How are you? Uh, you know, little rush. I'm driving. I have the wall right here folks and welcome to the planning board of February 25th. Um at this time I'm going to ask uh whoever's in the
audience or on the DS here if they would uh either silence or turn off their cell phones be appreciated. And I'll open the meeting up pursuant to the open public meetings law. This is to state for the record that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public by publication in the Westfield leader
and um in January 2026 posting on the Barrow website and posting and filing of said notice in the office of a municipal clerk. This is a regular meeting of the board. Um at this time I'm going to ask for a moment of silence and a flag please.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Blumentock >> here. Miss Lysac
>> here. Councilwoman Biano >> here. >> Um, Miss Veagio >> here. >> Mr. Nearstead >> here. >> Mr. Barkin >> here. >> Miss Haye >> here. >> Mr. McCarrick >> here. >> Mr. Buyers is excused. Mr. Mason >> here. >> Mr. Di Maria >> here.
>> Mr. Biano >> here >> and chair greet >> here. >> Okay. Um if everyone has had an opportunity to read the minutes of the prior meeting. Um do I hear a motion to accept the meetings as indicated? >> Make the motion to accept the meeting uh
minutes as submitted. >> Second. >> Sorry. >> All those in favor? >> I post the motion carries. Okay. At this time, we're going to um have a resolution and uh we'll give a
few minutes just to or a minute or two just to review if you haven't already. And that's for 63 second eda view LLC granting a minor subdivision with no variances. And someone's ready. I'm going do I hear
a motion to accept that resolution as printed. >> All those in favor? >> Motion carries. Okay, we'll move on to our public hearing on rest of plan amendment.
Good evening. Um, chairman, members of the board, Gabe Bale with Harbor Consultants. Um, so what I'm here tonight is to present the amended housing element and fair share plan. But before I go into dive into the numbers,
just kind of want to give a little backstory of how we got to this point right tonight. Um so the state changed their regulations affordable housing numbers in 2024 and with that they proipality
in terms of what is the number that municipality has to provide for affordable housing. Garwood received that number of 80 affordable housing units. So, our office prepared a housing element plan, fair share housing element plan
that was approved by this board on May 28th, 2025 and the burough council adop endorsed it on uh June 12th, 2025. So, that was the first step in this affordable housing requirements. Then
Fairshare Housing Center challenged our report. And it wasn't just Garwood. They challenged every single municipality in the state. 565 challenges saying the plans did not provide sufficient
realistic opportunity provide affordable housing. So fair share challenge. Then we had a challenger from the developer of the paperboard site. He said that he should be enabled for additional density
based on the market conditions. So, Fair Share Housing Center and the paperboard developer for the paper board property challenged the burrow's affordable housing plan and with that went into a court negotiation court
order. uh that was approved by court order in terms of the immediate in terms of providing the necessary numbers for affordable housing and that uh uh im mediation agreement was approved on
January 20 22nd 2026. So with that the plan in 2025 has to be changed and the main reason why change is related to
the paperboard site. Uh originally the paper board side if the board remembers I'm sure you do most of you were here the original plan was for multif family 124 units and with a storage facility that was the original plan which was
approved by this board project was never built stayed in limbo. um 2025 uh the developer came back to the burrow and said he wanted to change the storage facility use to age restricted. Uh the
proposal was for 57 units which was a part of the previous plan but however paper board developer mentioned he challenged the plan and said that he did not provide that the burough was not providing sufficient density based on
market conditions. This went to court uh challenged in the court and the ultimate decision was made by the judge that the paper board uh is enabled to provide additional age restricted uh seven which
was previously proposed to 80 is a part of the 88 age restrictor units with the multif family the 124 which isn't changing. So that goes to a total of 212 units and that was the result of the settlement agreement and court
order. So from that the plan has to change to reflect this revised number related to the paper board redevelopment plan. So it went from the original based on the 57 and the 124 units kind of um
that is all been addressed by the third round. So the 124 units was a part of the third round plan and from that there's going to be 19 affordable housing units but as the age restricted component of the development is new this is related to the fourth round uh rules
and regulations. So the original proposal was for 57 age restrictor units which was a part of the plan and that would provide a set aside affordable housing set aside of 12 units. However, as it went up to 88 units that now the
set aside is 18 uh affordable housing units. So with that, we had to change the numbers related to complying with the total number of based on it's called the realistic development potential. That's like the
actual number of affordable housing units that is projected to be built based on vacant developable vacant land approved projects and projects in beginning construction. So that number
was revised to 22 primarily resulting from the paperboard uh paperboard project. So with that we had to provide uh the numbers changed and the 18 affordable housing units resulting from the age restricted
development. Um there's three types of mechanisms which will be related to the 18 affordable housing units. Uh 50 up to 50% of these 18 affordable by housing units have to be family. The developer also has an option to do eight special
needs bedrooms and then the the remainder is rest to the developer's uh discretion. So with that that 22 which is the actual you know number which is on record that the the burough
will be developing affordable housing of 22. It's all going to be provided by the paperwork project and you also get a bonus credit of 5.5. So you provided 23.5 but as mentioned the original number for
housing number is 80. So you subtract the 23.5 from the 80 and that's and the remaining balance is called the unmet need which is 56.5. So with that unme what the burrow has to
do is create an opportunity for affordable housing. And what does that mean? And creating an opportunity is creating zoning in place which potentially could result in affordable housing. Doesn't mean it will. Doesn't
mean it it may, but we hit the burrow based on the regulations has to create an opportunity. And this was determined by four overlay zones which were in the original plan. So nothing has changed. And those four overlays are the Garwood
rest property and all these overlays were uh determined with density 20 dwelling units an acre. So from that there was the Garwood rest property which uh is estimated for two affordable housing units. North Avenue Garwood Mall which is eight affordable housing units.
Uh the ACP property which is next to the Vermelo the full property it's only 3.66. 668. I had 15 affordable housing units. And the North Avenue Gateway property is the the Nipple Works property on the corner
of North Avenue and Lincoln. Uh and that's projected to provide seven affordable housing units. As well, we are able to take credit for the West Westfield Senior Housing Complex, but since it's age restricted, we're only eligible for six of the 24 units. So
with the overlays and the Westville Senior Center, we have 38 affordable housing units of the 56.5. The remaining balance, what we said is estimate, it's called a mandatory set aside because, you know, we can't
project what's going to happen for any development five or more units. There's a 20% set aside for affordable housing units. So we said the remaining balance of that 56.5 um will be resulting from the mandatory
set aside. So this was determined by the court. They accepted this revised numbers. They accepted this plan. Uh they accepted the overlays the the mechanisms to provide that realistic opportunity. And the main reason why
this plan changed was primarily resulted from the paper board redevelopment with the increase of age restricted units from 57 to 88. So we're here tonight to for the planning board to consider
adopting this amended housing plan and all these affordable housing documents need to be approved by March 16 March 16th. There's a firm deadline from the state that all these documents need to be prepared, need to be approved in
order for Garwood to be protected from builder's remedy lawsuit. And that time frame for the builder this fourth round is from 2025 to 2035. So that's 10 years. So if all the documents are accepted, approved, endorsed, this would
provide protection from Garwood for any developer coming in and saying, "No, I need 50 units an acre or 60 units an acre because we're not providing affordable housing." By having this plan approved, protected, and doing all the
ordinances in place, this would provide protection for Garwood for 10 years. >> Okay. Um thank you Gabe. I I just just as clarification um all these these units that you had made reference to um out of these other four sites in
addition to paperboard um all the criteria is identical that they're going to have to follow as far as um the requirements through um to satisfy the affordable housing. Correct. >> Yes. So, >> so basically my concept is that the
verbiage that's specified for each one is identical across the line. >> Yes. Yeah. So, so um I'll get this more in detail with the the next items on agenda related to consistency for the zoning overlays, but they all have the
same verbiage. Uh they permit multif family, but as well with the underlying uh uses within that zone. So, you know, whatever zone it is, the underlying permitted uses are still permitted. Uh, also within each one of these
ordinances, we have uh docu infrastructure improvements stating that the developer will be required to provide the infrastructure improvements. We also have green building requirements. There's actually
requirements for green building. uh previously it's been you know suggested or recommended we're actually requiring it. Uh there's also going to be uh information in terms of climate resiliency, storm water increasing landscape. So each one of these
ordinance has this information to make a project sustainable uh but also protect the burrow in terms of infrastructure uh landscaping storm water and all other requirements. So each one of these is
simil is identical in nature in terms of language. It's just changing the property and they're all 202. >> That's what I wanted clarification which I I kind of knew that but I wanted to to be announced. Um also uh just as clarification the uh the 88 units of the
age restricted that's they're not going to have any um any affordable housing within those 88 units. If I'm if I'm correct >> it's Yes. So, it's going to be one building, the paperboard plan, uh, but
there's going to be separate sections. There's going to be age restriction section of the building and then the multif family. So, the affordable housing units are not going to be within the age restricted area of the building. Uh, even though they potentially, some
of them potentially could be uh, age restricted affordable units. Um but this the way in terms of the settlement and the layout any affordable housing units would not be in the age restricted area of the building.
>> Okay. Very good. At this time I'll open it up to anybody else from the board who has any questions or comments or questions particular of the witness. >> I just um I I did want to just uh thank you for for explaining. I did think you did a very good job explaining all of that, but um the clarification that you
made that they're all 20 units an acre, I just wanted to reiterate that because I think it's important. It locks it in essentially so that these other areas should they ever be developed with redevelopment, that is what they're locked into as opposed to during this
process when paper board came in and asked for 60 units an acre. um this locks it in and and protects the burrow from that happening and having those very fun negotiations with the developer. So, uh I think that's the important part of of locking in these
ordinances >> and yes to quote on said master plan amendments. I mean I looked at not sure if I'm looking at the right thing. I looked at each of the proposed ordinances. Are we looking at those right now or you going to have separate votes on them?
>> That would be separate. Um >> what So what exactly are we voting on? Just an amendment to the fair share housing. >> Yes. Yes. So right now, right, we're the first item on the agenda is the amendment to the and then next one with the consistency with ordinances.
>> Thank you, Mr. >> You're welcome. Anyone else from the board? See, now I'll open this. Oh, yeah. Um, Steve. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean, um, it's the property,
um, when you come down, uh, Lincoln Avenue, North Avenue, it's the property right on the corner is the brick building. That's the Nipple Works building. Uh, the Garwood Rest is that bar and restaurant on uh, South Avenue. The Garwood Rest restaurant. Uh the
north the the then uh then the the South Avenue gateway is is the properties those warehouse properties uh next to the vera
properties uh on South Avenue but it's not the full site. The full site is eight eight acres. This is only 3.66 acres. And the last one is the Garwood uh mall uh right on North Avenue. Uh the
one uh what's in there? There's that. The Hot Works um >> CVS. Yeah. >> Dunkin Donuts. Yeah. >> It's on North A.
