Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Really, I'm gonna get one of those Japanese things. I know, one of those days I'm just gonna start playing music. Good. Summerville Planning Board, for Wednesday, September 9th, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting, as required by the Open Public Meeting Act, has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was, one, posted on the bulletin board outside of Borough Hall, two, mailed, faxed, or emailed to the Courier News, and three, given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. And the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.

Andrea Dare. Here. Chris Addix. Here. Larry Cleveland. Here. Tim Hayes. Here. Bill Kale.

Here.

Jason Kraska.

Here.

John Manilio. Here. Barry Van Horn is excused. Mayor Gallagher. Here. Council Member Vroom. Here. Chairperson Warner.

Here. Please stand for the pledge. All right, I have no comments other than what we'll discuss for tonight. ARB reviews, we had two for signage at 30 West and 92 West, and then Dafina came in for their sidewalk cafe. Any questions around those? You guys all got copies of them, so.

Looks good. All right.

I do have a follow-up question with respect to Dafina. The central pizza place, renovation that we approved several months back. Is that in progress or is it stalled for some reason or they don't have a timetable on it?

Larry, I did a punch list which is basically the conditions of the board's approval and they haven't responded to it. So the answer to your question is it's nowhere right now.

Does it hang out there for a year, two years?

I have to take a look. If it's variances associated with it, they're good for two years typically. Okay. If there's no variances, I don't think the site plan expires. But it's on the agenda that I don't think the borough can do anymore. They have a punch list. They have the resolution. And they're just not choosing not to address it right now.

Thank you.

It's very similar to the 157, the deli, Krauser's 157 East Main. They're slowly working to it, but they haven't fulfilled their compliance issues. They do two steps forward. They put a gate up, but the gate is not what's on the approved plan on the dumpster. It's a chain link, which is not what the board saw and typically not what the board approves. So they want to keep the chain link. Come back somehow. There's a disconnect. I think down there where they do improvements, but it's not consistent with what the Board saw but they're at least moving forward.

Thank you Approval for minutes from August 12 so move second Andrea dare Chris addicts.

Yes, Larry Cleveland. Yes, Tim Hayes. Yes, Jason Kraska. Yes mayor Gallagher. Yes council member of room. Yes chairperson Werner.

Yes, I SO IF YOU HAVE NOT HEARD, WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THE BOARD OF ED TONIGHT. THERE WAS, I GUESS WE'LL SAY IT WAS A MIX UP FOR THE SOLAR PANELS. ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION. MIKE, YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE DEVELOPMENT FEED, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION?

yes thank you it's a real simple uh... change the real history is that the broad came up with the burrow adopted development the ordinance fair share ordinance last year and january february this year d c a came out with called the model ordinance which they're initially said that almost always have to adopt model ordinance the language from the development fee in terms of who has to pay the equalized test value for developments under five units, Larry. Let's say you've got one family. Are you exempt or not? The development fee ordinance that the DCA came up with was retracted that the borough adopted said one and two family are exempt. So any developments in one or two family were exempt. That wasn't really the intent, my opinion, of what the borough adopted in 2000 last year. There was additions, yes, encouraged us, but I don't believe the two-family was exempt. So this change, all it does is say you're exempt for a single family, but two-family is not exempt. So if you're proposing a two-family, you're going to have to incur the development fee, which is 1.5% of the equalized assessed value, which is a fancy way of saying what is the appraised value of the house as determined by the tax assessor. So all this is is one stretch out from two family to a one family on page 39 or something. Ryan gave you the page. The ordinance is 50 pages, but you'll see a strikethrough, and it's one, just from a two family to a one family.

And those funds would then go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which can then be used for rehabilitation or reinvestment into affordable housing. Right.

So essentially, with this change, anyone who's proposing a two-family would be subject to the fees, and one family would not.

Any questions for anybody? All right. Moving on to area in need for ECBD. So, Mike, you have the revised. Is this including now? It has all blocks and lots now to include the extra that council asked us to look at?

Yes. The report was done over to include 2 Park Avenue, which was the former dentist's office that, my understanding, never reopened after Ida. and the utilities are cut. So right now there's no utilities to the building and it was included and the report says using subsection H and D, D says it's in the flood hazard zone, the layout being in the flood hazard. There's other criteria but D was a no-brainer. So D was included and it basically says it's because of D being in the flood hazard zone that it qualifies in my opinion. for being an area in need of redevelopment. So the report was tweaked. After a lot of review, I left the language alone on the detention facility, because I couldn't get, I don't think there's good data out there that I can reference in terms of it. They have, the Somerset County has an agreement through 2029, the neighboring municipality, the county, sorry, for overnight and for long-term stay, and I can't, that's through 2029, and there's nothing published that augments that. So right now the language that's there is what's on Somerset County's website is the best language there is. So the language stays where it is. I did tweak, there's a sentence in there, I think Jason brought this up, about whether if the property is still owned by the county and leased to a private, is this subject? So I actually put that sentence in there saying if the property is leased, it's subject to. So you'll see that language in there just to expand it to a capture. And I know that Kara might have cringe on that because I'm not 100% sure of that. But the intent here is obviously if a private entity is gonna be using these facilities, at least my understanding is the planning board in the borough wants them to comply with the redevelopment plan. That's the intent. So there's language, just one or two sentences in there saying if it's leased, it's subject to. And if it turns out that it's not legal, I'm sure we can amend that down the road. But that goes back to Jason's point. So the thing was tweaked to include the lot. We need to show a photo. Ryan, did we put photos in there for the dentist to Park Avenue?

