Okay, welcome everyone. Today is Monday, November 17th, 2025, and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Planning Board. Chairwoman Kerzac, can you please call this meeting to order? Yes. This meeting is being held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, Public Law
1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the Coaster and Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal building board and municipal website. All notices are on file with the board secretary. Official action may be taken on the following matters before
the board. This meeting is being recorded by APV for your viewing pleasure. Please join me to uh salute the flag pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> I will now take roll call. James Banano >> here. >> Councilwoman Clayton >> here. >> Jim Henry is absent.
Mayor Moore >> here. Jen Ser >> here. >> Daniel Shaneo >> here. >> Bob Zuckermanman >> here. >> Kathy Mclacklin >> here. >> Vice Chair Vice Chair Gooden is absent today. And Chairwoman Kurszac >> here. All >> right. The first item up is uh the
resolution for approval for the Asbury Park storm water ordinance amendment. >> That was Jack wasn't here. So, okay. Um, >> eligible members for this resolution are James Banano, Councilwoman Clayton, Jim
Henry, who is absent, Jen Solder, Bob Zuckerman, Kathy Mclacklin, and Vice Chair Michael Gonan. >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Okay. James Banano, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Clayton, >> yes. Jen Solder, >> yes. >> Bob Zuckermanman, >> yes. >> Kathy McLaclin, >> yes. >> Okay, thank you. >> All right, next item on the uh agenda. Can we um actually would you mind if we
just deal with uh the second item first, >> which is the Asbury Ale House. Um could um maybe uh Jack go over what where we are with that? >> Yeah, first I've reviewed all the notices. They're in proper form. So we have jurisdiction if need be to carry
the matter to another date. Certainly. Okay. Secondly, uh due to the nature of the application, it's an amendment uh to the prior application for uh specifically asking for perhaps different relief, but also to be relieved of conditions of approval. And
the way to handle that is via uh an amendment. the members uh who were at the last meeting, I would ask that they review the the transcript to make sure they know what the basis were for those uh requirements before they hear the next the application. And the new
members that are here, you can if you will watch the video of that uh then you can participate as well. The only person in the current board that can't participate is Ivonne because she voted against it, so she would be ineligible on that. But everyone else is certainly eligible. >> Right. We were asking that everybody uh
review these because this this that particular application was in March of 2022. >> That is correct. >> And many of these people were not on the board at the time or they were not here. >> So at this point, I believe that there's only like three people that are on the
board that actually were at that meeting. We need at least five. So, I know that um anyone that does listen to this has to sign uh an affidavit saying that certification that they're will. So, out of the the three people that
were here, I know that I will commit to act to to watching it so that we have four at least. We need a few more people that will commit to actually watching. It's one session of ABTV that um and those that are eligible because they were at the were on the Zoom meeting.
This was during co >> Daniel the mayor and Jen Ser >> correct >> Yvon is not eligible. So then then James and uh Bob and Kathy I can send the link to >> Yes, please send it to uh everyone else
so that >> uh we would like them to all to have as many people be able to participate um when we review this again >> cuz this is like late breaking news like on Thursday and Friday that we did not have enough.
>> Uh I don't think it's going to be moved to December. Yeah, we're we're going to be asking to carry this application to December 1st without further without further notice. Is that December 1st is our next meeting, right? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh I'd like to get a motion to
be able to move this for to December 1st with no additional notice. >> So, second. >> Okay. Um James Banano. >> Yes. Can I give vote at all? No. Okay. Uh,
Jen Solder, >> yes. >> Bob Zuckermanman, >> yes. >> Kathy McLaclin, >> yes. >> And Chairwoman Kerzac, >> yes. >> I'll vote yes anyway. >> Oh, and Mayor Moore, why did I forget about you? I'm sorry. Cuz he already watched it. >> He already watched it. So,
>> it's easy watching. >> It's easy watching. It's It's pandemic watching. >> It goes fast. >> All right. Um, we done with that now? >> Mhm. >> Okay, great. All right. Now, we have uh the the other item that we have on the
agenda is a uh proposed amendment to the main street redevelopment plan for Mercy Center. Good evening, folks. Uh Beth McManis, uh working for the city doing some redevelopment work. And this evening we have a referral from city council for a
draft redevelopment plan amendment. Specifically, this is to your main street redevelopment plan, the community shopping district. And you might recall uh in mid or earlier 2024, I appeared before you with a redevelopment plan amendment that would allow for an
expansion of the Mercy Center, which uh is currently located at the corner of Main Street and Third Avenue. And at that time, the redevelopment plan amendment was to allow for the existing food pantry use to be permitted in the district and to allow for some some
redevelopment of that site to accommodate a uh essentially a new facility. Since that time, uh that redevelopment plan amendment was adopted. Uh and since that time, the Mercy Center has identified a new site that is that I think is better suited
for them. And that's part of the reason why we're >> that Let's get you on to Spell and swear affirm testimony about this matter with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Please restate your name for the record. Spell it and your affiliation with the city. >> Sure. My name is Beth Mcmanis. I'm a
