This meeting is called to order in accordance with the open public meeting act. Notice of this meeting was provided to the home news tribune the star ledger the Highland Park Planet on January 7, 2026 and was posted on borrow website at
www.hpbar.com hborrower.com and on the bulletin board at 221 South 6th Avenue, South Fifth Avenue on Highland Park and has remained continuously posted as required by law. Fire edges are to my right and left of council chambers.
Can you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? >> I aliance 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. >> Welcome, Mayor Foster. >> Yes. >> Council member George. Council member Hail >> here. >> Council member Hirs >> here. Council President Kim Shawan, Council Member Bonik >> here,
>> Council Member Vargas, Brow Attorney Ron >> here, >> Brow Administrator Hair >> here, >> planner >> here. Um discussion items tonight is the upper Ritan road diet phase two Cleveland
Avenue redevelopment plan so adjacent property redevelopment plan ordinance prohibiting tobacco display. No formal action will be taken. We are going to talk about um a parality
>> mayor. Thanks. >> Both of us. >> I guess it's both of us. >> But at the mayor's strong encouragement, I reached out to our government liaison at DOT. You know, we implemented what we're calling loosely the first phase of the road diet, which was essentially the
work in between the cur the curbs uh on the surface of the roadway where we established a single lane direction with a turn center turn lane and bike lanes on either side. Um the so we wanted to find out kind of where we are on the
rest because the additional part is um from the curb to the extent of the DOT right of way um which would include driveways uh ADA curb cuts any additional crossings um
>> signage >> signage um etc. Um, so >> we're even I'm even pushing for a light. >> Well, you and many of ours >> an additional light. I I I strongly suspect that'll be phase seven of this
project, but I don't disagree with the spirit of it. Um, but as far as the existing, so basically what what they'd be doing is uh bringing up to ADA standards all the corners. Um, looking at all the individual driveway curb
cuts, of which there are many. um shrinking them if possible, but certainly, you know, trying to to kind of rectify some of some of the pedestrian experience as well as the signage on the road. Um unfortunately, that phase is going to
take longer and there is some good reason for it. I know this just from my limited experience on the Woodbridge Avenue project. Um they have to get right of entry agreements for pretty much all the private properties of which there are many small private properties along the way and they have a lot more
engineering work to do with respect to surveying and right away and and so forth because they're going to be redoing sidewalks and all and and it's hardcaping as opposed to stripe you know asphalt and striping. So, it is a lot more. I mean, it is disappointing, but I'm just reading from the last
communication that I got. Um, we're essentially um uh it's we are still in the concept development phase for that portion of project. These are terms that the DOT uses. Um the next thing will be
a road diet maintenance work order that once finished will be reconvening all of their experts to review that plan and that work order. Um and that's internal to DOT. That's what they're referring to. Once it graduates from the concept
development phase, uh there will be a consultant. the design phase will begin, but they're going to select a consultant to do that design work. So, we're still in the conceptual within the DOT staff and then they'll bring on a a an engineering firm
that will do the actual design that will get implemented. Um, so let me just cut to the chase. Basically, preliminary design phase will complete by spring of 2028. Okay? and that completion for finals
design projected for spring 2013. >> So obviously we can have a conversation. We have new folks in in the DOT now that than when we first got this project approved. Um and actually that was also an intern we had several commissioners
we've been dealing with over the years. But just to get a reality check this that phase of the project even if with significant advocacy on our part is going to take some time. What I will leave you uh before we go I want to share a really nice anecdote I learned.
