Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening everyone and welcome to the December 15, 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 the newspaper designated by the township for notices. This meeting is being broadcast live on channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube. This meeting is a quasi judicial proceeding, meaning that the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law, and we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. And the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. The fire exits are on my right, which is your left, and also the back of the room where you entered. And next up is roll call.

Mayor Basceril present. Mr. Borchoff present. Mr. Campbell, I believe he's coming. Uh, Councelor Damato. Mr. Vice Chair Graham is excused. Mr. Ian Wallally is excused. Mr. Felise is excused. Miss Willis here. Mr. Neman here. And Cher Brod, I'm here. Okay. Next up, we have the swearing in of our board professionals. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you may give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you. Next up, we have the approval of the minutes.

Should we do them one at a time? Does anybody have additional revisions for any of the three minutes? Or need an extra minute to look through them. Okay. I think I think uh Keith did a pretty thorough Yeah. review of the minutes. Thank you. Hopefully. And now that Miss Lachman's not here, I have to, you know, step it up again. Yeah. Step your game up. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. As amended. Okay. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Okay. Which which one are you abstaining from, Miss Willis? December the 1st. Okay, great.

And next up, we have our 2026 meeting calendar. Yes, we need to adopt the calendar tonight so we can schedule next month's meeting. So, are there any changes to the draft calendar? We can always change it once it's adopted, but so that's it. That's it. Okay. So, motion to approve the calendar for 2026. So moved. Second, mayor. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Okay. Next up, we have a resolution for 82 Pine Street. Uh unfortunately that resolution is not

unfortunately that resolution is not yet complete and uh Mr. Tremulac is aware of it. So it'll be prepared for our next meeting depending on what the calendar is on that. I want to say it's January 12th. January 12th. Yes. Okay. I know you'll be chomping at the bit to review this resolution over the next 30 days, but you know so you'll have it to us tomorrow. Okay. Uh, next up we have a few board resolutions related to uh, contracts for next year. We've got uh, Bey Padavano for planning board attorney.

Yes. Is there a there was um, a slight change in the rate for Batty Padavana which was to increase the per meeting rate uh, by $25 per meeting. So that was the only change. So is there other than that is there a motion to and I I had a couple of minor Yeah. edits. Yeah, that's fine. Then I would move approval as amended. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Abstensions.

Then one for Level G Associates as the planning board parking expert. Yes, we have did not have a a need for them this year, but they uh level G and Jerry Giosa has been very invaluable providing practical advice when we are evaluating major parking var not major parking variances and largely parking structures. So second all in favor I opposed abstensions. Then we have negle engineering for both planning board engineer and planning board traffic engineer. So move.

I actually had a question on the rates. It looks like some of those rates, Mr. Hernandez, went up significantly this year. It seems like a lot to me. Um, yeah. So that was based off of Is your microphone on? Yeah, that was based off of our 2020 five rates, right? which I mean I'm I'm looking at it as a if I calculated it correctly an average of 18%. Which seems really steep to me. Yeah, I believe we held rates constant the last couple years. So that may be why you're seeing a more significant jump.

Yeah, I mean one was 32% I think. I don't have my notes right in front of me, but it seemed steeper than normal for a uh annual increase. So, is that the is that the case that that's our current rate? I mean, you've held them. Yeah, I believe believe we held the rates current um from our 2020 I guess three, right? That was the original the original, right? The original contract was uh or 2024 2024 2024 because this we're in year three of a five-year, right, contract, right? So, correct. So I think I think I think the

I think the question comes into um I know that the I know that the there was an RFP issued which were resubmitted. Those new rates were submitted under that RFP submission. I believe on the agenda is the renewal of the prior. So if we're renewing the prior, we can hold the prior rates. Then I will re then let's hold let's pull this resolution. I think I think that's where the I think that's fine. Yeah, we'll pull this resolution and put it on for the next meeting. I I have no issue with your service. Yeah. So um it's it's not that I just I you know I wanted to issue the RFP just in case, right?

I didn't want to be caught in a situation where we don't have engineering support. So, so the rate changed was based off the assumption that would be another five years. Okay. Okay. So, I think that's where the So, I'll go back occurred. If you can just send me a letter, if you can just send me a letter confirming your 2024 rates that way and I will do the resolution. We can do that for next week. And I'm not opposed to an increase. If you, you know, feel based on your business conditions, as long as the RFP allows it, I'm fine with a, you know, a reasonable cost of cost of living adjustment increase. So, I'm I'm fine with that. It's just 18%. Yeah. Again, yeah, that that that is our current 2025 rate.

