Where am I going to be? Hi, thank you for Irish somebody's I saw your post on this table. Okay. You guys found it different. airport
like this Oh, fine. What would you say? We're all trying to like that. But I think This is all right.
All I want to do accept I'm sorry. here. I think it Hey Steph, how are That's very nice. We have another
not No, but it's not their correct. All I'm saying is this how we thrive on ship and economics and when fresh proposing
Oh, no. You are That I have good me. saying it's going to be Jimmy. Ask you everybody.
Everybody Thank you. We can all send for her. I know. Okay. backwards. Okay. We're good. Good evening, folks, and welcome to the
um planning board of uh August of Wednesday, July 23rd. Um at this time, I'm going to ask you to either silence your cell phones or turn them off. It'll be appreciated. and we'll open up the meeting. Um, pursuant to the open public meetings
act, uh, this is to state for the record that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public by publication in Union County Hawk on January 2nd, 2025 and posting on the burrow website and by posting and filing of said notice in the office of the municipal clerk. This is a regular
scheduled meeting of the board. Um, at this time, I'm going to ask for a moment of silence and a flag salute, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mayor Blumentock here. Ms. Lysac here. Councilman Carney here. Chair Greet. Miss Vagio here.
Mr. Nearstead here. Mr. Barkin is excused. Miss Haye here. Miss Biano here. And Mr. Buyers is excused. Okay. And if everyone's had an opportunity to uh read the minutes of the May 28th meeting, do I hear a motion
to accept those minutes as is? I'll make that motion. Second to accept it. All those in favor I opposed. The motion carries. Um, okay. We have uh several applications tonight. The first one being case PB25-04
and that's uh for 53rd 543rd Avenue. And that's a request for a certificate of nonconformity for 36 unit garden apartment in the RA zone. And at this time, I'd ask for the representative um to come up and let us have your name. And
good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Mark Leeman. I'm an attorney with CSG Law. I have a witness, Katherine Greer, my professional planner. She is on her way. She's not here again. I'm happy to present my case without her, but I prefer to have her. That's fine because I also am missing my
legal representative, Don Frasier. So, uh, that's that's appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Good to see you. Okay, great. Okay. Um, well, in that case, let's move on. Although I'd like to have Don here for that as well. Um,
let's move on to let's move on to Garwood Chicken LLC. Is do we have a representative from Garwood Chicken LLC? I think that was just the letter request. I don't think uh okay they were going to
problem. Welcome to the board. Are we up to the uh final? Not yet. Not yet. My witness is just Okay, great. Then if you'd like to proceed, then go forward and then we'll carry on later on.
The very first one, 59 uh 543rd Avenue. That's the uh garden apartments. Okay. Good evening, council, members of the board. And for the record, my name is Mark Leeman, CSG Law on behalf of Konwood Gardens, the contract purchaser of property
543rd. This is a we have made a submission. We were here a few months ago asking for a reasonzoning. Yep. Just adjust it for your for your level. Okay. Is that okay? Yeah, that's fine. So, I don't know if you want us to go through everything that we went through last time. I think it's all the same
board members. We have the same report. It's the same property. Um, it's been there 85 years. The tax records show 1940, 1938. This garden apartment complex has been here. Um, we have done Opras to the town to the county to try
and get some background information. We're told there's nothing available. It seems quite obvious that it predates the zoning ordinance and we're here to ask for a certificate of pre-existing nonconformity for that property. Okay. Miss Gregory's here to answer any questions, provide further testimony. We
have been digging into this more since we were here last to see if we can find anything. We have found a couple little things like I got the appraisal report from when the current owner bought it in 2012 that had a tax record that confirmed what the tax records now show.
So, I don't think that's really new. Um, the tax record card is in our package. When the reval was done, I think about six or seven years ago, it said that the the building was 79 years old. That matches up with what we have. So, I think everything's pretty consistent. This has been here for almost a hundred
years. So, we think it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, if you'd like, you bring your witness forward. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the board will speak for truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth?
Yes, I do. Okay. Please state your name and give your address. Katherine Gregory, 96 Lynwood Plaza, number 350 in Fort Le, New Jersey. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. Okay. And your licenses are all current? Yes. All right. Mr. Chairman, I recommend
that we accept Miss Je um Miss Gregory as a expert in the field of professional planning and then I would suggest Mr. Chairman because we did we do have a comprehensive report in front of us and we have already heard this that perhaps the most efficient way to be proceed
would be if anybody has any questions that they want to ask about this. I would think that's an appropriate way to proceed. Um, with that, um, and yes, we accept you as your as your expert witness. So, um, with that, I'll open it up to the
board for any questions that maybe, um, someone has of this witness or of this application. Bill, any questions for Don? Wait, go for it. Go for it, D. I just, you
know, it's uh the applicant knows, you know, they have no That's not a question. Bill, how is the board member to respond when he has no um exhibits, no testimony, no nothing? Okay. Uh to indicate that
something is indeed pre-existing, non-conforming. The answer to that question is whether or not you believe that the applicant has um established a sufficient and evident evidentiary basis for the
contention that it um predates the zoning ordinance. If you want the u applicant to have the witness uh move forward, that's perfectly fine. No, the applicant has already submitted everything. I've read everything and
they do it the last time. So, there's no reason to go through that. I'm just, you know, usually there's something, you know, it seems to me, Bill, here's what you can see here. You see the structure. Mhm. It's pretty clear that structure
wasn't built yesterday. The question is whether or not you're prepared to accept that that structure and what you can see and what's there is old enough that it clearly predates the zoning ordinance.
If you do not believe that there's a sufficient basis to draw that conclusion, I guess you could deny this. Could I make a go ahead a suggestion,
Mr. Frasier? Uh if the applicant were to move this comprehensive report into uh as a as an exhibit, it is with it. It is as part of the application, but if you'd like to have it marked with uh this evening's uh date uh by Adele,
she can do that and we'll accept it as A1 in evidence. I'm just thinking it would satisfy Mr. Nearstat's concern without I don't think so. I I tried. Hope springs eternal but I don't think Bill's question is that this has not been moved into evidence. Bill's
question as I understand it relates to has the applicant provided quote unquote evidence that the existence of this garden apartment complex predates
the uh RA single family zone. uh whether we say that this report uh was already in evidence because it was part of the application or we move it into evidence now I don't think is a game changer here. Whether we
have um I recall her name is Katherine but I changed pages so I remember your last name. I'm sorry. Um, but whether we have the expert regurgitate a portion of what's in this report, I don't think is going to be a
game changer. Now, I think it comes down to uh do you think there's enough there that the applicant has demonstrated to your satisfaction that this thing was there long enough
that it predates the zone? I don't know what else to say. Chair, if I could um Yeah, go ahead. Chair, I am much um more comfortable with this scenario, the certificate of non-conformity as opposed to the reasonzoning which is what was here last time. So,
I think Bruce brought that up the last time. Um, this is more I feel more appropriate and I I personally can accept that it this um building was at least appears to have been uh built
before the the ordinance. And I do accept that um they have put in the work to try and find any other possible uh piece of evidence and have not been able to find anything that disagrees with that. I want to say on I have a question I guess
for Don on behalf of the residents because I think what you know the understanding of a certificate of nonconformity it's you know even to a lay person like myself what does this
mean in terms of what the owner is allowed to do I think the concern would be not knowing what uh the owner could come in and maybe they
want to build more. This does not allow or that does it? I I No, it does not. Okay. So, I I want to put that out there for the public concerned. Your your direct response to your question is it allows what is there to
remain. It does not allow for expansion. If at any point the new owner would want to expand, they would have to then come back before the planning board and we would be able to approve or disapprove
of that. Would that be the process? They would need in my opinion a use variance which I know you know and the members of the board know but for members of the public's edification is a heightened level of scrutiny and proofs
that the applicant would need to submit to try to expand this. And I think it's fair to say that it would be on facts that I know extraordinarily unlikely that any
applicant would be able to receive such use variance approval to expand something like this that is already so far nonconforming to what is permitted in the zone. you're very you're so very
careful. I love how you put it. Um thank you. I simply wanted it out into public um you know report that that is the case. If we do go ahead and um this planning board does approve the certificate of nonconformity
um for the relief of the public to know that that does not mean that further construction in terms of number of apartments is happening. um it will simply does not mean that. Yes. So I think that would be the main
concern on the public. Since that is not the case, I am comfortable myself uh voting in favor of the certificate. I'd like I would like to have like a five minute
um um overview of what's in this packet. I'm your uh professional even though I think it it would be better if all of
us heard it especially the people out you know sitting here like in the audience you know uh just a couple minutes that's all the eyes and put on your witness and just just
you know like you brought a witness here let her let her just you know do an overview, please. And I just have one more clarification that I' I'd like, Don, just to clarify. I know that I know that,
but just just again for the public for the public record. Um, if this were to be sold by the applicant right now, uh, it would revert back at that time even after approval by this board for that variance. No, first of all, it's not a variance.