Kyle Mcmanis Associates and I'm working for the city as redevelopment planner. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. Um so since that time uh new property has become available that the Mercy Center has acquired and that's exactly what this redevelopment plan amendment accommodates. So, it
eliminates the former redevelopment plan amendment by essentially striking those lots and blocks and adding what is this new site that's been identified. And it's at the corner, it's about a block block and a half away. It's a corner of Main Street and Second and it's the
former Walgreens retail building. And so the concept is simply that that building would be now reoccupied with the Mercy Center and everything they do, including things like a food pantry, variety of social services, but also a restaurant
on the property that's anticipated. And uh this red redevelopment plan is similar to the former version in the sense that it adds food pantry as a permitted use to that specific lot and block. It eliminates it from the former
site and it includes a handful of uh specific design requirements as well as a parking requirement to accommodate the Mercy Center's proposal. There is an additional section. I think it's uh literally the last change in this redevelopment plan also that I'd like to
talk about, but just to be clear, it is uh it is separate and apart from the Mercy Center's proposal. It's just simply a matter of convenience to address these two issues in the Main Street redevelopment plan in one document as part of one amendment. So, as you go through the plan amendment,
you'll see that it uh crosses out or eliminates the old block and lot, meaning that the the zoning for the site, the redevelopment standards for that property would uh would go back to the way they were prior to the previous redevelopment plan amendment and instead
adds this new block and lot, which is block 2707, lot one. and it specifically states that uh food pantries would be permitted on that particular property. It goes on to allow uh a second first or second story roof garden andor seating
area specific to that property. Uh and would be subject to screening that the planning board might decide to require during planning board hearing. And then there are a list of specific zoning and design regulations for this specific block and lot. Many of them were
accounted for or excuse me uh previously included in the old redevelopment plan amendment and have just been carried forward. And there are a couple of additional ones in here that are specific to the revised proposal. Um it for example requires that uh parking
shall be provided on site accessible to visitors. It requires a retail and/or restaurant use on the first floor facing Main Street. and then a handful of other architectural requirements. The component that requires a retail and/or
restaurant on the first floor facing Main Street, I think, is particularly important because while we're adding this previously prohibited use to the list of permitted uses, what that requires is that a uh an active commercial use, one that's currently permitted in the redevelopment area,
will be uh front and center, if you will, along Main Street. It means that that street frontage will be occupied with a retail or a restaurant use just like would be permitted uh today without the uh without the redevelopment plan amendment. So I think that actually
moves uh what might otherwise be uh simply the addition of a food pantry uh to the site. I think it actually moves the um the character of the site closer to what's anticipated and what was planned originally in the main street redevelopment plan by having that retail
or or likely a restaurant along that street >> that that's going to be all in the existing building. In other words, it's going to be no expansion >> frontage of Main Street. >> You know, it's set back because there's the parking. Yeah. is >> so the redevelopment plan doesn't
require it, but the anticipation is that there is going to be an addition to the property that would be that restaurant that would bring essentially bring the building closer to Main Street. And so, uh, I want to be clear that this redevelopment plan is not like others that I've done that includes a concept
plan and essentially says, "Thou shalt build this project." This is really about allowing the Mercy Center to move forward. But my expectation is that there's going to be an addition moving the building closer to Main Street and that it's going to be two stories. >> So now we're just amending for the use,
but then the plan itself conceptually comes >> absolutely. So, while this adds the use and it adds some particular design and parking requirements, ultimately the uh the developer will come before this board will seek site plan approval and
the board will have the opportunity to uh to review it just like it would any other property within that redevelopment area. >> All right. Can you just clarify uh a few things for me if you don't mind? Um, I know that you'd mentioned that the proper prop the prior property are and I
I believe that there were like two prior approvals that we've already done and I don't know if it was the actual plan to the main street redevelopment plan or not cuz we had done one for Mercy Center itself that exist today. We were there was going to be new construction on that lot. Is that what you're talking about
or you're talking about where the Dollar Tree was? No. >> No. No. that cuz you're saying that something is stricten. >> Yes. >> So the the existing Mercy Center location that exists today on Maine and 3rd. Yes. >> That property was is subject to a
redevelopment plan amendment that came before you as part of this referral process. Presumably the planning board presum uh previously uh issued site plan approval uh outside of my experience. >> Right. We that's that's done. That's not in this. >> Correct. So, this development plan, the
the plan amendment that had been adopted includes uh that a uh food pantry would be permitted on block 2805, lot 17. That's the main and third avenue site. That is literally
struck or eliminated from this redevelopment plan, essentially voiding that previous amendment, and is replacing it with block 2707 lot one. Can Can someone tell me what Third in Maine is? Was that the Dollar Tree? >> No. >> What is that?