They were sent out, but they're not in the report.

Okay. So we need to finalize it, but if the board is comfortable with the report, the next step would be advertising this and doing the public hearing like we did on West Main Street for the area around New Street where the Grants Building is. Just whenever the board's comfortable. I think the language is...

So I guess I have a question on that for procedure. So we're nearing the end of the overall review of the ECBD. Do we have to do the same thing when it comes to that? Do we have to do a public for the changes we're making?

I think so, but I think the noticing is different for area need.

I would like to be able to see if we could do it in one night, right? Even if the noticing is different, can we get it done but hear it in one night?

I can certainly reach out to Kara and see if we can kill two birds with one stone, essentially. And if we get that area, because we have to, the planning board has to define what zone the county buildings are going in. Obviously, Tupac Avenue is in the flood hazard zone, but we haven't.

I thought we had said the EB1.

Is the EB1 through the whole facility? Is that what it is? Based on. Right now it's hatched out. Yes, EV1. Okay, so we can make that EV1. The other change is, Ryan added, we have the multifamily apartment zone where the cobalt and station house is. You'll see that was carved out. And Jason raised the question on where the PSCG in Hamilton is. That's just local ordinance municipality used for the three lots. It's LGD. Yeah, right. Local government use. And it's not going to be, in my opinion, just don't put a table for three lots. It'll be in the text. But since it's PSC&G or the borough, depending on lease future arrangements, it's not going to be a private development is my understanding. Any way you slice it, it's either PSC&G or the borough. So I don't know if it makes sense to put on Schedule A the list stat on a separate column that says exactly what I just said. I think we can do that in the text saying this is local government uses or PSE&G as opposed to tying it up. So then Ryan added a column for the multifamily uses. There's a column added to Schedule A. So we have to fill that column in. So the big thing is the report's done, subject to the board's review. And if it wants more, it would do more on the report and get that moving. If the council gave the authorization to include Park Avenue, the work was done. It was included in the findings. And I think that scope is essentially done. The new SDDP, that work was done. All the references are there. And then noticing that, and then to start tackling the uses, which I think Bill brought up bill of every river we had allow parking in the green space and we had that conversation should parking be allowed if it's going to be green but that's useless again on the bulk standards which ever unless uh The Chairwoman feels differently. I figured we'd get this preliminary investigation done and then refocus on Schedule A, B, and C's that the Mayor brought up. What's the bulk standards? What's the setbacks? Okay, it's two and a half, three-story zoning max. I was going to do that, but it'd be nice to have the whole study area known.

Yeah, I think we're finally there when it comes to that whole area. Because that was going to be my next question is, I think, so on Schedule A, we have to go through EMR and see what else we see as permissible, correct? Right. And then I think we already went through all the other zones, so it really should just be that EMR. So if everybody can look at that for next meeting, because if we can finalize Schedule A by next meeting, and I think to start looking at bulk standards. I know we addressed the height, the stories, but nothing else has been looked at in Schedule B.

Schedule C was going to be direction from the meeting was to add schedule C was a parking Add parking specific and there was a lively discussion about who has a parking requirement and who doesn't so that Schedule C needs to be broached.

I need to get put in the paper on this Do we have something similar to what we're thinking in our brains for that in the West? Main Street develop redevelopment Because we would have had to adjust parking there as well.

There is a parking requirement for Edgewood.

But anything, I'm just saying in the redevelopment plan, did we do the same thing with the Schedule C where we address parking needs versus, and some of it being, you know,

It was referred back to Schedule C in the Borough Land Use Ordinance except for the Edgewood development. Colin, is that correct? I do believe. It was 800. The redevelopment plan for Edgewood gave a parking minimum requirement. Other than that, I'm not aware of any schedules or requirements for...

I was just trying to not reinvent the wheel. If we had a base level, then we could start there and see how we wanted to tweak it for the east end.

The concern from the board from the last meeting was, no, we want a Schedule C specific for this zone. We do not want to use the Schedule C from the land use for the whole borough because of unique circumstances, and some applications should not have a parking requirement. Correct.