Okay, let's let's clarify that then. not a variance. This is being done in lie of a variance. Okay. Okay. All this board is doing or is being asked to do is to recognize
the factual question of does this nonconforming use predate the zoning? If in fact the board
is persuaded that in fact this use does predate that zoning ordinance that just means it's allowed to stay and whether well this is I guess a corporation here
but like let's say it was a person and they died could their it was a two family could their kids still use it? Yes. Could their wife still use it? Yes. If they sold the two family in a one family zone, can the buyer still use it
as a two family? Yes. All those same things and examples would apply here. If in fact the board is persuaded that this
use validly predates the zoning ordinance. That means they're allowed to keep it that way. And if they were to sell it, the buyer's allowed to keep it that way. In fact, as a very practical matter, but for the
fact that someday somebody might want to sell it or somebody someday somebody might want to take a mortgage or something against it. Probably nobody ever comes in on this application. The reason you do an application like this largely is to make
sure that you have the ability to sell it or mortgage it or do something with it because nobody was going out and giving them summones saying cease and desist from running this apartment complex. Okay.
And just to clarify, um the applicant is the contract purchaser for it. And that's exactly the situation that we have here, Mr. Chairman. my client is buying the property and before they buy it, they want to make sure that they will be allowed to continue to use it the way that it is now. They don't they don't want to buy it and then get a
summon that says you have to destroy the Sure. You mean like what I just said. Exactly. We don't want that to happen. So that that's what we're Okay, good. Thank you. You're a witness. Mr. Frederick, could you explain to the board the research that you conducted especially regarding the the maps and
the sand maps? I think that's the most Yes. Yes. So, um, in my report that was dated April 2nd, which was previously submitted to the board, um, what I did is I analyzed what, um, the current zoning is of the property. Um, obviously
a description of the property, where it's located. It happens to be in the middle of a single family residential block, which is a little bit odd in and of itself instead of being something like a corner. But, you know, with that said, um, over the years it's never been
reszoned, but probably for good reason. Um, in terms of if you look at, uh, you know, the entire town because it happens to be right in middle block, residential zone. But, um, you know, we were trying to determine if it did predate zoning.
And so when you look on page three, uh my my exhaustive list isn't that exhaustive because unfortunately uh the verd of Garwood doesn't have um a lot of historical records and I tried also with the county of unions. I was lucky enough that um you know planner over there kind
of help me out to try to obtain any historical information that he could. And so what we ended up with was um a an old land use ordinance. I only know this from the way that it it's typed and photocopied uh which is listed as chapter 22 but it doesn't have a date in
it. So I'm not sure on when that is. Um the re-examination from 1982 which really doesn't say much of anything. Uh the current land use ordinance which is state dated I'm sorry actually I'll give the next one dated April 2003.
Um, and also a master plan from 2009, the most recent master plan, uh, which is the 2023 re-examination. Um, and then I did get some taxes. Um, I have a 1906 T tax map, excuse me, but a 1936 and a
20. Um and so what I did identify in this document is that when you look at the 1906 tap map tax maps speaking too quickly um you see that uh essentially all the blocks have these 20 small 25 20
foot lots not 20 foot lots excuse me um and when you look at and you'll see that also on pages four and five and I've highlighted that with a a circle on the upper right hand corner of the map but And when you go to
the 1936 map which is on page six, there is an assimilation of properties. And what's interesting is that for unknown reasons, there is actually a little bit of irregularity in the rear. Um somehow they acquired slightly more of the
properties that are located on the on the next street. Um I'm not sure why that would have happened, but this map is from 1936. Uh so it's pretty evident that at least this log is created either in 1936 or
prior to 1936. Um and obviously it's much larger than the others. And then on page seven we have the 2018 tax map which essentially is reflective of the 1936 tax tax map. Um, and one of the differences is you'll see that some of the lots have gotten larger in size
because people had bought up these small 20 foot lots of a larger lot for their single family homes. Um, but it pro it doesn't seem like it prohibited development. Um, the fact that the multif family is in the middle of of this block, particularly with regard to
it looks like was probably one of the the first properties that was subdivided. Um, so, uh, we also had the opportunity to look at, uh, the tax records. Um, and it does appear that this building was
built in 1940 or slightly prior to 1940. So, as our attorney indicated, it's pretty old. So, um, and just by the nature of the architecture, uh, you know, the the brick garden apartment style that has
not been built probably since the 50s. So, um I think that just by the architecture style alone, we can tell approximately when it was built. Um so, we know that it's old. So, um you know, we we really did try to find out when
zone was first adopted here and find that ordinance, but unfortunately, we could not. But I was hoping that um you know, the board would take into consideration looking at the tax maps because somehow that law was amassed back at least by 1936. Uh, and that
structure was obviously built and as our attorney also indicated um it's still there today. So, uh, there was no summons to knock it down. I don't think you could have built something that large without um, anyone knowing that works in town. Um, it's not that large
of a community and I'm pretty sure you probably are very familiar with every block that that's in this town. So, um, so with that said, um, you know, that's what I offer uh, as my testimony. um like pushing the report and you know
happy to discuss your questions if you thank you for purposes of discussion that it was in fact built in or around 1940. How does that compare with the zoning of that parcel? Well, I'm not I'm not sure what you what
you when was the zoning in place that governs that parcel? Oh, you mean like I don't I didn't I didn't analyze like if it changed or but the problem is we don't know when it when it was zoned for
a single family. Okay. Garwood cannot produce own records to correct. That was the I was just going to get the answer on the record. Yeah, I made several requests both to Garland and also to UNIFA and I called Burough attorney because I was completely befuddled by that and I
represent five boards of big bur I still and I offered to come down to Burough Hall and go into the basement files. We don't have a basement, but I also represented towns that have lost records to flood to fire. So it it happens and I think that's what
happened. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from the board have questions? Yeah, Bill, you used the perfect word, Mr. Attorney. Um, befuddled because, you know, I know it's been alleged that I'm not sold on this application, and I don't know where
that came from, but I'm befuddled simply because there are my records. Um, my gut is, first of all, I think everybody up here has the 1922 zoning ordinance, zoning map. So, I didn't see it in your information, but the other applicant tonight produced the 1922 zoning map,
and um, it zoned single family. um which which just I don't understand. I I none of this makes sense to me at all. Um so all all that I'm interested in, okay, is making sure since you represent a perspective purchaser that when this
board says things can remain doesn't mean that the applicant can't improve some things that are out there, you know, over the course of time. And I want to my question to you is um if you could please um advise your client,
okay, that if the dumpster area, you know, isn't 100% the way it should be, doesn't mean that just because it exists that way today that they can't improve it, okay, and they need to keep that up. The um uh parking lot striping, okay,
does fade away. And just because it's, you know, the way it is today, oh, that's the way the board approved it. Please, please I ask you to I beseech you to advise your client to keep that property current. Uh the shade tree commission planted about eight trees in
front of the property last year. Appreciate if they you know watered them, took care of them. So um I I I think that in 19 between 1906 1936 whenever there was bill 1940 um burough
gar didn't have licensed professionals to review a project of this size. So it would have been reviewed by the county and county records usually pretty good. Um, but I find it amazing that there is no building permit, no electrical, no plumbing, no
that's what I meant by no nothing. You know, it just it just it just baffles my mind. And that's why I'm very happy as the mayor kid that we're now looking at a use variance. Certificate of nonconformity, yes, does grow on some certainly not as much as a use grant.