The one next to CVS. >> No, it's on it's on North Avenue. >> Yeah, >> that third round. This is for the fourth round. Yeah. So, so this >> Yeah. I mean it's there in place but the you know we're required to provide new
opportunities. So this is the new opportunity for possibility affordable housing and that's you know that's the key word opportunity that's not right next to right or is it more towards west
>> it's more towards Westfield field. So it it's >> Yeah. So >> yeah, that that it's so >> it was before that. >> No, so it would be Vermela and then then then that and then closer to
Westfield is 3.66 acres of that property. That's the area. Yeah. No, no, it's for the Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not the It's not the
full property. It's not Yeah. Yes. Anyone else on the board? Seeing none, I'll open it up to the public questions.
Hello, John. John Bartle, 231 Hemlock Avenue. I wasn't even thinking about this tonight, but uh noticing in this ordinance uh the developers can charge a fee for a parking place. uh if I'm not mistaken, uh have we
learned nothing from Vermela the uh spillover uh from people who don't want to pay the parking fee spilling over into the community which has had a ripple effect of causing us to have to u enact a number of off-site parking ordinances
and everything else. Why do we continue to make the same mistake? And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just reading the uh the ordinance right here. Why are we allowing another developer to disincentivize their tenants from parking on the site
they're developing? Uh, that's it. I haven't read the rest of the document, just that one paragraph. >> Okay, John, >> chairman. >> Yes, Bill. Correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. My understanding is that John is
talking about ordinance. We're not at that ordinance yet. Are we just looking at the master plan? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, we're not at the point that this is where I was just talking about it yet, >> but it's coming up. >> I know it's coming from Right. I've got stuff. I just want >> Sorry, John. I retract my statement.
>> No, I just >> I didn't miss that. I'm glad you brought that up at this point in time because we Well, anyway, thank you. Anyone else? Uh good evening chair greet hello
welcome to the planning board Bruce Patterson 325 Willow Avenue uh on this amendment not the ordinances but anyway the uh yeah the initial affordable housing obligation we had was 80 according to Gabe of Harbor Consultants.
Uh we just went through that lawsuit which is resulting in this amendment and from the lawsuit we're adding an additional 31 units you know which total 212 over
the 124 original plus you're around 457 initially that you were giving them at that point then lost. So now it's 31 more 212. Uh of that amount we were doing 19 affordable housing from the round three
and then from the round four discussion you were giving them uh 57 more units which resulted in 12 more affordable housing unit. Then the lawsuit came about. you added 31 which then I guess added another
six I guess. So total is 37. Well anyway my question is so these 31 extra units and these six extra affordable housing units and as you um clarify that the other four uh
properties don't change from previous. But I'm just wondering why are we adding the extra 30 31 units and the extra six affordable housing units and not deducting them from the other properties that were considered cuz
right now it looks like whatever we had set on on round four, we're adding another 30 units according to the lawsuit. 31 units. So why are we adding more units and more affordable housing units over and above
uh what round four was designated uh to be Garwood's obligation. So that's my question and that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Address any >> Yeah, sure. uh Bruce and this in terms
of as is mentioned the the number went up related to the 31 extra age restricted units that went from 57 to 88 but the overlay zones nothing has changed. So even now with the additional
units from uh the paper board with the overlays it still doesn't add up to 80. So we are saying that it provides a number that the courts accepted that fair share
accepted um and then from that the remaining balances from the man this mandatory set aside. So even though the number for uh for paper board went up, we still don't actually provide 80 units
in terms of the affordable housing, but we're providing a realistic opportunity with those overlay zones and the mandatory set aside. So the actual you would recall the RDP you know that's the actual number of affordable housing
units that did go up related to uh the additional 31 units from the age restricted. >> I'm consider though about the extra 30 units from the lawsuit. >> Yeah. And that's that's related to the paper board. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Why can't something else be decreased by
30? that just that that was court settlement that that was negotiated and that was the you know the court determined that the number for the 57 went up to 88. So that's that was a court agreement.
>> The judge and the um gosh the facilitator the special master >> were on their side and they determined after a back and forth for three months that no,
they didn't they couldn't get what they wanted, but that they did that they would get more and battle and that was what we came to the end with. Compromise was that the
nonaffordable housing would would be this 55 and older to be less impactful on the town. So I I mean it's we were stuck in a between a rock and a hard place simply because they had the ability to challenge us and at that
point the judge and the special master felt that their side was convincing. So, >> I think put another way, um, if I might, Bruce, I think put another way is what this board is considering tonight is the
amendment to the master plan to implement the settlement that has been imposed upon us. And it's not really what this board is doing now. We're not in a position to decide the merits of that decision which
has been imposed. rather the board's in an implementation phase here >> in subsequent impact. Okay, I understand. Thank you. >> Okay. Yes. >> How are these locations determined these other four
uh properties? >> Sir, you have to identify yourself for the record, please. >> You know what? I don't have my glasses on. I see somebody if if if kind of recognize the process up here.
It would be good if say from the board have any comments or questions. It would be good if that you chime in at that point as opposed to from general public. >> Yeah, I know I missed the opportunity but me.
>> Okay, thank you. So, um, in terms how the sites were identified, developed, uh, the affordable housing team with input from, uh, the burrow, um, identified
properties that may be underdeveloped or possibly have the potential to be redeveloped and identify these properties based on use and existing use, what's there that they have an
opportunity to potentially be replaced with new opportunity for multif family. Uh so it was a process involved in you know our team looking at properties uh the burrow providing input and it was decided that these four properties uh
will be the overlay zones to provide this affordable housing. And just as a note, um there were um considerable dialogue uh several meetings concerning those properties um involved and Harbor Consultants was
involved with that as well. So it's not something that is new to the board to for priority discuss the the pros and cons for for them. Um and the decision that we un you
know we made was basically that would be good suitable to uh to conform to housing needs. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. >> All right. Um, anyone else from the
public to the ordinance reviews and >> yes, >> hold on. >> Uh, yeah. I'm sorry. Um, yeah. Do I have a motion to to vote on accepting the uh the
as a second? Oh, I'm sorry. >> It >> I have to abstain. >> Yeah, >> I'll second the motion. >> Okay. A motion and and a second. Please. >> Mayor Blumentock.
>> Miss Lysac. >> I. >> Councilwoman Biano. >> Abstain. >> Uh, Miss Belagio. I >> Mr. Nearstead. Hi. >> Mr. Barkin. Hi. Miss Haye, Mr.
McCarrick, Mr. Mason, >> I >> um Mr. Di Maria, >> hi. >> Mr. Biano, >> I >> and Chair Greet. >> I think I gave you two eyes there.
>> Okay, with that, the uh the amendment has been uh accepted. Adopted, I'm sorry. Okay. Um on to Muse. >> Okay. That's one that we adopt rather
than recommend the adoption to >> you. Yes. Yes. You you adopt it and then the governing body endorses it. Yeah. >> Question. >> Okay. >> Okay. Moving forward. Um we're going to
reviews and the planning board review of the zoning ordinances and the uh first one is the affordable housing ordinance 26-02 which was sent out um and hope had an
opportunity to review it. >> Well, it's it's there's a lot of information there. So, um just kind of uh an overview, uh all ordinances, uh land use ordinances, zoning ordinances have to be reviewed by the
planning board to determine if they're consistent with the master plan or the housing element itself. So, these there's five ordinances. The first one is the affordable housing ordinance. And what that is is these are the new
regulations related to the four pound four round rules and revised uh housing regulations are called the uniform housing affordability controls. Uh so that is the this affordable housing ordinance is this revised regulations.
However, I will say uh there as with this whole process, there's been so much confusion back and forth. So, this template was provided by the state. They've retracted it three times already. Uh and they're going to retract
it again. So, what we're presenting will have will be amended again for for certain because the state has not finalized it. They've sent errors in it. It's been back and forth. It's been a,
you know, it really shows the inefficiency of of of this process and what's going on. The fact they presented something that's not correct and three times they had to retract it. Um but in terms of what this board has to do to
meet that March firm deadline in March 16th is we still have to determine if it's consistent. Um and as mentioned what this is, it's the forefront rules to revising uniform affordable housing
controls and this replaces um chapter article 13 and 14 the ordinance which is the affordable housing ordinance in the burough's code but that's the third round. So these fourth rounds are going to repeal and replace uh these this
affordable housing ordinance in the burough's zoning code with this revised. Um so this in terms of consistency, you know, the master plan 2023 uh and I'll say this for every ordinance, one of the goals was to encourage encourage
development affordable housing uh within the burrow. And obviously this is consistent with the forefront plan because it's related to the four round rules, the revised uh housing controls. So this affordable housing ordinance what it does, it dictates the set aside
which is now 20% for rentals and for sale. Uh it also dictates the bedroom distribution in terms of the number one bedrooms for four or four units. Number one bedrooms, the number two bedrooms, number three bedrooms. there's a certain percentage that has to be provided. Uh
also it dictates the you know the the income distribution in terms of certain number of units have to be very low income uh low income and moderate. Uh it also relates to the development fee ordinance with the bureau can collect
development fees related to uh providing opportunity for affordable housing. So all these regulations are within this affordable housing ordinance that we're here tonight for consistency but forewarning it's going to have to be
amended again. And just for the record, Gary at can you stateions are if we if we do or we do not approve this >> this these ordinance required by the court settlement agreement that this
ordinance the affordable housing regulations are to be adopted. So my recommendation, my strong recommendation is to approve this to meet the March 16th deadline because if there's one thing that may be missing, a developer could go online saying, "Oh,
Gar would miss this, but soon." And that could happen. Be be frank, that could happen. So my recommend my strong recommendation is adopt it full knowing or determine it's consistent full knowing that it will be in my
>> and I wanted that on the record just >> in terms of adopting were recommended >> the consistency it's consistency council >> this was introduced all all these ordinances were introduced to the governing body and there'll be the
second reading uh was when these uh ordinances will be adopted, but the planning board what we're here tonight is just consistency. >> I I understood, Gabe, I just wanted to clarify for the rest of >> Okay. >> Yes. >> 2603, right?
>> 2602. >> 2602. >> Thank you. >> All right. I recommend the adoption. I recommend the recommendation. >> You're moving.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let's get Let's get the verbage. Correct. >> You're moving that the board recommend its adoption. >> Yes. I'm moving that the board recommend uh the adoption to council
of 2602. And then I would say consistent too that it's consistent >> with the master plan. >> Master plan second. >> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Bloomingtock. >> E abstain. >> Miss Lysac.