Uh, I I visited the mayor's teen advisory committee. Um, and I got lots of questions about things we don't control, like Route 27 and Woodbridge Avenue. But one of the teens asked me about who's responsible for snow plowing on there. And he was asking because he
was disappointed that they didn't plow all the way to the curb because he rides his bike to school at the high school almost every day on our new road diet. And he said how much better it is. And I will share with you um I was in a meeting with a bunch of the realtors uh
for our looking at the zoning in the downtown district and and there's a realtor who is in Edison lives in upper in outer highland Park in that part of Edison and she was say ausive about how much better. So I'm starting to hear as people get used to it I'm getting some
good feedback on the roadway. So, I just thought I'd share that and enjoy that victory while we have to kind of deal with this somewhat disappointing information about the next phase of the project. So, we'll certainly follow up, but I just wanted to, you know, I know
the mayor wanted everybody to be on real about how long it might take to get the remainder of the project uh complete. Um, but we're in the pipeline. I'm planning to have a meeting with the new commissioner and to, you know, keep us
keep us keep us in Highland Park at the forefront of their consideration. So, if there's anything that can be moved quicker, they they keep us in mind and just every once in a while send a little note just saying, "Hey, we're still here. We're still waiting. Let's, you
know, see if we can move up in the pipeline." But I think 2028, but we can hope, we can dream. Technolog is moving along, so maybe technology may get caught up with the state and we can get something done sooner. I also had a meeting last week with someone who does
not live in Highland Park, but drive through Highland Park a lot. And they were raving about the new patterns. They absolutely love it. They said they have to drive through Highland Park and it's the best thing that we've ever did. So, I'm getting a lot of good feedback now >> on what we did in the upper rarity, the
road diet. So, I'll keep everyone up to date. I probably put a little blurb out about where we are in the phases and just so people know because that's going to be a question. Council member H. >> I'm just anticipating another question since it's in the concept phase for the end part.
>> Is there plan to produce a concept design at some point to release to the public to have the com like they did comments? >> I'll find out. I don't know if we have to do an information session like we did >> before or they if that's checked off because I think that was a pretty high
level one and it included >> all of it and so I don't think they're going to they they think that that's required at this point we could if we think it's important we could see about something we could request >> it would be 2035
>> exactly I was you know I think we will certainly >> that's what I want to be friends with as commissioner is as we get the stuff, we're going to be involved, I'm sure, in those kind of plans and I'm sure they will share them with us and we can share them >> internally or and externally um as
appropriate. Again, I think they're going to be very technical. Yes. >> You know, we're not talking about should we have a center turn. It's going to be like how many feet over and what angle because the ADA crossings, right? the, you know, you you have to make sure you have a certain, you might have to go
back five squares of sidewalk to get the ramp, you know, dimension you need and and the angles you need. It's stuff like that. It's a pretty it will be very important to some of those property owners. But I think they're going to be through those right of way and right of access agreements. That's how we'll have those conversations with those property
owners um to discuss issues as they come up. I know we had concerns about some sighteline issues, so maybe that's where we could >> address those. We had spoken about that before >> if there's something in the way but again I think that's why it's it's timeconuming because you got to go unless like the road they can go okay
here's how the stripes are going to work >> they're going to have to go property by property to figure out you know what's got to change to make it compliant with current regulations. So it's going to take time but aren't we glad we pushed for that expedited implementation because it might have been waiting till
2030 to get our just get the paint on the road. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Council member Berg. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, first of all, I do appreciate that there was a lot of advocacy done to move up that first phase because I also drive through there quite a bit and I see the difference and
I appreciate it. >> Oh, that's great to hear. >> So, I really appreciate it. Um, have we had any feedback as to um whether there have been any incidents or anything? Because I know that was part of why we're doing this. Have we had any >> since Yeah. Since this phase one, have
we had like any >> I can follow up with the chief and see if there's any incident that happen. >> Mostly been anecdotal, but that's a good question. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's >> I think it's great. I mean, >> and certainly maybe with a year, you know, we certainly want to look back with a decent amount. >> Yeah, it would be nice to compare just so at least to show the public that
look, I know it's phase two is a long way from now, but phase one has really helped. >> That's a great idea. >> Wow, that's that's a great >> to keep everybody. Um, any other questions on this? We'll try to put something out and keep everybody posted as much as we can as it
as the plan changes or grow or we get more good news. >> And I'll iron out that timeline a little more for you so you can because I was reading that out loud. I'm like, what? >> Thought I knew what it meant. >> Look, it took 12 years to get the light
done coming into town on Duplo Lane. Okay. 12 years. >> That was my project. 12 years. And used to be an accident at least twice a week or three times a week. There was an accident right there. It paid off.
