All right. You too. Yeah. Okay, good evening folks. Welcome to the um planning board meeting for July 22nd, 2026. Um and if I would ask uh everyone to silence or um turn off the cell phones,
it would be appreciated. Thank you. And we'll open up the meeting and we'll hopefully have a uh a legal representative shortly. Um, 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 in January 2026, posting on the burough 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, 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. Okay. Thank you, Adele.
Roll call, please. Here >> here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Mr. Barkin is excused. Miss Haye >> here. >> Mr. McCarrick is excused. Mr. Buyers >> here.
>> Mr. Mason is excused. Mr. Di Maria and Mr. Biano >> here. >> Okay. Um, if everyone has had an opportunity to read the minutes of the prior meeting. Do I hear a motion to accept the minutes? >> I'll make the motion to accept the
minutes as submitted. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Hearing none. Motion carries. Okay. At this time, we're going to hear um case PB26-01. That's 4652nd
Avenue. And this is a continuation of the application that we heard uh for the prior meeting. And I'm going to have to ask uh that uh Thomas Biano uh recuse himself for this. So Adele, maybe you could reiterate uh
who will be the voting members on this. based on last month's attendance um everyone will be voting except um Mr. Biano who has recused himself and uh Mr. Di Maria who was not present last month. >> Okay. >> So we have eight eight voting members.
>> All right. Very good. Thank you. Um would you want to wait for our legal representative to come? >> Yes, I can. I don't mind waiting. >> Okay. All right. Uh then we'll take a 5m minute pause and hopefully Dom will be here. Thank you.
What's that? >> Yeah. on the Hey, Charlie. >> That's nothing to do. Okay. Okay folks, we'll uh reopen the meeting and um welcome uh the applicant.
>> Good evening. Natasha Montavo with Averbomb Workout on behalf of the applicant Paul Muns. Um we were here. >> If I might, Mr. Chairman, I did have a conversation today with Miss Montavo about this situation. I have circulated um I did have a a conversation this
afternoon with Ms. Montalvo as well as with yourself Mr. Chairman for the benefit of the board. I have circulated a kind of pre-draft if you will of the resolution with the information really that was based upon the meeting of last
month. Uh it's my view that it might be a little bit aggressive to try to get a resolution finalized tonight given that we don't know what additional testimony is going to be presented and we don't know what other conditions members of
the board might want to add. Um so I'll leave it at that. I know that the applicant's preference is that a resolution be finalized this evening. I think for the moment, let's see how it goes and we can address that uh at the
conclusion of uh the testimony. >> Okay. So be it. >> Thank you. >> Please. >> Um just a quick recap. Last month we were here for a certificate of non-conformity um for the property at 4652nd Avenue. Um the site is currently
improved with the garage and office space for a lawn sprinkler service and installation business that also does low voltage lighting service and installation. Um last month we had our the applicant uh present some uh testimony and our planner provide our
professional planning testimony. Since the last meeting, we have submitted um documents of the P photographs of the property of around the property, inside the property, so you guys can see the office space and the storage. And we submitted a survey. The survey that was
submitted uh shows the the as pavement on the neighboring property. Again, that pavement is not part of this property. the property. It's not per being purchased with um the per purchase of
465 Second A. So, um I I know I submitted it so you guys could see the space that was talked about last time, but um that's not an accurate survey of the property that we're talking about in question. So, I do have an exhibit A3
that shows it's the same exact survey just removing the pavement on the neighboring property since that's not technically part of this property. Um, I have a couple copies to circle around. need think there's only four but
>> council this is the same as the document that we had submitted with the exception that the pavement which is actually not on the subject property but which is on lot two is needed correct >> I I I will say that I thought that it was very helpful to see that survey that
shows the pavement on lot two um even though there's no representation that's part of this tract >> correct um to to answer um just to go through some preliminary questions. Also, um I
did receive some questions um that Mr. Ne had had regarding the prior introduced pro property tax record. Um I'm going to answer his questions to the best of my ability. Um I did a lot of research on this. Uh one of the
questions was under the property information, what do all the zeros mean? because there's a lot of zeros for square footage, zoning, use code, and obviously there's a building there. So, why is a square footage zero? Um, in my research, I found that um apparently
zeros on a property record cards are common. It can mean multiple things such as the building area was never entered into the database and or the field is just not used by the tax assessor's office. Um, for this building is an old building. It's not unusual for older
buildings, uh, commercial properties in New Jersey to have zero in that field. Uh, the zoning zero means there's no zoning designation that has been entered into the tax database. Uh, the use code zero um is an internal assessor coding
field separate from the property's tax classification. So, it's not necessarily the use of the building. It's another type of use that the tax assessor can categorize it as. Um, most municipalities do not utilize that field. That's why it's a zero. Um, and I
guess another reason for it is the property's use is identified solely through its class of tax classification. Um, I know last month at the meeting we talked about class 4A commercial uses.