>> Hi. >> Councilwoman Biano. >> Abstain. >> Miss Veagio. >> Hi. >> Mr. Nearstead. >> Hi. >> Mr. Barkin. >> Hi. >> Miss Haye. >> Hi. >> Uh, Mr. McCarrick. Uh, Mr. Mason.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Di. Maria, >> hi. >> Miss Mr. Biano, >> hi. >> And Chair Greet. >> Okay. So, that motion has been moved and we will open it up for um the second
ordinance for review and that's the Garwood Plaza overlay zone ordinance 26-3. >> I have a question. >> Yeah. Um in these um afford ordinances
um um number three, four, five and six. >> Mhm. >> This has uh bulk >> bulk restrictions. >> Yes. >> Which is different than the first ordinance that we just recommended the council. >> Yes.
um these bulk restrictions and I'm looking at the front front um setback. Um they're all at 10 ft.
>> All right. I understand you want to be consistent. But my question is if this indicates the bulk
restrictions and the front setback is at 10. if and when if and when we ever get um have a u a developer
for these properties. Um um can you have um um um a redevelopment plan at that time for this specific property
or you know each one of these properties? >> Yes. I mean so what this is >> they can have their own bulk restrictions. >> So this is >> this is just overlay. Um so as as mentioned this provides bulk
requirements, use requirements >> but yes there if the burrow decides if a developer comes in and wants to do a redevelopment agreement specific to this property and a redevelopment plan, that
redevelopment plan would take precedence. They would they would they would trump this overlay ordinance. Redevelopment plan takes precedence >> because Like they're all the same. >> Yes. >> All right. Because I looked at each and
every one of them and some of these sites are different. >> All right. I wouldn't put the same for the uh North Avenue Gateway um front setback
and the uh South Avenue gateway. >> Yeah. >> All right. In my opinion, the front setbacks would be different. So, so what we did is we took the underlying zoning requirement and that which we applied um
>> full knowing you know if >> and listen if if development comes in for this property and doesn't meet these requirements of course it variance and and there's no way exactly knowing you know what's going to be built in terms of the the size the dimensions you have
to provide some guidelines and if developer comes in doesn't meet those guidelines, he can request a variance and it'll be from this board but it's you you have to provide some type of bulk requirements. Yeah. point just
>> just want to make sure that if that if and when a developer does come in all right that um that if there's a redevelopment plan that
would take precedent >> yes >> over these ordinances right >> with regard to bulk and I just wanted to make sure that because Um like I just said like each site is
different. So each site in my opinion like in the end should have different setbacks >> or or may have different setbacks. >> No, I I agree and and you know >> I wanted
>> Yeah. Yeah. to make sure. So we just we did the underlying zoning but you know if if any developer comes in and you know and burrow decides that they want to do a redevelopment plan redevelopment agreement then that would change the
zoning and in that case you know 90% of the time the developer has a concept plan and that goes back and forth negotiations. So based on that concept plan you could really create the zoning for the for explaining that and
thank you Kathy for highlighting that. Um so >> see >> yeah see >> but Kathy's using the word takes precedence. >> In other words what the developer prop any developer proposes if it's not consistent with this
>> it doesn't take precedence. >> Well they need a variance. >> Yes. That's what we was just mentioning. >> Yeah. Yeah. But if if the burrow and the developer have a
redevelopment plan, >> yeah, >> prior to um the development of the property. >> Okay. What Gabe has indicated is that that redevelopment
plan would take president would would um override this with regard to bulk. >> That doesn't seem right. >> Yes. Redevelopment plans in terms of the
local redevelopment housing law or redevelopment plan >> be adopted by the town. >> Yeah, it has to be adopted. I'm just saying if if it is adopted, a redevelopment plan overrides the underlying zoning. >> Great.
>> Okay. Uh anyone else from >> chairman? Um first off, Dave, um as Kathy said earlier, I also went through, you know, every ordinance and and everything. And uh I recognize the amount of work you guys put in the amount of work mayor put in. I'm not
trying to get as fast here, but there's a lot of work there and so um I appreciate that. Um Det of course I do have col um I want to make sure but I don't know if I'm working off the right current most current maps or not the
title in 26-03 that does not include the CVS correct. >> No, it does not. >> All right. What was the reason for that? I'm not saying one word or the other. What's the rationality? because it's developed as one for it. So what is the rationale for not including CVS?
>> It it was >> it's a it's an excellent point. Um it was just determined that that part they're separate parcels even though it is one developer. >> Yeah. So it it is separate parcels in
terms of the the strip mall section and the CVS. Uh I understand I I do see your point that even though it's separate properties, it is one, you know, Garwood, North Avenue Garwood Mall. Um
it was just determined just to include the strip mall itself rather than the CVS. Um so that was what was introduced and agreed upon. >> Okay. Just I just want to make sure that's what I understood too. I I appreciate that. All right. Second, um looking at um
we all know there has there have to be so many references and so many things that have to mesh when you're doing a redevelopment plan and the developers per everything else. So I just don't know what these things are meshing when I went through the land use ordinance
with theos ordinance here. Um, >> okay. 263. >> Yeah. 353. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, um, at home I had the, uh, 106 D 98.4 was used district. I
have um uh and and N98 106-98.5. Okay, this word is is entire 106-98.8. I could not find it. I'm open to
someone. Tell me where it is. Where are 98.6 and 98.7 exist? >> No, the these these would be new. They're newly created. >> So, you're creating 98.8. >> Okay. with book one goes up to 98.5.
There is no 98.6. We were 98.7 and I stand correct if someone sees it. I just did not see this today. >> It was one of them I'm making >> 98.6 is 2606. >> So those are even though those ordinances are being proposed after
this, this is being looked at first. >> Is this the order? But >> is this the order? Okay. Okay. I'm just sir. >> The South Avenue is 98.6, Garwood Rest is 98.7, Garwood Plaza is 98.8
and the North Avenue Gateway is 98.9. >> Thank you very much. I went through different words. Where are the others? >> All right. Um, look at the gar again corrected. Um, there's no reference to gar plaz
and I realize the gar mall. Uh, I'm sorry. Thank you for that. There's no reference to the Gar Mall overlooking zone. I recognize people plaza there'll be a new zone but what I want to mention to Harvard is take a good look at
106-89 um 106-85 because um mentioned to community commercial zone but it does not include the previously discussed gar wall ordinance and that
has to be amended conclude the new zones that were going to be hopefully be created tonight or that would be missed next three days. So 106-89 list all the zones in Darwood and what I'm saying is it doesn't have some walls and I didn't
see anything that that you guys did with all the changes you're making when you're going to abandon those things include these new zones. just just make sure they could put in and I also I what I have written here is uh will these
changes tonight um be added to 106 a little bit 889 um okay um 96 98.8 8 letter
and the title says accessory structure buildings and uses um but nowhere in the that section rear buildings and I was wondering if we can actually remove the word buildings from there because that gets scary what people might propose.
So nowhere in this section do we use the word building except type remove from the title. I mean this in terms of like is a garage a building or is a structure? >> Typically accessory structure. Yeah.
>> It's just the word building just to me opens things up. And we talk about accessory uses, we talk about accessory structures. All good. But the only word place that building is used is in the title. It's not in the word. It's not in the title.
So think about it. I think it can be removed. Both regulations um the lot area minimum lot area is 2013. >> That's the underlying zone. >> Yeah, I don't know if that makes sense.
>> I know it's the underlying zone. >> That's the the the role was just to do the underlying zone. I understand what you're saying. I'm saying >> with these lots and this these developments, it doesn't make sense. And I agree with you because I agree down here. All everything else comes in
general business zone. I really like that does too. Um but when that zone was created, you know, 2,000 foot lots were possible. We don't want 2,000 foot lots of these developments. So why are we permitting them? >> It was the basis using the underlying
zone and that was what we did. I I understand where you're coming from, >> Bill. Either I guess what we should do is increase that minimum lot size. We don't want small lots along here. So, I understand you're using the underlying zone,
but again, in this situation, the fact that we're going to end up with larger properties, larger developments, having a minimal size, 2,000 ft, it just didn't work for me. Did you see what I'm talking about? under the bulk requirements. Yeah, >> bulk requirements.
2000. So, are we gonna I always think it's worth going to cut up? >> This is This is what I need, you know, 20 foot lots. No, we're not >> minimum >> allowed. Somebody could come in close 20
by a lot. I >> mean, it doesn't matter at this point in time in terms of what old things we have to do. You can still change the >> first reading >> can only change it a certain amount and that would be a
>> that would be a major thing but >> I don't know if that's big enough too big to change. I think, excuse me, um, chair, I think, um, the basis is that,
um, we recommend this to burrow council and then we come back to it next month, but just as long as it's adopted and sent down to the jud and sent to the judge. So, or or down to Trenton, wherever it
goes. So we have everything in by March 15th, which which gives us the protection, you know, from a builder's ren. It doesn't say like we can't go back to it
after we sent it down. No, I I understand it and that's what >> so basically basically we're highlighting evidence why we know it has to be addressed or should be addressed and something that we can do down the line but right now we're more
concentrated on getting that done done tonight. So let's go let's move forward. I appreciate the fact that you bring these up, but I think that we have to focus on that. >> Okay, we talk about affordable housing
because it doesn't matter, but it says quote affordable housing is various buildings and on various floors. I think you want to put permit residential on the first floor. I mean it depends on I mean it depends
on the you know these these ordinances don't permit ground floor residential. >> It does. This one specifically does >> various floors on >> it doesn't say first floor >> in various floors which means a person a
quote unquote build type of developer could come in and propose housing in the first floor. the fact that we say in letter J I affordable housing units and it doesn't matter affordable or market in various building and on various
forests I don't think we want housing on the first floor do we >> chairman I I sense um we're not going to change it tonight >> that's something else that we need to look at I don't think anybody's going to permit it >> that's fine of some of these these highlights, cave,
is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And we'll we'll bring that back at a later time. >> Next one has to do with parking letter K. Um I know this is going nowhere, but I want to be consistent. Use my word consistent on that. Want to be consistent raising it. I do not agree
with the parking standards whatsoever. Sparrow has >> on adopting a bicycle element or a bicycle plan. We're going through the circulation element right now and Kathy, as you know, you
went through the whole downtown and we seem to be talking on the left hand that we're going to reduce, you know, we're all yelling about traffic, we're reducing the number of cars, but yet we're allowing the maximum number of
parking space per unit. And so, I know I've been on the record of this before, and again, it may not go anywhere, but Mr. Chairman, I I do not agree with that uh standard that's being adopted from RSIs. Uh I really do think that we should look at that further and reduce
the actual requirement and and so Mr. Bale you can keep note of that too. And the other thing is what Mr. Borrow raised. Okay, we ran into a lot of trouble when it's not being addressed here, but we need to address it
where parking space is not required within the actual cont. Yeah, >> explain that up next too. I'll keep my notes. Um, bold regulations
a little conflict. We talk about there being no sideyard step acts yet two as far as a minimum of 15 foot landscape buffers. How are we going to achieve a minimum 15T landscape buffer? We only require 5T
sideyard setback. If there's a contradiction within the proposed ordinance and Mr. Chairman, if we can come back to that, I think that's one we need to address. We can't have both understand what I'm saying. I understand like this was just from an underlying
zoning but I understand but but I understand there's there's a landscape set back of 15 feet you know be be consistent >> right um >> okay and again perhaps not now u you
know my bias here um I was wondering if we could add a six um that needs development also be in accordance with uh section 106-138 which is u she trees and the reason I
mention that is because se a section that was brought up later I don't know if it's in6-04 or another one but um when I used to write the redevelopment plans we always had a section in there
that said if it's not in the redevelopment plan give an example in a second then the land use origins guidance and what seemed to be in paper board ordinance when we get to that point of pass
when we get to that it's scary to me it's very scary because what it doesn't have that and um I would like to advise this planning board that the example I need to use is lighting
should no lighting standard be this 6-03 no standard at And if we're going to say that we're not going to have a standard in the United States redevelopment plan rules and the redevelopment plan doesn't say anything about lighting doesn't say anything about outdoor storage. I think we have
to have a catch all and the catch all is that if it's not in the redevelopment plan and I don't expect everything to be in the redevelopment plan that zoning works and while you're holding 200 the uh this plan is around 60 I think. And so I
would just recommend that we put in the land use ordinance a catch all that if something is is not in redevelopment plan but it's in the land use ordinance that the land use ordinance rules. >> But Bill we're talking about overlay ordinance not redevelopment plans.