>> This is where they're existing. >> Where the Mercy? >> Yeah. It's on the east side of Main Street and backs up to to uh to residences. >> Right. I know where the regular Mercy Center is. >> Exactly. >> That one. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, what's being stricken? >> I'm not understanding what's being stricken. >> The existing site where the Mercy Center exists. >> Yes. will no longer be subject to any special zoning. It'll just simply be subject to the to the main street redevelopment plan as it existed in
early 2024, 2023 and earlier. >> All right. >> So So the the existing Mercy Center >> Mhm. >> that was we made there was an amendment for that use there. >> Yes. Yes. >> Now that will go away from that site. >> Yes. That's that's the clarity that I
wanted. Correct. >> And what's happening to that that property? that is uh that's going to be I would have to defer to the Mercy Center. They're simply going to manage their their property as they see fit, but there's no current redevelopment request for that property. >> Okay.
>> So, in other words, they will cease operations. So, that use we're striking that use there at that site. So, that use will not continue as the use goes >> like the old writing. I don't want to speak for the Mercy Center, but I would
say a food pantry will not be permitted on that property. >> Well, what else? But the Mercy Center besides food, right? >> Yeah, they have social services as well
were part they were permitted already. >> No, none of that was was permitted. The Mercy Center is currently uh occupi occupying the site as a as a existing non-conforming use and so they're un as a result of being within a redevelopment
area. They are unable to relocate to this new site without a redevelopment plan amendment. And so that's why this plan amendment has been proposed. it is to to allow for them to relocate to this uh I think in my uh professional opinion
an objectively better site for for them and for the city. >> But when you say being struck, so it's just the food pantry that's being struck from that site, not the non-conforming use of Mercy Center in that site. >> I want to be clear when I'm talking about something being struck, I'm talking about the language in a
redevelopment plan. I I don't want to represent the future plans and use of that facility. That is simply between the Mercy Center and the city's planning, zoning, and construction departments. >> I can clarify this. Is there any
provisions in the proposed ordinance that strike or change what can be put at the other property? >> No. >> Okay. Oh, it it it eliminates the previous redevelopment plan amendment that was applicable to that property.
>> So then whatever was approved pursuant to that redevelopment plan amendment is no longer going to be valid. >> Right. >> So if so if Mercy Center wants to continue to own that space, rent it out to another group that wants to do a food pantry there, it will not be permitted to do so.
>> It would not be permitted use. Correct. >> Right. Yeah. Okay. It's it's as if we are it's as if uh we're taking the old redevelopment plan amendment and withdrawing it uh or yeah withdrawing it and then adding a new proposed amendment
here. It it just happens to be in a single document. >> Okay. >> But but aside from the food pantry, whatever the nonconforming use was >> that is not impacted at all by this and that may continue. No, whatever the way
you let me interject. Whatever was whatever was approved pursuant to the amendment that allowed it to be there on corner of third is now going to go away. >> The intention is they're going to pick their operation up at main from main and third and move it to Maine and second.
>> So whatever they did over here is now going away. It's actually been picked up and moved over here. But but I thought Beth said that what Mercy Center was doing before the amendments >> was subject to a non-conforming use.
>> No, it was not a non-conforming use. >> Food pantries are are not are specifically not permitted within the main street redevelopment. >> So that was previously existing the food pantry there before the amendment. >> It it must have been. I can't speak to the history. I can tell you that it is specifically prohibited. Go ahead. It is
specifically prohibited in the redevelopment plan except for areas where an amendment may specifically permitted. >> I missed it. >> Food pantries are prohibited within the entirety of the Main Street
redevelopment plan except for an area that an amendment potentially this evening would allow for. >> Okay. But what else is Mercy Center doing at the current location that was that is a non-conforming use besides a food pantry?
>> They they have a variety of uh that's that's largely it. They run some social services. They run office space. Those are the the only here. The only issue here that is a an issue of a prohibited use is the food pantry.
>> That's it. Whatever they're doing there, only food pantry is prohibited. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there any concern and I mean logistically a transition time or anything like that? Because I can't imagine that it's like one day you're going to go from here to here and it's
just going to turn on and off. So >> we're okay with this. I'm guessing that there's some transition time. >> Yeah. And the nature between the two and the reality is that Mercy Center is a nonprofit. They're raising funding. They still need to come before you for site plan approval. They'll have to presumably receive that site plan
approval from you. go through the resolution compliance process and all of that takes time and will allow for allow for the transition and beyond that I would need to defer to the organization. >> Yeah. But so that's that's in there that's in this >> it's just inherent in in moving from one
location to another within within any pretty much any municipality. You've got to go through site plan approval and that alone is a multi-month process. There's also fundraising etc. just to to get any organization ready for such a big >> I'm just I'm just concerned that if we
say today okay what happens now now all right we've got the okay for this site now well what the other site should be gone but it can't be >> no no the other site will remain in place until they close >> until they close and then they go over and that's in this resolution
>> no this this does not address the existing property it only >> permits a food pantry on the new property Okay. >> Well, it has to address. I mean, we're not having two food pantries. So, it's
moving the use from one location to the other. Yes. Yes. It's moving the permitted use from one location to the other. My point is it does not it does not facilitate planning or redevelopment of the other property. It just simply
>> takes that permitted use that was applied to block 2805 and essentially moves it to block 2707. >> Yeah. The first page of the proposed ordinance at the very bottom talks about a whereas the Mercy Center and existing food pantry and community service
organization requested the city consider an amendment to the main street redevelopment plan permit replacement of the existing facility at the corner of Main Street and Third Avenue block 2805 lot 17. So it's going to absolutely be replaced and taken out. >> Yep. >> Yep.
