'm sorry, sir. What's your name again? There was a rendering an wine guest. There was a rendering from the building from roughly across the street. So this is just for clarification purposes. This is a rendering which is a color rendition of what the building would look like. That's not the So maybe the termination determination. He's talking about the elevation. Okay. Mr. Schwitzer about the elevation. If it's added up there there. Yes. Yeah. But it was from the front of the building. There's another front of the building. See your east elevation there.

Yes. Okay. So, well, this shows what I am referring to. You're saying those won't be visible. No, they're close to 80 feet away from the street face. Okay. Thank you. So, you're confident that those air condition the the mechanical units on a rooftop are not going to be visible from Park Street. It should not be. Yes. That is because they're 80 ft back from They're pretty far back. Yeah. the the red brick portion um that you see here. Just to give you

just to give you an indication, the corner of the building here from here to here is approximately 60 ft. And what you're talking about is beyond this peak here which is from the elevator. So in all likelihood you would not see it. And and just to confirm those units are screened, correct? That is correct. I think this gentleman in the front row was next, right?

George Holland and I live at 276 Park Street just up the street. I think seven houses up. Two questions. Um the followup to the HVAC. You say you're not factoring in the HVAC in term to add to the height. What about the elevator shaft? That's exempt as well. That's exempt as well. And second question, um, how many bedrooms are we talking about? We say seven units. Is it seven twobedrooms, seven three bed? I mean, what's the do we have a in the site plan? Does it say the total number of bedrooms? Mr. Schwitzer has that information. You're directing that to the to the architect, right? Yes. These are questions. Well, it's it's supposed to be questions for the architect. It's just a question.

Okay. Well,

yes. There's a myriad of apartments. Uh, just bear with me here and I'll pull up the actual counts for you. Do this right here. Bear with me. Okay. Uh, there's two floors containing dwelling units. The first the second floor which is the first floor containing the apartments has a total of three and a half units. The first unit is a two-bedroom with a den two bath at approximately 1390 ft. The second unit is a two-bedroom with a den, two bathrooms at,270 square ft. And the fourth unit is a three bedroomedroom uh with a den, three baths and approximately 1390 square ft. So that's two floors,

right? The third floor has uh a duplex unit which connects to uh unit four from the second floor and it's bedrooms only on that floor. Uh unit five is a two-bedroom actually we yes we just changed it to a three-bedroom, a den, two bath and that's approximately 1500 square ft². And in unit six, it's a two-bedroom with a den, two baths, 1,200 square feet. That's an affordable unit. And unit seven has three bedrooms with two baths and it's approximately 1,425 square ft.

So what's the total number of bedrooms for the whole building? Uh 35 16 16 16. Okay. And the the last question I understand the whole issue with the traffic and he can't add to the traffic. I think the point my neighbor was trying to make was with the 18-wheelers and so on. Is this your question? Yeah, there's a question when you the point about the 18-wheelers was was about delivery trucks. It's not we're not talking about those trucks aren't trucks just passing by. Those are trucks. So what's the question? The question is is are is there any requirement to take that into consideration

with respect to the architectural project that we're undertaking? No. Thank you very much for welcome. Just about this this Diane Moore wine guest the setbacks that you were talking about before that were zero or six feet that's on the north side of the building or the south side of the building. It's on the south side of the building. So that would be a budding 258 park is what that

which is correct. Yes. So, does that does that mean can I just point to the map? Does that mean you go back? You need to show Miss You need to use the microphone if you're going to speak before the rendering.

Yeah. So, you mean over here? Correct. So, you don't There's no is the requirement is you don't have to have any um set back there at all. All the way all the way back. That is an option. Yes, that's an option. So you so you may So how many it's zero ft that means you're on the property line pretty much 258? Pretty much. Yes. Well, is are you are you exactly on the property line or is there some distance away as

No, we're at that point we're we start at zero. Okay. And then the building kind of just steps back a little bit with our pillars that are on the side, but we can certainly increase the size of the pillars and take it back to zero. I mean, well, no, no, no. Just let's let's let's answer No, no. Let's answer please, please answer her question first. Yeah. So, not what you could do. Just so the answer So my question is, are you on the property line? You're budding the property line at 258. Is that right? That would at the front of the building. Yes.

Okay. Uh and do you know how many feet is Well, there's another building there. We don't we don't know how many feet is between this building and 58 Park. Um, I do not have an accurate dimension of how close that adjacent property is to its property line. Do you know how close you are between these two buildings? And also, do you know over here? Do you know how So, do you how many feet is between the building and this property line? So, be the north side of the building on the north. What? Are you referring to the north side of the building? Yes.

Okay. Um, it's it's it's close to the five the uh I would say that that's close to the seven 8 ft. It's 8 ft from the building to the correct to the property line. That is correct. We have a uh pathway that is 3T five and that's going to go back. Four feet five. Is that going to go all the way back that sidewalk? Uh that goes back up to where the building uh entrance is and sets back. Yes. Is the wait is the Yes, it does. Where's the building entrance? It does. Right there where your fing just over here. No, on the side over here.

So the building entrance will be on the north side of the building. Entrance is here. Yes. Right here. You mean the on the screen? I I could clarify this. Um, it's AC. Will you see the brick? The parking extens. That is correct. Put that red light back where the entrance of the building is, please.

So, that's where people who live there are going to go in the building. Yes. Question mark. Okay. Thank you. Welcome.

Hi, I'm Gerald Fierce. Uh 259 Park Street. Um just because of the previous discussion I am totally confused looking at this rendering which um although it is not in the middle of the building is certainly not on the side of the building. So my question is where is it where is the cut that was being discussed? Is it on the side of the building or is it what I'm looking at? I brought that up. It's where the car is

where the car is going in, but that is not the side of the building. As I understood the discussion, the you you said it was intended so that it wouldn't go through the middle of the building, but that's pretty much going into the middle of the building. So my question is, is that the side of the building? The side of the building is beside the building. You can interpret the law. Other questions from the public? Yes.

Hey, my name is Carl Nay. I live at 109 Buckingham Road in Montlair. Um I I missed your last name. Carl Ngi. Okay. Yep. Um I live pretty close to this and I won't filibuster you here, but um do you know how many um affordable units it is? Is it one? There is one unit, a two-bedroom unit with a den and two baths. Yes. Okay. And how many people could live in that unit? Is it three or four? What did you say it was a two-bedroom unit? That is correct. It can be four. Four. Okay. So, we could have four people that are in need of housing live in this building in that case in the affordable unit. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions from the public? I see none. Mr. Trenulac, Mr. Chair, can I request a short break um before we put on our engineer? I just wanted to have a brief discussion about the additional variance that was identified before I put him on. Sure. still expect to have him on tonight or will you expect to continue? I was hoping to put him on but I mean I was hoping to but you know depends on how long of a break you need. No more than five minutes. Okay, we'll take a fiveminut break. Thanks.

Mr. Tulac, we're going to we're still waiting to go live back on TV. We're live, Miss Tally. Yeah, I'm recording. Great. We're back on the record, Mr. Tumbulac. Okay. My next witness is Paul Anderson. And you even stand up. That's great. Sir, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Would you please state your full name and business affiliation for the record?

Paul W. Anderson, uh, a ner. I own Anderson Consulting Service. We are a consulting, civil engineering, and planning firm out of Putin. Well, I know you've testified before this board in the past, but I don't think it's been I think it's been a while to my recollection. Yeah. Just briefly run through your educational background.

Yes, I have a bachelor of science and civil engineering from Clarkson University 1983. Licensed as a professional engineer in 1988, licensed as a professional planner 17 years ago by examination. Uh my testimony this evening is for engineering. I've been uh my New Jersey and New York licenses are both currently uh in good standing and I testify in front of boards such as this including this one in the past. Accepted before this board in the past. Special engineer. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'll Mr. Anderson as an expert in the field of civil engineering. We'll accept him. Thank you very much. Thank you. Paul, you prepared the site plan for this project, correct?

I did. And similar to the architectural plans, you also, you know, prepared revisions to your original site plan following the November board meeting. Correct. I did. The revised plans were marked earlier as an exhibit and they're dated um November 19th, 19 uh 2025. Okay. All right. Why don't you review the basic of the site plan for the day? So, I have on an easel to my right uh a plan that was submitted. So, we can mark it as an exhibit, but I believe it's part of the set that's marked A16. If it's or if it's part of A16, we don't need to mark it. There's no changes to it.