>> Yeah understand that. >> Yeah. >> Believe me. I understand. >> Okay. Let's let's move on. >> So um they Okay. You want to stay with 2603 Mr. Chen? Honestly, um, Bill confused.
I could see out of all these ordinances that I I took a look at, um, the bulk or the requirements from each ordinance basically were identical. >> They're all >> So, what you're stating is going to be uniform throughout all these.
together for each say the same thing for all of them. >> Yes. >> So um the other thing is we include your block and lots. Can we also include the addresses? You have them. You have the addresses
listed in a couple places not everywhere. like to be consistent if we include the address because people don't know the public doesn't know black lots but they'll know an address and so to be public friendly I'd like to see if we can put that in
um I don't know the number but the the overlay >> you're looking at right >> uh I mean the North Avenue one yeah okay Um the only property that's not included in
there is a lot of leaves which is facing Lincoln >> which is frost >> that's that's constant decision on our part we don't want to I just want to make sure because because everything else the redevelopment and just have I don't know what to call that error I don't what it is but okay as long as
we're we're cognizant is this is just that factory use >> right >> yes read is >> that's correct >> read is correct >> not includ It wouldn't be permitted under the existing zoning and it wouldn't be permitted under development either. So,
it doesn't matter, but I just wanted to make sure that was a conscious decision made. Um, from planning perspective, I know we need to include this as an overlay zone. Now, um, we could actually create this as a as an actual zone,
right? >> I mean, that's that's the burrow's decision. I I think I think a overlay uh you have the underlying zone and you have these additional uh zoning opportunities based on the overlay. I think that is uh easier process than
creating a whole new zoning district just for this one property. >> Right. I was thinking of just the one progress involved. I understand what you're saying. U Mr. Chairman's last last ones. um minimum lot depth um for the
property to the east of paperboard. It's listed as 200 um you know those properties aren't even 100. So I don't know if we want to amend that just leave it as it is. It would just mean that every single property size. So it's going to be a varying state of
law. Again, as long as we recognize that fine. Um and also within there is talk actually mentions called that borrowed paper as borrow paper on those properties. >> Uh I it's it's an entity. It's um
>> the ordinance ordinance says Garwood paper. I apologize. I >> which ordinance which which >> um I think it's >> 504 >> they call it in their phone
>> mean guard paper doesn't own it paper without any >> they called it 604 >> that's their entity that they calling >> the owner of standard nipple is >> but that's what it's way it's listed
Well, and it's mentioning >> that they they are you talking about that they challenge Gar >> I apologize if you go through court >> which is the Garwood rest one >> um then go to one that
>> that's a standard >> one it it does say you're >> charity >> no no it's not a matter of them challenging it's >> no Bill, >> Bill, I think that you know that's
that uh that that oh whereas in >> each and every one of the the garland paper because >> because they're the ones that filed suit >> which which which
>> so like under each ordinance it's going to say the background. Right. Right. >> So that's the reason why >> there there are you talking about the section related to the settlement agreement? There's there's verbiage the
settlement agreement between the borrowwood paper urban renewals associates LLC and the fair share housing center that >> the Godwood paper that is mentioned because as as noted that they filed a
challenge. No, no, I understand that and I apologize. You know, you guys can see it's mentioned. >> I saw a guard. >> I don't think it's mentioned anywhere. >> Yeah, it's on the first page, Bill. >> It's just in the >> first page on the bottom each and every that's not very meant.
No, I apologize if I >> Are you talking about J J1 I? >> Yes. >> Yeah. It just references the challenge. >> J1 I in which ordinance? Uh I probably all of them affordable housing
requirement. >> Yeah. >> Referencing challenge. >> Is this referencing the challenge? >> Oh, >> okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's it.
>> Okay. See that to make a decision on let's start with U plaza over zone 26-03. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to
to uh recommend to Mal Council uh for adoption. 12 second. >> Mayor Blumentock. >> Miss Lysac. >> Hi. >> Councilwoman Biano. >> Miss Veagio. >> Hi. >> Mr. Nearstead.
>> Hi. >> Mr. Barkin. >> Hi. >> Miss Heck. >> Mr. McCarrick. >> Mr. Mason. >> Hi. >> Mr. Di Maria. >> Mr. Biano. >> Hi. >> And Chair Greet. Hi. Let's move on to
26-04 and that will be the Garwood Restotion. >> I'll make that's the Garwood Rest which is >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'll make a motion
to recommend to Burough Council uh for adoption. >> Thank you. Do a second. Okay. >> Mayor Blumentock. Uh, Miss Lysac. Councilwoman Biano. >> Abstain.
>> Miss Veagio. Uh, Mr. Neareststead. >> Yes. >> Mr. Barkin. >> Yes. >> Um, Miss Haye. >> Mr. McCarrick. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mason. Hi. >> Mr. De Maria. And Mr. Biano. >> Hi. >> And Chair Greet. Sorry.
>> Okay. to um 26-1. >> I'll make a motion >> uh to borrow council >> for the adoption of this Williams. >> Mayor Blumentock. >> Miss Lysac, >> hi.
>> Councilwoman Biano, >> abstain. >> Miss Vagio, >> Mr. Neareststead, Mr. Barkin. >> Hi, >> Miss Haye. Hi, Mr. McCarrick. Mr. Mason, Mr. Deia, >> Mr. Biano. >> Hi, >> and Chair Green.
>> Hi. >> Finally, we have South Avenue 26-06. Motion. >> I'll make a motion for the recommendation to Burough
Council uh for adoption. Thank you. Do I have a second? Blumentock. >> Miss Lysac, >> hi. >> Councilwoman Biano abstain. >> Miss Veagio. >> Hi. >> Mr. Nearstead. Hi. >> Mr. Barkin. >> Hi. >> Miss Haye,
>> Mr. McCarrick, >> Mr. Mason, Mr. Di Maria, Mr. Biano, and Chair Greed. >> Thank you very much. and able to move this forward to the uh to the housing council >> and chair greed I would just like to
state for the record due to the time-sensitive nature of this um Mr. Renad uh the bureau's affordable housing um council did prepare um resolutions for me to sign just to state that the um so I just wanted the board to be aware
that I will be sending the resolutions to Mr. Ren after this meeting. >> Yes and Mr. Chairman with Mr. Sharing with respect to that, I did review uh the resolution prepared by Mr. Renard that he and I very briefly uh correspondent by email today. He asked
me if I wanted to do it or he want I said no Bob go ahead and do it. >> But I did look at the work. It's fine. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. >> That part about touch. >> Thank you for the clarification. That's that's that's good. Okay. We have a uh
we have an application. Um but before you do that uh is there anyone who needs a break? Um, we can take a fivem minute recess if necessary. If not, we'll move forward. >> Okay, we'll take a five minute recess and we'll return back in 5 minutes. So,
thank you very much. I mean, I know you know I I know I knew why he did >> and I understand They don't have that one. Yeah. >> On what?
>> Yes. No ground, >> right? Say excuse under >> you. >> You don't watch >> but you know excuse. Oh no, I don't want no >> I thought was
>> north. >> Oh. Oh, that's going the other way. I'm just going to stick it in. Right. >> So, the public >> tonight is a preliminary >> preliminary. All right. Tonight we're going to have a preliminary
>> as I said. >> It just happened today. Quick question. We have to do a preliminary so that any feedback can go back and then we have to do an official >> different
We don't have anything. >> We don't have anything. >> I do believe you don't discriminate. this. >> I wouldn't say >> now I have a shirt to wear
>> without swimming in it. No, >> just support. um you signed in already, but I guess the only thing we don't do is Even though we're even though it's there's no one, you know,
it's >> No, I know. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So I mean I you know I I looked at it for a second and then >> then it was it was >> but I I I build like a half hour and then and then Sandy said no we don't
have any extra for that then I was engineering. All right. Thanks. Let's uh let's bring it back. >> And um just as though on record sign of uh >> some bills uh one is from public
consultants um for their attorney fees and the second is an escrow um in the amount of uh it's pura. It's Frasier Frasier. Thank you.