Sure. Um, again, that was submitted based on the assumption that that potentially behold over for additional five years. That makes sense. Um, so just kind of make in that case I know you got to look 5 years out and you want to keep them constant. So yeah, if you if you two would get together on that and we will figure out what you want to propose. We can on that. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Thank you. And that moves us on to the continued public hearing on the sustainability and resilience amendment to the unified land use and circulation element. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

Evening for record. uh Nicholas Dickerson of Kier's Engineering and Design. And uh before I throw up some stuff on the screen, just wanted to kind of summarize what I'll be discussing tonight. Um so when we were here last in October, we got quite a bit of feedback from the public, uh from the board, uh and then also some additional feedback uh from the planning office, uh and then written comments that were submitted to our office as well. Uh, we took all of that information and let's see, we took all that information and we went back and looked at the document and saw where we could make changes. And I'd summarize them into a couple different buckets. Um, one is merely just, you know, proofreading the document, making sure like, you know, tighten up the grammar. Um, any sort of like silly like, oh, there's two periods at the end of the sentence type things. um you know went through took care of that kind of information. We cleaned up the maps. Uh I think the maps look a lot more sharp. Uh they're a lot more clear to read now. Um and we also made some adjustments based on feedback concerning like landslides. We looked to see what was uh further up the hill basically uh and provided some additional clarification there. U there's a few things that reflected passage of time. uh we referenced looking out for the 2025 Essex County hazard mitigation plan that's been adopted and now we we'll be on the lookout for the 2030 hazard mitigation plan for the county. Uh there was updates to the acknowledgements page to reflect uh the current roster of the planning board. Uh we had answered some questions and that we received about adding additional neighborhood grocery stores. Um some other information uh we clarified vulnerable communities since we can't continue to update vulnerable

communities based on the new uh the US EPA information. We are now strictly relying upon the New Jerseys overburdened communities uh definition. Um and maybe we'll revisit this in a couple years and the EPA will exist again and that the EPA exists. They just took down EJ screen, right? So that tool is gone. Sorry, I'm exaggerating here, but environmental justice screening just so so folks that aren't necessarily in the environmental world, they may not understand what you're saying.

Correct. My apologies. Um, we updated the recommendations section based on the feedback we received and we also did provide additional um, information on the the town's um, 2024 climate action plan. And what I did and I what I can do is I compared the two documents and I can go through the documents to show what changes were made. Um, I don't know what the board's pleasure is with this, um, but happy to go through it, um, or answer any specific questions.

I'd say you just gave us highlights. I mean, I did my own document compare. It's actually extensive, you know, in terms of the number of edits. I don't think there were I mean, there were some things that certainly were substantial, but there were some, like you say, that were copy edits. I will look around the board and see if folks would like more information. anything in particular you all have questions on that you'd like Mr. Dickerson to review or if it's helpful to go line by line or just think that might be a little too much or you think it's helpful Mr. came. No. Okay. It was an agreement. Okay. I I don't know if you're shaking your head at me like, "Yeah, let's do that." In which case, I'm happy to go through all 79 pages.

Yeah. I mean, I was um unless I see anything from the rest of the board. I was happy to to see a lot of your changes, especially the incorporation of the uh climate action plan and the recommendations therein because I think it it really did dovetail nicely for a lot of the information that you put in the document originally and I appreciate you doing the copy editing as well. Um, I do have a couple of probably hopefully minor copy edits. Um, and I'm just going to go through them quickly, but then I'll just send you perfect copy of uh what I have here. Even better. Uh, page 11. And these are all the PDF pages.

Page 11 at the bottom. It says public EV charging stations. I think that was a hold over from an older section. So, I think it should just say environmental sustainability. And again, I'm going to go quick because I think most of these are copy edit. Okay. Um, same thing with page 15. It's in the resilience section, so the footer should say resilience. Okay. Um, page 29, which is one of the maps. There's still a hold over from the dots from the original map. Okay. And there's some extra duplicate labels. Just clean that one up. Yep.