>> Where is that? >> Right here. This is bottom of page one. >> And then to confuse matters, I have a like a slightly unread. >> You're looking at the ordinance >> question about page three. >> This is the resolution. >> Am I looking at the wrong
>> This is the proposed amendment to the >> My question is so the new language is underrect. >> Yes. I would like to I have uh Michelle raised an issue to me. I'm cons I don't know what the I'm concerned there's a
track changes issue in this redevelopment plan that I wanted to talk to folks >> cuz I the a version I have that I'm concerned may have been distributed to my own fault not to not to anybody else's states. Vehicle access using Third Avenue is prohibited.
>> It's a track change. It was just a track change that didn't get carried through properly. That that's meant to be struck and eliminated. So perhaps that needs to be a recommendation from the planning board to the extent that there is no that's not it's just not applicable anymore.
>> Yeah, that goes I brought that out from the show. >> I'm sorry. prohibition is >> not applicable because this site is no longer on Third Avenue like >> Yeah. >> Well, should we should we be um um
>> addressing the exhibit and giving it a number and all those things? >> Yeah. All right. What we'll do is let's enter into uh evidence the uh resolution of referral marine. Let's call that C1. And that is uh resolution
of mayor and council uh dated October 22nd, 2025. And it's it's number 25 2025-430 amendment to the main street redevelopment plan. We'll make that C1. And then we'll make the proposed
ordinance amendments C2 that was uh attached to the the file. And what we'll do is when we make our recommendations, we'll recommend that the uh ordinance be so amended to omit
vehicle act the language vehicle access using Third Avenue. Yeah. Is prohibited because it doesn't apply. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Is that the only issue with the traffic? >> Yeah. I went after that I was alerted today. I went through to make sure everything was everything else was correct. >> Yeah.
>> Anything else? Um I before I move off the mer Mercy center, I just want to address the last item which is unrelated to that. So if folks take a look at page four in section 4, what you'll see is a change to uh to the section of the
redevelopment plan that addresses when site plan approval is necessary for essentially reoccupancy of non-residential uses. And so this expands the types of applications that will
require site plan approval. Right now there there has been an an interpretation from the zoning board that uh I believe any reoccupancy of a non-residential use does not require site plan approval. What this does is it
requires that site plan approval would be necessary when uh it would state that uh all all non-residential uses uh except all non-residential uses uh may
be exempt except when non-residential use is proposed in an existing non-residential space or when the establishment of the non-residential use does not alter any site. conditions and the floor area of the use does not require more parking than the existing
use. So essentially where you have uh let's say a retail that is vacated and a new permitted use would go in that has a higher parking demand perhaps a restaurant. It ensures that they come back before the planning board for site
plan review and approval and importantly so that the board can judge whether or not there's adequate parking on the property. And so this essentially eliminates that loophole I think in the favor of the city. >> Shouldn't I spoke to Michelle earlier today. Shouldn't that language on the
second line where it says non-residential space or shouldn't it be andor as opposed to or? Because there's still an exemption there. >> I I have no uh no concern with uh adding and and making it andor. >> Did Michelle talk to you, James, about
this today? >> No, I don't know what this is. >> Okay. that she was going to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We want to make sure there's no gap. >> Yeah. >> So, it's going to be an Andor. >> There is a gap now. We want to The city wants to fill the gap. >> Yep. Absolutely. I think that's just another level of protection.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And so, with that, that's the uh that's the content of the plan amendment. Like I said, it really does two things. It closes this loophole and facilitates uh a different site to be utilized by the Mercy Center.
>> Okay. Do the board members have any uh questions? >> Are there are there parking requirements for commercial property in the main street redevelopment plan? I thought most of our redevelopment plans didn't have parking requirements for commercial space.
>> Uh no, you do have non-residential uh let's see pull that up. >> Uh it's on page 43. >> So you're saying there is Yeah. Yeah. >> So now whenever something comes into an already existing not residential space
if it comes it changes the if the use is slightly different and it has a a higher required parking they have to before us based on this right >> correct >> yeah and it trigger it's triggered by the site plan requirement the way it's written now the board zoning board found that there was no site plan required for
the for what was proposed and the only way you get the only way you got the parking was through site plan approval. So now that's a gap that you had in your ordinance. So this will close that gap. >> Yeah. So for example, a um a uh a
supermarket just as an example requires 3.5 minimum of 3.5 spaces per thousand square feet, but a restaurant requires 15 parking spaces per thousand square feet. So if it goes from a supermarket to uh to a restaurant, this ensures that they need site plan approval.