There's no changes to this one. There's a couple others that I will have as or not have not been seen. We'll mark when I get to those I'll point out that they're they're new. Okay.

All right. So, this is the site plan and as part of the set and as we all know, it's 260 Park Street and it's a 28 acre property in the neighborhood commercial zone. Uh, and we have this mixeduse building with uh seven apartments over a restaurant. Uh, the site is proposed to be accessed by an 18t driveway on Park Street. It's almost exactly where the existing driveway through the site is. It's just a little bit wider. I believe the existing is 12 ft wide and this is 18. We have 16 spaces underneath the building. And uh we have to as part of that 16, we have one ADA space which is van accessible. We have an access uh pathway to the m to the lobby for the residential here. And that pathway goes all the way to the front where it's accessible all the way to the to the uh restaurant use in the front. We meet all the grade and uh requirements uh with regard to the pathway and the width requirements. So this is a an acceptable ADA pathway from the accessible space in we also have now two EV spaces. We had three before we have made it two. There was some concern as mentioned by the fire chief to have EV under the building. We're obligated to have one next to the ADA space which has to be close to the building. So we have one there and we've put the second one in the back. Uh we've straddled two spaces. So if someone has uh an EV car, they can park in either one of the last two spaces. Uh and the same thing with the with the where it is with the ADA ADA space. It's split between the two. So, there's potential for four uh spaces that can charge cars. Uh we have uh other parking. We have bike parking in the front. In addition to the bike parking that was talked about inside the building, we have some racks in front of

the uh restaurant. Uh we have spaces 3 through nine, which are the ones here where I'm going over over here. They're going to be signed as residential parking only. So, that gives one space for each resident all the time. The other spaces one and two and plus these other spaces here uh 10 through 16 are going to be open to commercial parking. They're not dedicated to commercial parking. Uh it's a it's basically free to either residents or commercial. Um the EV spaces are not going to be designated as only EV spaces. You can park in there if it's, you know, whether you're EV or not. So, it's going to be very flexible in terms of who can park where and uh so that's that's how we have the parking laid out. Now, we do have some deficiency in space size. At the last meeting, there was some issues with column width and column locations that compromised the width of the parking spaces. Uh the columns have been reduced uh in in number and in in width. And so now we were able to take these spaces in the back here uh 3 through 12 and we have uh 8.7 feet wide uh 75 ft wide and 8.85 ft wide for a few of them. A minor deviation from the 9 ft uh which is the standard in the ordinance. Uh pace spaces one and two uh remain as before as compact spaces. They are 8 by 17 and we have added to the plans a sign that indicates that they are for compact cars only. The aisle width that we're coming in behind the parking spaces is 23.5 ft. There is one area where it pinches down to 19 ft right by the uh where the stairwell comes down, but that does not

impact uh the uh the ability for cars to back out of the spaces. and I'll put up my first exhibit which is not uh part of the set.

19 A19. What are we looking at? What sheet number is that? So, this is is it What's the Mr. Anderson? If you need a the handheld, you can use the handheld. Oh, it's right on the the projector here. Right next to the projector. Nope. Nope. Where the computer is? Uh you may need to turn it on. There you go.

Yeah. So, this is uh SPA1, which is sweep path analysis that I did uh for for this uh application. It just basically shows that cars coming can come in and come out and turn into these spaces easily and then back out in one movement and and leave the site. It also shows uh access to the compact car spaces here and shows that they can do a K turn and also uh leave the site very smoothly. Can can you mark that A19 or I'll Oh, you did already. Okay. Yes. And I'm sorry, it's F FDA1. S Mr. A-1

and the date is today's date 12125. Thank you.

Uh in terms of delivery, uh the applicant has testified that uh it's a small shop. He believes it's going to be family run because his family is in that business and that his uh vehicles that they're going to have deliveries with are smaller in nature and most of the time being uh passenger car vans or small trucks. And so there's two ways that we can uh take deliveries for that. They can either pull in to the side of the building and park on on the on the entrance lane. cars could pass on the other side, other half of the driveway during those brief periods of time. Or if it is truly just a van or or or a truck, uh not a large truck, a passenger truck, they can pull into one of these commercial spaces, uh and and and just park and deliver and then just back out and leave normally. So, um with when you have larger trucks, they can pull in, but they can't really go under the building. They would have to pull in and then back out.

All right. Um, is it 10 ft? It's over 10 ft. The height? Yes, it's I I forget the exact height of the doorway, but it's it's well over 10 ft. Uh, and as mentioned, the dump. Mr. Chairman, if yes, just a question. Um, and you may have it already. Just want to make sure it comes up. Um, believe prior testimony indicated that the that the garbage truck collection would require the truck to pull into the driveway. Do we have movements of those as well, illustrating the garbage truck accessing the site and exiting?

Well, I believe the testimony was that it would could be done a number of different ways. It could pull into the site and and actually access the back of site with a small garbage truck, uh, you know, a smaller reduced size. But they also discussed moving uh bringing cans out to the street or that the Go ahead. I mean, yeah. Or that the uh garbage company would be sending personnel back to the back to collect it and walk it all the way forward. In which case, there was a concern that they're going to be waiting there a long time when they walk 200 feet.

Now, it's in the back of the building. It's it's in the back part here, and it could be either brought out by building personnel or by the garbage company. Uh but they wouldn't have to go underneath uh if they didn't want to. Okay. So this time there's no plan for garbage trucks to pull into the site at all. Okay. No, I I just confirmed that with my client because I think he testified to that at the last hearing that the cans would be brought out to the street. There would be no need for a garbage vehicle to enter right uh in the building or below the building into the parking area that who would sorry

and it should be twice a week. twice a week or you know or if it turns out to be you know more it'll be as many times as necessary but it's anticipated be twice a week if it turns out there's more volume than expected then they would come I guess that's one of the things we asked for is a trash management plan right so yeah and I think Mr. Danti's testimony um if I remember was that you know he anticipates it would be you know picked up twice a week like most properties in town but that if it turned out that there was more trash than expected needed more frequent pickups it would be as many times as necessary. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.

But we didn't determine who would be moving the trash to the street. Management company or or garbage company garbage pickup private company would be doing it. Yeah. I Yeah. You don't want people to put all those cans out the night before and have them sit there. That's one of the That's why we ask for a trash management plan. And if it's going to be the garbage company comes at at, you know, 7 in the morning, whatever, they will pull the cans out. That's correct. Okay. And that includes the resident trash as well as the commercial as well.

Yes. So, so the anticipation is that um the truck will park on Park Street and send its people in and then they will bring the garbage out to the truck on Park Street. Mhm. Yes. Um now it won't be from the back. It'll be from the back of the building which is at this this location here. Yeah. No, I I get that. But uh would it be possible to have the truck uh pull up onto the before the building in the space between the parking lot and the building? Yes.

And park there temporarily so as to avoid problems with traffic on the street. They they certainly can. It it they can pull any size truck into that first part of the building. With larger trucks, I didn't want them to go in the building because it would be multiple K turns before they get out. Right. The height is not an issue with regard to getting under the building. It's a matter of turning around and getting back out. Right. So, uh so we have recommended that they bring them to the street would be the easiest and if not they can certainly pull into the driveway like the other deliveries I discussed and then and then back out. And in that case, it would have to be a smaller garbage truck.

Correct. And if it is one of the really small ones, they could actually pull in and turn around and do do a cake turn. But if it's a regular size garbage truck, it's a little bit too big. I think it would be good to have this in writing. Yeah. Um so that when we as we move forward, we have something that discusses because I think we we've heard about the issues with this area about the traffic.

I have heard. and and obviously you don't want to completely block this driveway, but if your if your trash management plan is to have a certain size truck that can fit in the driveway and that it will, you know, pull into the driveway and collect the the trash from the the uh inbuilding trash management area at that time rather than leaving it out on the street. Yeah, I think it's important to be able to pull into that driveway. I've experienced firsthand driving down park while the you know full municipal garbage truck has been coming on the opposite side of the street towards me

and uh one it's a little intimidating and two it's difficult to navigate especially with cars parked on the street. So I think if we can have that in writing a plan where uh the truck pulls into the driveway that would be ideal we will have the applicant and the trash removal company he plans on using prepare that plan.