So, very happy going with a certificate of non-conformity. If you could please let your client know about the improvements, we'd appreciate it. Yeah, I can certainly assure you. I've had that conversation already and they have told me that they're are planning to clean up the site, make make improvements, not change the building,
bedroom counter, maintenance kind of improvements, not structural. Yeah, they're they're going to clean it up. They're going to and they're going to rehab the units as they become vacant over time and bring them up to modern standards. Appreciate that. I wasn't going to get into the inside since we're not supposed
to, but I appreciate that you live. Thank you. I don't have anything. Do you want to open the Mr. Chair? Thank you. Um with that, yeah, I'm just basically open it up and um I'll ask for a request for a certificate of
non-conform. Uh and oh, the public public I'm sorry. I'll open up general public for any questions of this applicant. Yes. Hi. I have never done that this at one of these. Um Jill Paul, I live at 543rd
Avenue, which is Stephanie Gardens. Um I've been a resident of Stephanie Gardens for over 12 years. Um first in a one-bedroom and then in a two-bedroom for 8 years. Um I think I sort of speak on behalf of the entire building. Many
of us have lived there for that amount or longer. Um we've built a community there um on Third Avenue and in Garwood. We just want a safe, secure place to live with honest owners who truly want the building to be a nice place for
tenants and an asset to the community. Knowing they came before the board regarding resoning is honestly a little troubling and it makes me question the intent of the new buyers. Um, and I'm really glad that that didn't go through as is or are the rest of the tenants.
Sorry. Um, you know, and we hope it never goes through. Parking on our street is already a huge issue between homeowners and tenants who do not rent a garage or parking space in the back. And hopefully the new owners will keep our building the same. And, you know, I love
to hear, okay, yeah, the the repairs because the owners we currently have haven't cared about repairs for years. Um, they just patch things up with like duct tape and stuff. So, thank you, Bill, for um recognizing that. But to really keep it the same 36 unit garden
apartment with the 32 onebedrooms um and the four two-bedroom apartments. Um keep our rent where it is, you know, raise it reasonably each year and just be good, honest owners who truly care about the tenants, who care about our building and our small town. This is our home. Thank
you. Ma'am, excuse me, ma'am. You gave a lot of testimony there. Could you just raise your right hand so I can swear you into it? Oh, left, right. Okay. Because it wasn't really a question, it was really testimony. Okay. Okay. What? Please state your name is spelled for the uh secretary, please.
Jill Paul. P A L L. Okay. And your address? 543rd Avenue. Okay. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that all the testimony that you just gave was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. And you can knock on all the doors and everybody will tell you they agree.
Thank you, Michael. Mike Vina, 210 New Street, Garwood. Happy birthday, Bill. Mike, thank you very much. Just going to say something. I have no problem with this application.
The only problem, and I agree 100% with council what he said about the only problem I have with this application is what council said about improving the property. This is not the forum for
improving your property. This is a certificate of nonconformity. So that shouldn't even come into play. And you know, land use if there's a problem and and they want to conform it or they want to improve it, it's got to
come back to the planning board. So I don't think that was proper of even asking that question and it should be strictened from the record. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Anyone else from the uh general public
wish to speak? Seeing none, I'll close that portion. Um at this time, you have no witnesses, right? I have no more witnesses. At this time, I'd like to open it up for a um for a vote on uh request for
certificate of non-conformity for this 6 36 unit garden apartment. I'll make the motion to accept the certificate of non and second.
Okay. Um, please. Mayor Blumentock. I, Miss Lysac, I, Councilman Carney. I, Miss Vagio. I, Mr. Nearstead. I, Miss Haye, I, Miss Biano,
I, and Chair Greed. I motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice day. Council, is your closing imminent? Um I'm not exactly sure when they're closing because of the transactional
training, but I think it's sometime 60 to 90 days. Okay. This the seller is hot to sell it, but I think they've been cleaning up some oil tanks or something. I'm just talking about the resolution. It's not going to be in the next 30 days. Yeah, that's Yes, that Okay. Okay. Okay, at this time I'll open it up
for the next applicant and that's case B um case PB25-05 that's 59 and that's an application um for a request for a certificate of non-conforming for a two family dwelling in zone
to show them my zoning map 1922. Okay, Natasha Montalvo maybe you can trust. Yeah. Thank you. Natasha Montalavo with Jaffer Bomb Morgaf. On behalf of the applicant, Elizabeth A. Caru on behalf of 59 Willow
LLC. No, sorry, it's a mouthful. Um, as you stated, um, chairman that we're here seeking a certificate of nonconformity for two family residents. Um, in this in the application packet we submitted, uh, I submitted the zoning map from 1922
showing that the property is zoned was zoned for a two family and, um, the house was built in 1957. The applicant's family actually built the house from the very beginning. Um, it was built in 1957 and at that time it
was still designated as a two family in the two family zone. I mean, it was a single family residence, but it was a two family zone. In 1962, um, the owners went and got a building permit to convert the house from a
single family to a two family. And then in sometime between 1962 and 1974, the property was reszoned to a single family residential zone. And that is pursuant to the zoning map from 1974
that was submitted with this application. Um this applicant has been her family has been occupying that space that house as a two family residence since 1962 when it was um converted to a two family
home. And that's my opening testimony. I do have the applicant here to go and describe who was in what unit and for from the conversion in 1962 to where we are today. So the key document council would be the
building permit receipt of October 17, 1962. Correct. Reflecting the conversion to two family. Correct. Correct. The only reason I'm focused on that is I did have a conversation with Mr. Hail yesterday about this. Yes. So I that's really your key document, right?
Correct. Sorry. It was legally converted with the cor with building permits from the town. All right. Um, so I can call your witness. Yes. Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Do you slely swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. And please state your name and spell it for the record. Elizabeth Karu. C A R E W. I figured it had to be Karu just from Rod Karu. I figured that had to be the pronunciation.
No relation, but yes, same. You're witness counsel. Thank you. Um, so can you can you explain how the house was built and how it's been in your family since it's been built? Sure. Uh, my grandparents Henry and Lilia
McClenny built the house in 1957 as a single family home. They lived there with my mother and my aunt. In 1962, uh they converted it to a two family home as evidenced in the permit that was provided. Uh at that time, my
grandparents and my aunt lived on the first floor and my parents with my toddler sister moved into the second floor. Um in 1965, my grandfather died and they swapped apartments. So my grandmother moved upstairs with my aunt, my parents moved downstairs. Now you were born in what year?