But I I agree with you. These maps are a lot more readable, easier to follow. So, thank you. Uh, where do I have next? Um, oh, page 37 when we're discussing the contaminated sites block and lot is great, but I think for the reader having the address is going to be helpful. Um, let me see. It's page what I say 37. Yeah, let me I I want to go that one because I know we made that adjustment and there might be a reason why we don't have additional information. Okay. Um, so page 37.

Yeah, it's the blue call out box. Okay. Okay. Oh. Oh, I see that for the two that are the block and lot having an address added to them as well. Yes. Okay. I just it'd be helpful for the reader. Yeah. The first two we can do. The next three I believe are in the road and don't have an address associated with them necessarily. So

Okay. Okay. Uh what else do I have here? Page 41. Oh, that that is one page 41. When we discuss floodprone areas, uh, one of the labels is locally identified flooding. What was the source of that? I believe that came from the original, uh, CCR HBA. Okay. Um, and so that was a carryover. I think there were something like 33 or 35 areas. It was much more extensive. Correct. It might be it might be that they are superseded by the flood elevation areas, but I I'd have to I'd have to compare the two maps

that the map with the ones you're talking about is on page 37 or 34 of the document um and 35 kind of split in two. And so this map doesn't have nearly as many, but you can see them more clearly identified on that other map, which I believe may just be pulled from our earlier um the storm water. Yeah, there's one map that uh if you're talking about Yeah, the impervious coverage map. Yeah. Yes, that one.

That one was the uh one hold over map um from the previous document. So what that's show but it's not labeled or it says floodprone areas but it's not locally identified I think again because we didn't have the source data we use the I believe the exact same map including the same key from the prior um I think we have it in a in a GIS we should yeah somebody in the township and probably in Miss Tally's office has that it's a GIS map I even think it's on our website so it is Yeah, we can get that.

Yeah, I know. I got most like like we were informed by most of the shape files that were provided to us. I don't know like I'll have to double check on that one and we don't have it. I'll be in touch. Yeah, I think that's if because I think it would make sense to add it there just so it's it gives that complete picture of the floodprone areas. It really Yeah, should be added to uh page 41. Correct. And I guess any other maps that involve the flooding. Yes. So, we'll get that shape file over to you. Yeah. And if that gets updated. Um,

and then moving over to page 64, the recommendations. Recommendation number six. Felt like there was something missing in the text. And I'll wait for folks to get there. Page 64, recommendation number six. We're installing street codes in downtown areas to provide the the prior document I think referenced awnings and perhaps something else.

Yes. So the the prior recommendation was where installing street trees is not feasible in downtown areas, consider adopting design standards that would encourage or require awnings along sidewalks. And the next one uh so then the revised one was where installing treat uh street trees is not feasible in downtown areas to provide shade trees. Uh, no. Oh, where it's not feasible in downtown areas to provide shade trees. Yeah, the wording could be improved. Yeah, I was like, what's there's there's something missing there. Is it trees or is it to provide or is it still to provide awnings?

Generally, the Okay. Um, just so that we're not changing any uh like we're not making any um substantive changes after this. The intent of this would be in areas where street trees are not feasible, seek some sort of design um recommendation that would help to mitigate urban heat island for people who are like walking along the downtown. Maybe it's to provide Is your microphone on? Maybe it should just say where installing street trees is not feasible in downtown areas, comma, provide uh awnings and canopies or encourage awnings and canopies and similar coverage

covers similar infrastructure, similar structures to mitigate urban heat island impacts. I like that. Okay. Awnings and canopies, I think. What else is there? Yeah. I know. I like that. Parasols. Parasols as well. Yeah, I think awnings and canopies make sense. Sure.

Um, and then hopefully it's my last one on page 67, recommendation number 25, which says, "Require electric utilities to be located underground where feasible." I was going to say, "Require electric and telecommunication utilities to be located underground where feasible." So it's at the very top of page 67. Recommendation number 25. Just add telecommunication after elector and telecommunication after electric. Sorry. So did I. I'm getting used to this um PDF comparison and it is it takes forever to scroll through them. Yes. Yeah. Okay. That's what I did on uh yesterday in fact. So require electric and

and telecommunication and and again I'll send you these some of them won't have the language that we just generated here but at least it'll give you the the key points and those were all my questions and changes. Yeah, we can uh yeah believe we can accommodate all those. So they all sound you know like you said very minor. So that's not an issue. That's what I would hope. There any other questions or comments from the board?