Thank you. So all right. So um so we have as mentioned we removed that dumpster pad and that the other impact of that is to reduce the impervious coverage on site and now we are now we are 91 square feet over what is there existing. So with this redevelopment plan I'm going to change exhibits.

Okay. This is part of the set. This is the grading and utility plan that was part of the set and part of A16. Uh the so with the 91 square feet, it does not qualify or does not require any storm water management whether a minor project or a major project. uh there was some sensitivity expressed with regard to storm water concerns in this area at the last hearing. Uh so we uh decided to add a dry well in the front of the site uh which is here. So instead of just going and discharging to the storm water system in Park Street, it'll first go through a dry well absorb into the ground. Now uh Mr. Damato, you asked how it was sized. So, I made a presumption that we exceeded uh the the uh imperous coverage by 500 square feet and then I sized it in accordance with the standard Montlair sizing requirements for something that's 500 ft over knowing that we're only 91 but we're 500. So, that gave us I believe it was 1,700 and change in terms of gallons of storage prior to any discharge out to the street. and hopefully some of that will absorb back into the ground and uh and you know just recharge the aquifer. So that's that's how we how we came up with the size.

And sorry, where is it located? Under the lawn. Pardon me. Where is it located? It's located uh under the driveway. Uh and and just a portion of it under the lawn. So there's a open manhole grate and we have a trench drain that goes across the driveway, picks up all the water that comes out and then runs back to the drywall and then the drywall overflows to the straight and the the property slopes from rear to front as I recall. Yes. Yes, it does.

It does. So everything comes from the roof leaders uh in the back of the site and comes down this uh southern gutter line. It's picked up in inlets. All the roof leaders are directly piped to that that drainage system and so it collects the storm water very effectively in terms of its impact on the joiners uh which is one of the things that uh is very important here in Montlair. Right now the water just goes straight through. I mean it there's nothing stopping it from draining from north to south and going into the neighbor. We would be intercepting that flow both by roof drains uh and and uh and and other and this curb line with inlets and then directing it to Park Street. So it it has a positive impact of keeping water from that might be an increase in volume from going to the neighbor to the south. you will actually get a reduction. And obviously with a building like this, we have all new fire uh water systems, both a fire and a domestic line uh for the sprinkler uh for the fire sprinkler. And we have new sewer connection and gas connection and so forth. All coming out to the street and the street will be restored in accordance with the town standards. Um what else did I miss here? Um uh the other aspect I just sort of jump back quickly is when you finally remove the uh the dumpster here, it gives a more adequate space for snow removal. Uh most of the snow removal with this building is going to be is on the roof. The building actually comes all the way back to about this portion here and cuts across and takes up most of that space. So most of the snow that falls on this building will be it will stay on the roof and then come down through the roof leaders. It will not need to be shoveled. There is a small gap in the

front of these parking spaces and there's a gap on the other side uh too and a gap in the rear that will have to be maintained. Uh they can be shoveled either to the to the landscape area on this side the side or if it's a major storm it could be pushed and stored in the back. There's some landscaping there, but I think in heavy snowstorms, landscaping in all of our yards get buried with a little bit of snow and they'll have architect will have to check cultivars and stuff that he's selecting, make sure it's hardy enough to take a beating with snow and salt.

Mr. Anderson, who's doing that snow shoveling? I've heard tell so far of building personnel and that's not been clarified at all. And and I've heard tell of people, you know, obviously trash pickup companies or what have you. Who's doing that snow removal? Well, yeah, I I don't know that I know the answer to that myself. Go ahead. Yeah, Mr. Danti is going to be doing it himself. Mr. Santi doesn't live. Are you moving into the building, Mr. Danti? I'll take care of all my properties, you know. I have a file. I have my Should we?

Yeah, we should swear. We should probably get Mr. Dante on a microphone. He's previously sworn, but he's previously sworn, but we just want to make sure he understands still under oath and that we do get his comments on the record. You can take a handheld. You can come up to the lect turn. Your choice. Just identify yourself again. Gio, for the record. Uh, yeah. Okay. Um, Eljeno Danti. I'm the owner of 260 Park Street. And Mr. Nice. Mr. Nice. Um, yeah. You need to make sure he understands he's still sworn. Yeah. You you were sworn in at the last hearing, correct? Yes. You recognize you remain under oath. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh so pretty much I have my own property management company. So with all the properties I have, I manage everything. But so taking care of the snow, I you know, that's something that we typically do.

Yeah. But I'm just I don't think you live I think you live in in Paya County, I think. Yes. Yes. Yes. I live in Torawa. If there is a major snowstorm, how do you get from Paya County down to this property? Oh, I have I have all the vehicles necessary to to get here without an issue. The crew, correct? I see. Yes. Not you behind the wheel of the truck. Oh, it's me. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So, you manage multiple properties yourself. You do snow removal for multiple uh sites. Yes. Yes. There are other locations that you have in Montlair as well, right?

And then are there others outside of Montlair that would require your attention as well? The only other place is in Bloomfield. Right on Franklin Street is my other my other property that I have right next to the uh police station. Okay. So, I'm I'm local. I'm you know, when there's a snowstorm, I'm in Montlair the entire day, night, whatever is necessary. So, it sounds like you are the snow removal plan is what it is. You're looking at him. Yes. If I had a garbage truck, I'd be the garbage remover as well.

All right. Anything else for him while he's here? Okay. I don't see anything.

Let me continue. Yep. This is the lighting plan that's part This is the lighting plan that's part of the set. So after the last hearing uh we went back and we revised the lighting plan for this uh for this application and we're able to get better cut offs at the property line. We are now under.3T candles all the way around the entire perimeter of the site. There's another element of the uh lighting ordinance that requires a maximum of two foot candles at any one point, but because they're mounted to the ceiling of the garage and they're relatively low to the ground, I got some hot spots that exceed that. But the important thing that I see is that uh we have seriously cut off all the light that projects onto the neighboring properties. And that leaves one more thing which will be I guess

if we can stay on lighting for just a second you have some low light spots as well as your hot spots. You've got at least from what I can tell on the plans and you can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm seeing along the walkway a 0.0 and a point 2 foot candles. Oh, you're right. I do have a 0 2 and a so I have a a hot spot here because it's I got the building mounted one at 8 ft right

and then it does it just doesn't have a lot of spread but I do have some low spots here and uh I could probably add a couple more there but it's just going to increase that nine number which I'm trying to stay away from. What about something that's a little bit more, you know, smaller along the walkway rather than building mounted like a ballard light? Yeah, like a ballarded light because I mean, you know, you don't need a lot of intensity there as you know. You just need something that a meets our code and b helps people be able to see, right?

Um, so, you know, looking looking at maybe ballard lights there. I also note in the very front of the driveway, there's some lower lower lights there. You know, 0 two or 0.1. I think that's a safety issue. Um, there's some, you know, some threes in the driveway that I think you can also handle. And then if you go back to those compact spaces, they're at 0.1 32. That's another area that maybe a couple of ballard lights right in there would be sufficient. You know, trying to take into account if there's cars there, you may need, you know, well positioned ballard lights to help. But, um, I I think you can overcome that, but I I would like you to address that. All right. I will look at those several locations and see what I can do to improve it.

Thank you. Um, uh, I have a question before you leave lighting. Uh, I'm a little confused. Uh, Mr. Hernandez's report suggests at, uh, page six of seven that, um, several of the foot candles proposed along the southern property line exceed the the threshold. So um were you looking at an earlier version when you prepared this report or Yeah, that that was a that was from an earlier version u of the plan. This plan as he's presenting currently has addressed that issue regarding the southerntherly property line. However,

but this is is is this exhibit you have on the easel is that a different version of that's why I'm confused. No, we we submitted the we submitted the plans only like a week ago. So I mean it's been a very short turnaround. Yeah, that was an as far as the that specific issue based on the most recent revised plans. So you're satisfied that this plan shows that there's no issue with the with the lighting around the perimeter,

the spillage onto the adjacent property, right? However, the issue does remain regarding as the chairman noted the min the minimums and maximums within the property, right? Which um I believe the maximum that's waivers required there, right? Based on what the waivers still just we've addressed the one that impacts the joining properties. Yeah. But you indicated that the minimums you would address those with some additional spotlighting. Let's see how far we can get with it. Yeah. I mean, I assume you're coming back for you're coming back for another night. So, hopefully you can have it resolved next time you come back. I think so. And just so just so we're clear, I mean, what you're saying is that

um I'm looking at point 7 um three of been addressed. 72 is still still needs to be addressed, right? Correct. Yes. This exhibit will be 820. All right.