1971. So uh my brother was born in ' 69. I was born in 71 and we remained in that configuration until 2000. So from your own personal knowledge, you're able to confirm that from 1969
forward, there were always two families used two two apartments used as two separate families. Correct. From 71 forward. From 71 forward. Well, you probably don't really remember what happened when you were one, but um but from at least at some point around that time, you know it from your
own personal knowledge. Correct. Correct. And you're testifying essentially that the family's knowledge and consistent what was going on in your family is that since 1962, there were always different residences or different apartments being used.
Correct. That is correct. Continue with uh in your timeline. Sure. Uh that remained the same until 2000 when my grandmother uh passed away. My aunt had already passed away. Uh at that
time it was my parents on the first floor and my divorced sister moved home into the second floor apartment with her two toddler children. Uh and again it remained that way until 2017 when both parents passed away. Um
and so at that time my brother remained on the first floor and my sister and her children were on the second floors two separate units. In 2021 my sister passed away. So then it was my brother on the first floor and her children on the second floor. Uh they moved out. We
decided to rent it externally for the first time in 2021. And um so it was owner occupied on the first floor and an external tenant on the second floor and it's remained that way until today. Uh in 2022 we formed an
LLC uh because of the rental unit and so that's history of the the house. Thank you. I have no further questions from witness. Okay. At this uh point in time, I'll open it up for questions from the board of this witness.
Um is it separately metered? I see that there's two electric meters, but are there two furnaces and two hot water heaters? There are two electric meters, but one furnace, one heater. Okay. So, it's shared for the whole house. And I just have one. Is it is there any time um that period of time that it was
it was erected as a two family um that uh that someone was not living in the apartment for in excess of two years? No. Okay. Thank you. And was this most recent you said this most recent rental is the first time was
rented um quote unquote outside the family but they but the family members have always been two distinct separate households. There's a separate entrance for both apartments. Um, you know, if I mean my
grandparents upstairs, they knocked on the door and they waited for somebody to come in. You know, wasn't as bolded, but there was locks on the doors and it was separate. And those have the asses when we're talking about household. So, two separate kitchens, all separate bathrooms, uh, uh, separate, you know,
bedrooms. Um, no, no side doors going from one to the other. There's two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen on. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else at the board? Yes.
I was just curious why now you're coming before the board for the certificate of nonconformity. So, um I understand you formed an LLC. Is this a recent uh form of the LLC or is this something where you're just like in the process of looking to LLC in I'm sorry.
No, no, it's fine. Uh in 2022 after we initially rented the apartment late in 2021. Um and so just considering selling the property now and the realtor recommended that we get the certificate of not enforcement
to ease the mind of any buyer. Thank you. I was just curious why at this point it's an interesting family history of the evolution of the living address. So anyone else questions? Okay, thank you for your time.
At this time I I would like to um questions of this witness for comments. Seeing none, I'll close that portion of the Okay. And do I hear a motion to accept
the uh just another comment or discussion from the board? Sure. Um as Don said, I mean the key document here is the the building permit October 17th, 1962. It's issued by a burough official. It says convert two family
from one family. I don't think there's much more to this application than that. It's about the most clear piece of evidence we've ever had on non many cases. And uh the rest of the board has asked about the continuous use and Mr.
Chairman I think this is a you know easy approval. Thank you Bill. Welcome to bill that case. Bill would you like to make that motion? I'd be happy to. It sounds like people
are surprised I'm voting yes. something. See, she has the documents. That's the difference. That's the difference. I'll second make that motion to the town advising official, I guess it is, to issue a
certificate of non-conformity for this application. Uh because this is a momentous occasion, I will second Mr. Nestat. Thank you very much. Um Odell, roll call, please. Mayor Blumentock. I miss Lysac. Councilman Carney. Hi. Miss Vagio.
Hi, Mr. Nearstead. Hi, Miss Haye. I Miss Biano, I and Chair Greet, I congratulations. Is nobody voting yes? I I agree. I've been fighting that
battle for a dozen years. Mayor, I always said I and nobody listens to me. Okay. Um, we have uh some new business and that's Growwood Chicken LLC and that's for uh 10 South Avenue case PB23-01.
That's you too. And it's a preliminary and final site plan approving August 23rd, 2023 resolution. Um, and they're requesting an extension for of the approval.
I know you're Why is that guy standing in front of me? I'm figuring you talk to Mr. Wine. So, um, I'm friends with everybody in that law firm and Ailen Brennan from that office saw me on Zoom and sent me a text message when I walked out the door and said, um, Jason Tuvel told me that
this was on Zoom tonight, but I can't get into the Zoom link, can you help me? So, I said, I'm going to come back in and try and help you. Um, so she said it's just a letter. Have you got the letter? I have not gotten the letter. So if it's okay with all you
this is quite simple as you well know so I won't believe it's just a simple request for extension of the approval you've heard well argued council Yeah, there's a motion. We have the documents, right? Do you have any timeline that they're
proposing or not? I I you don't know. Okay. I see. All right. Okay. Um yes, they're requesting a one-year extension. One year. Okay. Thank you. But not to exceed three years. Three extensions. I think that's what the statute provides. Yeah.
Okay. That's what the statute provides. But the request is for a one-year extension. Okay. That's what I was looking for. Um, okay. With that, do I have a motion to this request for one extension? I'll make that motion. Second.
Okay. Roll call, please. Mayor Blumentock. I, Miss Lysac, hi. Councilman Carney, I. Miss Bellagio, hi. Mr. Nearest, hi. Miss Haye, I Miss Biano, hi. And chair greet.
Hi. motion that was much either not one I do enough for these guys that build for at least two hours minimum
and tell me up and build that bias. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. is emailed. Okay, we have Yeah, we will um we have bill for uh $2,000 and that's from uh
Prada Frasier and Forester and that's for attendance on May 28th and July 23rd. Um so with that, do I hear a motion to accept that motion? Those in favor? Opposed? Motion
carries. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, and Kathy Bellio, you have um something you would like to bring us to the sign ordinance. Uh, several months ago, we we were tasked
uh Maryanne and I we were taxed text tax whatever to look at our sign ordinance and make some changes to it. Um,
we had a we met with the uh with the uh with a representative from the uh small business association and they were looking to put uh flags um up like advertisement
flags, uh feathered flags. Um, so, uh, Mary and I, uh, when we met with them, um,
we felt that would be okay. But then we, but then after the meeting, we we spoke with the board. Um, I had a meeting. I think it was in
I don't know, May, April or May. and they said, "Okay, so what's in front of you now is a proposal uh for an ordinance that was sent to
each of you um a couple weeks ago. Um we did make some changes um some um definition changes or updates to the definitions since it was very small our
definitions. It wasn't very detailed. It wasn't very much. Um the feathered flags um is um is uh
um is a new uh 106 uh one 47. I I I couldn't fit it in like anywhere else. So, we thought it would just be better just to have a section
uh uh a section by itself. Um since businesses like like are in uh multiple zones um
like you have the mixed juice zone which is across which is on on North Avenue industrial zone which is Vermela you know technically even though it's redevelopment
um like it's like it's sitting in light industrial zone. Then we have the central business district and the uh general business district um in the CC zone. Um so
what we did is we put like we made it so that they can have these flags if they so choose. um a couple months ago um when we presented this
in in May um we set forth of what we thought like everybody would like and everybody on the board said it was fine. So here it is. Does anybody have any questions? Oh, and we also made a change
because um Burough Council um uh was going to have like an amendment with the with the with the with the uh sign ordinance.