Yeah, I think we definitely all agree on that, that this is a unique situation down there that we really need to come up with our own requirements specifically for this redevelopment zone.

So it's all my charge to get the Schedule C out to the board members to chew on and see if I incorporated the comments, the spirit of it, so you have something to pen to paper to tweak.

Do we have anything on the next application?

No, no applications. Next one. So besides reviewing the EMR in Schedule A, Diving, starting to really dive into and finalizing Schedule B and then parking in Schedule C. Do we have anything left in ECBD?

No.

So I would like to see if we can get this so that we are going to go for finalization. I got to remember what month. We're in September. By the end of October. Yeah. I don't foresee any reason not to be able to do that. That gets us into our holiday season where we can start to, you know, start to look at one of the next redevelopment plans. Cause we do still have more to look at. Um, but I think that this needs, this is, I think we're there. I think this is all the fine tuning and the details, you know, unless anybody else on the board disagrees, but I think.

I have a question. So I, and really it's just, it's, it's a observation slash question. So on the overhead view, um, is there any financial benefit to including air ball fields left park and firehouse field in the redevelopment area while we know that there really is no redevelopment ability in there nor do we want it because we're going to green space is there exactly because if it's contained in a redevelopment area does it give us uh... an advantage both from rather than having off-site potential off-site improvements from a developer that it's actually within the contained within the redevelopment area uh... state federal grants because it's an area in need of redevelopment i don't know how they would qualify under a redevelopment area or whether they could or should so it's really it's more of a question

and and you know what do we do with that do we just leave it as is or do we pull it in and say let's let's just include that I'm almost afraid to pull it in just because now you're saying it's an area in need of redevelopment well the public's gonna go yeah so I'm almost afraid to pull it in and more leave it as it's the park land and not designated as an area in need

think on that to piggyback on that comment is I think the bigger problem is is that obviously it's going to be a it is obviously in the flood area so it's going to be zoned for that and any improvements on that property then are subject to what we have written in the yeah and I don't see improvements like building improvements I see potential field improvements

I DON'T KNOW.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T SEE ANY ADVANTAGE OF HAVING IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY SO I GUESS WE'LL QUALIFY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OUR FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE STATES. I MEAN, FEMA'S. It's already under FEMA's. So anything that would be grant related, it already falls in that area. Meaning, you know, like if you'd set it for like a mitigation, something came up and you wanted to, it's already in that high hazard area. So I don't, I can't think of any benefit on a grant to have it under a redevelopment plan.

And I don't ask the question to promote one way or the other. It's really to vet it. What's the best approach to those properties? Because they kind of stick there. So I don't disagree with anything you said. And I think we have to, now we have the confidence to say we've vetted this. We've talked about it. I don't know how anybody at this end of the table feels about it.

The other issue is I think it's in the Green Acres inventory. I think all the open space is in Green Acres inventory.

So I was just about to say, is anything behind there or part of it as part of open space already?

My understanding is if Green Acres, the borough accepted money decades ago, but part of accepting the money, one of the strings was all the open space now became Green Acres.

Yes, and you can't change that.

And it takes an act of the state to swap land out of two acres. And it's like a three to one. It's what they did for the treatment plant on Southside Avenue. The SRVSA came in. They had to get a special approval to develop, because that's Green Acres, where there's a pump station. And the thing was put on upland. But that little development. in the parkland.

No, and I'm not even pushing the concept of developing in that area. It's more, is there an ability to capture funding to improve the parklands in that area? Is there a benefit to including them as a part of that? Right. That's the question.

You're talking about both parkland areas? Yes. The building that's Park Avenue that we just notched in redevelopment, is that property in a floodplain?

Oh, yes. Yes.

So if we're already thinking about not allowing or not encouraging rebuilding in a flood zone, why would we notch that back in?

Because that's privately owned.

It's privately owned.

Yeah. So... so no i'm not contemplating building in the parkland at all i'm contemplating twenty years down the road do we have the ability to obtain additional recreational funding for that i don't know it could come through green acres it could come through reinvestment from developers within the other parts of this zone. It could come from federal. I don't know. And that's why I'm asking the question. Is there any advantage to including them, excluding the idea of any type of development, but including them for the benefit of additional recreational purposes? And I don't have an answer to it.

Off the top of my head, I don't see any benefit to doing the area needs study and including them in.

The only thing that jumps at me is you have the firehouse sitting there, but it's not on a separate lot and block. That's on the Green Acres inventory.

It's on there. Yeah, so if it comes down, it stays down.

Right. So if that was a separate lot and block, I would say it's a no-brainer, right? Put this firehouse in it, but it's not a separate lot and block. It's lumped in on the Green Acres parcel.

All right.

Any other comments, thoughts?

It's all of its borough property that you're talking about. Yes. We wouldn't do that other places either, I would think, unless there was an intent to redevelop it, a real intent.