Okay. And what is it? What is A20? A20 is an alternate plan. There was some mention about land banking or banking uh parking spaces. So this is a simple plan. It's very very similar to the other plan. It just basically curtails the two uh spaces in the back, the two compact spaces, leaves a small area for for turnaround. And then but this would obviously save some impervious coverage, add some more land in the back that was uh was talked about by some board members and and included I believe in Miss Tally's report

as something the committee was talking about and uh but this is what it would be. It it would reduce the impervious coverage by another couple hundred feet. uh it would obviously provide two less parking spaces and so that is if the board decides to to go in that direction this is pretty much what it would look like. What is the maximum impervious coverage for the site under that plan? The impervious coverage for with this plan is 9,610. That's the number. Do you know just the percentage of the site the impervious coverage percentage?

No, I I don't know that offhand. It's uh we're okay. It I know we were the the the requirement is uh 98.93 which is 80%. Okay. So this is probably closer to to 70. I didn't hear you. It's probably in the low 70s percentage wise. Oh okay. with the elimination of the two spaces. That's what you're saying. With the elimination of the two spaces, with this alternate uh alternate plan, may I request that when you return because obviously we're going to come back to this, but yes, um if you could bring uh the percentages

uh the percentages, the actual percentage as well as the uh uh that exhibit. So I will that exhibit will have I think that exhibit's going to stay here. Oh, right. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So yes, if you could just bring back a revised version that hence the percentage, I guess that would be fine. And have additional copies. I'd like to get a copy of I was going to say have an electronic versions of that and perhaps even some hard copies for certain folks. Um that would be helpful. Are you calling me a lite? No, I I you're not the only person that has hard copy plans up here. So it's not just you. cuz there's several people in this board that like hard copies. There's several of us who like the electronic versions. So, just want to make sure everybody's accommodated here. Thank you. You're welcome.

I I do have a question. Happy to do that. Uh that that is really that concludes my testimony for this evening. Mr. Hernandez has some other question. Mr. Hernandez has a question for you. I think perhaps related to those items. Any questions? Just just somewhere related to this alternate plan, parking plan. Um would it be possible to adjust the parking in this version to provide the minimum 9 ft width? You do pick up a couple extra full 9 foot width spaces when you do this. Okay. But you're adding, you know, a quarter of a foot. It's not much, but it it makes it compliant in width.

Right. Right. And you're more than covered from a drainage aspect of the feud. Well, sounds like a win to me. You know, I'm sorry I didn't hear that. More than covered for what? By the drainage, if you have to expand slightly the overall length of that parking lane. Um, so I just wanted to say that the addition of the seepage pit of the dry well is is great and that was brought up and we talked about that. But it is I did the calculation and so if the roof if the floor area is about 5,500 square feet

which is what I think it is gross that would be draining out that gives you that 1,700 gallons is about a half an inch of rain. That's what it translates into. So, okay, it it's pretty good, but it doesn't, you know, we'll get two we'll get an inch an hour here. So, I mean, this is a high priority in that part of town is, you know, detaining water and like any more that can be done there would be better considering that you are at 80% of the lot and you're not going to be able to detain water on the ground probably.

Yeah, we're we're compliant in lot in coverage. We're not looking for any relief and lock coverage. Um but you know, we're happy to provide some mitigation to it. Um you know, we we could you know, so we'll you know, I think this is 500 ft over is was you know, maybe it was arbitrary. I I selected it. Certainly wasn't designing it as a major storm water project. Uh which would probably address all of the problems, but that that's uh not required by ordinance. Um, couple of follow-up questions. Um, you've, um, seen Mr. Hernandez's latest updated report dated November 30th, 2025.

I have. You've reviewed that? I have. Can you confirm that the applicant can and will uh comply with all of his comments and recommendations in the report? Uh yes, I I can do that.

Okay. Thank you. The only thing I would the only exception I would note to that um for the record is the um while we're dealing with that issue. I know we're not determining conditions at this time. Uh but the only exception we would make is there's a requirement for video bidding uh bidding it's getting late the um sewer line and if it turns out the sewer line is damaged and needs to be replaced um Mr. Nand is suggesting that we should bear the entire cost of replacing that line and I don't think that's fair or appropriate you know since we wouldn't be the only one utilizing that line. I mean, we should contribute to that proportionately with any other property owners that utilize the same line. That would be the only the only comment in his entire report that we would take issue with. We're happy to video it, but if the lines needs to be replaced, it doesn't just serve our property and we shouldn't bear the entire cost replacing infrastructure. Just making that comment since we were talking about his report. So, let me go on and and finish up by asking a couple of questions relating to the subject of the evening, setbacks. Um, can you just confirm the setback on the northerly side of the uh property? I can uh the setback on the northerly side is 8 ft.

Okay. And that complies with the ordinance requirement. Correct. It does.

Okay. Now, in your zoning chart, so the first floor of the bill, this is just a nuance. I'm not sure if it's meaningful or not. Um, the zoning does say that parking areas have 4T, buildings are 8 ft. So, the building is 8 ft, but the building starts on the second floor. The first level parking sort of feels like a garage in a way. I mean, I know it's just not, you know, you think of driveways and parking to be parking lots out there. Um, do you feel that, um, what is under the building is not necessarily a garage, but just a parking area? That's the way it would need to be defined if it would comport with the ordinance. If it's a garage, it should be eight feet.

I I believe it's a parking area. It's not enclosed with walls. It is not air air conditioned. It's not an underground, you know, garage that that requires those mechanical things. So, in my opinion, it is a uh parking area and it does have a 4ft setback. Um um other than a curb around I think there's a curb around the the parking. There's no other structures around that parking lot that it's it's completely open. That's correct. There's a fence on the adjoining property to the Well, other than the columns, I guess there's some columns in there, but they're they're at 8 ft. Um Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. And then going to the other side of the of the uh property, this the southerntherly side, when you prepared the zoning chart, um you indicated that in your view the sideyard that was proposed was 0.3 ft. Correct. That's correct. And and what did you base that on? We inserted the building as provided by the architect into the survey and the closest portion of that to the property line on the south side is.3 ft. Okay.

It's 4 in roughly. And in your experience, and you indicated your professional planner as well, and when you your experience, when you determine sideyard um setbacks, you is it normal that you would utilize the point of the building that's closest to the sideyard? What I've always seen is it's always measured to the the closest point to to the property line. Have you ever seen it measured any differently than that sideyard setback? Okay. Well, there's a nuance here. Um, in the context, make make sure your microphone's on.

In the context of the setback on the southside being either zero or six, how does.3 ft, it's not zero, it's not six. And then how does the majority of the building set back, which we think is about 3 feet, how does that meet the definition of it? I understand if it's a straight setback, just one number that's given, you take the closest because you're looking for that minimum. But where it's an eitheror, um, how many sites have you worked that have that condition?

I I've had uh I don't really know how many has been quite a few where I've had uh z the same thing you're saying is zero or six or zero or four and and uh you know, but I've never seen it interpreted this way before. If this is the way Montlair interprets their ordinance, then we'll have to comply. But on those on those properties where you've had a portion of the building be at zero or, you know, whatever definition is, you've had others approved with a similar zoning code where the majority of the building is somewhere between the zero and the six or the zero and whatever. You've gotten those approved in other municipalities.

We have without relief. Uh, one of the requirements that they would have though is building code would require that you'd have have the various fire rating for the wall that was less than six feet. So, I mean, you you'd have to have that safety element that you were talking about before would have to be included. So, they wouldn't get past building to uh, you know, with without making sure that it was had the appropriate fire proofing. Uh, and that would include not having balconies and windows. Uh, I architecture question. Okay, got it. Thank you.