Um, so we've so they figured that they wait on their wait on their change and just have uh one ordinance to um satisfy both. Jen, would you want to just
Yes, I'll just um Sorry, that's okay. Um uh we had just been talking um with zoning about the political signs. Um, that's usually a question that comes up every year about the size because while it is in the code, it's done in a very
general way and it's a little vague and we just wanted to make sure that way there was never any question about how big political signs can be that we would be very specific about it and put it right into the that piece of code. So, it's um limited to a max size of four
square ft which is what it has been. So, it's not changing. Um, and that's what our zoning officer has been um, using. Uh, but this way there's no question about it. You don't have to look back at a different portion of the code.
That's it on that piece. Just to highlight a couple other things too. As Kathy said, we were going through the sign ordinance and it was very dated. So, we did update the terminology and so forth, but also found some things that um we pulled back on
like there was uh within the prior ordinance, it was allowing facade signs of 20 ft in height or two stories, which uh we don't really have, you know, buildings to support that. So, we scaled that back. And uh also with the flag
signs too, we have limitations on when they can be displayed, how they're secured, and the duration for of time for the new businesses. So it's not something where you can just have these flag signs out 247 and for a year. So
um and we also looked at how the signage in town is illuminated too and added some more clarity with that as well. And the other item was the message signs that that we're allowing um the message
signs that uh change and not uh scrolling message signs, but changing message signs like on the Parkway, like you're driving on the Parkway, you see those signs,
those big signs, they just change like every so often. They don't scroll, you know, they just change. So, uh, we are going to allow that. That those was
Yeah. So, that that's similar to um even the police have a uh the speed limit sign with the flashers on it. Correct. uh it doesn't scroll, it doesn't blink at you, but it will change uh you know every 101 15 seconds from displaying your speed. Uh I think the
Christmas message was last year uh you'll be on the naughty list if you don't slow down. Um, so that type of signage is is very common uh in a lot of the towns around us and I know uh of at least two business owners who approached through the small business board to me
on just again the code wasn't really very clear on it and it became a question of um maybe the zoning enforcement uh interpretation and and such. So um I really do appreciate the work that the subcommittee put in here
to to clarify so many of these things. So, um, when I'm interacting with the business owners, I can give them a clear answer. Yeah. Oh, and the other thing was, and we brought it up in
I think it's May, but my months are um I think it was we talked about this two meetings two meetings ago and one meeting got cancelceled. So, it was either April or May. Whatever. But you're right. um with the
uh with the uh flag signs. Um that they should be that they have that if some businesses um like if they want to put the s put the flag sign
um on the right of way um they need to check with Barl Hall. I mean, they need to check with the burrow because there might be some there might be some there might be some uh insurance
requirements that the burrow may or may not have. So, you know, it's okay like in the ordinance, but it specifically says like in this proposed ordinance
that they have to that that they may have like insurance requirements if the bureau um so chooses. That isn't something that this board can do. So, um, when they request that
permission from the bureau, do you foresee that as just being a letter and then they would take that letter? There's a, um, uh, zoning, um, form that they have to fill out, a zoning permit. Okay. And then
like if it's within the rightway, then that gets, you know, that's something that has to be talked out. the zoning officer would probably have to confer with the burough administrator. Correct. Yeah, that's an existing process with zoning.
That's an existing process that I you know, but we wanted to put something in there that the you know that the town's protected also. Yeah. If if they're you know we have something in it where it is if the winds are so high okay
like over u 20 over 20 miles an hour they have to take in the flags okay is that difficult to like enforce but the cops know if it's going to be over 20 miles an hour you know that's just a matter of public safety.
Yeah. I think um this is I want to thank you. I think it was it's very well done. This the sign ordinance needed a lot of uh updating. There were signs that aren't in existence anymore. Things like that terminology we don't use. Um and I just
think we brought it back up to speed with what our businesses uh you know need for their current survival which is always an important thing. We want our businesses to thrive and I think this is very much uh will be very helpful for
them. So, thank you. Yeah. And I I'll jump in on that, too, because they they spent a lot of time. I know they did because I spoke it was good. Yeah. You spent a lot of time and effort on on developing this and getting it together and then formalizing it and putting it into an ordinance format and submitting it. So, yeah, I want to thank
you for that very much. you know, there's going to be other sections that of the sign ordinance that we did not delve into with business, you know, with the um like with the other sections that we didn't even go into because, you know,
um what I'd like to do is if we can have uh Harbor Consultants give us a quote not on this part of the ordinance, on the on the factory factories
like on the CC zones, you know, um if those need to be updated. Um so, um Adele, could you and will you chair if we can if we can ask
Victor for a quote? We don't know, you know, if he can delve into the parts of the sign ordinance that we did not go into.
And also while while you're at it, um there was a it was mentioned um that we should have something with food trucks,
some type of ordinance that um that rules the the the food trucks if he can get us um a proposal on an ordinance for that. Yeah, I'll speak I'll be speaking with Victor, too. So yes, in terms of the food trucks, um I've been looking into it with our bur
administrator just in a general sense. It's very there there aren't a lot of towns out there with specific code on food trucks. Um it but it's it is something I would like to see in Garwood as more and more are coming out. We want to support them and
you know it's it's great local businesses, but at the same time we need consistency. Um because right now it's it's essentially um our zoning officer, you know, is deciding things and it puts a real burden on the zoning officer to make sure he's consistent with
everything. It would be a lot simpler to have something already set in our code for for him to enforce and I think the health committee would uh would wind up getting involved with that as well. So, um I'm happy to ask, you know, join
support in asking Harbor to um give us a quote for it. Obviously, we have to look budgetary. That's my always my hat goes on, but if we can to to do something like that, um that would be appreciated. Okay. Well, again, thank you.
You open up for questions, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, sure. Okay. First of all, Kathy and um uh Marian, I I always want to call you by another name and you know that and I I always say it's not the right name. What's her meet and this hasn't been
touched in at least 35 years. So very glad to see it being updated. Very very glad. I I know what it's like to put it time into this. Signs are the worst worst part of an ordinance. So I greatly appreciate that. Um second, just very quickly, food trucks. Food trucks was
the last ordinance I wrote that got through Playingfield. So, uh, you might want to check that. Uh, it's very surprising. Uh, food trucks, um, I did not know. Fire departments involved, police departments involved, health departments involved. I
did not know all these inspections. It's, uh, very complicated. So, uh, I know I know a good one if you, uh, want to look at it. Um um beyond that. Okay. A couple of Are you
looking for for uh action by the board tonight? You are. All right. Well, then a few questions. Okay. Um section I guess you Well, first off, in terms of location, I know location is tough. Why since this is a sign, why
don't you want to just put it with the signs and put it A or B rather than having it out at 147? What's in between 146 and 148? I mean, why why don't we just go with 139A? So, all the signs um all the sign
stuff is is located together. I just thought it would be easier. Hey, it's up to the board. 47, you know. Yeah. Just it by itself. Um because there was so much to it. It wasn't a it wasn't a I
thought about that. A yeah I I would I would because it because it entails all most of the zones you know it it entails you know the central business a general business
light industrial zone mixed use zone and CC zone and and having it by itself it was I agree much easier the sign the these are and I understand you're saying that present sign code relates to all zones too. I I just kind of think it's a
good idea to put signs in one spot. It It doesn't actually though. Like if you look at 10641, it's the following signs are permitted only in these central business. Like it doesn't have every zone.