Uh my general comment is this felt like a much more polished finished document that felt a lot more personal to Montlair as opposed to the prior one which felt a lot more generalized. And so I really appreciate the effort that went into cleaning it up and really focusing it on our needs and and demands. Thank you. Anything else from the board? Are there any members of the public that wish to make a comment about this amendment?

Nope. Okay. Okay. Um, one last question, Miss Tally. Remind me where this is going to go in the land use and circulation element. It's is it get appended to the resiliency section? It's a separate document. It's a separate document. Okay. Because remember our master plan our unified land use plan was was done in 2015 10 years ago we've amended it it's very unwieldy and this is a very large document so think of it as a companion document okay

um and in fact what I we can do is add a simply add a statement to our um unified land use and circulation plan referencing this and I think it would be where we have the um the climate change related hazard vulnerability assessment is still in there. We'll just keep it in there and just add a statement that it's superseded with this separate document. Okay, that way it references it. Okay, that works for me. But this will be posted on our website as a as a standalone document amending the the land use plan. Okay.

Okay. Well, with that, I would move approval as amended. Second. All right. All in favor? I opposed abstensions. Okay.

Well, thank you everyone. Great job. And uh we'll probably be in touch as we are now in the process of putting together our resilience action plan which takes the recommendations of this document and distills it into the next steps. And so we have a draft circulating and I will be in touch with Janice uh to see how we want to move that one forward. I don't necessarily believe that it is necessarily a document that requires adoption by any board but we are looking for input and feedback. So you know we appreciate what we got in this one. So we may need to uh also pick your brains on the next steps. Absolutely. Is that document ever adopted by a council?

I don't believe it has to be adopted by anybody. I believe it's just a reference document that can be right. There's no I mean it's not required by the MLUL. Um in my experience it's been a document that we've prepared and we've provided to the municipality and that's about it. But I think these documents are much better when you actually get a little bit of feedback and you can fine-tune it a little bit further based on you know local conditions. So okay. So, we'll be in touch

and I see there's a member from the environmental commission here in the audience and so maybe if you can exchange information I think the environmental commission will be interested in commenting on that and maybe you know through Miss Tally's office. I'm not sure how you want to work the communications but I think that's why Mr. Martens is here tonight. I can I can communicate to Nick and communicate to our sustainability officer which as of tomorrow will be a department of sustainability. Oh, fantastic. is creating. So there's where it works. Yeah. Perfect. So we will have a department of sustainability. Do I need to update that in the uh introduction of this report? No, because it's not doesn't exist yet. Okay. It's on tomorrow night's council agenda. Fair enough.

So, well, thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all the work on this.

Next up, we have the Elm Mission New Street redevelopment plan discussion. Um, so, uh, Zanab and I, uh, tried to summarize some of our concerns and the concerns we heard about the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment plan in this memo. Um, and I think it became apparent with the 10 Hartley Street project, uh, approved site plan application that what can be built, um, under the requirements in the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment plan is really at odds, I think, with a lot of the changes that we made in our master plan. For instance, the L new Mission Street basically the redevelopment plan basically um reinforces our existing or the C1 zone that was in existence in 2009 which promotes six-story buildings.

Our master plan, our adopted master plan for many of these areas promotes fourstory buildings. And I acknowledge that our zoning ordinance has never been changed to reduce the height from six stories to four stories. And maybe with this council, we can work on that, but it's been rejected over the past

two attempts. Um I think this it's not a good fit. And so what we recommend is rescending the Elm new Mission Street redevelopment plan because in the nine it was adopted in 2009. It's been what 17 years I'm doing my math almost right be in 2026. Um it basically it doesn't reflect any of the work that we've done. And so what we re recommend is for the areas that are along Bloomfield Avenue, creating a new zoning district that reflects the master plan with a maximum height of uh four stories and not six stories uh and a subsequent maximum uh height in terms of feet. And we have the numbers in here, we took that straight from the master plan. So, it's an opportunity to start here and maybe this can be the springboard for starting a larger conversation with our new council about re-evaluating the C1 zone so that it ale reflects the recommendations in our master plan.