Okay, >> I have a question about the last bullet on page three that says excluding pitch roofs a sustainable rooftop shall be provided in the new says on all new building roof areas which I'm assuming is to designate >> that would be for the expansion or the
new piece in this case >> correct >> and it says the roof area shall consist of cool white roof, green roof and or solar panels and then any then it says any proposed rooftop, garden or seating area shall be excluded from in this requirement. Um, now I I understand why that's there, but
well actually I don't understand what I mean I understand what it means, but I'm not quite sure why that's there. They're saying if you were going to have um a seating area that has like a gu a restaurant
um entertainment, not entertainment, but yeah, the place that you sit. None of that has to apply. like you don't have to have I'm just confused. >> Well, no. I mean, I think the the intent is to recognize that having the you can't provide uh a cool cool white roof
or a green roof or solar panels where you have the rooftop seating area like where it actually is, but it doesn't exempt it from like is the whole I guess it depends how it's designed because I'm not I've read that as
if you have is a con if there's a concept that has the entire roof I mean, you could have a black thing that I mean, you could design in a way that's not achieving the goals here. Like, just having a rooftop seating area doesn't necessarily meet the goal that's
intended by having a sustainable roof. You know what I'm saying? >> No. If the concern is that if you have a uh uh a roof area that's uh 4,000 ft just as an example, but you have a 500 ft seating area, it doesn't exempt the
other 3500 ft. It just exempts the 500 ft. >> That's that's what I'm getting at. So it's only that area. I don't know if that's 100% clear to everybody. It wasn't to me. But then also, but what if you had a 4,000 square foot seating area? Uh if you I would say one they need to
come to the planning board and the planning board would uh would discuss that. You guys have the ability to add screening to the extent necessary. Um but admittedly this does not specifically prohibit or limit the size
of a of a rooftop seating area. >> Okay. But it's saying that if you have roof, it has to meet the sustainable aspect of the roof it if there's a roof on that. >> Yep. excluding a pitched area and excluding a seating area like a pitched roof area and excluding a seating area.
It's got to be white, green, or solar essentially. >> Seating area doesn't have to be anything. >> Yeah, that's true. If you have it, if the entire rooftop is a seating area, it would be excluded from this requirement.
>> So, we don't limit >> No, that's what you would do as a planning board when they come before you. If they say, "We got this little restaurant. We want to put out >> Yeah. Yeah. You could say, "Wait a minute. You can't have 4,000 seats on that
rooftop. Doesn't make any sense." So, you can tell them, you know, what you want to do. >> But, do we have a leg to stand on? >> Yeah. Yeah. As a planning board, I would think you would. Aren't there regulations about how many
seats you can have in a restaurant >> or on a rooftop? On a rooftop on the main street redevelopment plan. >> So, I mean, a restaurant is based on floor area, but if it's if the board finds that the rooftop area is part of the floor area, presumably it would it would then generate a parking
requirement. Yeah. >> Um, additionally, the board has the power to screen it to the extent you're concerned about the the visual or the sound impact of having uh what Yeah, exactly. But and and to that point, you know, I think it's important
to remember you're also likely going to have building mechanicals up there. >> Um although I don't want to >> I don't want to assume lack of creativity from an architect, but that's a pretty typical building design. >> Mhm. >> But but the the whole premises of this, you know, about solo or green isn't
environmentally based, right? So it's not just being screened as something like that. So >> yeah, >> I mean why should we not limit, you know, to a percentage of what the roof area could be for a ceiling?
>> I mean, if you own it like >> I have a recommendation that I would have you make. It says and this that just the essence is make sure you recommend to the mayor and council when they amend the ordinance that they can't avoid putting a roof up by increasing
you know a ridiculous amount of open floor there's space for seating there should be some regulations imposed that there's some ratio. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> So and is that something that we can reasonably put in here? Well, the other thing is
the when it says against like a language thing, but it says any proposed rooftop garden or seating area shall be excluded. >> So why would a rooftop garden like I don't that's confusing me too because if if the if you're doing like an amenity
for example, >> why would that be excluded from being a green like they could design it to be a green roof and it be a garden and it would serve the same purpose? But they might be a green roof is it's just simply a recognition that sometimes a rooftop garden is not necessarily a
green roof in the sense that green roofs can have uh specific storm water management requirements. And it allows for that to uh to sit as a separate engineering or an architectural item as opposed to uh a green roof that's intended to typically on has a has a
different visual impact and uh different um engineering requirements for collection of storm water etc. It's just a recognition that they're two different >> I'm saying of plantings >> but why would we want like why wouldn't we I understand the seating area. I mean, it's sort of six of one, half a dozen the other because you might be
exempting it from the green requirement, but you've got the but it's a rooftop garden anyways. So, you're not if the cons I'm not >> well it's not it's not providing the benefits of a green roof. That's what I'm saying. Like >> exactly the reason that you're saying >> but then