Well, on that balconies and windows question though, that might be a question for you as well because as we discussed, the property to the south could build right up to the property line as well, right? So, does that impact the um the um uh placement of the windows or placement of the balcony at all or is that a consideration? I would think if you're allowed to have zero setback in the zone and you can go and you're at.3 uh and the other guy can build to you know zero then balconies would be difficult to have but this plan does have them correct uh yeah I I not there are no balconies on the south side yeah I well okay you've heard it from the architect in the audience

but there are windows on the south side correct yeah um and Can you address uh Mr. Wallally's first point about um this setback is not zero or six, it's 4 in. Is is um there anything to contemplate there? Any any reason why it's not up to the property line? Uh you know, I I don't know what you know, what you're gaining by getting closer. I think it's I'm just curious because I'm trying to deal with this ordinance as you said. So I I just want to understand why then it's it's not meeting that uh requirement.

You know, we could obviously slide it over 3 in and have 8t 3 in on the north side and zero on the south side, but I don't know the b I don't see the benefit personally. Okay. In in that, but other than just meeting an ordinance requirement. Okay. Thank you. And maybe that's something Mr. Stim will address in his testimony when he talks about the variances and relief sought. Just one point of clarification that I believe the plan does propose a balcony on the south. So it does propose a balcony on the south. A balcony is shown on the south side of the building. Okay.

Yeah. It also shows for unit 4's upstairs component that it has a bedroom without any windows. Yeah, there's no window on bedroom one. Is that code? Yeah, I saw that. And the entire living dining area of unit 7 would also have no windows if the neighboring lot were to be built. Okay. Um something for the architect to take a look at.

I will tell you that I don't go and familiarize myself with the architectural layout of the upper floors. I'm looking at the site elements and uh and and where it how it fits on the site, the setbacks on the site. Uh so you could ask me questions about the bedroom count and the windows and I really don't have the answer as well as the architect does. Okay. Do you have more questions, Mr. Trumbilac? No, I don't. Okay. Sorry, I'm finished. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Anderson, can you take us through the parking requirements now that the bedroom count has changed?

Can So the restaurant really doesn't change unless the number of seats changed. So that that remains the same. When you add an extra bedroom, go from uh two to three, you add 0.1 parking space requirement. So that's that's the ad. When you get the extra space, you get 0.1 extra spaces required. And is that reflected in this latest plan set? I don't believe it is because I was not aware of the extra bedroom till this evening. So does that mean you would have 6.4 spaces instead of 6.3 spaces required for those three bedrooms?

That yes, you would have six. Yes, correct. Okay. I and I should address one of the questions that came from the audience before uh with regard to the 18 versus 16 please.

So um when you do the parking count with the the EV uh parking credits, some people like to uh deduct from the requirement and other people like to add to the total provided. They end up being the same thing. So you can say that there's 20 spaces required and and uh you know and then we get extra credit for two more or you could uh you can u do it the other way around. You can uh say that your parking requirement is uh you know like for example ours is 20 spaces. The two requirement requirements for 20 right

yeah the requirement for this site is 20. Okay. because of the EV credit you we actual requirement becomes 18. Okay. So you could look at the other way around is that we have 20 parking spaces required. We are providing 16 on site but we get EV credits. So now we're providing 18. I prefer to do it the the way you see on the plans where we're saying we have 16 parking spaces, you know, uh, and that way because that's the physical number of physical parking spaces you see on site as opposed to a credit. I think it's

transparent. I think that's easier for most folks to understand. So, just if I could recap what you just said, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You're required to have 20 spaces, correct? Under the under the code, but since you have two EV spots, that gives you credit, extra credit for those spaces. So, technically, you only need 18 parking spaces, and you're providing 16 physical parking spaces. That's correct. So, you're deficient by two. Division deficient by two. Okay. And that's what you're seeking a variance for. That is correct. Is that your only variance that you're now seeking? Well, depending on the disposition of the sideyard setback. Yes. Okay.

But that would be exacerbated if you took away those two compact spaces in the rear. That is correct. If if if it was felt by the board was more beneficial to have more, you know, to to bank parking, we would need uh Well, actually, you wouldn't would you, Janice, would you require a variance for it if they're banked? No. No, it would just be an option. you wouldn't be a variance because you could still provide for uh the 16 the 16 spaces. It's just that you would delay the um construction of those extra two spaces until a time when it's determined that they're needed. Correct.

So it doesn't change doesn't intensify the variance because they could be built that required to be built at any time. You would put what landscaping or something in there in order to bank them. Yeah. And then should the need arise, you could pull that out and just create the spaces. That's the thought. Yes. And and again, we're we're not proposing that. That was a thought that was suggested uh by a couple of board members that DRC meeting and I think at the last meeting. So, we wanted to show you what that would look like.

Um if the board would prefer that we eliminate those spaces and bank, that's not part of what we're proposing. We're proposing to provide the the 16 physical spaces, but certainly are happy to to bank them if that's the board's desire. Who makes the determination that those need to be converted to parking spaces if they are banked?

Well, I think the applicant. I mean, look, the applicant's, you know, gonna need wants to have happy tenants who have parking. So I mean I think the applicant would be the would would want to you know provide the parking if there's a need for it to s you know as a business person you know and as responsible I think you could write into it that if the board if the board if it's brought to the board's attention or the planning department's attention that there's a parking problem we could say that you have to now initiate that sure that I think if we do decide to go down that route. I think that would be helpful. Yeah.

And how do you delineate the six spots for the pizzeria? How do you how do you how do you determine that these are for the pizzeria parking? There's no dedicated ones for the pizzeria parking. There's only the seven going to be signed for the for the units above. There's so there the other ones are just free agents basically and and we've left those uh put the the residential in the back so that if people pull into the lot or the pizzeria or bagel shop or whatever it becomes that they'll see the parking space right there.

Okay. Um and Mr. Tremble has stated that it's um not open to the public. So how does the public know that they're allowed to park there for the restaurant use? I don't know. I would imagine the restaurant would have to advertise that they have some on-site parking. I would think that with the parking issues that they're talking about in the neighborhood that you're not going to go there unless you know you can park within a block or two. Is it possible to add a sign on the building, you know, restaurant parking in rear or something to that effect

or a like a small um um monument sign, if you will, in the front of the building just indicating the parking in the rear. Restaurant parking for restaurant parking. Right. I think it probably be better on the building than in Yeah. Well, than than on the ground. Yeah. Does the addition of that sign call out a variance? Sign variance directional sign? I don't know. A directional directional signs don't do not. Yeah, it's a directional sign. Um advertising.

Does the applicant want to just between now and next time confirm where such a sign might be located and how it will be? We'll give that some thought and come back with a specific uh sign and location on the northern side of the parking area. The fence that's screening the parking area, that's the adjoiners fence. That's correct. If they take that down, what's your backup plan? We haven't really We're not taking audience questions at this point. We we no we're not it

it's really being overlooked. So what what's your what's your plan to address the requirement to screen the parking? There is some landscaping there as proposed. I'd have to look and see whether it's an effective screen in terms of whether the vegetation is dense enough to do that. Uh we are somewhat relying on the fence. So maybe we should reconsider the the actual landscaping that's put in there or have a backtoback fence. I think that would be helpful. At least plan for it in case that fence does go away or doesn't adequately screen. Yeah. But that raises the question of how it's triggered.

Is it if the other fence goes away then it's no longer an appropriate screen? Yeah. And who makes that decision? At this point, we can only deal with what we know. Is this microphone on? I'm sorry. And in fact, what you what we would want to ensure um is that this fence would be designed so that the the way our code requires it is that the attractive side of the fence faces the property, the adjoining property. Yeah.

So, I think there would be a benefit to putting in a fence to on on this property that would ensure long-term screening of the parking from the neighbors even if they have their own fence on that property. Understood. Yeah. So, other questions from the board. Questions from the public of this witness about his testimony? Whoever wants to be first. One, two, three. Good luck. First of all, well, let's just let's just make sure we get you on the microphone.

Okay, Claire Sila again. Um, the runoff from the water. I need to understand that better because it floods that water goes down. Oh, Miss Silata, can you just push the button to make sure the lights on and if you could just say your name one more time and Claire Silata. Thank you. Or Chili if we were in Italy. Meanwhile, the water runoff that we we've been having this problem with the flooding because the rain now is so intense that we get an inch, half an hour sometimes. It's crazy.

So, I'm curious about whether your plan for this includes that level of intensity of the water, you know, 1700 gallons coming off and being filtered, but then ending up on Park Street. It's going to run right down around the corner and I'm just kind of curious as to how we're going to handle that because it's gonna, you know, we don't the town hasn't solved that problem, but this would add to that problem. So, I'm just kind of curious about that. That's one.