Um other types of uses that fall under class 4A commercial which is this uh according to the tax record card is being taxed as a class A 4A commercial uses are office buildings retail stores
centers restaurants banks service businesses automobile automobile repair facilities commercial garages funeral homes theaters commercial condominium units. Those are other types of commercial 4A um uses uh that are being
taxed as 4A. Um here we're an office and a service business. It's being taxed as 4A commercial. Um also there was on the 2025 which was marked A1. Uh there was a comment about
the drawn line on lot two. I guess that was previously done to show the com the asphalt that is on the survey you guys received, but that is no way in connected to lot one. So I don't know who drew that or why it's there,
but um to clarify that issue. And then um to answer a question regarding the use of the pavement area on the adjacent lot. Um, currently the applicant operates a business without really using that lot. Uh, it's the extra pavement is
being used to store vehicles for the property owner um for Westwood. There's very limited times where he the landlord has allowed him to park things there, but he does not need that to operate his business on a daily basis. If if we
don't if since it's not on the property he's purchasing, there's no issue not using that property moving forward. doesn't it's not a detriment to the business. Pop lot. Yes. Lot 21. That's just a parking lot and they don't use that. Yes. On the
survey you could see they enter on Maple A to enter the property. So their parking is all within the lot. Um, also the office use is pretty much at like what it what of the property is being used for office use and truck
storage and mechanical and equipment storage. Um, as you saw on the photos of the building indoors is just the office space. The garage is being stored with uh materials and other small uh like equipment and the truck vehicle the
truck storage is actually on the property. So most of the property is being used for storage. There's two storage containers that trailers that are being used. The parking lot is being used for storing trucks and like use their work trucks and then the garage is being used. the office space is
literally limited to only just the three offices that you saw inside those photos. Um, that is how what I have to answer Mr. Need's questions and I hope that that answered it um as best as I could and and if there are no more
questions from me, I would like to bring up the applicant again to reiterate the use of his business, his number of employees, and how many vehicles are parked. And if there's no further questions, I can bring him up. Good evening. >> Let me swear testimony about to give me
the truth. The whole truth, nothing left. >> I do. >> And one preliminary question. Um, you just heard your council, Ms. Montavo, make a bunch of statements in response to Mr. Ne in response to Mr. Ne's question. Do you testify and confirm that every I'm have no doubt I'm not
questioning her integrity as an attorney, but for the record, do you >> I know nothing about the zeros. I can't answer [laughter] that. >> Other than the part about the zeros, and by the way, on that one, you and me both, >> but other than other than the part about the zeros, >> the rest of it. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. You witness. >> Okay. Can you um reiterate to the board um refresh their memory on what exactly your business is? >> We do launch breaker service and installation, and we do low voltage lighting and installation. >> And how many employees do you currently have?
>> We currently have. And how many employees do you have at your most when you hire like part-time? >> Um, seasonally in the spring and in the fall, it can go up to 12 to 15. >> Okay. And out of all those employees, do how many of them take their work truck home with them?
>> Um, three of them, two to three of them take it home depending on the on the day. >> Okay. So, how many work vehicles will be on the property? >> Um, in the winter when we're closed, we have five five trucks and two trailers. And then see when the
>> right now there is three. >> Okay. >> And two trailers. >> Okay. And um how you already answer my question. How many trailers do you have? You have two. Two. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Um that's
that >> um how many how many uh workers um um uh work inside >> two >> the office two
>> inside >> and that's only during the spring and the summer and the fall >> all year round. >> They work all year round. So, so the maximum people working in the office would say three. The two people and you
>> I don't. >> Okay. >> But you have an office there. >> I do. >> Okay. >> So, we can say three. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the other >> um people that work for you?
>> 47. >> Where do they stay? They they just have a job and they just go from their house to the job site. Yeah. Or they stop in for their work orders. >> Are the other people? >> Yeah. >> No, >> the actual worker I mean the actual
sprinkler installers >> the installers that work locally are pick up the work orders from the office. Okay. >> The ones that work in Manaloken and Bayhead are all down the shore. We email them all their paperwork. >> Okay. So they'll be in the office
just to pick up their work orders for that day. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any now uh you've had an opportunity to work with uh Mr. Frasier um on the items
listed uh or the criteria. Um are you in agreement with those those checklist items? I think more I think what the chairman means is uh Miss Montavo you've seen an opportunity you had an opportunity to review the draft resolution which I provided to you
earlier today is uh recognizing that there are additions and additional testimony that's being provided this evening but that having been said is there any exception that you would take to the draft resolution that I provided to you earlier today
>> um the only exception that I would take is for if page four when it says no more than three of applicants vehicles shall be parked on the property since they do have a busy time. What was it? >> That's a that's a condition. >> Yeah, that's the only thing that would
>> but in terms of our recitation of the prior record and the testimony pri previously, you're in agreement that has been accurately reflected. >> Correct. Yes. >> And you do take an exception though to condition B on page four. Um C
>> see although okay two two is employees right it's a condition C that you think it should say five not three >> correct >> okay I understand >> and number B should be three
>> well on on the physical property >> yes >> three >> three okay >> but for his business >> no he's not he's not limited in any way to having off- premises employees >> yeah just people who actually
work in the building >> full time except for you. Except for >> Okay, Mr. Neistad, I'm sure you have some questions or commentary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Um I um I thank Mr. Montalvo for uh responding to the the questions. Um and I apologize to the board. Um you know, I kind of wrote out
what I wanted to say tonight in a certain format and it's not all questions. Some of it is commentary as you use the word. So, if I can just kind of start out with some commentary and then we can go forward, I I would appreciate that. >> Um,
I think three facts came out of the last hearing. Um, uh, the first two facts are that the proofs, in my opinion, in my opinion, the proofs for a certificate of nonconformity really don't exist. And they don't exist not because of failure
on your part, but because they don't exist. The bureau doesn't have them. Nobody has them. Um and the second fact is that the property has been used for commercial purposes for a long long time. Um now the burrow um has actually
resoneed this property and has expected it to be used for residential purposes since 1974. So I think those are three very important things to have in the in the back of our heads and these it's my opinion. Okay, the proofs aren't there.