>> All righty. Next one. We're going to go. Any other more questions? >> No. Okay. We hop over to Cleveland Avenue redevelopment plan. So yes, this might sound familiar because in fact the Burough Council, I can't think almost three year plus years ago, authorized us
to begin work on a redevelopment plan for Cleveland Avenue. That uh plan was authorized from a budget that goes back two years. So the money can't be touched. You know, it's one of those rules with finance. So we've been discussing picking that plan back up.
Um, as a reminder, um, the parcels we're be looking at are basically, uh, Chris, help me out. This, what's the best way to say basically from across the street from American properties where the last of those single family homes was put in
all the way down to the end of Cleveland Avenue as well as on the other side picking up from American properties to the end of Cleveland Avenue and taking a look at it. But Chris, I mean, you put the proposal together, so maybe you could just walk through kind of the scope that we were looking to do and and
and just kind of remind everybody and see if we have any questions. Sure. >> Um, I'll start with the location first. Correct. So, on the south side, it will be basically the the vacant lots u straddling the catwalk all the way to the chocolate factory across the street of Madison including
the house and then the remaining properties all the way to the end is called sack. And on the north side, it's basically the office buildings sort of in front of the heritage at Holland Park American properties and up to the girls sort of anything that has been touched
for the past 10 to 15 years. Um I think we're mainly looking at this as a resoning strategy uh since there's really no concept plan that's developer driven uh which is the same thing we said five years ago. um because obviously we've been focusing most of
our efforts downtown. Uh but I think time is right and we've gotten some feedback about what the permitted uses well some feedback for concept plans and this proposal would include uh a bucket for us to kind of test out see what looks and feels right as well as a uh a
neighborhood or a community meeting. something we still need to flesh out, but the there's a bucket set aside for community meeting before we dive into the plan. Um, do we want to get into the types of uses? >> No, I think I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware. We were going to
look to get this authorized at an upcoming council meeting. So, I just want to >> And then um Norma wasn't here when this phase was going through. So, that's why I thought it was important that we do a refresher and bring everybody up to speed so you have an opportunity. >> And we are going to look at >> Jason, you were here. >> No, Jeff was here. He was here.
>> Jason was here. >> Yeah, it was first year. >> Because it's like three years ago. >> Yeah. And so it's gonna seem like where is this coming from? It's actually a a moldy idea that we're finally kind of get to because >> we think that there's it's there's some
we know there's some zoning conflicts in that area. Um we've heard from for example burn chocolate is not a permitted use in that zone where it is. So we certainly we don't have a problem with that. So we want to write, you know, those kind of problems as well as
try to anticipate if there was going to be change specifically on the large properties nearby, what kind of uses we'd want to entertain, uh, including the potential for residential uses over there. Um, so we'll be exploring that. We'll have community outreach uh once
we've kind of got a kind of a concept to share um that we're all comfortable with. Um, and then we'll refine it and hopefully get this one over the finish line this calendar year. >> Any questions? >> Just I It seems like yesterday that we
did this, so this is all really cool, but I guess like what what are we anticipating at this point? If it's just kind of a zoning, you know, strategy, are we anticipating? I mean I I mean obviously we want zoning uniformity but is there
trying to say >> what kind of permitted use you would like to say >> permitted well no permitted uses but are we anticipating future development that you know we're we're wor you know that that that we want to make sure is contoured to to to new zoning or trying to ask
>> I think um when the former mayor was here she was there was a idea that they wanted us to have like a mixed use with some um office spaces. >> Yeah, >> I think um where we are in today's
society, a lot of not a lot of need for office spaces. I don't think it would do us a lot of good to create a lot of office spaces in that area. It seemed it's gearing towards more residential and maybe maybe have residential maybe a
cafe or something where people have more >> some small retail that >> small retail would service that growing community over there but um I don't think at this point that office spaces are the thing that attracts people right now especially when so many people work
from home especially when AI is taking over everybody's job. >> Okay. Um, one of the things that we had thrown out possibilities is is um uh uh things like like um destination places