>> And we have some and this is for escrow for 391. Thank you. Sorry about that. Don is my check. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Moving on. We have an application
case PD25-06 and that's 427. the afternoon where he is. Thank you. >> Good evening everybody. Uh my name is Joseph Leonard. I've been a resident here for over 25 years. Um I've raised my children here. They're
currently in school in Lincoln. Oh, sorry. That's the one you're about to board with the truth. The whole truth and don't give up. Yes. The border is your you know what why don't I help this is about the property
of 400 s correct correct and you're here this evening because you're seeking relief from section 106 91 C2A with respect that you have a front yard setback uh variance that you request correct that is correct and this is a
addition that you're seeking to put on to an existing structure correct Why don't you start out with by tell us how far from the front yard setback to the existing structure is have to verify architect you have you
want to have the art provide that would be that >> so Mr. provider. What other passive do you want to provide? >> I just want to provide like um basically what said I'm a resident here
for 25 years. I've raised my family. My family's growing, so I need an addition for the additional family. I have a six-month old son now. And I would like to add in my house is 125 years old. I'd like to bring back some
little characteristics of the house which includes a front porch and um my architect Roby Wood has more detailed plans and information in regards to the project itself.
>> Okay. Have >> you heard from any of your neighbors about this problem? >> I've spoken to numerous neighbors about it and I did not receive any negative feedback in regards to it.
>> Did you discuss with any of your neighbors the need to be setbacks? I've explained to them and I've been approached when they got notified about the project and the setback is for the
front porch and I've received positive feedback from them in regards to porch and the addition in general. But did anybody um express any negative
view about the further incursion into the front yard setback? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Do you want to call Mr. Wood? >> Mr. Wood. Um please state your name. >> Roby Wood. >> And your address? 704 Center Street.
>> Okay. Do you solemnly swear affirm testimony you're about to give before this port will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I did one. >> Okay. And you're testifying as the architect who prepared the plans? >> Yes. >> And you're a licensed professional architect to the state of New Jersey? >> Yes. >> Could you give the board the benefit of
your professional background? >> Uh licensed architect uh since 2006. Uh master's degree Yale Yale University. >> Okay. And your licenses are current in the state of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that Mr. Wood be accepted as an expert in the field of architecture.
Simply >> Mr. What? >> I have an exhibit that like to introduce that I could that'll be kind of in my >> Is it something that's part of the application already or is this something new? >> It's new. It's little.
>> It's two pages 13. All right, Mr. Wood, why don't we start then with the with the setback. >> Uh what tell me what the current setback at the house is and then what is proposed? The current setback uh to the
front yard is um 17 feet. So, it's an existing nonconformant setback. And we're proposing uh 1329. >> Okay. And the 17 ft is to the property line rather than to the street. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay.
Is it 17 feet to the front of the building or the existing uh bar? >> It's to the principal building. >> So you're seeking to go from 17 feet to 13.9 ft. So that would be 3.1 ft closer
to the front property line than the building is presently. Is that correct, Mr. Wood? >> Is the math right? I believe it is. Uh, yes. Correct. >> And I'm looking at A1. Um, the 400. Um,
that's the subject property colored in yellow. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the uh where it says proposed porch and it's kind of like hatched. That's where the proposed construction is. Correct. >> Correct. and it shows a little I would
call it a stoop, but there might be some other architectural term for it that's kind of on the right side of it. Is that there now or is that proposed? >> Well, there is one there now. Um, but it'll be replaced in kind with the porch. It's uncovered right now. So, but
it's the same depth at that point. >> But wait a minute. If I look at where that stoop is, and I'm not getting into the question right now of whether the stoop being in the front yard setback is a violation or not. That's not where I'm going is. But
is that stoop in the same place on this diagram where it is today or is that a proposed thing? >> It's it's there today. Uh >> then what's between that stoop and the house today? It's just a landing, an open landing,
steps, and a landing to the front door. >> So, where I'm seeing the hatched to propose porch between the stoop and the house, at least in that little section on the right, there's something there now. >> There is. Yes.
>> Okay. So, that part is actually already closer to the street than the 17 ft if I understand. >> Okay. And that's exhausting. >> Yes. >> Show 13.1. >> On this exhibit, it says 13.9. >> Okay.
13.9. Yeah. >> Existing. >> Yeah. You have it identified as an existing measure that they're going to like. >> All right. You can continue, Mr. Wood.
Since we've already established the location and a little bit of the background, um just kind of summarize things, uh we propose the following improvements. Um in addition to the subject porch, um encroachment, there's a modest addition on the side of the
house, a second floor expansion, and interior renovations. There's uh no change of use. Um as as mentioned the um the property remains single family residence. Um the overall building height remains compliant at 30 ft. The
uh would seek variance relief for the uh required 25 ft front yard setback. The port front porch only. Um we mentioned the proposed front yard setback of 13.9 ft resulting in a 11.1 ft deviation from
the fire 25. the the current uh port said more or less matches within maybe a few inches the current entry stair landing. Uh no additional bulk use variance is being requested. Um, in regards to the exhibit A2, um, I
believe this was posted, A2, A1, uh, just pointing out the streetscape setback analysis. Um, the the exhibit documents the existing front yard setbacks along Spruce Avenue and demonstrates that the homes of similar age as the subject property property,
namely 404, 405, 409, and 412 Spruce have a consistent setback to their respective front porches. Our proposed punch uh pro our proposed porch aligns with the established setback rhythm rather than creating a new or inconsistent condition within the
streetscape. Um we think that open front porches uh are traditional defining architectural element especially in a town like Barwood. Um they provide transitional spaces between public and private realms, provide
architectural depth to the facade and bring a humanizing scale at the street level. From a design standpoint, uh the porch reduces the flat vertical facades and introduces an articulation visual interest along the residential streets.
regard to the Garwood master plan um emphasizes preservation, enhancement of established residential neighborhood character, planning objectives include maintaining cohesive streetscapes, reinforcing traditional architectural patterns, and encouraging in reinvestment in housing style,
preserving the v and preserving the visual quality of residential districts. The proposed porch directly advances these objectives. >> Excuse me, Mr. Wood. Are you qualified to provide test planning testimony? Uh, >> you're not an expert. >> No, I'm just referencing the master
plan. I mean, but I'm not I'm not a single man. >> So, how are you qualified to provide that testimony? >> I think I was just summarizing the master plan from the document. I wasn't necessarily >> right. But right now, you're providing testimony. You're not you're not here as
an advocate for the >> applicant. Okay. I'll testimony. >> I can skip that. >> Strike it from the record. Um, so architectural compatibility. Uh, I'll refer to sheets A200 and A201 and the
provided exhibit showing the elevations and 3D renderings. Um, as an architect, this demonstrates the proposed porch is open and unenclosed, is proportional to the existing structure, maintains traditional detailing, and
uses compatible roof forms and pitch. The side edition adheres to the 25- ft setback preserving the scale and character of the front facade. The oral window on the second floor is a permitted encroachment in approximately 1.3 in.
In terms of positive criteria, um under the uh C2 variance criteria, the proposal advances the purposes of zone. >> And how are you how are you qualified to testify to that? uh
based on my >> you're an architect architect. Okay. >> Do you have any planning >> brain? I have plan but I'm not a certified planner. So >> it's fine.
>> All right, I'll wrap it up. In summary, the proposed improvements are modest, contextually appropriate, and architecturally consistent with the established character of Spruce Avenue. The open front porch provide both architectural uh benefits by enhancing the
streetscape, reinforcing traditional neighborhood design and promoting positive resident interaction. We feel the requested variance can be granted without substantial detriment to public footage and is consistent with the zoning ordinance. We respectfully request the board's approval. Thank you.
Thank you. >> Okay. Um, with that, I'm going to open it up for the board for any discussion. >> Um, I have a question. >> Any questions for the public, too? >> Is that okay? >> Yeah. Um, >> absolutely. >> I have a question. Um the uh the
uh proposed porch is that the same distance as the existing steps meaning that like you're going to take away the steps and you're going to put a porch. >> It's actually 08 of a foot close or
further away from the street as the current >> okay steps. >> All right. Um, all right. I don't have a problem with the porch. Um, personally speaking, um, I think the aesthetics makes the house
look really nice. Um, the the variance that like you're asking for. Um, it's 4 feet basically from a 17 to 13.
Um, but the aesthetics and the porch look, um, I like it. Um, and I think it will will enhance the neighborhood. Um, it has presented. That's it.
>> Thank you. >> Just just as a further note, um, if I notice and if I see this right, um, property 412 and 404. So almost in line with your 400, the the
newly established 400. Correct. So there will be two other at least a minimum of two other homes on that street that are at that same distance from the curb side. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. And and I'm along the same lines. I mean, I think I think
aesthetically it looks nice. Um you're not asking for any other variances other than the setback, front yard setback. I like the concept of an open porch. I've done that myself and so yeah I I don't have a problem personally with how this
is presented at this time. >> Yeah. >> Chair wondering about the impermanence coverage since we're having a pretty large addition areas.
>> Is that just landscaping issue going to take place? >> Uh correct. There's an adjustment to some of the existing paved areas in terms of the uh what's present. Finding a balance there, reducing it
where we can. There's some sort of existing streetcape or hardcape that doesn't really work, you know, is not as um not really working anymore. Some of it's damaged, some of this soft. So that's going to come out as part of this
so that we can make sure we get >> I would just make that a point in the variance for >> that coverage is increasing >> because otherwise coverage doesn't work let's say not proposed
>> the area under the porch is still the area under the porch still >> under the porch >> not paving it so that's that's still okay >> yeah this is back by the garage come out >> will be
>> but I think Craig what you're saying is >> I think what you're saying Craig is that if this were to be approved you'd like a condition that there will be a specific compliance with the maximum impervious coverage uh restriction >> well
Sorry, I was getting >> Bill. >> Um, Mr. We're going to try a different way. Okay. Um, with the submission of the second doc, I got to go with what chairman brought up earlier. You find that this
uh proposal would be consistent with the existing front yard setbacks and maybe the around the neighborhood. >> Not am I allowed to answer that? >> Yeah, great. I find just by the dimensions with big numbers, would you
find that not when we rephrase it would not be inconsistent? >> It it would be consistent in in as much as the we're not, you know, our ordinance is not talk about prevailing setbacks. So right >> the average that I pulled out of the 200
roughly the 200 foot line of neighbors was about 18 feet >> right >> so you know there are some I think they're the newer houses probably built you know latter half of the 20th century that look like they adhere to the 25 ft but there's there probably as many of
houses that are similar Mr. Leonard's house's age. I think they may have been built around the same time because they kind of share some similar details and they're all like at that same point about 14 B, you know, give or take. >> And as an architect, uh do you believe
there are certain benefits to um bold out porch such as you're proposing as opposed to what's there today? >> Uh I do. I mean a porch uh in most design circles uh authorized or not uh
the uh porch is seen as a a positive element. Um it's uh it's proven ad security. It kind of gives a place to people to gather interact with the pulp interact with their neighbors. So it has a lot of positive benefits >> as an architect
>> as right. Finally, also as an architect, would you find that finding large porches such as your proposing increase property values? >> As an architect, in my opinion, yes, they do. >> Thank you very much. Any questions?