Um but however it's be used for commercial purposes. I don't know when when were the green houses there. I mean that goes back even further than that. And like I say, it's been zoned residential. Um so going from that point, okay, um you know, if we were to
say no to this application, okay, you know, what would the applicants and Don if there's another option that I haven't thought of, let me know. But um what would the applicant's options be? the applicant would either have to vacate the site or have to submit an application for use variance
>> or do nothing >> or do nothing and perhaps be subject to enforcement by the bureau. Um, so in my opinion, um, I think a use variance would be worse and is my not my
or I think this board's intent to put somebody out of business when someone has been there for as long as perhaps not you, but these you should have been there. So um I've come to the conclusion okay
that um if this resolution um as I mentioned at the last meeting could be written in such a restrictive way that um it guaranteed that there be no expansion um
that perhaps uh it can continue. Um there were questions that I asked that were not answered, but but that's okay because um one of the key ones that I I would recommend um the applicant get the answer to to protect yourself, okay?
Is this um class 4A commercial um because you're not a class 4A commercial. You're coming in here tonight as an office use. So there's some contradiction there. So, um I would submit to you that you get that
resolved. Um because in in all sincerity and as your attorney has mentioned that the the predominant use of this property is storage, not office. So for your own protection, and I [clears throat] say this to you and your attorney, for your own
protection, okay, I think it might be a good idea to look into that because if and when you go to sell the property, you're going to be restricted to office use. it's not what you have today. So, you might want to get that resolved. All that being said, um
I think the best thing that that the board can do is to find out, okay, the I'm going to say most restrictive. I'm sure there'll be board members who have might be a little open to other things,
but since we don't have cos, we don't have anything that says there were two trailers or 10 trailers or uh you know, anything else to to say, um what I would have liked to have said to Don through our board of attorney uh
was, okay, is there anything that says, you know, and I'm making up these numbers, you know, were there eight vehicles on site? Were there four trucks? You know, what was there? We don't know. We only know what you use it for. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, I I I think
if, um, the board, not just me, but I think if we're going to do our due diligence on this, when there's a certificate of nonconformity, you know, we always go back to figure out what was the prior use. Was it a one family? Was it a two family? What was it? Well, here
we don't have that. Mhm. >> So I submit that we all sit here tonight uh we figure out total amount of office space, total number of trucks that we would like to permit on site. Um one of the
things that was not in Don's um reg recommended conditions is that little extra property. I'm sorry. I've been doing this for too long and please don't take this the wrong way. I've had too many people promise too many things and I'll come through. Um, and I would like
to see more than I'm not going to use it. Fence it off. Fence it off. Don't use it. Let the west take it back. Or really really what it should be in my opinion is that's the backyard of the property next door. My
opinion since you have 80% lot uh impervious coverage on your site that that asphalt be ripped out and returned to grass and the people who live there get a backyard. I mean, >> if he buying that bill, that's not a reasonable point.
>> No, though. What the reasonable point, Don, okay, is that you can fence it off. >> That part I didn't hear me say anything to, >> right? And and I'm just recommending that. Okay. And to your attorney, um I might say this wrong also, Don, but um the Westwood really had no right to do
that. I know they own both lots, but that's really the backyard of the property next door. Um, >> but that's not before us. >> I understand that. The other thing, u, Miss Montabo, as I mentioned to you prior to the meeting, again, this is for your for your client's sake. You might want to look to see get those records
updated, whether it's the tax assessor, whoever has to do that. [clears throat] Mr. Muns, I don't want to see you in the same position however many years from now, when you go to sell the property, your records still don't reflect anything. >> Zero.
>> Yeah. I think it's in your own best interest in the assessor's office. Again, I've worked with them a long long time. They can fill out forms. Perhaps there's no nothing on there now, but now they know a square footage for the office. Now they know other numbers that are
zero. You know, the the zone. Well, now they know the zone. Um and so I would recommend again to you and Mr. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we add uh two conditions then. Number one, that that
area be fenced off. Uh so there's a guarantee that it won't be used. >> Well, when you say the area be fenced off, Bill, do you mean that the applicant be required to install a fence along the property line? >> That is correct. >> On his property.
>> I'm not sure. I see the >> Well, that's that's his that's his >> No, it would be us to decide whether we want to >> whether he can another property that he doesn't own. >> You're you're asking us to put that into the resolution. That is correct. >> Right. And I'm I'm saying I don't see >> and I think that that's the only way to
go because otherwise I'm not pointing to this applicant. Okay. There's nothing to prevent >> him or someone else from the person's property is not part of this application. >> I don't care if it's fence. I don't care if it's Jersey barriers, but there
should be something put there to prevent the use expanding. >> I would just say in response to this, and I did have a conversation with Ms. Montavo about this this afternoon. Um, it occurs to me that the likelihood of the Westwood, who is the owner of that
additional parking lot, continuing to permissively allow Mr. MS who is now buying this property to use that extra pavement for free seems to be remote.