Oh, but these the sign addresses every zone if it's not um they're not permitted in the residential, etc., etc. I mean I I it just general provisions are in 144 which is in the middle of this anyway. I mean I
I've put So what's what are my what's 145? Putting my councilman hat on. I've for years advocated for having the entire code reviewed and revised because of things like this where uh stuff was probably inserted at one time or another
over the years and they just used whatever number was available next. Not every chapter of the code is really a good flow. No, but the sign but the entire land use ordinance was written in one fell swoop. And so that all goes together. Has nothing to do with any of
the other ordinances of the burrow unless it relates to or refers to another section of the municipal ordinance. So hey, it's not my call. I don't I don't understand the rationale. To me, a sign is a sign and calling well what we're going to call out different
lighting regulations in different places in the lighting ordinance or but Bill the feathered signs are really more of a temporary sign. So it it really is kind of in its own regulations in current sign ordinance like yes like signs and so forth but but
this just brought on so many different unique characteristics and it was a limited time consuming recommendation to go ahead. So that was just part of the thought process. My recommendation would be that these two folks spent a lot of time and effort
in developing this. Um and we're talking about the location and particular itemized uh area and I think they probably took that into consideration as Kathy had already made reference to. So um in my opinion um I think it should be
it should rest with what they had recommended in that category in particular. If there are other areas that that have should be addressed, I think we should move on to those other areas. But I will be settled settled in the fact that they they both reviewed
this. They both felt it was comfortable and it was it was done in a judicious manner. So I say let it go. Mr. Chairman, 106 147E. Okay. Um letter number five. Um I'm
sorry. Do I have the right one? No. But number four, um, as the mayor and council know, we one of the issues with the current municipal ordinance in general is that it doesn't state who's to enforce certain things. Um, and if
you look at letter E4, am I got the right one? Yes. Yes. Okay. Permission must be given by the bureau. Too vague. Um, my recommendation is that I don't know who mayor and council wants to enforce this. Zoning officer is not
going to come out at, you know, whatever time of day he's not working here. He or she is part-time anyway. Um, I really think that um, within the any additional ordinances, and I know I've discussed this with the mayor, any additional
ordinances that that the bureau adopts, we should put in here specifically who is to enforce this. Um I know from other regulations that um certain organizations within the municipality don't like to enforce particular regula
regulations and I really think that we that this board um we should state and I'm just putting this out there if it's the health officer or the zoning officer or the police who's here on Saturday and Sunday who's going to enforce this
on the next page. The zoning officer may direct that any Saturday or Sunday. Who's going to enforce this? Said the chief of police may direct that any sign which in discretion of the
chief of police creates a safety hazard or safety that's a safety hazard, not a zoning site obstruction to pedestrians or vehicle traffic be removed, modified or relocated. That's what it's that's not a zoning violation. Bill, who is it you want to
enforce this? Um, the only entity that we have in the bur that's on 24/7 is the police. All right. I'm entity that you're proposing. That's the entity I'm proposing because nobody's here Saturday or Sunday to enforce it, which means it won't get enforced. I'm going to dial that back only because
I don't see why there would be a need for emergent enforcement and I agree of the area you're discussing about the setback. I I don't see that that would be emergent enforcement. And hear me out. If it says permission must be given by the burrow, the council designates
the burrow administrator to operate the day-to-day functions of this burrow. The burrow administrator could either do it himself or designate any officer or employee of the burrow to do whatever needs to be done. So I don't think we need to specify that the police are
doing ABC or the zoning officer is doing DEF. that's already specified under areas where there could be concerns, safety hazards, etc. Um, this section that you're referring to appears to me to just set out that if you don't have a
setback and you're going to use our right of way, you have to use the existing uh zoning process, that's going to go into the burough office anyway. That's all under the purview of the BA. Uh, and that's what we're paying for. So, I don't think we need to to belabor that
or or amend this just for that. It's clear to me what's meant by saying permission must be given by the burrow. That's the burrow administrator if we don't specify it any further. With all due respect, that's going to come back and kick us at some point in court when
the judge says who enforces it or who's the burrow. So with all due respect, I would ask council but administrator is not here Saturday either, but this is not a but this this is this is not this is not the location. Yes, that has nothing to
do with enforcement. Four may not. Okay, but this entire section, okay, these flags, these flags, I don't like these flags. I think they're going to be a detriment to the burrow. I think they're going to make lower our standards tremendously. But regardless of that,
they get put out all the time by people who don't have permits. Um, and I just think that, you know, I have taken people to court on such signs and the attorneys will specifically say, well, where does it say the zoning officer has has the ability to enforce it? That's easy enough. Good.
Just put in just put in then that it can be enforced by any burrow officer or employee and you don't have to put it on anybody. And then if some attorney who's a wise ass, the municipal court tries to say no, you
can't enforce it, the statute or excuse me, the ordinance will say it can be enforced by any burrow employee or officer. Beautiful. I think it does make sense for the burrow. And the other thing, and again only because uh I I've been there,
okay, I think that the idea about the wind is terrific. Uh we never thought of that, but again, we need we need to put in there. Okay. Who says it's 20 m an hour? It's like a snowfall. You have to say by the National Weather Service, by
New York airport, whatever. You have to have an official or else the person who comes in here is going to say, "Oh, what what are you using?" So again, just for the bellow, it's 20 miles hour on November 5th, 20, you know, 25. So the judge can say,
"Yeah, have it. It's over 20." Okay. So recommendation So before it just said high winds. So we thought it would be good to put some kind of absolutely a metric in there. So I I don't know who you know
the police because they've been taken to court when somebody's arguing no parking more than 20 more than I can say 20 in 3 in of snow and it's going to be you know well who determined it was 3 in and you'll have JFK says it was 2.5 and New
York says it's 2 point you know so I just asking whoever the police use determined 3 in of snow entity for the 20 m per hour winds. Okay. Have we taken note? That's okay. It's not Bill Plinket. Yeah, that that's just because
I didn't quite with those attorneys, Mr. Frasier, who asked me that. It's like, well, to say that. Okay. Okay. Um, other than that, uh, as I said, I I
don't like these feathered signs. I don't think we should. I gathered that. And um so I'm not sure how I'm voting yet, but I just wanted to indicate for the record that I wish we weren't doing this. We heard you the first three times. Can I can I just want to make sure that I got this and I will make these changes
if in fact it goes through. Okay. I I have two very tiny technical changes. Okay. Under sign announcement on first page, it says document in the premises and his activity. I suggested it should be general gender neutral. Uh
on the first page sign announcement says his I think it should be his her and you see here Cath there it is. Oh, and good
is her activity and as and then below that about a paragraph below it's take it out take an advert an advertisement not and the feathered okay
thank you I know that Kathy loves to correct my typographic stuff that's my typing like in red that's that's I know, but I just Thank you. to it. Anything else? No, this I thought it was very good,
actually. Um, okay. So on the first page the um I'm going to put uh his slash her under a
a sign announcement under sign feathered um also known as n um a k advertisement. and make that change. Um
on under um under H 141 141 um H is zoning officer may direct that any
signs which in discretion of the zoning officer violates this section or creates a safety hazard be removed, modified, relocated. Additionally, portable signs shall be removed by the owner when forecasted winds
exceed 20 miles per hour by the National Weather Service. As determined by the National Weather Service as determined No, no. At Newark Airport. Yeah. Oh, at Newark airport. Yeah, I guess national. That's a little
too broad. Okay. Newark Liberty International Airport. But I think if we said Newark Airport, that would be defensible in court. Okay. Okay. Okay. Kathy, I have one more suggestion. The
last page M where it talks about high winds for the feathers, feather signs. Just clarifying that and saying also the 20 mph. Wait, where is that? Um, so M. Oh, yeah, that was missed. Yeah. Oh, the last page.