Question, please. So, um yes, I like that idea along Bloomfield Avenue,

right? So in your mind along Mission Street and New Street, what what does that do? Because I think that they lend themselves very well to um our two, you know, residential types of things. And so is there a way that we can not just call all of that like New Street, Mission Street area and have that in even the same um zone as the Bloomfield Avenue because I think it's so clearly different. I think it's an opportunity to really capitalize on the fact that we know that we need to have more, you know, two two family options and I think that those streets would be very helpful.

That's an excellent point. And if you look on page nine of the of the report, you can see the map that we prepared which proposes exactly what you said. Okay. The the properties at front on Bloomfield Avenue are shown as a in a new zone district. We're calling it CD. Okay. CD um CD Montlair Center downtown. Okay. And then the properties behind those those properties on um New Street and Mission Street and Elm Street and Hartley Street. Well, not Elm Street, I'm sorry. Elm Street CD, but those other streets, we show the R2 zone because that's what those streets are. Great minds thinking and like. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Yep. 100%. Thank you. And so what would we have to do in order to make this happen? Next next steps. I believe I'll have to talk to the township attorney and our redevelopment attorneys. Um because I believe believe it's a resolution to resend I don't know if it's done by resolution or ordinance, but it'll be action taken by the council to resend that redevelopment plan. Okay. And we would replace it with a a re recommended zoning. So it there's a couple of steps. Okay.

Once you rescend it, you have to have something to replace it with. So we would have to actually introduce this a new zoning ordinance. So um I do have an economic development committee meeting scheduled for uh the the last week in December. So, I'll bring this up to it's on the agenda of that meeting and then we can start the conversation with the other members of the council and make this a priority for moving ahead in, you know, January and February and that would go to them and not the planning board members of the council.

Well, the planning board members would already be aware of it from for this. So you you and and and councelor Damato would so this is actually an opportunity to with three different council members to have the conversation as well. So as you so five of us would be ready to go because I'm thinking tomorrow my pin is going to be in the hand. I'm going to be sitting there talking to the attorney and trying to get some things done because I just think it's um great opportunity. So this will probably be you know January or February we'll be working with the council on this. we had to do our due diligence yes work

um and actually craft if if you're in support of this approach we start with you if you're in in support of this approach I'll then take it to those other council members and we'll look to get it onto a council agenda in January or February sounds like a plan thank you I'd like to compliment seems to me that it's a recommendation from the planning board that it be rescended right yes so there' be an initial recommendation coupled with the the new however you want to structure it. Okay.

And and the other piece of this is the overlay zone which we talked about previously for the Crawford Cruise property. Okay. So, um I don't that overlay zone would be an overlay under the we don't necessarily have to do the overlay zone at that same time, but this basically allows us to by rescending the redevelopment plan allows us to create that overlay zone. Miss Wallace. Yeah. I just wanted to compliment the results of your work because I think you did directly um address the kinds of concerns that were raised and I think you've done a very good job of doing that.

We did not discuss the issue of setbacks and all of that but I don't think perhaps this is the way to do it. I think that perhaps not doing it through this document would be appropriate. Okay. I I missed. What did you What was the second part of your stepbacks? Yeah. Do Do you want to stepbacks or stepbacks? I'm not sure which. Okay. You know, we had all of these with no everything built to the max and that was a problem, right? It's going to be with all the residential and we're going to put that at least for the the properties on Bloomfield Avenue. will put in what was in the master plan with the stepbacks and the setbacks which right

create we spent a lot of time talking and we amended the the land use plan to put those setbacks and stepbacks in there. So that's really for Bloomfield and then the R2 zone is essentially our R2 zone as it is today but I think you handled it in a in a good way. So yeah, I try to listen. Agreed. That's very important. And I might add to it too, as we're looking at uh what's termed option B in your memo, figure three, page nine, there's a couple of other areas that are still shown as C1. Should those also be converted to CD as part of this? You know, you can see between Hartley and new C1 and as it's shown directly abots R2. I see we can do that.

Yes, that separate because that that that's not part of the redevelopment plan. we can make the recommend include that in your recommendation to the council that for consistency. Yes, you include those two C1 districts.