See the general public questions of this applicant. See, I'm close to the Um that discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. Without any further discussion,
I would just like to say I think that this would seem criteria or the benefit of the variance that might be presented. So it's a quintessential teaching situation. >> Speaking of speaking
of Thank you, Bill. To move favor, >> I'll make that motion to approve the variance. >> I will second. >> Mayor Blumentock >> I, >> Miss Lysac, >> I.
>> Councilwoman Biano, >> I, >> Miss Vagio, I, >> Mr. Neareststead. Hi, >> Mr. Barkin. Miss Haye, >> hi >> Mr. McCarrick and Chair Greet. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Congratulations, Mr.
>> Good luck. >> Good luck. >> Procedure on that will >> great design choice by the way. next meeting which will be memorialized and you can get the um approved resolution then coming down and after you have that
is when we start requesting that >> that'll be the March 25th meeting right >> that >> no March will you have it for March 11th >> March 11th >> I have the minutes yet and I know you'll be doing as good and
I'll be doing >> Thank Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. Um we're going to go have a a review of the circulation plan. Good.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, thank you. Um so as recommended in the 2023 master plan, uh it was a recommendation that Gar would prepare a circulation plan. Uh what is a circulation plan? A
circulation plan just in terms of guides, goals and objectives of the transportation, pedestrian, bike ability, microbility and they are to align with the goals and visions of the master plan as well as
the burrow. So Harbor Consultants was retained to uh prepare a circulation plan. Uh the first step what we did was created a circulation plan subcommittee uh was made uh up with the mayor uh
planning board members uh members of the public as well as uh chief uh chief of police of Garwood and we met two times to discuss all things circulation in the burrow. And what we did is uh we
prepared a draft plan. And tonight is to have feedback from the burrow as well as members of the public uh related to the circulation plan. And the public hearing and adoption of this plan will
be in the March uh 26 planning board meeting, I believe. >> 25th 20 25th. Um yeah, >> I think >> yeah it's got it in the 25th day of the 25th 28 days. So yeah be the second um plane board
meeting in March. So tonight um I'm just kind of going to go over just the components of it. Uh the meat and potatoes, the main part and the items to focus on are the goals and objectives. But in terms of the components of the
circulation plan, the first section is the introduction the key functions of the circulation plans. Uh the second one is related to requirements or the roadway classifications in terms of a primary arterial which is
north avenue. Uh South Avenue is identified as a secondary arterial. Um then there's the major collector roads which is identified as center street and spruce avenues. and then all the other loads of local roads. Uh we also looked
at the surrounding municipalities of Gar I mean not Garwood of Westfield and Cranford looked at their master plan re-exams their circulation plans how it interrelates to this master plan element. We received data from the police department related to traffic
volumes as well as high areas of uh vehicle accidents as well as uh accidents related to pedestrians and bikes. Uh so from was expected that the highest areas just in terms of
pedestrian and bike accidents were along north and north and south avenue. Uh for vehicle accidents, we got data from 2024 to 2026. And the highest uh intersection with with vehicle accidents was South
Avenue, East Street with 17 crashes and South Avenue and Center Street with 14 crashes and Spruce Avenue West Street with 11 crashes. We also talked about the flood areas and how it relates to the transportation network as well as
the circulation. We looked at previous studies that Garwood has prepared for circulation, including the 2009 master plan circulation element, the 2023 master plan exam, uh the 2010 Garwood and New Jersey transit friendly concept
plan, the 2012 NJTPA walkability walk uh workshop, and also the 2020 NJTPA bike uh workshop. Uh we talked about the improvements that the burough has made in related to the uh pedestrian beacon
crosswalks that have been installed uh throughout the municipality as well as the improvements in terms of bike lanes along center street. Uh we talked about pedestrian mobility uh the transportation related to Jersey transit and the train station and the bus
station. We talked about the the parking lots, the parking capacity of of of the burrow. identifying uh public parking parking lots uh as well as identifying where on street parking is and enforcement in terms of the meter. We
also talked about federal, state and county programs, initiatives related to circulation and we also talked about fund opportunations and this is recommended in seven different sections. Uh the first one's the street network. Uh second one is
pedestrian mobility. This next one is bicycle and and and micromobility. Uh next recommendations for overall safe safety. Then we have recommendations related to transit. Then we also have recommendations related to commercial
traffic and curb management. And the last recommendations is related to parking. Um all these recommendations and and objectives are identified uh within the plan and section three on
pages 37 to page 50. Um so we have 13 pages worth of recommendations related to these different components of circulation. Uh I'm not going to read each one verbatim
uh for the time. Um, but I'm here as an opportunity to hear any feedback uh from the board itself related to this circulation plan, any suggestions, comments, as well as an opportunity to hear from the public uh any concerns or recommendations
uh to finalize this plan to be presented at the March 25th planning board meeting where the plan is for the circulation plan to be adopted. just as as as part of the group that that was involved with the review of the
um and developing this this program along with all the consultants. Um I thought you guys did a great job putting these things together making adjustments as we have communications going through. Um I thought you guys did a good a good
job. Um and thank you for that. Um and yeah, just opening up to the Mr. and thank you for, you know, all the the members of the circulation committee and providing input and helping develop this plan. We couldn't develop this without
input from fur residents, you know, planning board members and the chief of police. So, I thank you to everyone involved in that. >> Thank you, >> Chair. If I could >> No, I just wanted to let everybody know um and thank you again. Uh I I do think
you did a really great job um gathering everybody's feedback um which can be difficult but uh one of the things um I wanted to do before going into the committee discussions was go around to um some of the stakeholder groups in our
town. Um I spoke with the board of ed, the first aid squad, fire department. Um I knew our police department was part of the committee. Um, I spoke to our citizens advisory panel. Um, and so I
gathered some uh concerns of theirs and sort of put them all together and provided them to harbor. And I will say a lot of those concerns I think you do see uh a lot of recommendations for some of those particulars in bless you in
this element. There was um some concerns about particular intersections that I think you'll see are recommended that we do take a look at. Um there was concerns over um where we needed increased lighting uh concerns over uh traffic
lights um and the timing and I think you'll see in a lot of the recommendations that we did come to the conclusion that those do need to be addressed. So, I just wanted to let everybody know that there were conversations with various groups around
town that um you know gave me their feedback on particular items and uh I do feel that a lot of what they brought to us um is addressed. So, makes me makes me happy to see and it also made me happy to see that a we've taken a lot
from the uh 2009 master plan. there was there wasn't a lot there was just very general like paragraph um but a lot of that has been implemented I think over the past 5 to 10 years um and so I it was heartening to see the progress that
we're making in Garwood um you'll see a lot of the safety recommendations that maybe we need to do more with but they've already started bike lanes pedestrian beacons um looking at our intersections uh so it it was nice to go through this
and see the progress we've made from 2009 in the first master plan until now and see that there are concrete things that have been done in Garwood to increase safety. Obviously, yes, there's more recommendations and more things to
do. Um, but we we definitely have made progress here. So, >> thank you >> and more to come. and say is from a daily commuter perspective, it's exciting to see that
there is focus on the train station and the number of rides that are coded in here are very very low compared to what currently is right now. It's very good commuter community now. Um and particularly the the whole section of
Center Street between South and North Avenue needs serious improvement. The lighting is very poor at center and north. I mean, I've almost sat and hit several times crossing, getting off the bus. And um the underpasses, tremendous opportunity for improvement just for not
just for commuters, but they're so doubly used for people walking, riding their bikes. So, it's >> that's in the works this year. >> I'm happy to help with the lane. But the train station, I mean, I'll be waiting for the train and people are
constantly complaining how awful the train station has >> that's been highlighted considerably in this in this >> in addition to >> wait. Um Gabe um did
on pa um I forgot the page number. I think it it was in the beginning of it where you indicated um uh uh Myrtle and uh
Myrtle and uh and uh Spruce uh went into Westfield. I don't uh Maryanne lives on Myrtle and she she mentioned to me that it doesn't go into Westfield. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Didn't somebody Yeah. And that
wasn't changed. >> Yeah. >> Could you just make that one little change, >> please? >> Okay. Spruce does, but not Yeah. Okay. Anyone else?