That having been said um and I don't know whether I I think condition Bill is suggesting is necessary or not. I don't think there's anything improper about the condition that Bill is is suggesting and I think it is within the board's purview if the
board wanted to do that that that would be proper to condition this on that but I don't know that it's necessary. I think that's a board discretionary [clears throat] >> correct. I agree it's it's permissible and and board discretionary.
My opinion is that it it's just not something I would include as part of this. Uh to me that's the onus is on the other property at that point. >> Can I ask a question? Go >> ahead.
>> So it's something that he might want to do for his own good, but I don't think it's something we would I would put in it. >> At this time I can ask the applicant um at this time. And what do you use that extra piece of property that's not
yours? I mean, that's not part of this application. >> You have a half a trailer on it because it's half in ours and come back there. And we have four or five rolls of pipe >> that we're just not using that came off a job. So that's what store >> and and so basically you don't really
use it for anything. >> Oh, somebody else has a boat back there that's not >> Oh, I don't care about that. >> So you don't you don't really need that piece of property basically what we're saying. And so making a determinate um making a determination that you would
not use that piece of property in the future and that could be a limitation um of this this resolution should we go forward. Uh you would be immenable to that. >> Yeah. I mean once I buy the property. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm that's what I'm getting at. Okay.
>> Once you >> Yeah. And I just want to I just want to reiterate a couple couple items um from my own perspective that you've been in business for 21 years now. Correct. Um >> but yeah in this on that property
premises and um you've been a good basically from basically a lack of of any um any documentation that says contrary. You've been a good a good uh home or um customer, good neighbor for
the lack of a better word. Yeah. >> And you plan to you plan to just maintain this. You're not looking to do anything specific right now in order to sell and and move forward as you had mentioned prior to this at the last
meeting. So, uh that's that one of the I need that clarification and you would have no problems as you and um Mr. Frasier had discussed on putting item by item by item um limiting any future um
business that might be on that that premises um from the what's existing right now. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um the other point I want to make with regard to I don't think offense
>> no >> is necessary. >> Yeah. um >> right >> as part of this >> uh resolution >> okay >> for the certificate of nonconformity is because um uh
>> is because uh because uh he doesn't own it or he will not own that piece of property if that piece of property which is in a um one family zone and it's and it's going to be used by
property owner, not by you, but by the property owner for something that is not part of the zone, which is a one family zone, then then it's that property owner's
responsibility um and and not yours. So I don't feel I I like I know that we have a difference of opinion up here um
but I don't feel it's necessary since that's not what what is before us and that lot two is a uh zoning enforcement matter not a planning board matter
>> and and I just want to add um if part of a condition of this approval. Um, if we can kind of tailor it to if the if the applicant was to ever sell his business in the future that a similar business a
similar uh sprinkler business limited to the exact same requirements here. I just don't want this to like alienate him from ever selling his business and getting it there. If it's in the same line, >> let me respond to that. Okay. As a
matter of law, the grant of the certificate of nonconformity runs with the land, not with the owner, and a use that would be consistent with his use would be
preserved. >> Okay. I just wanted to read that. >> And um as I was just discussing this matter with one of the board members um there's one specific word that I'm going to add to the draft resolution, Miss
Montavo, which I circulated which is uh on condition A on page 406 where it said there shall be no further expansion of the building slash ststructure. I'm adding in slash use
Okay. Which I think also um dovetales with what you were just saying that in the event that the board were to see fit to grant this certificate of nonconformity, it is to permit what's there and the use
that's there. So [clears throat] what I'm thinking and obviously nobody has made a motion but what I'm thinking is that taking the resolution which I circulated um paragraph A would read there shall be
no further expansion of the building structure use. Paragraph B is going to say no more than three employees shall work at the property. Paragraph C is going to say no more than five of applicants vehicles shall be parked on the property and/or Second Avenue. And
then anything else in terms [clears throat] of conditions that somebody might add has not yet occurred and that'll be subject to the board's pleasure. But that's what I'm foreseeing on this form of resolution.