No, you can have areas within your redevelopment area that don't contemplate.

Yeah.

And that's what I see here if we went that way. Those blocks and lots would say no development. It will remain recreation in perpetuity as part of a green acres program, but it's included in the effort to obtain additional grants for recreational purposes.

Okay. Yeah.

So it's a no. That's what I'm hearing. Yeah, I'm hearing it now. And that's okay. You know what? Because if I'm asked a question now, we've vetted it, and that's okay.

And the extra work to go through and do the area needs study and everything, I don't think there's a net benefit to it at the end of the day.

And also, to Mike's point, most of this is open space, so there's already restrictions.

Yeah.

And any benefit, we'll go back to what you were talking about, is there a benefit? Any benefit that you have with those properties is, one, they're open space. So there are certain grants that are, you know, specifically very minute amount of projects you can do, right?

Yeah.

But then also on the end that it is in a flood hazard area, the highest, one of the highest areas for our town. There are mitigation type projects there. which could tie into a recreational area that you could do, but that has nothing to do with whether it's in a redevelopment plan or not. Okay. All right, so for next meeting... Huh? Oh, okay. It didn't compute in my head what you said there. Yeah, I'm really only on a all we have to do is go through that EMR. Everything else is done Schedule B Mike you'll work on some parking stuff get that out so we can review that I And can you do me and the board one other favor? Can you look at the requirements for noticing both the area in need as well as we now haven't, where we will eventually have so that we can see how we can tie and marry those up. Even if there's different, you know, just time them differently, but we can have it at the same meeting.

Yeah, I'll reach out to Kara about the try to kill two birds with one stone being get the area in need of redevelopment public public hearing noticing at the same time adopt the revised redevelopment plan eb1 or the mapping says and all that yes absolutely thank you One bugaboo, it's not a bugaboo, it's really, I'm working with Ryan on this, is the zone district lines, EB1, should go down property lines, and I think they do, but the lot lines are not shown on that scale. So there should be a map developed to show that the zone boundaries are property lines. We don't want a property.

Didn't we get that from the county?

We did and I'm dealing with Ryan on that but it's not the most current. They show lots that were consolidated for station house. Oh, okay. So we don't have a, Ryan chime in, we don't have a shape file that shows the exact tax maps. that are correct today. And that's part of it. And then there's a whole layering thing that Ryan will tell you. But the bottom line is I think we need to get a zone map that shows the lots so down the road there's not, well, what lot is it?

Yeah.

I'm just saying you don't see lot lines in here, but it's in the back of my mind that we need to, in my opinion, it should be addressed that a zone map shows lot lines.

And the borough should probably have maps on hand that have the actual property lines of today.

Is there any way at least as an interim until we get updated shapefiles? Can we look at the one that the county did and then add the manual notes for the ones that don't marry up because they don't have the most current? Yeah. At least that would be something right for the majority of them. And then, you know, somewhere in the notes say, you know, also this lot, block, block, whatever is included or not included in. Yeah. You know, due to updates and changes.

It might because I went through this with Ryan because the layering and turning things off. We might just end up with a tax map with the zone districts and forget the aerial. Okay. Something to that effect to make it simple.

All right.

We might end up with a separate map just to address this. Unless the board thinks it shouldn't be addressed, but I like having the lots to show people where no I agree I think we agree.

That's one of the reasons we had gone, you know, and I worked with the county I'm trying to get that that basic original one So I think we find the best way to address that Before we finalize the plan no matter how that looks.

Yeah, this is a nice pretty overhead view But it'll change in the next five years. So I'd rather have the block and lots on here. I

Hold on, I'm writing myself a note, sorry.

Ryan tried to put the lots in here, the shape file, but it became.

It doesn't line up correctly, that's the only issue, yeah.

All right. Anything else for the ECBD?

Tangentially related, not directly related. Next meeting, the council received a communication from DeSapio Properties. They're looking to put in a covered walkway from the garage to a building. And I think it was part of the original site plan, but it was never done because there were some issues with property owners and such. So they're now requesting that the borough allow that to go forward. So the council referred it back to this body for a review.

So we'll see that in here, we'll see that.

Next week, next meeting.

Next meeting, okay. All right. Now going back procedurally, because I did forget to ask for a motion on the, or a fee ordinance, a proposed ordinance revision to have it sent back to council.

Still moved. Second.

Andrew Adair. Yes. Chris Addix. Yes. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Tim Hayes. Yes. Bill Kael. Yes. Jason Kraska. Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Yes. Council Member Vroom. Yes. Chairperson Warner.

Yes. All right. I will open it up to the public for any questions, comments of anything not on tonight's agenda. Seeing the public shaking their head no, I see there's none. I'll close public session and a motion for adjournment.

So moved. Second. All in favor?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?