Yes, position. should say 20 miles the same same thing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Add add the wind verbiage, right? Y Okay. And then um on that same page I have an
O um enforcement a new section O enforcement shall be by any barrow employee um or officer or officer period. Okay.
Any other changes? Just educate um the permit should be valid for a period of one year. Um and I apologize in going through this. How when can when can we put these out? So the duration
no more than two months. Um, if it's a new business, if it's a brand new v business, you it's under J. Signs for new businesses will be permitted to be displayed no more than two months from the date of
opening. And then flag advertisement sign is to be permitted no more than 28 days per calendar year. Why is the permit good for a year?
because the person is going to say, "Well, would that have a problem?" Agree with Bill. That that that is very So just say two months. I would just lose that paragraph L2 that says it's for a period of one year because paragraph J already tells us how
long they can be for. I think the I I don't want to speak for either one of them, but I I remember when we spoke about this in I think April or May, I don't remember which meeting. The intention was to limit this to a certain amount of time
per year. That's why the permit is for a year. Um you can only display uh it says uh J2, no more than 28 days per calendar year from the date of the zoning permit. So, you pull one permit a year, you get
28 days, unless you're a new business, in which case you get the two months continuous. Um, I I think that's pretty clear and I think it speaks to Mr. Nearstat's concern about these flags being everywhere. Um, and I will say other
communities have these things out pretty much all the time and uh it doesn't detract from their downtowns, but that's a disagreement between my opinion. But maybe understand who's gonna count 28 days. Um, you put it up. Well, that might be
right. Right. But if I have a valid zoning permit, I'm going to put put it out. Oh, it isn't my 20th day. I I I just you and I agree in this one, Don. It's giving the permit for years is opening up
uh 10 months of having there's an there's an easy way to rewrite. Okay, first of all, you can re first of all in paragraph J when it says will be permitted to be displayed no more than two months. It
should actually say be displayed for no more than two months. And in paragraph J2, when it says to be permitted no more than 28 days, it should say four no more than 28 days per calendar year. And then when you get to
sub paragraph, excuse me, paragraph L subp paragraph 2, it says a permit shall be for a period of one year. What I would just say, I would say it's something like uh the permit shall expire
one year from the date of issuance. I mean, it's fine. I I really do think that we're going to have lots of No, I understand. I'm just saying of this is colored by your fundamental objection to the substance. If many times I fundamentally disagree with something, they're still going to
work with it. You know, I mean, if you have to, you have to. Um, but I'm just saying to those in terms of enforcement, um, who's going to count 28 days? Who's going to count 2 months? Nobody. Nobody. And it's going to be out there for much
more than until somebody and then they're going to just like with anything else. Okay. So, I complain. Okay. And the guy says, "Oh, I've only had it out there 20 days." Well, guess what? Now I go to 30 days.
Well, I think at at that point our our zoning officer would have to open up a case and we'd probably start monitoring it and exactly we would go from there and and yeah, they might get a few more days out of it before uh the zoning officer catches them.
This is just a method to be able to control it parts. It's about walking in a community. Everybody's walking around all the time, I think. Well, it'll be obvious if somebody's flag out, you know, every day, too.
We're trying to help the businesses to, you know, any charge. The other thing, too, we did to help the businesses, too, is that this the um ordinance previously said all signage had to be internally illuminated. So, we opened it up so that it could be
externally illuminated and but it had to be controlled. So, it was just focused on the signage because I think there's something that gives a little more charm to the town and more opportunities for the business owners if they if the signs can be externally illuminated. So, I
think that was a good option for them. I think the original code was written. That wasn't a thing. The internal illumination was probably the only way it could be done whenever this was put together in the 70s. So, um, yeah, I I I understood your your intent with that.
And, um, yeah, I think if somebody's going to push their luck, they're probably going to get a couple extra days out of it and they're going to end up with a a summons. Um, and nobody I don't think the business owners that I deal with all the time are not looking to push their luck that way. They're just looking for the
ability when they have like a special sale or event or anything else to be able to attract a little more attention. I don't think any of our owners were asking to put these things up year round. All right. So, so um in keeping with
what Don said under J1, I'm going to add four no more than two months. And then and the same thing J2 for no more
than 28 days. And then under um under um on the L permit requirements. Uh number two, the permit shall expire one year from date of issuance. Okay. Um
and thank you for your input and we have any other commentary here or questions or comments whatever. Okay, with that um why don't we come up with a vote and uh it's to accept the sign rooms. There will motion to accept the sign rooms. uh changes as introduced
that a motion is made to um for the ordinance to for the um proposed ordinance to council for the review and adoption. Okay. Correct. Do I have a second? I'll second. Oh, I'll make that motion.
I guess I guess it became one. Sure. Motion bill. Yeah, that was a motion. I'll second hotel. Mayor Blumenstto I Oh, wait. Abstain. Abstain. Miss Lysac. I.
Councilman Carney. Abstain. Miss Vagio. I. Mr. Nearstein. Hi. Miss Haye. I. Miss. Biano. Hi. And chair greed. I motion time. Thank you very much. Just want to thank everybody uh for
their input. Um it was it was it was very tedious. Very nice job. Thank you. Both you and Mary worked very well going back and forth like with her expertise. We'll give you something else.
Yeah. No, we went we go back and forth. Just sort of volunteer for another project. I love doing this kind of stuff. Okay, with that um we're coming to the close of the meeting and I'll open it up to uh commentary or um from the general
public. All right, Michael. When Kathy started talking about the the signage, she had mentioned the the scrolling sign and uh Mr. Part mentioned
the flashing sign. I have one request. Can we slow the spacing down between the messages so user could read them going by? But they fly by so fast. I have to do a double sometimes stop at a light to read what's going on. If we could slow
the spacing who who's ever doing the software and slow it down a little bit what the what the the limit that's a scrolling sign. Exactly. You say something to the next message and you don't read
it. So, if we could slow it down so we can catch up on it. Can you mean just a burrow sign or any sign that that's just a burrow one? Yeah, because there's going to be others, too. You're going down says go 25 or you
going 31? I don't understand that. No, I don't mean that. I mean, there's a sign in front of a building. Okay. And it flashes, you know, different things like the turnpike. Let's say the turnpike. Those signs have to be up there. I'm going to make this number up, but it's 30 seconds
just the borrow side because we have you're you're portraying a message and it sometimes we get it right too fast. I do agree agree. But what I'm saying is that this allows other businesses to put
up those kinds of signs also. So, so I'm saying it should envelope. They have they're in charge of that. That's what I'm saying. It's not just a burrow sign. It's all the signs. Absolutely. But if this signage ordinance, it
doesn't permit scrolling. Correct. Permits scrolling. It just permits messaging. Understand. I'm just You brought I know. Thank you. Mr. Carney brought the flashing. So just asking if it makes sense. I agree with you. Yeah. Slow the message down.
The spacing in between me on something. We have three people from the burrow here. I'm sure that that message is going to get Thank you. Thank you, Michael. There are some who those three members are. I mean, there are some there are some uniform
standards out there in terms of how long, you know, that message stays there before it changes. So, if we could when it gets to council and again council, it's very important to put those specifics into that ordinance before you adopt it because um you stand
a much better chance of, you know, winning in court. And I'm making this up. If we if we want that message to it's got to stay on there say 30 seconds, Gordon should state that. So whatever that message is they think we're gonna have about us.