And if I understand you, Miss Montava, there's no problem with any of that. Correct. >> All right, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, >> so Mr. Chairman, then I'll continue. >> Uh, go ahead, Bill. All right. >> Um, so, uh, three thoughts came out of
what everyone just said. The first one, Miss Montana, you said it right on the mark. Okay. And that is if the prop if you your client, uh, decides to sell the property. And that's one of the issues I've always had because I'm still a licensed certified zoning officer and I
can't tell you the stories about, you know, um what someone says, how someone says they can use their property versus what's written. And also [clears throat] I've every time I would instruct new board members on their role as being a zoning board or planning board member,
um I would tell them that you're supposed to have blinders on and that you're not supposed to look at people or the applicant. You're supposed to look at the piece of property. So I would encourage my fellow board members not to
I don't want this to sound bad. not to um just ask the applicant here, you know, about your expan propos expand I'm not he's not proposing about his use of the property or future use of the property 10 years down the road can be a
totally different applicant totally different person totally different owner this client might have sold the property three times be long gone it's [clears throat] been my experience and it's only 42 years worth that if there
isn't a physical barrier here to prevent someone from expanding, they'll expand. And we as sitting up here as a planning board member, you're saying this is a zoning issue. Yeah, it is a zoning issue. It's a zoning issue that hasn't
been enforced in over 50 in over 50 years. This is a residential zone. And I'd like to remind everyone anytime the planning board or zoning board has the opportunity to bring a property back into conformance with the master plan
and or zoning ordinance, that's our job. Our job isn't to find loopholes to allow someone to expand it to do something that isn't permitted by the ordinance. The ordinance permits residential uses here. It's up to us tonight to decide how much of a nonconformity
[clears throat] do we want to allow to continue on this property for the next 50 years. Once you grant a certificate of non-conformity, shaking your head, no, mayor, but a certificate of nonconformity continues forever. >> So, if you're going to say tonight we
like the applicant, he's been here 25 years, >> tomorrow it could be someone else who argument. So the second one is what I've written down here is the word Ulisses because for better or worse I was going to say that we don't know what tomorrow
will bring in terms of property owners and kind of kind of apppropo with the the movie I just watched because you never knew what tomorrow was going to bring. >> Okay, >> that being said, Mr. Chairman, if a motion were to be made or if board members uh were to agree, I would
recommend there be an additional >> um condition. I I just have a uh something to to inquire about that. And if if this this individual does not own that property, the property owner, I
would assume, um might have some issues if someone decides to purchase that property and start leaving things on that property. Um that might that might create a problem in its own right. um that
would be addressed from a perspective of enforcement by our own town. >> Mr. Sham, let's not forget it. The property owner signed off on this application and he's not here. He doesn't have any concerns. >> Mr. Chairman, [clears throat] >> can I can I maybe crystallize the issue?
>> Yes. It sounds that the only real issue or disagreement that there might be amongst members of the board may relate to this sole issue as to whether or not the applicant will
be required to install this fence >> or some barrier >> fence or some barrier. That sounds like that's really the only issue. My suggestion to the board, unless there is further testimony that anybody wishes to
elicit from the applicant and after the public has given been given an opportunity to weigh on this, my suggestion to the board that a an efficient way to proceed would be to take a straw poll of the board as to whether or not they agree with Mr. near
stats suggestion or proposal that a fence or some barrier should be required to be installed along the property line and then after there were a sense of the board established as to that point the side of the board which prevailed on
that question somebody might make a motion to approve either with or without that condition and that would be an efficient way of getting to the heart of the disagreement. Thank you, Donald. Well said. Um,
couple of things. Number one, has is everyone comfortable with having this document put in front right now without going through it individually or do you want to take some time to review it? >> No. What we should do, Mr. Chairman, is
first >> Hold on. >> Can I make another suggestion? Um, even though lot two is not part of this application and in keeping in mind what Bill said and what I said, what the mayor said,
would it be okay to have a condition just to add a condition even though lat two is not part of this application? Um just a basic
condition that no storage shall be put on lot two. >> Well, I think that actually not phrased that way, >> but but you understand what I'm saying. >> It could be a condition that the owner
of lot one shall not store any vehicles or property on lot two. That would be appropriate is That's >> and Mr. Chairman, let's be frank with ourselves. Who sees any of our resolutions? >> Right. But we're going back to having
the debate. >> I don't Right. But Kathy brought up another possible way to write it, >> right? But what >> and what I'm saying is that that I don't think that would work because nobody sees our resolutions. When properties get sold, nobody sees
them. Nobody looks at them. So I think the only way >> but the owner the the new owner of that property would have to know his his what his regulations and what his restrictions are. >> This debate will be this this debate
will be endless. >> This debate will be endless unless somebody has further questions of the applicant. My suggestion is that you invite comments or questions from members of the public. And my suggestion
would be that you then head on address this one issue that seems to be dividing the board. And in response to Kathy's question about the resolution, I suggest for the moment until we see what the board does that we hold in obeyance the question of whether this will be
memorialized this evening or not. >> Okay. >> We'll decide that before we leave tonight. But for the moment, let's hold that in oayance. >> Okay. And prior to that, I would just >> go ahead. two things. Um, hypothetically, if business gets very
busier, I know the limitation is five is what they have now and we have like a one. >> It's a, you know, it's a it's a situation of nonconformity. The testimony has been clear. If you ask for more, you're asking for an expansion. That's a use variance.
>> So, that's like no. wanted. That's also hypothetically um if the neighboring property was sold, I would assume that the neighbor would want the fence around their own yard, but that's just my opinion on that. >> I happen to agree with you, but that's
up to the neighbor. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there any other testimony for further test? Okay. At this time then what I will do um before we do do some discussion among ourselves um I'll open it up to the I'm sorry David you
have a >> yeah so um to to Don's point about maintaining the use I mean how restrictive it would that be in the future like if the property is sold it has to be a sprinkler company can it be a siding company that just stores
materials something similar >> and the answer to that I think is it could be similar But you want to have and and Mr. Ne is quite correct. You want to have the things that >> you know tie in or block in that it's not going to be an expansion. And the things that I was able to come up with
are the conditions that I addressed in the draft resolution. But to me the key ones are maximum number of employees, maximum number of vehicles, and that the property is not going to be used for client and customer meetings.