or educational places. So like a a testing center for Kuman or you know or something that would bring people from the neighborhood in along with some residential. So, um, you know, a a like a a afterchool tutoring program for kids
or some educational um supplements that could be offered over there. Um, we thought that might be something that could be attractive along with with retail. Um, but again, I think the goal of getting the blocks in place is to try
and have a as much flexibility as we can to attract what is available. And so, not just locking it into office space, which as the mayor said was sort of the original idea to try and have it a little bit more expansive about some of the possibilities that could be there so we could test the market to see what
might be out there. >> Thank you. and we'd be reaching out to key property owners in the area. The large property that we've we've that is kind of probably our largest property owned by
one entity had some conversations. >> We've already had conversations with them. We want to reach out again to burn to hear about their experiences to make sure if there's uses that >> may be appealing that aren't currently permitted that similar to what we're
doing in the commercial, right? >> Uh and and CBD zones do a similar kind of uh assessment because we wouldn't want, you know, if we we know they're looking to retire, so we want to make something successful happen there. So, we want to learn from their experience,
you know, in that space. Um so we'll be they'll be an important stakeholder so as we build the the recommendations >> you know they they they expressed to us that they've been here over a hundred years today definitely want to be a part
of some kind of process that >> yeah I'll just add that um >> when we talk about the non-residential uses it be probably more in tune to like a corner store really concentrated to a node so it serves the local neighborhood. And I know we did talk about some sort of really small u green
spaces that neighborhoods used to be park start. >> Yes. >> Um and then I know we heard from the public about the desire for >> um housing that's for sale >> and that might influence some of the housing types that we would
>> Yeah. We can't well we can't say it has to be for sale units. We might try to encourage housing types that tend to be that. Um, so those are all things that are in the hopper. Um, but again, it's not it's going to be as prescriptive as much as it's like here's these are the
kinds of things we'd be open to um, in that area. So, fortunately, Chris did a lot of work under the previous contract. So, a lot of the analysis and what's already there has been done. So, it's really going to be honing in on what what our vision is for for the the
remainder of that corridor >> in light of the fact of the change that's happened there over the last you know 10 years 10 15 years. >> Yeah. >> And I think the biggest changes since we started doing that work is school >> and then the uh ambulatory business is
now seven single family homes. That's where the biggest change to clean >> as well as the sidewalk improvements. >> Yes. Any questions? Okay. All right. We go move on to the next one for Nelco and adjacent
properties. Well, this one's exciting. Um, as you all will require recall, we did an area in need of redevelopment with condemnation study for the Sonokco, the property along North uh South Second,
excuse me, otherwise known as BB. we all call um as well as the two houses next to the snow co which was actually what we call uh track B in our downtown redevelopment plan. >> Um the purpose being to try to encourage
uh a consolidated redevelopment because those three properties alone have a lot of challenges but together we we had started studying kind of what could they do together. Uh so now having done the study last year, we would like to
authorize the creation of a redevelopment plan that would kind of set forth a vision for what we would like to happen there. Um the one thing we wanted to talk about and it's kind of looking at the Chris's proposal for the
um plan kind of the elephant in the room for lack of a better term was the two properties uh next to um uh the track B properties right along Ritton. One of which is the Highland Park Service Center um and then the the house that
also has Marray restaurant. The question became, should we include that in our redevelopment plan? Again, I'm not talking about an area need with condemnation study. I'm just talking about a study of the planning options that might make sense uh to include
those two properties. The primary reason being the service center with all those parked cars and kind of the kind of how it touches Park Place right at where these other properties >> that to not at least look at what the
planning framework might be. Um, we wanted to make that Chris and I are making that recommendation that we include those properties in the plan uh just so that we have some identified some alternatives should those properties change ownership in the
future um and a redevelopment be possible. Um, mayor, do you want to talk about our meeting? Yes, in the interim we met with Amoray Venezuelan restaurant because if we're going to have a conversation, I strongly believe that he
should be in the conversation, not on the menu, but >> at the table. >> Nice play on words. >> So, Terry and I went with him um >> about two weeks ago. >> Few weeks ago.