Any comments? >> John Bardick 231 hemlock. Uh I'm really uh thrilled to see this coming to fruition. I think this is a uh a gaping hole in our uh in our planning and uh I think this is a milestone for us. And uh
to quote from the uh draft, it's an evolving document. It's kind of a restart. I won't call it a start because there have been uh things in the past, but for the circulation element to be effective, it can't be a document that just sits on the shelf. So the uh recommendations as you said are really
critical and I'm going to try in a few comments that I have here to uh keep it in that spirit of of recommending a few things and some polls and maybe some clarification. Uh and I also fortuitous the discussion regarding the new development because one of the themes that I felt was
missing in this draft is what are we going to do to mitigate the additional uh strain on uh vehicular circulation brought about by future new development. And I'm not a person by the way who
blames development for all of our traffic wos. It's a part, but I frankly think it's a relatively small part. We'll have a debate on that at another time. Uh, but uh it's also inarguable
that the more households we whatever dreams we may have about being a transit village vehicle. So, what are we going to do to make sure these uh new ordinances, these revisions, these other things that uh we're doing uh will not make a bad
problem worse. So, uh I haven't really gone through those ordinances to look for that, but I'm hoping there's something in the plan, maybe I'd missing it, that will reflect on what we're going to do to mitigate future uh uh issues. Uh also uh really glad to see that the
Cranford and Westfield uh sister works that were done in this subject area were um reviewed and incorporated. Uh so another uh in the recommended actions I didn't see I know some of this goes on
already but what are we doing to leverage synergies with the recommendations that they have because if they sneeze we catch a cold. This is an integrated network through here. Uh so what are some things we can do? Simple things like they have bike lane
projects in Cranford. What can we do to incorporate continuity with that? Um there uh street management. We've done some great things with paving streets and I never thought I'd live to see the day Ranken Avenue got paved, but we got Ranken Avenue, I believe, and we're
going to get Yellow's Hill Road paved. So, I know we're doing point things, but what can we do? Uh, we outsource stuff all over the place. So, we have these business transactions, what can we do to do things like instead of just a mayor's
coalition for the route and valley line, what can we do to make things better for our residents in Cranford and in Westfield with our train stations, maybe getting some additional parking options for people and things along those lines. So if if there are things that we can do that are consistent across the three
communities, uh can we incorporate those into some of the additional recommendations? A document I didn't see referenced was the Union County Transportation Master Plan from I think 2016 or 2017. Uh and the reason I call that out in
particular is uh there was a couple of quotes from there. One is according to the traffic models that they had uh this is an exact road heavy congestion in Union County is expected to increase by approximately 50% by 2040. Now I remember when 20 240 seemed
like a long time away but it's really not that far away now. And even though it's been 10 years since that quote was written, we feel the impact of that every day. And the follow-up quote to that, which I think is relevant to our circulation plan, if nothing's done,
congestion will expand, cut through traffic will increase, safety will deteriorate, environmental impacts will grow. And I wanted to refer to the circulation element draft section 2.1, section 2.2, where we talk about what I think was referenced in the
introduction, the designation of our roadways, and in particular, Center Street and Spruce Avenues. I think inter collector roads. That's 1970s thinking. I'm not familiar with the model that's used to give these designations, but if
you live on Second Avenue, East Street, Pine Avenue, Beach, even my little tiny block of Hemlock, these are all streets that look like South A uh Spruce Avenue and Center Street did
40, 50 years ago. From a traffic perspective, these are the new feeder roads. Even this morning, they're in my driveway. Every car on Hemlock Avenue was coming off of Lexington probably from Burnside or down to Walnut, cutting through all the way to the end because
they're trying to avoid those 15,000 trips on North Avenue, those 12,000 trips on South Avenue. And as that increases, commuters are very resourceful. they find like water, they find the easiest point to get through and that's our
avenues throughout the burrow. And in terms of um recommendations for this plan, I think at the minimum, we need to start collecting more baseline data on some of these outlying streets. All we've got right now are anecdotal reports and a little bit of of data that
was in the plan, I think, for uh for Pine, perhaps 3,000 trips or something like that. I think at this point we need to start collecting more data uh and uh trying to work through to find some kind of way to mitigate because it's only going to get worse as the uh as the uh
Union County uh study suggested. Uh so that's another area that I think we can uh improve on the drift a little bit. So, um there were a couple of maps plotting uh pedestrian accidents and then there's clusters that uh that appear and I think
we could have all probably guessed some of those. So I I think there's a um there's a need as we go forward and an opportunity when we create or or when we review site plans
to revisit our thinking on on-site circulation and the impact that it has offsite because if you look at a couple of the points that were called out, South Avenue, not just by East Street, but also by Home Depot, Chestnut Street,
North Avenue, Those are developments where on-site traffic has had a domino effect impacting not just the egresses from those sites but the entire uh South and North Avenue.
And another opportunity that I didn't see recommended was enforcement of the approved site plans. I don't know. I I I will only pick on Home Depot because they were referenced in the report. I believe when we approved the site plan
there there was for a retail footprint and a parking footprint and I don't know if we've given variances or other waiverss but that retail footprint has grown out into the what used to be parking not only taking away parking
spaces but also the circulation uh flow within the site that impacts the egress onto South Avenue and it's our tray wreck every Saturday morning and afternoon. U so we have opportunities to make sure
that uh we're not just you know thinking through a little bit better the uh the impact of on-site flow to the surrounding areas because South Avenue can't observe any more issues other than just the people using it to drive on. So uh we have that opportunity and we have
the opportunity to uh to do some more uh enforcement uh in that regard. And I have two uh I think I'm afraid you're going to make some people unhappy. Um first off uh section 2.9 page 25 and I I
will say throughout the whole thing I think we got to do a little bit more of a uh proof read because there's a a pretty bad print. It refers to weekday traffic volume or weekly traffic or weekly uh trips boarding on uh New
Jersey Transit Garwood station. That's weekday, not weekly. Uh so that if you look at that data, that's seven times different. And I can give you the the exact line where that is. Uh and there's also some references to services about 30 every 360 minutes or something like
that. I'm not a math major, but that's like every six hours. I I I don't think maybe if you spread it over 24 hours and and weekends and all that, but I'm not sure the way that data um comes into play, but uh
I was a supporter of Vermela and transit oriented development. When I saw these data points in in this report, I was I was shocked. that I I I went and looked up to try to get a second uh confirmation
and I know it may seem like the numbers going up and I know there was a a point that said well the latest date is 2024 and now Romelo is on it's not 128 uh departures per day it's it's going to be more than that I've seen data from 2025
and it has gone up it's up to 136 in the contrast ratio between 15,000 trips on North Avenue, 12,000 trips on South Avenue. As much as we may dream that we're all going to abandon our cars and walk to the train and commute to
work and and it's not unless there's a major societal change, it's not going to happen. So, as a planning principle, show me the data otherwise. But
ridership across New Jersey transit is plummeting across this whole corridor. Rosal Park to Fanwood which is later I know the best all kinds of redevelopment. It's not just Garwood as developments are coming online that best thing you can
say is they're losing ridership at a lesser pace than some of the other areas. But with all the transit oriented developments that's been done all across that Ritton Valley line, Raritton Valley wrership has gone down. We represent 1%
of the Ritton Valley wrership. We've held st actually gone up a little bit. So we look like an outlier. Um and New Jersey transit as a whole in terms of the major transportation systems throughout the US is the worst performer
in terms of uh retaining ridership. So, uh, the more hope that we put in to, well, we just need to, you know, improve some amenities or whatnot. What's it going to go up to? 150. It's just, uh, and I've looked at the
ACS data. People are just not commuting in the numbers that we might have anticipated using mass transit. And it's not just Garwood, it's throughout the area. So, uh, to put a more positive
spin on, what can we do to leverage, we've got three train stations within two and a half miles, and we are the tiny little brother or sister in between two big ones. What can we do? We're never going to get the kind of facilities that Westfield or Cranford
have. So, if parking is an issue, if ADA compliant access is an issue, what can we do to work with these sister communities to maybe be able to get a better deal for our residents or an opportunity for our residents instead of going a half a mile this way, going a
mile and a quarter that way or a mile mile and a quarter that way and leveraging some of these other facilities that we have and not waiting till I dig another thing that's never going to happen. uh use some of these partnerships and
relationships that we can build to get immediate relief for our uh commuters today. Uh and I know if you're one of the 36 or whatever, it's everything. I've commuted. I I I know what it is. But in terms of the 4,700 of us that have to
walk these streets and everything else, we've got to be more focused I I think on the vehicular traffic. Uh, and as much as we might want to see that come down, uh, I just don't think that the, uh, the transit line's going to do that. Um, two last things I have in terms of
recommendations. I didn't see a So, some things regarding um, some writing, but I I'll just say as a general theme, signage, engineering, and lighting. I think there are some opportunities to go in and and take a
look at that. For example, in signage, um, Center Street used to be a treeline street. It's now a yellow sign line street. Now, they might have a uh traffic a weird trafficcomic thing. That's not my I I don't really
understand how that all works and all that, but it just seems like u our pedestrian beacons are a hammer and everything looks like a nail. And u I think we should take a step back reassess some of these tools that we have before we just start you know
placing them out. So in terms of lighting I would say both you know pedestrian lighting traffic lighting and also illumination lighting. Uh can we maybe take a a rethink in that regard? As an example, from Willow Avenue to
Hazel, we've put uh pedestrian beacons all the way down. Whether the whether Hazel thinks we're not if somebody asks for a beacon light, we we're putting a beacon light in because we're getting grants and it doesn't come directly out of our pocket or whatever. Except for one street
does not have a a beacon. According to the report, there's been one pedestrian accident in that whole corer. What street was it on? Beach. So, it just seems like and there was a good engineering reason why you couldn't put
a pedestrian beacon there. But I I would just think that you need to step back a little bit and start to be a little bit more uh thoughtful in some of these placements. We put signs up, but we never take signs down. Right across the street, there's a post with three different parking signs on there. It's
like an SAT problem to figure out if you can park there or not. There's no parking. There's three-hour parking. There's paid parking, but only during these hours. Um, so I think a an inventory kind of of the signage that we have in the community might be uh worthwhile. And then uh finally, from an
engineering perspective, I I love the recommendation about the underpass and the blind curve. It's a thriller minute when you're coming down there and you find that the last car is right in front of you. So, um, what are some of those other engineering things? And I, thinking out of the box on West Street,
the sightelines are very bad with the curves there. Is there something we can do to expand a rightaway to re-engineer the road in some way? I know it's radical thinking. I know these roads have been here for 100 years and everything else. Uh but short of that, you know, four-way stops
or whatnot, I would just think that that um those problems here are going to uh going to continue. And the last thing that I'll I know I've got a long time, but the last thing I'll offer up was the the very last recommendation in the report, there was a recommendation about
considering a pileup. They got lit up before when he was talking about the parking. It's because these developments and u the unanticipated consequences because sometimes we don't think systemically think okay you know we these parking
lots here what could possibly go wrong in the neighboring areas. Well possibly go wrong is the landlord charges people to park there so they go and try to take everyone else's parking places. So there's a there's some good suggestions regarding parking, but the last one
about paying I'm sorry I have to say this that is like the worst idea for Garwood I can possibly imagine in of bad ideas I've ever heard in my life in Hackinack or
Elizabeth where these pileops have been implemented might be a great idea because they've got a municipal infrastructure for parking that you can underwrite with payment in lie of parking from developments and everybody wins. The community gets some funds for
their parking garages. The developers get a little relief on their site plan. Everybody's happy that you're never going to have that kind of infrastructure. And the last thing I want to see is oh you have room on your site for parking
time check. And most of us live with the pen mark because I don't think there's like pilots. I don't think there's a way you can go in there and easily change them. So this is going to beg you to strike one thing. I know this seven requirement strike from this
recommendation. I'm sorry. I don't I don't know who that's a bad idea. And this is coming from a guy who I'm not going to be the first one to complain about pilots or anything else along those lines. I've seen the benefits and everything else. A pileup for guard. Uh-uh. I I absolutely
can't fathom how that can be a good idea in any scenario. Uh so I've been on for a long time. Thanks for indulging me and thank you for all the work even though I had a lot of suggestions and changes and all that because I I do think this is going to be a very very very valuable um
asset for us going forward. And I I know we're constrained by funding and time and everything else. But uh um you know every journey starts with with a first step. So, congratulations on getting us this far. Thanks. >> Thank you, John. Thank you for that that
feedback. It's appreciated. Anyone else? Uh, good evening, chair. Greet, ladies and gentlemen. Patterson, 325 Will Avenue. Uh first I I I do want to compliment Harbor Consultants and and the committee to for
coming up with all these uh suggestions and this is what I'm just going to be talking about is the suggestions. But yeah, it was page 37 all the way up to 38. I mean 48 was, you know, a large list of suggestions which I'm going to uh address some of them anyway. But Mr.