I'm talking about the time between messages. So if you can display it's 79 degrees or it's October 31st in Garwin. But when it goes from that message to the other one,
slow it down a little in between. Just one's running into the other into the other. So, it may or may not with this software be possible. The the I'll be the software that we have for our burrow um sign is so old that we really don't have the
ability to put anything up to be honest. So, that's a discussion for a whole another town, but we will is a software expert. We've tried this software might be older than even than even I am. This turns into a budgetary discussion.
It's uh this that's Was it buzz on the board? Okay. I think we have I think we have the idea of what what's needed and we can we can over um it's just I know it was
challenging even to get it back up in the first place uh displaying like the correct time and stuff. Um the uh one of the police dispatchers um had a extremely old laptop that ran the correct version of Windows that's been discontinued for like 15 years. So um we
will look into it. I'll have that conversation with the chief next week or tomorrow at uh council. Um I just don't want to promise results. I for Okay. I forgot to mention um Adele um I'll make these changes and I'll send
them to you so you can form them to borrow council. Okay. Anything else? Thank you if that's okay. Um okay the public to address the board. Oh man. Well I think you are asked Bruce
unless there's I take that back. Is there someone else from the general public who would like to speak? No. Okay. And just you papers. Well, and just just as a note for Bruce, we
discussed this a little bit before. We're not going to discuss the um the specific changes that were that you you you had proposed based on on whatever this is. Um I think it was addressed by
Harvard Consultants representative uh directly to you as well. So um with that we'll be happy to hear you and uh to accept whatever or take whatever hand that you have. Um but let you go forward. Put it another way. We're not having a
hearing. Thank you. All right. But I' I'd like to explain the possibility of rescending, as my letter said, rescending uh what was agreed to at this point with the affordable housing numbers as and
possibly recalculating them. That's what I'll be talking about. Again, you're permitted to address the board. There's not going to be a hearing. Go ahead. Oh, yeah. Okay. I mean, there may be a Q&A, though. I don't if anybody asked if anybody
decides to ask you a question I guess that could be possible. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Patterson 325 Royal Avenue. Um at this point, I did send a letter with a little chart uh comparing up and down our
corridor for towns. Uh in addition what I'm going to be uh I did say I would discuss it further of course at the meeting and I gave Adele uh a two-page handout uh which I will go into later on uh
with the discussion also to let's say typically five minutes five minutes so accordingly you do obviously Bruce believe that's a standing rule of the board that when we have this
portion of the meeting that any member of the public can raise an an issue to discuss that they get five minutes. You surely don't believe that you're entitled to special treatment, do you? I take the fifth on that one.
Interesting. Yeah. But anyway, um, of course there could be a part two at the next meeting, right? You know, to continue the discussion. interesting choice if that's how you're going to use some of your five minutes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's uh let's start the clock now. Okay.
Yeah. Just just referring to the chart. I put down uh the various towns. I even threw in a uh Park Ridge, but anyway, if you really look at the A numbers, uh how the decrease came about. Basically, the other towns had like a 75% decrease and
Garwood only had a 33% decrease. I was I was I went to Cranford. I went to Fairwood. Of course, I went to Garland and I asked a lot of questions and I also read through the uh the H uh the
housing element plan that was put forth on the towns. in Westfield. I did read uh and I just made this chart just showing you know the decreases and oddly enough each town actually had a separate planner that c that did all these
calculations and they came out to a 75% decrease us who I and I mentioned in a letter arguably we are probably highly developed town less vacant land uh are
RDP actually came out to be 53 according to the meeting that I went to on 528 and the handout uh that Mreta had given us. Um the 53 number you know that he out the realistic uh
I he mentions it in his uh housing element plan on page 195 and also page 53 of the 622 pages. The sad part about it, all the other uh cans were searchable, but the garage wasn't. So, I
mean, it was really a pain in the butt trying to go back in and and dig out the numbers. Uh just to continue, the reason the reason why I'm here, and this is this is uh the explanation that I'm going to give you uh from this second
handout that was given. Uh if you start at the top, I I feel that the numbers were misinterpreted uh because all three towns basically fell onto this exclusion type paragraph which of the amendment uh 2024
housing amended law page 32 or 50 paragraph so and so and so. It says any municipality that receives an adjustment of its prospective need obligation for the fourth round or subsequent rounds based on lack of vacant land which is Garwood shall as part of the process
adopting implement implementing its housing element and fair share plan identify sufficient parcels likely to redevelop which it did during the current round of obligation to address at least 25% of the prospective need obligation has been adjusted and adopted
realistic zoning that allows for such adjusted obligations. in taking 25% of the 80 units that the DCA u provided to us that comes down to about 20 units. So right now we're looking at 20 units where the strata had
actually come up with approximately 50. So there you know there is uh basically what we should be doing and other towns actually do the same thing. when I went to their uh hearings and I asked that question and they all fell back onto this single paragraph here talking about
25%. Uh we if we dispute our findings which would obviously be uh attorney frames but anyway based on the technicality of the misinterpretation you Mr. Patterson. Yes. Go ahead. I don't know that it would be me at all. I don't know where you get that idea from. Okay. I appreciate pointing that out. uh
but we probably can uh resue it based on this paragraph that I put on page 10 or 11 of uh page of the 50 pages of the law you know that we are permitted to dispute. So turning on um yeah turn to
the second page uh this yeah you know we we have uh bonus credits that we can take. So if we take 25% of of the 80 which comes out to 20 uh we can also take bonus credits from say the uh uh the St. An's property
of five credits which brings it down to 15 of units of affordable housing that we would be obligated uh and we can't take more than one type of bonus. uh page 35 and 36 of the amended law actually goes on to list other credits
that possibly we can address but at this point we're looking at only 15 affordable housing units. Uh the amount of documentation by the way this la very last paragraph the amount of documentation I do agree with MrA that we have to uh prove our round three that
we actually uh achieved what we were shooting for on round three. However, I am back to the round four numbers and I think we're far off on that. That we really can not only get down to 20, which is 25% of the 80, but we actually
can get down further to 15 affordable housing. Chairman, I would note that Mr. Patterson has used his five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Can you write, you know, you just That was the five minutes, Bruce. Thank you. This is amazing. You know, this is
certainly amazing what I get subjected to. But anyway, Mr. Mr. Ken have a wrap-up comment. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Patterson? Yes, I I agree. It's amazing. And you you were given more time than the five minutes. You were take you routinely
take, as is your right, as a citizen, you take the opportunity to address this board frequently, and you are treated always with the utmost of courtesy. You were given the utmost of deference and you as is your right, you use every bit
of it. But everybody has rights and you knew at the outset what the rules were and you chose to use your time in the manner that you did and that's fine. Okay, that is explained and hopefully if anybody has any questions they can contact me later on. But those are the paragraphs to take a look at.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. I would just note for the record, Mr. chairman that uh I know that uh Mr. Mstrada has uh provided an analysis
of uh Mr. Patterson's arguments. Uh I believe for the record that Mr. Patterson's arguments are completely off base for the reasons set forth in Mr. um Mreta's analysis.
Thank you. as you found it wrong though. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, anything else of the board that uh needs discussion? If not, do I need a motion to adjurnn? I'll make the motion to adjurnn. Second.
All those in firm. Thank you. All right. It's a great color on you, John. Thank you. The new It's a new jacket. Thank you for buying my ward. Yeah.
Got it. Thank you. This can go on. Well, have a nice we'll see you in August. Are we going to be doing this? Yeah.