>> Pre- snow. Yeah, Priest Snow. Oh my god, memories are so bad. Yeah, Priest Snow, it so happens that he's a contractor, >> an architect >> and an architect, I should say, and he works in Jersey City on those big projects that they have over there. And
he understood immediately what's what's happening, why the why we needed was to have the conversation. And we wanted to let him know that although the I call them the LLC boys are doing that piece and it's in need of
cond in it's area need of cond. we wanted was to have a conversation with him and to see what any thoughts plans that he may have because one of the things we don't want to take a beloved institution and and lose that and there would be a lot of moving pieces if he
stays and where would he go and does he come back would he lose clientele there's all these other questions that that percolated to the surface so we had a conversation with him he's aware of what we are trying to accomplish he
understands it because he's that's his line of work, too. So, um I think whatever decisions that's going to be he's going to explore opportunities. He can't afford to buy the property now, but he was going to have some um conversation with the owner to see where
the how they could work something out if that's a possibility or if not then he would try something but he doesn't have the cash to come up with making the purchase for the property. But we want to keep him in the conversation at all
times. And before anyone says we're putting them out, we wanted to let you guys know we did have a very very good meeting with him and you know you understand what the goals and what we're trying to do and we always want to have him at the at the table have a part of
the conversation decision making as we move forward. So that's, you know, again, we have a proposal drafted from LRK and Chris and we'd like to at a future meeting get authorization to move ahead, but we're
recommending and it's a little different than we initially thought that we at least study. We might also consider alternatives where the corner is one project and the the other ones, you know, there might be some some other scenarios that we can kind of put forward in the plan so it's not just all
or nothing. Um and and that we've done that before um you know in other studies that we've done. So I could see something like that similar um because agree we also don't want something so big that nothing happens. Uh, so it'd be nice to be able to at least take that
get that corner, which is the primary um goal is get those vacant properties, >> yes, >> put into good use in our town u in a prominent location right next to our first probably large scale redevelopment on track. Like there's
>> we just complement that that part of the project. just get but we got to get we got to start with the plan uh because and then we can we can negotiate from there with the the parties involved. >> Any questions? >> Is it um also including the me too the
boho shop and >> we're proposing kind of stopping where where the kosher there's the new kosher grill uh uh that was put in and renovated recently and the reason mainly being is that there's this kind of strange access easement in the back that
ties into Park Place and we've gotten complaints over the years about how that works and so we think it kind of makes sense as a package. Believe you me, there's plenty of work to be done as you head closer to New Brunswick on that same block. So I'm by no means picking
on any one particular set of property, but since we were looking we were so focused on the >> the adjacent, it just seems like we might be being a little short. I think we think about if those properties were to change, what would we want to encourage?
Um, again, you know, >> I wish Marray was in some other location because none of us want >> Yeah, none of us, but but Renee understands it, too, you know, and he he he definitely understand. We're going to do a followup with him and conversation
because with you guys first and then we can go back and have another conversation with him as to where did he find did he shake anything or you know what's going on and just have a quick followup with him again. >> I I that's great that you had those
those meetings. I think having him in the conversation is not just important for moving forward. It's also letting whatever happens there know that this is important to us as well. I think that's important. And then just as Terry said that this section of it is without condemnation power. So it's not that
we're >> taking anything you know along with our clients. And I think again >> if we didn't do this we'd have a donor hole problem which we have in other places. And so I think this is a good strategy to to take it out that way. >> And he understood it because he he
analyzed it. He's like it's like baking a cake. And I was like, I never thought, he said, when you have we're baking a cake, you make all the ingredients. Small cake, big cake, it's like baking a cake. You got to do the same ingredients. And he went through the process. And I was like, okay, I got in there. But the important thing is that
we're having the conversation with him. He understand the concept. They've worked hard on build on building the business there. It's very successful. We don't want them to get hurt in any whatever whatever decision is made. We want them to remain here in town and continue to be a success.