Barl's right about Center Street. If you go if you go from Yami Park all the way to where Heidi was, which is Fourth Avenue, 14 blocks of those four have traffic devices. A lot of them are
the yellow signs that he's talking about. The other also the stop lights on North and South. That's 11 blocks out of 14 have these traffic devices. And you also have them on Cedar Street, too. But and and this is part of the problem is
we are a small town 66 square miles. Um you know and and we have to look at safety. I mean there's no doubt about that. However, at this point and I'm kind of pessimistic on it, but we're we're at the flat part of the
law of diminishing returns that the more we do, we're not really going to see much increase in safety. I mean, we do have to increase uh address safety, but it's going to be tough. I mean, the easy stuff like the low hanging fruit of of the lights and the and the underpass
and and the train station, sure, that's that's easy enough to do. Of course, it cost money, but but the other items are going to be impacting such a small town. I think we have 64 intersections. I I don't know if any anybody ever counted them, but I think we have 64 intersections.
Most of them are going to have some kind of traffic device providing all these suggestions are are taken to, you know, and built in there. But let me just run through a lot of these suggestions. And there's nothing wrong with the suggestions except that we're a small
town. Uh the let's see, page 37, you talk about bumpouts, speed bumps, and rumble strips. And >> yeah, that's a nice idea, but they're additional distractions to drivers. um you know through these small town
streets of ours. Um yeah, in fact, speaking of the bumpouts, it suggested for more bumpouts on the suggest on the success of these bumpouts that we have on Center Street and Willow Avenue,
but we never quantified the success. what determined the success that we don't know and yet we want to put more speed uh more bumpouts and that's and those are mini bumpouts and I think one of the suggestions was something to address the distance about uh the
distance to the bumpouts and those are mini bumpouts so we got an issue there but anyway but really we have to quantify at least are these successful or not in this town uh there also page 38 talks about uh four-way stop signs
and There they list four intersections. That's nice. But you you still have uh vehicle crashes at the four stop sign intersections. Uh upgrade major arterial by planting additional street trees.
I mean that's nice. I think it's irrelevant. I don't know who kind of threw that in there. U but it's really irrelevant to safety. Uh item 12 listed on page 38 says due to the success of this pilot program we suggest keeping the curb extension on
center of willow permanent. Yeah that that's I already addressed. I mean nobody quantified it so I really don't know what the success is about that. Uh page 39 crosswalks need restriping. I mean that's a good idea. I mean that's that's easily done. That's the
lowhanging fruit. Uh actually 20 years ago I was suggesting that uh when they do get restriped maybe stripe them in different color patterns or something like that so people will actually recognize the speed limit of that street
as you're approaching it. I mean if if it's a 40 mile per hour street somehow you have red uh paint among the crosswall. Just that was the suggestion. Uh yeah, push activated blinking light beacons
uh for North Avenue. That's the one they're talking about over near the Frosty Freeze, which is now, I guess, Rita. But anyway, that's So now we're putting more LED blinking lights on major arter on major roads. Uh bike
lanes. Yeah, there's a lot of suggestion on bike lanes. Bike lanes on Walnut Street. W Yeah. Okay. Wallace Street, Spruce Avenue, Pine Avenue, Second Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Hickory Avenue, Union
Street, North and South Avenue. That's a lot of brick lanes. I mean, it's I know these are just suggestions, but there that would be a lot of distractions in the bicycles. And to tell you the truth, have we quantified the bike lanes we install? Has anybody
actually done a study as to the usage of the bike lanes that we put on center street? I haven't heard anything about it. Page 44. Yeah. Improve intersections impaired by encroachments of vehicle. Like I said,
Center Street and and Willow has those mini bumpouts and there's cars parked right there next to me. Uh, page 45, increase stock violation fines from $85 to $200. I mean, that sounds nice, but
I'll tell you this. This seems to be the the progressives answer to everything is just hit the people in the pocket, drain the finances from the poor people. I don't know. That's pretty sad.
Uh, discuss the feasibility of these recommendations with a traffic flow expert. 100% I do agree with that because right now with our small town it's like 10 pounds in a five pound bag situation. Page 46
implement strong transit oriented development policies within a half mile uh such as the Garwood train station. See this is a scary statement only because the whole of Garwood is within a half mile of the of the train station. So,
we're talking about the whole of Garland is is targeted or possibly high density. That's what it sounds like. Very scary. Uh encourage mixeduse zoning in the downtown area. Yeah, that that's a good idea. I mean,
we do have the malls, you know, around the train station, but I'm just wondering ACP down the street, that South Avenue entrance, you know, coming in from Westfield. Uh I don't know why you have it there. Why don't you just spend your downtown much like uh Rawway
has done that, Bamwood has done that, you know, why don't we address the downtown directive downtown? Uh the last suggestion, let's see, additional areas to implement 15minute parking. Yes. Yes. Every every month at the council
meeting, I do ask for how many parking tickets are given out downtown. U it's usually around 165 107. That's a lot of parking tickets. So, people park, they run in, grab a sandwich, and come out and they get a ticket. I think it's uh
$52. But anyway, I mean, you know, all the suggestions are fine, but like I said, we're small town. Law of diminishing returns. I don't know what to say. I mean, you know, you could do it. You could you could do a lot of these suggestions.
It's it's just that I mean we're facing the future. It's pretty sad. I can just picture it. I don't know if you guys can picture when you know when every intersection has a LED blinking light, a stop sign, a traffic light. Well, but anyway, but
bottom line, I mean, we haven't quantified these bumpouts that we installed and we haven't really quantified the bike lane. I think we should be doing that first before we really address putting more bumpouts and more bike lanes in there. And I guess
and one question and I I don't think anybody's a traffic expert here, but I was just wondering when it says uh to lower the speed limit on streets. I think all our streets now are 25 miles per hour. But my question or or just something to think about, if you lower
the speed limits to 25 miles an hour, cars that are coming at 40 miles an hour hit the 25 m mile per hour zone, they slow down. So to me it seems like actually lowering the speed limit would actually increase congestion. And I'll tell you we got we got some bad
congestion. But I thank you very much for our console for working all these suggestions. I mean you know if we were a larger town it to me it would make sense but like I mentioned a couple times we're on the flat part of the law of diminishing returns. But thank you
pleasure. Anyone else? I don't see anybody from public here. So, uh, if there's no anything to say from the book, there was no portion. >> Go ahead. uh some of the
um I'm wondering if uh if are you going to put some of the recommend some of the comments andor recommendations into the plan to look at um >> from tonight? Yeah, tonight
I think some are valid valid comments, >> comments and recommendations. Um, can you look at that, please? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have some business that we need to address. >> Yes. Thank you, chair. I just wanted to
let everybody know uh if you haven't you might have seen our agenda for the council tomorrow but um unfortunately uh Katya is moving on from Garwood um and uh we wish her well although we are
going to sorely miss her um and she you know I'm sure I'll say a little something tomorrow at the council meeting but she's done a great job here on the planning board as well and you really dove right in there so We do appreciate it. Um uh and I just want to wish you all the best for your future
and we will appoint uh I will appoint someone in the near future for for the position. But I just wanted to make that announcement. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for >> for all your assistance with the food trucks.
>> She's been invaluable. Um her comments and suggestions and uh knowledge. So, thank you. >> Okay. Um, anything else? >> Yes, we do have um
Well, you want me to bring it up? Go ahead. >> Um Um I just want to let everybody know that we're going to need to make a change in the application. uh be to be in
will be in compliance with uh chapter 72 of the new law with regard to uh with regard to
uh notices uh public notices. So there's going to be a change in the application. Um, I know uh last year um a guy was authorized to make uh minor changes
to the application, a developer um assistant application. And I'm not sure if this would constitute a minor change since I have to change a whole, you know, paragraph because it'll affect
the um it'll affect the um applicants uh way of of putting a public uh notice into a uh news not into a paper newspaper. but a um
a um a uh online newspaper and um I don't know online newspapers
according to chapter 72 um well allowed I don't know if the Westfield leader is, you know, like is okay because uh based upon what the the
uh law says. Um so it's going to be a transition, but I just want to know if I can make those changes like in the application package to comply with the law um as of March 1st, 2026.
Can I make those changes? >> I would suggest that we allow the vice chair to make those changes. I mean, it's it's a part of copy and pasting the law and then figuring out what online >> papers we can we can put in there, but
I'm comfortable with you going forward with that. >> Okay. >> Long see. But how do we find like pictures or official newspaper with the Star Ledger, which I know that the Star
Ledger has and they have over 4,000 um individual readers. Um, uh, Rick, I don't even know what the word is going to be. Um I >> I think a component of the new law though is too that municipalities are required to post our public not any
public notices including land use ones on the municipal website. So I know we do have the dedicated section yeah for public notices >> but how about the applicant >> what do the applicant >> I think they'll be required to submit it
to us for posting. Okay. That's something that we have to put down in black and white >> in addition to their own online. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> I know the answer educate myself on it, but I don't.
>> So, with that, what what I would what I would look to do maybe is to give Kathy the authorization to do research and to make those changes uh accordingly from the um site. Okay. So there may be um based
upon that also uh we may need to update our official newspaper or >> I don't think so >> because the Star Ledger and the Westfield leader both >> Okay. >> I think Westfield Leader is going to
transition to online legal. >> Oh, are they? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's the exact question. That's the answer I needed. Thank you. >> Yeah. And you know, Lauren Lauren fought that bill, fought that law tooth and nail. So, she's very very familiar with it. So, whatever. We're sure whatever we
need, you know, to uh to do. So, the she will be happy to do it because she didn't want that law to begin with, but she has, >> you know, I'm not very happy with the law myself, >> but like it is what it is. >> So, like we need to comply.
That's all. >> So with that, at this board, I will take a a quick vote on giving Kathy that authorization to go forward and make those changes. Um, so that's my motion. >> That's fine. Yeah, go forward with >> Thank you.
>> Ask if there's anything else. I did submit to everybody. I think I think I emailed everybody that draft that I began regarding u uh provision of bicycle um uh
>> the right word >> uh and bicycle parking spaces and so on. >> Um you know I think I distributed to everybody. >> You you did >> you did right? >> It did. Okay. So if anybody has any comments on which I'll take because
otherwise this chairman I'll put it in ordinance format right back. >> I I have a few >> you want me Paul or I >> I will I will voice those opinions to you and are you going to be at the meeting tomorrow?
>> Yes >> at 9ine. >> Yeah. >> Okay then I'll tell you then. >> Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? I >> make a motion. Second.
>> Thank you. >> Good thing you like it. But I'd like