does is the the request to eliminate a rooftop garden from being per permitted? >> No, from being excluded. >> But but you can't I'm happy to do whatever the board would like, but I'm not. But >> No, this is limited to this piece of
property. >> Oh, is it? This is not for the main street redevelopment area. >> No, no, no. This is just for this property. >> Specific zoning and design regulations for block 2707 lot one. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't say throughout the district. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. It's limited to one property. >> Okay. All right. But that's clearly not the intention here at all. Yes, I I think it's fine for one. I just would the why the reason I even raised it was because if a seating area can't
really be a white roof or a green roof or Sure. >> Um but a rooftop garden could be very not environmentally beneficial. Like it could be better than a black roof perhaps, but not >> it doesn't have the same benefit. doesn't it's not doing what it's not
doing what we're asking the reason for asking for a pool green or a rooftop garden doesn't it's not apples to apples >> no it's it's I agree it's two separate purposes one is for the storm water management and other environmental impacts the other is maybe it's for
aesthetics around a seating area or to to grow functional plants uh food for example >> yeah I think I I understand I just I I think it's fine the way that it's here for this site and then as long as if it were to come and be an issue that we
could describe again this is for one site and it's for one particular project that it's not that you can't just go do what you said and take away say we have seating here so we don't have to meet these roof requirements because we have this square
footage of seating that's on a black it's not meeting the intent of the goal you know what I'm saying Mhm. If the board wants to make a recommendation, I can uh try to craft a limitation on uh on the exceptions. That might be something that could
address some of the concerns I've heard. >> Do you feel that that's something that you would would be more comfortable with seeing? >> I think it's okay because it's just one because it's this site >> site. I think if it were something that many people are going to come to us and have all these different interpretations
of what this means, it would make me very nervous. >> No, I I agree. If it was something that could be exploited throughout the city, if this were amendment that were applicable to all of Main Street, for example, I I think this would be written uh to be much more limited or uh to include more standards.
>> Yeah. >> But wouldn't we want to limit though? I mean, wouldn't we want to say something like, you know, no more than 50% of the roof area non non-pitched roof area could be excluded? I mean, would we want to put a
limitation on it? I mean, I definitely would if it was the whole root whole main street. >> Excuse me. >> I definitely would if it was the whole main street in the site. I don't >> Right. Can Can we just figure out tonight's agenda and then go from there down the road and make recommendations to the council as far as future?
>> Yeah. >> But >> yeah, for tonight's this is it. >> You're saying for tonight this is what it is. But if it was we want something for Main Street as a whole, that's a whole another issue. >> Let's get back to what's on the agenda tonight. Well, it's just that it doesn't set a precedent that we say there. The
language specifically limits it to this one site >> and that's it. >> Okay. >> Somebody else wants to do another site, they need relief of some form, variance, design exception, what have >> anybody else have anything else? >> Yeah. So, let me just of course
restaurant is is a permitted use, right? >> Uh will this be do we have any idea like how much How big the restaurant is it going to be? Is it going to be is it going to be something like a, you know, not for-p profofit, you know, lowcost restaurant
or is it just going to be, you know, leased out to a restaurant tour? Do we know? >> I I'm anticipating one of the the lowcost restaurants. But this redevelopment plan doesn't require that. It simply requires a retail or a restaurant use be constructed facing Main Street. >> And if it's a restaurant, it's a
restaurant. It falls with it. It doesn't matter, you know, it's low cost or regular restaurants. >> Correct. as long as it meets the definition of a restaurant. And I think any of the any of the examples that you just cited would certainly do. So, anybody else?
All right. So, then um we have uh a couple of uh restrictions that we want to put on there or or um that modifications to the ordinance. >> Yeah. I Imit that Third Avenue reference relevant. strength that
>> uh and then um on page four that site plan ordinance requirement uh that that amendment definitely I spoke to Michelle about this today. I think it >> right >> if you're trying to accomplish a certain goal which you said she put forth before
the governing body uh that you clarify and make sure so that you run into you don't run into another gap and somebody comes in and slips out slips through with non-p park. If parking is required and parking is required you're doing it through site plan you need to have them make get sight.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And uh this other one, I wouldn't make the recommendation since Jennifer was authoring the comment, but said since she's okay with this one specific site, unless you tell me to put it in, I'll put it in. >> Okay. >> So, those are the two clarifications,
two recommendations we make to the governor body and they pass the ordinance. >> Clarify. >> Yeah. I just need some open clarification. So, if you can, but uh food pantry, soup kitchen, what's is it? Good.
>> The uh the redevelopment plan uh does not uh does not it essentially treats them as the same thing. It refers to soup kitchen soup kitchens and food pantries as as a single use. So this way for for better
or worse it doesn't distinguish one way or the other. And that's a carryover from the 2024 amendment. So the operation of a restaurant, no matter how big it is here, >> it's an additional use on the property. >> I understand that we say it's a restaurant.