It's the back office. >> Yes. Yes. >> And that was why I wrote it the way that I did. >> Yeah. And I had I'm fine with the way you wrote it. You were introducing the maintain the use and that's I just want to be clear about that because you know somebody putting up signing on a house, it's to me that's the same kind of
property. >> I don't disagree with you. >> And and along those same lines, we were talking about the items that were listed in this document that that Mr. Frasier had had written in conjunction with the applicant. Um, is everyone comfortable
with what they have in front of them? And do they know what it what it pertains to on each individual item? And if not, just let me know. Now, >> you didn't finish on the record with the public. >> I I
I'll re Yeah, I'll reintroduce that. Um, but before we go that route, can we Is everyone comfortable with with the document that you have in front of it? >> Yes. >> Okay. The only question is we established tonight that the principal use of the property is storage. So I I
read this quickly. Is there some place on here? Does it talk about um storage? >> I don't believe the word storage is in the resolution bill. >> All right. Um since the principal use is not office, it is storage. I'm not sure where to put it. Maybe during the break I can think about where to put it. But
again, I think it protects your the >> applicant. I think Bill the place where it would go would go on page four right below the now therefore be a resolved >> and where it says the afor stated use of the subject property as a business/commercial use if you want to
add something like that with a principal component of storage or something like that might be appropriate >> and where is he saying on page four >> on page four of six directly below where it says now therefore be it resolved >> the first full paragraph after that where it says as a business/commercial
use if maybe we add in with a principal component of storage. >> Would that satisfy your concern? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> We want to be a little more specific like non-hazardous materials or you don't want someone storing gasoline
storage of non-hazardous materials. >> Good point. Okay. Um then at this time what I will do now is to uh officially open it up to um an invitation for the public to address this particular application.
Nope. Okay. Um I see no one in the audience uh that wants to address it. So discussion among our members. I think that the only um [clears throat] uh
the only open open item that we have um is the is the is to whether or not there should be a barrier between lot one and lot two on on that um whatever how many
feet that it's open. Um >> and we can take a straw poll on that. Yeah. Then and I and I made my opinion um here. Um so now it's
>> and I and I I'm in agreement. I personally >> but it doesn't matter. You know, I can go have my opinion, but I'll do whatever the board. >> All right. So, let's take let's ches let's just take a straw poll right now. Um, do we feel that it's necessary to
include the fact that there's going to there has to be a barrier between this property and an adjacent property that's not owned by this applicant um in order to um get this resolution uh resolved. Um, and I'll just I'll just ask for a
straw poll of hands. If anyone feels that that's necessary, please raise their hand. those who don't feel that it's not necessary. Okay. Um the straw pole details uh that
it's not necessary. So >> So then it would be appropriate for somebody to make a motion that was um based upon that stronghold. Um but I think we're still, Mr. chairman
contemplating that a condition will be that the owner of this property will not store materials or vehicles offsite on the other property. Right. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, if somebody wants to make the motion they do it, I'll be happy to state the
motion. May I u make that since I um that the uh that the uh property owner shall not store or put anything on lot two. >> I second it. >> So the motion I believe is as follows
Mr. chairman that this use of the subject property as a business commercial use with a principal component of storage of non-hazardous materials is hereby recognized to be a valid pre-existing non-conforming use and the applicant is
entitled to a certificate of nonconformity subject to the following conditions all of which have been expressly consented to by the applicant. A that there shall be no further expansion of the building structure and/or use. B, there should be no more than three employees that will work at
the property. Three, that there should be no more than five of applicants vehicles shall be parked on the property and/or on Second Avenue. B, that the property is not to be used for meetings with applicants customers, prospective customers, and/or members of the general
public, but rather only as a back office use for applicants sprinkler business. And E, this one's not written, so I'm going to say it. uh and e that the uh applicant or subsequent owner of the
property in question shall not store vehicles and or other materials on the neighboring property known as lot two. >> That's correct. >> So I think that is the
motion that somebody just made and that somebody just second it unless somebody wants to correct. So, we have a motion made by by our vice chair. We have a second by David. Um, and now we'll take a roll call, please.