So, yeah, go ahead. So, I'll I'll address a couple several points. Number one, uh we're obligated by ordinance to provide storm order management when you exceed more than 250 square feet of new impervious coverage. We are not. We're only putting 91 square feet. So in terms of what is coming off the site, it'll look very much like it does today from that particular property. Ah

second. Now secondly we have added storm water management and we've connected everything. Uh we we have added a dry well and although it's not what you would get if you uh turn like a a wooded site to a new development. It is something where it actually controls the the discharge from the site and then discharges it to the drainage system in the pipe underground in the street as opposed to dumping it into the gutter. Good. Got it. So, okay. Uh, and in terms of, uh, an added element is that we have a a 12-in wide trench drain across the end of the driveway.

So, every drop that comes down that driveway is going to get picked up in either one of the inlets before that or before it goes out across the the the uh the sidewalk into the gutter line, it has to drop into that drain and goes back to the drywall and then to the pipe in the straight. something I like. Wonderful. Second question, the the crossing. Okay. Um, is there a way that you can engineer in some kind of either, you know, like in New York when the car comes out, there's the beeping that goes on? Yes. Because women walk past there with children all the time.

Yes. And without some kind of system to alert that a car is coming out. I mean, we can't do anything about the cars turning in, but we could do something to both alert the cars that maybe I I mean, I don't know this stuff, but either to let the car know that someone's about to cross or to let the women and children know that a car is coming out. So typically what we do is we add some kind of auditory, you know, some kind of sound thing when something comes out or a flashing a small flashing light so people can see something. Oh, that' be great.

And and that is what we use on these buildings that are close in close proximity to to sidewalks. And this building's going to have that. It can. It's not in there right now, but we can have that. Yeah. It's not that big deal. That would be great. My personal preference is the lights that are embedded in the sidewalk that you can see as you walk up towards the driveway. We've had that in several other applications. I don't know if it's said they were going to do it and they didn't do it. So, no, they did not do it. They don't work. They don't work. Oh, lovely. Oh, maybe that's something for code enforcement to look at then because because I I you know, and this is my my personal preference. I'd rather have the lights than the the warbler because I just feel like that's got to get really annoying to the neighbors. But yeah, that's true.

If if your as a neighbor has a preference that hey, we have the No, I just I just want something there that actually works, flashes, does something that catches the eye of a child who's guarding. Absolutely. I you know, wonderful point. So, the preference is the sidewalk lights that go on when a car is coming out. Those are my That's my personal preference. I don't know if others in the board have an opinion one way or the other, but yes, that's my preference. And and the last thing is just that the width of a garbage truck, as I understand it, is usually about between eight and 10 feet. That's the good question for him. Is the width of a garbage truck about 8 to 10 feet? Is usually about 8 to 10 feet, depending on the size of the truck? Is that roughly? Yeah, approximately correct. Yes.

Okay. So, how wide is your is your double driveway? 18 feet. Because it seems to me that when those trucks pull in, they can't pull in too tight on either side. And then when they back out, they're backing out. And I'm not sure what you can do about this, but I'm going to present it to you. They're backing out with a car parked right on either edge and cars across the street. And they're it's really hard to make a turn out of there, which is why they usually double park.

So, I'm just throwing that out there. So the the the trash management plan or the waste plan that Janice is talking about uh will require us to go over uh how exactly that is done. Now what I would recommend to to my client is that he goes to a a garbage disposal company that has smaller trucks. They have them the size of pickup trucks. Well, that would be lovely. and and and they can get into very much smaller spaces and that alleviates the concern that you just expressed. Okay. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Would it be a benefit to have the trucks back in and then go out frontward as part of the plan?

Uh that yeah, that that might be an easier way to do it. Might be easier to back in to begin with and leave depending on what time of day they they come for pickup. That that's true. Or if they're pickup truck size, drive in K turn in the parking area and then you know load and drive back out face correct face first. Yes sir. Yes. Next. My name is Sean Wong. I'm from 272 Park Street. Um just want to clarify with the applicant. In the last hearing I if I'm not mistaken we were told that there will be public parking public parking available on site. Um today we heard something different. Just want to clarify. Did I get it wrong from last hearing or did did something change?

We nothing changed. If if if that was said, it was not meant to meet them. Okay. The parking would just be for the building residents and for restaurants. Yeah, understood. Employees or or customers of the restaurant. Got it. From my understanding, maybe this is a question to the board. I know West has public parking for people who they don't not anymore. I thought they used it says private parking when the driveway. So, what customers? Okay. Anyway, I think private parking I maybe I got it wrong. I thought I had similar I was similarly confus I thought the same thing actually but yes. So they don't so they don't it appears not. So Mr. Trump like can you confirm that the Westerly does not or do you know that it's true?

I know the Westerly when they were approved it was for parking for their residents and their customers. So customers of um the Milbour Deli. Yes. Or or residents. But you mean last year we said they have property parking. So I guess we were all confused. I thought I heard the same thing, but I assume I said it was said in error. Well, I assume what they meant is public the public who was who is going to that establishment, they're welcome to park there. That's what the parking's for. I think it's it's a

it's a nuance like I think what what ultimately Mr. Trembleac saying is you can't park there and then go across the street to another business. That's they're not allowing that. They're allowing people to, you know, any member of the public to park in their parking lot to go to that their property's business. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Uh my second question for the applicant is that uh on the variance uh since we have the site engineer here, do you have any study or any data to show or prove that 16 parking is enough for uh the site of this? Um our our next witnesses, traffic engineer and planner is going to address that.

Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Hi guys, Frank Reachi 398 up on Mountain Avenue. Um, I have a couple questions about the site. I'm working from the street backwards. Um, could you explain the reason for the pavers? the pavers that are situated in the furnishing strip between the street the sidewalk

there is it's basically part of a streetscape design that th those pavers are between uh tree grates and you know there it's you have a sidewalk and then uh it I believe it's the same treatment that they had on on I understand but that's what I'm confused about because I'm looking at the rendering which is not yours it's the architect's Mhm. But it shows grass in the in the furnishing strip. Grass on the other side of the sidewalk, which is the township right away about 5 ft.

Mhm. And we're in the NC zone, but everything about this design is set back. It's 35. The building's 35 ft from the curb. Yeah. So, I don't understand if we're trying to make this look residential, why are we putting in pavers? And then I'll follow up with another question. That's part of it. It's considered. Okay. You have about 38 feet of curb space right now, which is going to go down to about 25 ft or so.

Yeah. By the time you finish, which means you're losing a parking spot. So you at best and assuming you have three foot spacers on each side of the aprons for the various the two properties you can't even fit a regulation on street spot there. I mean you can fit a car but it won't be regulation. Regulation I think is 22 feet. So is that the question? So can you

So my question is what's the purpose of the pavers? It's not to service parking. It's not to service any typical NC zone thing. It's one thing if you're in front of Wong Deli and you have the pavers and where are you going to have a patio dining a cafe license of some type. Mhm. Why would you put pavers here? I mean fits into the streetscape. Well, maybe Mr. Anderson can answer that. It was adding to the streetscape and I believe we did the same thing uh at the Milbour Deli too. Okay. But I mean but both properties on either side have grass furnishing strips. Correct.

Um it it they'll either get filled in or they or we could you know if if the question because it leads me to another question. Yeah. Is if this is not critical to the design. It's not.

Okay. And you have a problem with garbage access, a potential problem with garbage removal, Ubers. Would you consider doing a cutout or a recess in place of the pavers like was suggested for the redevelopment project on Orange Road where they were going to they asked for the ability to make a cutout there in front of I forget the name of the property now. It's the one next to the between the hotel and the garage. um and use that as a loading zone, a 15minute, a 10-minute pickup strip, a place for the garbage truck to park and not impede traffic, wouldn't have to pull in, wouldn't have to block one of the drive aisles at rush hour when people are leaving the site.

Um would you consider that? I I don't I don't think that's a good solution in this location. Why would that be? Uh there's no other pulloffs along all of Park Street or anywhere in Wong Plaza that I know of where you can pull off like that and you know have a cutout there. Also there's uh numerous there's a utility pole line there that's relocated. No, you just do a bump out around it.