Yes, that heart between Hartley and New and then Mission and whatever is further to the south off the page. And what I think would be a a a nice next step would be for um my staff and I to prepare a draft zoning for you with the permitted uses the SE. So rather than move ahead before we've had a chance to fully look at the proposed zoning, let's I'll have this discussion, but I think the zoning subcommittee and of the planning board should work with us on crafting the actual zoning requirements, including the uses because we didn't even go into the uses. Yes.

Okay. So, we'll come back to you with that. Okay. Um and uh before we actually introduce it to the council, we'll have to get everything ironed out here with the in terms of the recommendation. Okay. Yes. Yeah. And I think I I would echo the mayor's urgency on that is trying to push that as quickly as possible with your department and our subcommittee so that we can be prepared to come together as soon as possible to make that recommendation. This is pretty straightforward. Well, that's what I liked about it because it means it get can get done more quickly. Yes. Yeah. Yes. I agree.

So, my two cents are I'm I'm uh I'm in favor of option A rather than option B. Um I think moving to the regular C1 zone um makes sense with keeping consistency along Bloomfield Avenue. I think um it it's it's been working out pretty well and I wouldn't want to see us revert to a zoning that's gonna gonna limit uh what can be done in one of the areas of town with the most access to amenities whether it be transit or or or other commercial businesses. Um on the on the in that same vein, I think that going to the R2 makes sense and will be more consistent with the development that's there currently. Um, and I think the change is necessary because the the redevelopment area has failed to accomplish its goals um, in just like a plain way, plain sense. Um, it it's I liked the idea of let's mash all these lots together and make um, better use of them, quote unquote. Um, but it didn't work. And I think it's worth thinking about why it didn't work and and use that anytime we do one of these redevelopment areas which I think one may be on the council agenda for discussion um tomorrow um

in discussing create whether an area should be considered in need of okay that's coming back to the planning board you're going to be some development um I think in thinking about that one right we should be thinking about why did this one not succeed how can we make sure it doesn't happen again because it it didn't. Um but I would just yeah I think keep the C1, keep the consistency with the rest of Bloomfield Avenue. Uh and yeah, otherwise I

I just want to point out that um in the proposed zoning in this report, the CD zone, the density doesn't change. It's still 55 units per acre and that's what's in our master plan. It just reducing the height of the buildings because many of our buildings on Boomfield Avenue are four stories or less and not the six stories. So, it's really the

this is what in our master plan we wanted to see the areas between the redevelopment areas um maintain the historic four-story maximum and allow just in in certain nodes along the the the avenue for the higher the taller buildings. at the end in the at the end it's really not going to change the number of units because I think we've seen a lot of our buildings at a density of 55 units per acre can be built at four stories and don't have to be six stories. So, and and an applicant can always come before one of the boards. If it say this area is four stories, they could say, "Hey, we got a really great idea for six stories. Here's why it's going to work." Well,

they'd have to go to the board of adjustment for that. Correct. But, but it doesn't changing the zoning doesn't mean you can't have a six-story building. It's just it's a different step to go through that process. Yeah. And that actually brings up a good connection I want to make since we're talking C1 zoning. um the parking exemption which we've talked about here. Um I don't know that this is the vehicle in which to put it in but nonetheless just keeping that up. I know we discussed at the development review committee an application um that dealt specifically with that issue. It was switching to a I want to make sure I'm allowed to discuss this without because we were in a p nothing was noticed about it and so I want to make sure I don't

No, no, it was not as long as you don't refer to an application, but we did talk about going back to the prior parking requirement which eliminate allowed um a change of use and a very modest addition to buildings in the C1 zone without triggering a parking variance. Right now the trigger is any change in use that triggers an you know maybe one additional parking requirement sends it to uh a board for approval.

Exactly. And so just keeping up the drum beat of changing that we're looking at Bloomfield Avenue zoning. Um I think it's a vital exemption to keep um Bloomfield Avenue economically vibrant and diverse and uh going before board is always an option but it's also a process and it's expensive. And so anytime we can limit that and and get new fun things happening is is great. So yeah, I just for me personally, I just don't like seeing a six-story zone next to, you know, a threetory zone, especially when you're on an R2. I I understand it. Um but yeah, but I I think our intents are aligned. Yeah. However, we call the zone.