>> But you know, if a restaurant can a restaurant become a when does it become a food pantry or soup kitchen? >> I would have to Well, food pantry is uh is sort of a grab and go in, you know, like a like it's like a free supermarket
for a lack of better terminology. uh a soup kitchen. Uh I would have to review the definition of a soup kitchen and compare that to a restaurant and I really haven't done that. Um my understanding is a soup kitchen is uh offering prepared foods for free. Uh I
don't know that there's counter or table service. It's there. But I I would say I need to def I would need to review those definitions to try to distinguish between a lowcost restaurant and a soup pantry. concerned that that if we're
approving, you know, that a restaurant is permitted there. >> Mhm. >> That or that the we know that whether it's a for all intents and purposes, it's a soup kitchen, not a not a forcharge restaurant. >> Is there is the concern that there would
be a soup kitchen soup kitchen constructed along Main Street instead of a restaurant? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I give me one second. I might be if I can answer this question for you quickly. Otherwise, let me offer a couple thoughts on it, but let me see if
I can answer it definitively. >> Is there a soup kitchen as part of the pantry now? >> No. >> No, no, no. >> Okay. If you read page two of the proposed ordinance, second order as
clause, it says on July 17, 24, mayor and council further amended the plan to permit food pantries as a permitted use and related design requirements. Um,
subsequent to the adoption, let's see, uh, Mercy required 2707 long one for the purpose of re relocating the services that they provide on the existing one. So, if there was a food pantry there or
soup kitchen there, then would be would be a moveover, >> but there isn't. >> Okay. The and the city defines a restaurant in your general code as an establishment where beverages and prepared food are served on the premises and where not less than 75% of the gross
floor areas devoted to a table or booth dining space for patrons. So I'm not sure that specifically answers your question, but I want to be clear that that's how the city currently ident currently defines restaurants. Um, and
it does for a soup pantry, it defines it as an establishment engaged primarily in distributing food directly to the needy for free or at very low cost.
>> Okay. So, you know, I I just that we know what we're getting into. If we want to if we want, you know, if we call it a restaurant, but it's actually with all intents and purposes be a soup kitchen on fronting on Main Street. If that's
what we want, then we should know it. Then that's what we should vote for. >> No, we don't vote on this. All we do is make recommendations. >> Make recommendations. Okay. >> But we should just know what we're getting into and making recommendations.
>> Yeah. Nothing wrong with that. So is that something that you want to make as a what would be the recommendation? >> I I I don't know. It's it's Yeah. >> Wouldn't that be a sight plan? >> No. What what should be clear is when this was presented to you as a governing
body, both members of the governing body. >> Okay. >> Was it your understanding that this was going to be a closure or taking the existing level operation and moving it over and closing the other one? Yep. >> Is that what you understood? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, whatever there whatever is
whatever's going on on the corner of third in Maine can go on on the corner of second in Maine plus the restaurant >> plus the restaurant. >> Plus the restaurant and the restaurant must be at the front >> in addition to the >> wherever those operations are. I don't know what they are, but whatever they are, if that was your understanding,
then >> I'm I'm not so sure the ordinance reads that way. But if you want it to be more specific, we can say you want it to be more specific. >> That's up to you. >> I think when the in in regard to the restaurant versus soup pantry issue,
when the application is filed before the planning board, it'll be up to the board and and your staff to review the application and confirm that it's that is a permitted use and that it meets the definitions or the requirements of the redevelopment plan. that requirement that I think is an issue is that there
is a restaurant located towards the front of the property. The board will be empowered to ask questions and to review the site plan application to determine if it meets that requirement. And you'll be able to ask questions that involve
the the layout of the space to confirm that it it looks like a a typical restaurant versus a typical food pantry. and you'll be able to ask questions, receive answers from the operator about the uh the operation of that use to ensure that it is in fact a restaurant
that is proposed along Main Street as opposed to a food pantry. >> Right. But but I think that what what we're trying to to grapple with here is a recommendation on whether or not the city
is okay that it's a restaurant or a soup kitchen. Soup kitchen. I think the simplest way to approach it is >> it wasn't proposed to us as aist arrest. Okay. >> And then you should identify those existing operations that are going to be moved so that you know what you're
getting like said you want to know specifically what you're getting. >> So let me just say >> so you have the bar building. >> Yes. >> Yeah. You have the AR bar on Main Street. Mhm. >> We don't expect any not for any
forprofit person restaurant tour to you know the or just says come in every meal is 5 cents no matter what you order which essentially turns it into almost what we would for lack of a better term a soup kitchen right you have a long
line everybody that might be a fear with a not for profofit like Mercy Center but if that is something we want because I I guarantee there's it's got to be very difficult to make it specific because, you know, we can't get into say what you could charge. We can't get to economics
or anything like that. I mean, I may be bringing up a problem that doesn't really have a solution. >> Well, I I I think the simplest way is you identify what is allowed on the corner or third in me and then you identify that that is what's being moved over here.