Yeah, I I I I think it's better served to we're talking about smaller vehicles getting into the site, smaller garbage trucks, and I think that's the solution. Would it help the sightelines of people pulling in and pulling out that they wouldn't have um the parking the parking would in effect you'd have a wider roadway in effect and you'd have better sightelines for the people egress and ingress. I don't think it helps your sight lines in any appreciable way. Um okay. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Um the you mentioned that you have a dry well. I assume the dry well is on the property. It's not in the right away in any way. Correct. Okay. And then working back to the there's a doorway adjacent to the drive aisle uh coming out of the pizzeria. It's what's the purpose of that doorway? Uh I believe it's just a rear entrance to the to the restaurant itself. Okay. So it's not an emergency entrance because it's a inwood opening doorway. My concern is that speaking from your expertise though not the architects

is that there is it on the plans it shows no curbing there. It shows it's flush with the drive aisle and it's very short. There's no distance. There's no ballards. There's no nothing. So, anybody coming out that doorway is walking directly into the drive aisle versus the westerly which has a sidewalk. Would can you correct that situation or what would you suggest to improve that situation?

Well, I don't know that it's as critical as you're making it sound. I mean, the number of car the number of cars going in and out of here is not going to be like walking across Park Street where somebody's walking out blindly. you would walk out the door and there it's unlikely that somebody's going to be coming most of the time. Okay. But we have a vision zero type of mentality around here. So we don't even like even one happening. But if if that let's say the drive let's and I don't want to be argumentative. I'm just I'm just looking at it from a use point of view. It's a it's a doorway. It's a service doorway to a restaurant. It's not an emergency exit because it would have to open the other way. Right. Correct.

Mhm.

Okay. So, the expectation to put it there, it was there put there for a reason. And my concern is with all the conversation about Ubers and pickups and things like that and access to the parking area that that people customers who are eating at dinner hour maybe, which is similar to rush hour. you have Uber drivers rushing in to get their pickups and rushing back out. I I think there's going to be more people than you're downplaying that are using that doorway or could use that doorway and and we can't know how it's going to be used. All we can do is design to mitigate that the potential for it to be misused. So, I'm just saying is there Would you recommend keeping the doorway and just tolerating any conflicts that happen or you're saying maybe eliminate the doorway or is there something we can do from an engineering standpoint?

There is. There is. Okay, that's my question. So, so if you're concerned about vehicles coming in, my my No, my concern is about pedestrians getting struck by vehicles coming in. Okay. Right. So, what you would do is you'd put in a traffic calming measure. You would put a a small speed hump or something on both directions so that whoever was coming through in the car would not be going a lot faster. They'd hit that they get to that speed hump and they'd be going near zero and it would give more opportunity for somebody to to see them as they're coming out the door.

Sounds reasonable. Um, and I uh just going back to the parking arrangement and the credits. Mhm. Can somebody who's charging a car use a ADA space? Yes. Who's not ADA? Oh, no. Okay. So, those are dedicated spots. Those are not part of the general mix. park. The charging station is between the ADA space and a regular space, right?

So, if you have your regular SP, you want to charge your electric vehicle as you're coming to get pizza, you'll just pull into the space that's next to the ADA space and charge your car. Okay. And that's you have that same situation further down with the resident. They have a choice. Yes. Correct. Okay. Now, in past projects, this board has required the building to be pre-wired for future um EV stations with the idea that maybe one day the entire lot would be serviced by EV cars.

Yeah. Um, will you stipulate to pre-wiring the 16 spaces so that at any point they could easily be converted over to EV spaces. So, the law requires that a certain number of spaces are make ready and we will comply with that that part of the law. But if you're asking for a variance, maybe it's a pre we would go a little further than just the law and say, "Okay, we're asking for a variance." So, we'll give a little tip. Okay. Certainly can put the conduit in the ground and and size the electrical system coming into the building for it.

Yeah. anything you could do for that day when eventually when it comes um that's fire will be real happy. I'm sorry the fire chief will be ecstatic about that. Um, yeah, I I did have a fire question, but um I don't know if this is for you or for another person, but again, I look at that rendering and I'm horrified by it. I'm sorry. I just It's not yours, but it it just it's so inongruent with a neighborhood commercial space. But there's a question that goes with that.

Yes. My question is, did you consider the pros and cons of asking for a variance to have the building set back the same distance as the westerly instead of 20 ft? Uh that was not my consideration. Okay. So that that didn't come into play. That didn't come into impervious. It never came into any of those conversations that what if we move the building up 10 ft or whatever 12 ft it that was decided before I came onto the project.

Okay. And as far as outdoor dining space allocated that would be something other than you that's not under your perview. It's there's nothing proposed. No, but I was saying the planning board is going to change the NC ordinance next year because it's pretty much a travesty. And one of the things the planning board doesn't have jurisdiction to do that. No, but you will change it in the master plan on page 170 that was cited by the testimony by the applicants that said what part of page 170?

It was fourth paragraph. Um but what said that there is a problem with the NC zone in the 20oot setbacks. The planning board has been on record as being concerned about the 20 foot setback in the in the NC zones and it's inconsistent with what is there. Um you end up places like Belleview Avenue. So the I'm getting into commentary, sorry, but it it is inconsistent with the master plan. Even though the master plan is inconsistent with the ordinance, you're going with the ordinance and ignoring the master plan. Does that pretty much sum it up?

That's what we have to. That's what Yeah, that's what we're requireing. But you could use the master plan as a basis for the variance. Okay. Um the other thing is um as far as setbacks since we're on to the subject I'm unclear the setback requirement because this is the last lot in the NC zone. The only adjoining building that matters is 258 as far as changing this what the setback shall be. Is that correct? Uh I'm not sure exactly.

Let me rephrase. In pretty much every other zone that we have, certainly the residentials, but um but we also have it in the light industry zone, we use average setbacks, which is three buildings on each side. Okay. Yep. If we use the average set and the and also has a clause that they throw out the outlier. You can throw out the outlier if it's twice as much. Yes.

Okay. So, we can't do that. I'm not sure if we can do that in the NC zone because if you take the three buildings to the south, you would throw out 258 as being an outlier, and then you would use westerly and the the building next to it, the only other building, which are zero setbacks, as I understand it.

Pretty close to it. Yeah. So my question goes back to is your understanding of the ordinance that the only building that matters in determining the setback meeting the setback language is 258 and that the westerly doesn't count and the other building doesn't count and certainly the buildings on the north and the R2 zone don't count. Well, I haven't looked at it in terms of an average setback to the joiners. looked at it as a requirement of the the setback in in the zone and

but but the requirement that's what I'm asking you about the requirement says that it has to be 20 ft or it shall be the lesser of the two of the uh of the of the lesser building. In other words, if 258 was five feet off set back only five feet, this building could be five feet. The way I read the ordinance, ignoring the westerly, ignoring any other property in the Nancy. Is that your read? It it's it's it's complicated. I mean, you don't have the same zone immediately to the north. So, you pretty much anything on that side,

but you have to be sensitive to what those buildings are, too. I mean, you don't necessarily want to hold zero setback all the way down the street and then just jump in at the when you get to the first residential dwelling. So, it's somewhat of a transition. I'm glad you testified to that. Okay. So, if you're having to be sensitive to what's adjacent, 258 is not going to be around for in 10 years. It's not likely to be there in its current form. There's a good chance it won't be there.

Mhm. So you will have a building that will use the westerly. It's an adjoining building with zero setback and it will be built with zero setback later. And we'll have this building that will be set back 20 ft from any new building that goes between them. So what's the grass? What's the question? My question is how does that work into the sensitivity of what is around? He he's trying to well just ask him I just want I want you to ask him a question about his test.

You were asking a question about conceptual whatif and you've moved past what the ordinance requires. So since you're into that line of thinking, I'm asking you to apply that line of thinking to 258 that in 5 years in in in relatively short order, we could easily have another westerly at 258. Mhm. Which will have a zero setback and we will have this. Do you think that's insensitive to the neighborhood commercial concept? Is that cons congruent with the neighborhood commercial concept or is this going to be an outlier

and we're going to put I don't know if you're familiar with Belleview Avenue where we have many buildings that were set back and they put additions on the front and it doesn't look too great. It's small scale but it doesn't look too great and the master plan calls it out. So, I'm I'm questioning what your con what your parameters are for sensitivity to the neighborhood and the district. Well, I right. I'm looking at a photograph now that I don't know if the board's seen this, but um the house at 258 is really set back very close to what we have now. Yeah. It's almost identical what we're proposing.