So So because of this, there I recall there was some testimony by the architect for during the 10 Hartley Street application indicating that he his firm had been retained by the adjacent parcel to develop. Correct. That's going to remain in R2 no matter what anyway because his that parcel is not part of the redevelopment area. I believe it is. It is. Yeah. Yeah, it was. It's 8 H Heartley. So, it's just to the north of 10 Hartley. It's in the redevelopment area. So right now, you know, if they were to submit a application, you know, before any the council made any changes, it would be part of the redevelopment plan.

That's correct. So I just want to I just want to put that out there and just remind everybody that it's kind of waiting in the wings or at least coming down the pipe. Yes. If that doesn't change anything that we would do on our end, if they come in before then, then then they're in one and if they come in after it, oh well, I I have he's reached out to my office. He knows we're working on this. He also knows that it's the time of application rule. So when his application is deemed complete because he hasn't submitted anything yet. Um once it once it's submitted and deemed complete then whatever the zoning is at that time applies. So Right. I mean we're going to we'll work on this but we got but I do think we should move ahead without taking too much time.

Exactly. Agreed. We'll hold off on the parking issue. That's a separate issue. It's very valid but we don't that's not necessarily to remain to this redevelopment plan. Understood. So So I would move to recommend that the council resend. Do we need formal recommendation or not? I think maybe what we should do you want to wait until you come back with an up with a with a specific zoning based on this conversation. Okay. Okay. I will let you you have two council members who know who have been part of this discussion. and I will bring the EDC up to speed with what we're doing with this, but I really think we should wrap everything up and have a very specific zoning ordinance.

Okay. To So, we couldn't re make the recommendation about what that would be from this body. I think we need to get specific. So, the council would have to make the recommendation to this body. No, this body will send. That's why I'm saying why couldn't because it seemed like we were getting ready to take some action here. Well, that's what I was hoping, right? And I was too, but now I'm trying to find out. Janice seem seems like she has a different thought. No, I think you've given me a um direction direction. And what I'm going to do is craft an ordinance, a draft ordinance that reflects what we're talking about here. Mhm.

Um because in zoning we have to be very specific and I want to make sure that we're all on board with with the where we draw the map um where we where we draw the lines, what the you so let's get very specific and then we will send the entire package to the council. They'll be made aware that this is coming but that way they'll have the benefit of the full analysis and the specific recommendation from the planning board. Are we thinking January for that? Yeah. Okay. And I think we need that, right? Because we can't resend a zone m and redevelopment zone and not know what's going to replace it. Right.

But that raises the question of whether the council has to even though it's an empty exercise, refer it back because it is a zoning ordinance, has to be referred to us. Um if it comes from the planning board, you can skip the referral. If the council changes the recommendation, then it has to get referred. That that's how we've done it in the past. But that's why I thought he was getting ready to send it from the planning board to them, but we don't have We don't have the details. We don't have the details. Okay. I thought you were just going to re resend the um redevelopment plan that's in place,

but we need something to replace it because if we rescend it, then there's effectively no zoning there. I don't know what that means from a legal perspective. If that's build whatever you want, probably the same as what's going on there now. So, so I I I think Vitali's right to say, hey, just for a second, until we can craft and and we know where we want to go in general, but until we get the details of what should be there, we don't want any ambiguity about, well, we've rescended this redevelopment uh area, now what? We want to have the now what to come with it. So, it's one package for the council to take action. That's what I would love to see. And I think now that I've gotten your feedback and I know which direction you want to go in, we can do that. It's pretty straightforward.

Okay. January. January. Yeah. Sounds sounds like moving it forward quickly. And well, that's why I'm recommending, you know, working directly with zoning subcommittee, right? Because they can meet a lot faster and move quicker than we can as a publicly noticed body. Yep. Sounds like a good plan. Okay. Yes. Any other parting comments, thoughts on that? No. Okay. Well, then I would move that we go into executive session to discuss litigation. Second. All in favor? I I opposed. Extensions. Okay. You'll have to nice to see you, Matt.

I mean, we are coming back into session after after

as Rick tells us we're live. Are we all recording on this one as well? Okay, we're back on the record. Uh, do we have any committee reports? No committee reports. Great. We have bills. We do have bills. Is there a motion to pay the bills? Mike, I believe that he was going to make that motion in abstension. Second. Is there a second? Yes. All in favor? Opposed? Okay. All right. Move adjournment. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Great. Happy holidays. Happy New Year. Okay. Terrific work. Terrific work.