>> Mayor Blumentock >> I. >> Mr. Arthur, >> I. >> Councilwoman Biano, >> I. >> Chair Greet, >> I. >> Miss Vagio, >> I. >> Mr. Neareststead, >> I. >> Miss Haye, >> I. >> And Mr. Buyers, >> I.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So this >> congratulations. >> The next item of business and I I would suggest that Mr. Chair, Ms. Montala be allowed to address the board on this subject. I know that it is the applicant's desire that this matter be
memorialized tonight. That is and we discussed this last time, but that is why we departed from our usual practice. And uh much as I hate to do anything before I'm last minute compelled to do so, I actually did prepare at least a
draft of a resolution in advance of this evening. Um, now we would have to fill in the additional testimony that we we got this evening, but really that only related to the change of the vehicles on
site and the change of the employees on site and the issue of this pavement section on lot two and some minor changes to the conditions. So,
it's ultimately the board's pleasure whether the board wants to accommodate the applicant or not. Miss Matavo is going to give you some reasons why they want you to do it. I don't really care. Um if we hand write and mark this up
certainly I my limited uh technological skills I will tomorrow be able to uh fix handwriting and give Adele a clean copy. Uh if people want to adopt this tonight if people don't want to that's okay as well. Um, but I think Miss Bontabo, in
fairness, because we did indicate last month that we might we might be able to do this, I think she should get 60 seconds to argue her position. >> My 60 seconds. Um, the applicant is uh waiting to close on this. And the longer
that waits, the longer um is more of the landlord tenant relationship. And we want to maintain that. And if we can get this clo adopted tonight, then they can close within 45 days of this and after the appeal period's over and we can
start ownership of the property and the landlord tenant relationship would terminate. That's what it's keying down to. So we would request that it would be adopted tonight if if the board so choose, but if not, we understand. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Do I see anyone from the board that has an objection to completing this uh resolution tonight? >> I don't have a objection. Um but but in order for I just want to make
sure that that we have everything in black and white before we >> Well, is blue okay >> here? [laughter] Take five minutes. Yeah, take five minutes. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Can we take five minutes before the
final? Um, >> yes. It's either that or you could do the next couple of things on the agenda while I'm writing. >> We don't have any. >> We don't have any on the to open it up to a public comment. >> Oh, [laughter] yeah. Ah, >> we have a Can we have a five minute uh
>> Yeah, we we'll take five. We'll take a five minute. Why don't we do this? Thank you. Okay. It's Happy. Okay, at this time we'll uh bring this meeting back to order. >> Chairman, uh as per our discussion, I have As per discussion, I have marked up the
resolution in pen. It is uh and I've u gone over those edits with Ms. Montalvo. uh they are acceptable to the applicant. I've also um you know confirmed with you that that's what we just did. So I think
that you and um Adele can go ahead and sign the resolution. Uh and then I'll neaten it up tomorrow with a typed version of the edits. >> Very good. >> Okay. With that, uh so the resolution carries. Yes.
>> Okay. That's that. >> Thank you. No, you've already voted to memorialize it. >> We voted. We voted on the action. >> Oh, you voted on the action. That's correct. Bill's bill was absolutely correct. >> Motion to approve the >> motion
and amend it, >> which I will I'll make that motion because I just said it. So, >> second motion. >> Okay. Favor. >> Uh, roll call, please. >> Mayor Blumentock. >> I. >> Mr. Arthur. >> Hi. >> Councilwoman Biano. >> I. >> Chair Greet. >> Hi, >> Miss Veagio. >> Hi,
>> Mr. Neareststead. >> Hi, >> Miss Haye. >> Mr. Buyers. >> Okay. Motion is memorialized. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, we'll move on and u open it up for an invitation to uh for the public to address the board.
>> He does. >> So, thank you for supporting Yeah. >> Hey, good evening, chair. Greet, ladies and gentlemen. Bruce Patterson, 325 Willow Avenue. >> Uh, somebody actually, you know, I didn't want to uh delay them anymore, but somebody actually did ask what was
there before the uh the green houses in the parking lot of the Westwood. and and actually I did a study uh since I was on the historic committee then and it was actually Britz Hall and it was a little carousel and a picnic grove stretching
from North Avenue over to Second and Brits Hall actually had a couple of bowling alleys in it. So >> Oh wow. >> Way back 1931. >> Wow. M >> Mr. Patterson, if I can ask, how did you find that out? Because you know this is not a knock because I could I didn't find it either.
How how does the because the applicant couldn't find it, the attorneys couldn't find it. How did how'd you find that? >> I I found it by research. I mean, >> I know where did you find the sandborn maps. I'm sure you're familiar with them. >> Uh the various other >> reference materials that I used. If you
want, I actually put together a study. Had to be about five, six years ago. I mean, if anybody really wants it, they can reach out to me. I can send it to them. And uh you know it actually gives the history of the um of that property all the way from back with the Brits
Hall all the way up to Westwood. So >> very interesting. >> So then it wasn't used as a home or anything or wasn't it was >> it was always used as something. >> Yeah. It was it was always a recreational facility.
>> Britz Hall that bowling alley. Uh drinking picnics. There was a little carousel even on the property. >> Okay. >> Later on, you know, as as the ownership Yeah. >> progressed, the Craig's green houses was there where the parking lot is now. So,
>> that was back in my >> Western Termite and >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. That that little that little piece of property there. I mean, I didn't go into that little piece of property. I went into the full property. Oh, >> okay. In the Westwood study, you know, how it evolved to be called Westwood.
>> I'm I'm actually here I I just decided to sit and tell you guys about that. Anyway, I'm here for a couple other items. Uh one is in is the uh affordable housing units. Uh the c the council actually backed on 625
uh passed an ordinance I mean a resolution uh 26-127 uh accepting the u present affordable housing units to be 80. And what resulted out of the uh lawsuit with the
paper board was an additional six. And I did come before the uh planning board and the council before and I asked I said what's happening with the other six. Finally I I sent a question into uh BA Arthur and he reached out to your planning board uh gentleman from harbor
Mr. B >> I think Mr. Balor responded to you. Yeah. >> Gabe Baylor responded. >> Yeah. Bail Mr. Ba. Okay. Anyway, but he responded. He did he did say yes we are over subscribed by six and that it really needs to be corrected down to the
80 that is approved. So at this point you're looking at some properties in the fourth round that really need to be adjusted downward and and the properties just you know the ACP on South Avenue Garwood Rest the North Avenue Mall and
the standard nipple properties that's what you have on round four. So, so something needs to be adjusted by six affordable housing units which is actually encompassing uh 30 units altogether. So, something needs to be adjusted down by 30 units.