>> Mhm. With the addition of >> with the addition of the restaurant. >> The restaurant. Isn't that doesn't that kind of simplify it? >> Yes. Yes, I think from an understanding uh for the board, but I I would say what's happening on the existing property at the Mercy Center is not
subject to this redevelopment plan amendment is not subject to the board's uh recommendation except to understand that the previous the redevelopment plan amendment that allowed for a soup kitchen and food pantry will no longer
be applicable to the main and third property. >> Going back to square one on that property, basically. Yeah, it's as if as if the other redevelopment plan amendment never happened. >> Yeah, that's insane. Again, it's being substituted over in another location. >> Yeah, this redevelopment plan amendment
uh in terms of permitting something new, it only it deal only deals with main and second, >> right? Yeah, >> that's it. >> Yeah, I get that. Yeah, >> I think I think they think that it's that it's understood that we're looking at
>> at the food pantry and adding a restaurant to it. And >> there we are. >> I have a question for Dad. Dad, is it is is it a concern that there would not be a restaurant fronting Main Street, but it would be a soup
kitchen fronting Main Street? that it would be a closest to >> that it would be that you would want to call it a restaurant but if it's so low cost it acts as it is a soup kitchen >> but >> I don't know how you I don't think how
you can stop that >> right but but you're right but it's the same thing that you just said Dan before it's kind of like the arbar could do the same thing >> you know >> exactly >> yeah we don't have anything in the state that prevents it >> no you can't require
Yeah. >> You know, they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't. >> That's why I said I don't know if there is a solution. >> Is there there is a definition of what a restaurant is? >> You and then is there there's also a
definition of what the a food pantry soup kitchen consists of. So they're >> two different things. I mean you you are talking about sort of micromanaging what they do with their space. No, no, no. We're putting first
of all, you know, zoning, you're putting you're putting you're putting in uses. I mean, >> it's not so specific, but you right. But you're putting in a restaurant. You're putting in a use that you're assuming that it's forprofit incentive. >> You can't do what I'm saying is
>> whether or not it's for profit or not is irrelevant from Sony's perspective. >> I understand. >> Well, >> yeah. We don't we don't regulate economics. No, I mean listen I if a restaurant if a restaurant for all
defense purpose was a sheep kitchen, >> okay? It would have different characteristics >> as long as it's if it's clearly defined in the ordinance, you look to the ordinance definition. If you're a restaurant to find and you
got a soup kitchen or food pantry andor or exclusive to find, then you look to those definitions and see the type of operation that they're operating. >> You can get into those details during the site plan, could you? >> Well, you you when it comes to us, well,
you you won't clar it right. What exactly is being proposed? >> Right. So into the ordinance, how does it fit within the four corners of the definitions within the ordinance? >> But also the reality is right if it if it's functioning as a restaurant, it doesn't matter.
>> I mean, we're just saying yes, restaurant. Whatever is charged is not relevant to us. Correct. >> It's just a space that's functioning as a restaurant. >> Restaurant under the definition of restaurant. Under the definition of restaurant, the board will have the ability to question the applicant about
the uh the intent for the space based on operations, perhaps the layout, uh intended customer base, and you'll be able to compare those answers to the definition of a restaurant versus the definition of a soup soup kitchen and be able to make your findings as to whether
or not it's a permitted use on the site. >> Okay. All right. I'd like to make a uh >> Do you want I don't know. Go ahead. You don't have to have public participation in this sort of thing. This this is more of a this >> I if there's someone from the public that would like to like to make a
comment, I'm happy to >> Okay. >> to open it up. Actually, it would be any questions to uh to Beth. Is there any >> She has an objection. She is subject to cross. >> Yeah. If there's anybody in the audience that would like to uh question Beth, you're this is your time.
Okay. All right. Then I'd like to open up uh if there's any comments from the public that would like to make any comments about this particular project. >> Okay. >> Okay. Motion to close. >> There you go. All right. I'd like to uh
I'd like to make a motion to uh approve this application. >> It's not you're making >> I mean the making the approve the recommendations. It's your our task is to specifically find uh before we do that, Beth is are these amendments consistent with the master plan?
>> I do believe they are. I've taken a look at your 2017 re-examination report and I saw a handful of uh of uh planning goals that I think speak to uh for example, revitalizing the Main Street redevelopment area. Uh
that's a goal 5.1.2.4. for also to upgrade the appearance and function of neighborhood business areas. The uh additional uh design requirements of uh item 5.2.1.2 uh are in service or supportive of that
planning goal. And then uh uh additionally discourage the use of storefront store storefronts for inappropriate non-commercial uses such as uh churches uh residences etc. 5.2.13 I think the addition of a retailer
restaurant also helps to support that planning goal as well. >> Any inconsist conspicuous inconsistencies? >> No, I don't uh I was unable to identify any uh anything that's specifically inconsistent. That's our task to identify whether or not there are any uh specific inconsistencies and whether or
not it's consistent with the mess if the current master plan is revised for the city and such other items as you deem relevant and just to put it in lawyer like terms which is why you would make these recommendations. >> So that's what you're doing to pass it on to the mayor and council with the
recommendations. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve those recommendations that we just discussed. Second. >> Second, >> Dan. Dan. Sorry. >> James Banano, >> yes.
>> Councilwoman Clayton, >> yes. >> Mayor Moore, >> yes. >> Jen Souder, >> yes. >> Dan Shaneo, >> yes. >> Bob Zuckermanman, >> yes. >> Kathy Mccclaclin, >> yes. >> And Chairwoman Garzac, >> yes. Thank you for a motion to thank you.
>> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Thank you. Thank you everyone.