It's almost identical. Yeah. But you you brought up the ide the concept of being sensitive. Well, we don't and as you mentioned as you mentioned, you don't know what 258's going to be, whether they come halfway between what it is at the Westerly and and what we're proposing. And we don't. And what we're proposing right now though is a building that will be 35 ft from the curb line, 20 ft from the rightway with a grass lawn in a neighborhood commercial zone. at the end. I don't I don't understand how the sensitivity works for the neighborhood commercial. It's very sensitive to R2. Yeah. Well, yeah, which is right next to it.

Yeah. A matter of fact, the the rendering looks like it's a R2 zone. It could be an R3 zone. It doesn't look like an NC zone. That's my my I I think that the argument that changing the setback is more suited for 258 whenever they come in. Okay. For their application. Fair enough. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. makes a valid point. The fact is we got a 20 foot setback.

Gerald Fierce 260 Park. Um because I know many variances were given to the Westerly that did not fulfill were not fulfilled like the lights that we mentioned and I know that there's often trash on your lawn. Um so I wonder about maintenance and the promises that or the ideas that you've said about u snow removal rubbish. What happens? What is the legal penalty when those things are not fulfilled? Well, that's maybe it's a question for the board's attorney. Certainly not an engineering question.

Ah I mean that's a question really for code enforcement. Yeah. I don't have that answer. No, I just wonder because as I hear your answers, in other words, the truth is you don't know what you're speaking about. No, that's that's fair.

So, we're here to get a site plan approved. It has a certain number of parameters, things that have to be built in accord and and the town will supervise that it's constructed in accordance with the plans. So, this this agreement is fulfilled. how it's operated becomes part of what the chairman said is part of code enforcement. If something happens after it's after this whole deal is done, we're no longer in the picture, then you call code enforcement and saying they're not doing it the way they were approved and they will come out and give them a notice of violation. That's the way it goes. I mean, we're not in this for the rest of our lives, you know, making sure that Gino's taking the trash out on Tuesday,

right? No. Well, but exactly because as I I mean people don't use the loading zone at the at the Waverly. People don't the the trash truck won't be small. The I mean that's that's reality. Well, we have to see what they present to us in the plan. Okay. No, I I just wanted to ask the question and if there is something different then I just wanted to ask the question. I appreciate the question. I didn't know who was responsible for enforcement. Thank you. And that's why as part of any kind of approval here um we can use that for enforcement to point to. I'm sorry.

That's why we have resolutions here and and the board makes decisions reflected in resolutions and that's when things we ask for all these items to be provided so we can enforce them down the road if they're not being addressed. Okay. Diane Moore Wine Gas, 268 Park Street. Hi. Um, the rendering is not up right now. Uh, the showing the buildings. Uh, but you had I think it's Mr. Graham. If you if you have zero setbacks between 258 and 260, are there w there's windows on the south side of 260? Right.

And I believe a balcony as well. And a balcony. So if you build if you have don't have have you're permitted to have zero setbacks then the building at 258 which will what's the new building will be right at the window of the 260. In other words I'll be here and you'll be the window. No. Is that right? What would that is that right?

Yeah. because I just I did overhear the gentleman who bought 258. I happened to run into him at the building department upstairs and I overheard him say that once this building gets built if it does his property it'll be worth so much more to the ne to the builder he'll sell to who'll do the same thing. So anticipating a building next to it without that with zero setbacks, that means that I'll be looking in your wind. Wait, that window will have either a brick wall or or a window with a window about as far away as I am from you.

I I would like to answer your question, but this is really an architectural question as to what how the building is made up. I have my testimony is based on site engineering and I'm happy to answer any question that you have about my testimony. So you don't also so this parking spaces is not your parking spaces you can ask me about. Yeah. Okay. So the the required 20 yes becomes 18 for the credit for the two EV spaces is what you said. So it's 18 spaces, correct? That's assuming you didn't get a variance. So correct.

Right. So you would need 18 and the only So you could could you eliminate one apartment and not need that two spaces? Uh I think that would do it. Yes. Okay. So one way or the other, you could either eliminate an apartment or get a variance in order to have less seats in the pizzeria, you know, and things like that. There's if we carve if we cut the parking demand down, we could potentially be variance free. What did you say? Did you say something about seats in the pizzeria? Parking is calculated for commercial uses like restaurants based on the number of seats.

So the what are the proposed number of seats for the restaurant? 17 17 seats in the restaurant and that's how you got to the required number of spaces you would need. Yes. One for three.

Okay. So, okay. Okay. So, you were allowing how many spaces for the the pizza place needs? Six, seven spaces. It's a fractional. 5.7 spaces are required for the pizzeria. Okay. Now, what's are the when the rain the the rain that's coming down the gutters are are they included in the width of the building or are they outside? They're outside, right?

No, it's it's internal to the building. It's a flat roof with me that come down. their internal drafts. So, because they at you said that that they would allow for a half inch of rain. I know we're expecting 3/4 of inch of rain tomorrow. So, let's let's say you have an extra quarter inch that's supposed to be taken up by the dry well. That's where that's going to go. That's what you meant by that. They come down. They're collected on the roof and in the parking lot and it and it comes either down the roof leaders down through the building and comes into 12 what we have is a 12-in diameter pipe under the ground on both

all the way down the length of the parking lot and that on one side only or two sides? One side but it all the water is pitched towards that area. So it's collected into that pipe and it's a the water goes into that pipe and then it is conveyed all it all the way out to the dry well if the volume because it rains 3/4 of an inch instead of a half inch right whatever it may start overflowing it'll start overflowing through a pipe that goes out to the street to the pipe that's in the street underground underground yes yes Yeah. Be clear about when you say overflow makes people think it's coming out out of the manhole down the driveway and into the street.

Okay. You what you've designed I believe is an underground pipe that will manage it before anything surfaces. Correct. And go into the actual storm sewer of the township. And even though they are adding a little more impervious coverage surfaces, they are adding a lot of space to keep the water on the site. So, it'll be better than it is now. And it would be even better than that if they landbanked the two spots in the rear. And it would have even more capacity to handle that water.

Well, I mean, ideally, you would just have one apartment less, not have that problem, and you'll have the two spaces, whether they're they're banked or not banked. I mean, that's a different issue. Let me just see if I can get out of here. Hold on. Okay. So, what what were we talking about with those windows? Oh, that's not for you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Park Street. I think these are quick questions. Just to clarify, when you were speaking about the width of the parking spaces, I hope I misheard you. Did you say some of the spaces were 7 and a half ft wide? Fortunately, you did mishar me. Okay. 8.75.

8.7. That's fine. And just because you brought up you said there were no plans or you you weren't aware of what was going on with seating, outdoor seating for the restaurant. Just want to point out that the last meeting, Mr. D Santis made a commitment that there would be no outdoor seating. Just wanted to reinforce that. Thank you. Thank you. Diane Moore, uh, 268 Park Street. Is there a special fire wall between the restaurant and the apartments? Is I'm sorry. Again, that's inside the building. Um just outside the architect. Thank you.

Welcome. Any other questions from the public of this witness? I see none. Mr. Tremulac, we are I think you have one more witness to go. We are well past our tonight typical time. So we'll carry this to a new date which I guess we'll have to figure out our calendar like now. I Yeah. What I'd like to do is since we haven't adopted our calendar for next year, I'd like to propose that we schedule the first meeting in January for January 12th. Does that work for everybody who's here? That's the second Monday in January.

It's good by me. Okay. All right. So, I'll have the full calendar for for the board at the December 15th meet. uh December 14th meeting, but for it will include a January 12th meeting and we will carry this public hearing to January 12th. January 12th. Okay. No further notice required and you'll grant us any extensions at times required. Of course. All right. Thank you. So see you back here on January 12th. Thank you. All right. Next up, any committee reports? Take this. Thank you. I do not reports. Okay. And then we have bills.

We have bills which I you got in your packet today. Saw the bills. Yes. Somebody called uh this individual letite. I don't know who it was, but I would motion to pay the bills. Is there a second? Yes. Second. All in favor? Extensions. Okay. I would move adjournment. Second. All in favor? Okay, have a great night everyone.