The uh and you need to act soon only because the standard nipple and I don't know if you know that or not but back in 2022 the standard nipple property was actually bought for $3.8 $8 million by uh let's see I'll tell you who it was
like the Garwood Garwood North Avenue Holding Company. So now they own the Nipple Works and the Anchor Iron Building which is another historical building over there. But anyway, so they they own that and I don't know if they've approached the uh
developmental review committee yet about that. You know, you do have it on round four. So, if they're there, if they're coming to the planning board that and you want to decrease the units by 30 on that property, I suggest you do it as soon as possible and and of course
memorialize it and I guess fair share housing has to approve it also. Uh let's see what else in addition. Yeah, the developmental review committee, you know, where you look at the larger developments, uh that's normally closed to the public.
However, Rosel Park actually allows residents to sit in in in the developmental re review committee, and that would be most uh propitious for the public to actually see what may or may not be coming down the pike because normally after the development review
committee, everything except for say the facades and other minor items that the planning board gets into, everything is more or less written in stone. And uh it's really tough if the residents don't like it to fight it. So at least you need to give them a heads up by allowing
the public to sit in on these developmental review committees. I don't know how it comes about in allowing that, whether it's the planning board and the council having to approve u that action. Yeah, the the paper board I you know I'm
not too excited about the paper board. You know, they now have a lot of units over 212 I think units on that. And I'll tell you when they sued us and in the right before the deadline of of when everything was going to be approved by the state for our fair share
housing plan and then they sued us. At that point, in my opinion, they lost the chance to actually look for an additional 30-year pilot uh agreement for offsetting whatever the cost. When they sued us, that showed you what kind
of of neighbor they really are. And I don't think we should be actually even thinking about giving them a 30-year pilot uh based on I guess it's the revenue. NW Financial put together something. And we did have a >> I know we had the we had the presentation at the
>> Yeah. And and I'll tell you right now, NW Financial has never met a 30-year pilot they didn't like. Okay. They they stick to the to all the towns that and I suggest we don't go that direction. Uh Cranford and Famwood's actually giving out fiveyear pilot.
>> Okay. you know, maybe you should reach out and find out how they are able to do it where our hands are tied for some reason or other. Do a 30-year pilot. I wrote a letter to the Westfield leader one time saying, you know, we not only have a 30-year pilot based on uh revenue
coming into the uh apartment, the high density apartment complex, but there's also a a way of developing a 30-year pilot of 2% construction cost that I've mentioned before. It's not here. I mentioned at the uh at the um >> okay
>> council before. So you actually have the possibility for a pilot based on 2% of the construction cost complex and that actually picks up not only the apartment buildings that are in the high density but it also picks up the lobbies which
they tend to like have you know glorify these large lobbies, working areas, um meeting rooms, workout rooms. See that doesn't garner any revenue and therefore the pilot based on revenue. We don't make any money on that. >> Okay. All right.
>> Okay. If you do 2% >> are you even aware? You know I'm not here to argue anybody but it's it's in the DCA handbook page eight talks about the different types of pilots. >> Okay. Right. >> Well, we don't do pilots. you know, get
involved in the financing it up because something needs to be addressed soon. >> I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. >> All right. Is that it, Bruce? >> Thank you. That's >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Yes, I know.
Well, let me rephrase this. >> No. >> No. Yes. Yes. I need to ask. Um, [laughter] >> no. No. No, I think we do because as planning board, correct me if I'm wrong, but we had put forth what Mr. Patterson just talked about regarding um
we were trying to actually plan ourselves in terms of where we would like to have additional apartments. This is before paperboard's application came in and we were trying to preemptively figure out before the state or before
paperboard came in and said I'm putting in 50 units. We were trying to say okay what other properties could be developed for apartments and how many affordable units could we fit there would reduce the number of units actually being put on paperboard.
I guess my question is I know what Mr. Pison is saying in terms of repealing or amending the I think it was the ordinance that the council adopted. But I don't think we should. I think it's better for us if we actually leave that
out there. Um and those property owners know that they can get affordable housing or I shouldn't say they know they can get but they know that the planning board has discussed a possibility of putting affordable housing on those units down the road. And I'm just laying this out there. I don't expect it and I don't want to hear
anybody laughing, but you know, if our affordable housing, some of our affordable housing units are going to be met on some of these other properties, then we could say to paperboard, uh, we don't need a making up the number, you know, 185 units on your property to
satisfy a COA. Just put that out there for thought. That's it, Mr. Ch. Everybody catch on to what I'm saying. I I don't know either. I don't know either, but I I think it's an interesting thought. It's an interesting thought because if we can satisfy
affordable housing obligations elsewhere, then maybe we entered into a >> le No, I understand that, but I just wanted Mr. Patterson recommended the council, you know, appeal. And I think >> I'm just going to counsel the board not to be sitting here engaging in idle
speculation about undermining a legally binding settlement. Mr. Thank you chairman and nobody was >> okay [snorts] with that. Would you like to make an a motion to >> journ? Sure. I'll make that motion to all those in favor. >> I
>> I opposed hearing none. We're journed. Thank you. No, that's an interesting