And and the the last thing I would just mention, if you don't mind, is that, you know, the property owner could just sell the property any day, and we'd rather have a little more of a vision for what it might become. So, yeah, you know, any
um All right. So, you'll see that. Oh, sorry. >> Oh, >> I saw your hand up. I wasn't sure. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, if you were midpoint. >> No, I was just bad. Oh, you saved me. Well, I was just going to say something that I continue to hear pretty regularly is what an eyes sore in Oko is. So,
anything that we can do to move it forward, I think is helpful. And I think because it is such a valued business, one that I personally love myself, um that we're doing this outreach to, you know, try to know, not that it's necessarily going to even come to it, but if it does, like we've, you know, done everything we can proactively to
maybe help retain them in town in some shape or form. Um so but >> absolutely >> don't get ahead of myself but just to reemphasize the point that um this is still I think on a lot of people's minds is like something that truly needs improving in their downtown. Oh but one
question that I did have was if it if it does come to them needing to relocate is there's relocation assistance that can be provided as part of redevelopment plan. I believe that would be something >> required like that that those number >> provides for but you know again it's not
without it challenges but yeah >> and and after we had this initial conversation tonight we said that we would follow up we're not going to just have this one off we'll follow up and see what any any conversation that he had had that could help him or us in the
process so we're going to do another followup with Any additional questions? >> Yes. I just have a comment. just um I know we want to include that that property the lie but my per my liar's my
personal preference would be just whatever we can get done now like if it's a smaller project instead of taking like Jason mentioned um it's it's very important for us to just get something done there as soon as possible even if
it's smaller than taking up the you know what I mean like instead of >> and the plan doesn't preclude that way. Maybe we didn't explain that. >> Yeah. So, the but the idea would be, >> let's put it this way. Is it conceivable that those three partners would want to
purchase that property of their own, which they're entitled to in the public? Yeah. So, if they did, >> wouldn't we want to know how that should all come together? Or, you know, >> what if the property owner wants to redevelop? We want the two things to relate and and
just because they're I mean they are right on top of each other. The edge of the one property and the other are right on top of each other. I just think we're going to wish we had at least studied it, you know, so that we had an idea of what we what would be feasible and the neighbors too because we're going to be
we had a lot of engaged neighbors when we first talked about and I think they're going to want to talk about that and how that might all work. So better to have that in a bigger cont, you know, have a bigger context. But I am 100% I would I know there are ways to develop it because we studied it enough without
those properties. Um but I just feel like we would just be having the whole conversation again in three years >> go wishing we had thought about it in a bigger context. So that's just that's where I landed and that's why we wanted to make that recommendation to you guys.
>> Um >> thank you. >> Okay. All righty. And now we go to tobacco prohibity. >> First slide.
>> Okay. So, uh, thank you for putting this on the agenda for tonight. This was, um, uh, an issue that I've been discussing with the board of health and one that they were interested in pursuing. But the bottom line here and it's something that's relatively straightforward is that we just wanted to limit the dis generally prohibit the display of
tobacco products and electronic smoking device products. Um and just being in the exterior window of the business so as to so that's not too heavily promoted. It's certainly you know a health concern. Um there's also concerns that you know placing all those kinds of objects in a window that's readily
visible by everyone including children it could make them a little bit more interested and it um you know draws paraphernalia kind of stuff too >> paraphernalia in particular uh something that might catch children's eyes and you know certainly it's a matter of public health we don't want to um you know it's
better to tamp down promotion of uh smoking for obvious health reasons. So that is what we're looking to do here. This ordinance is very simply says that certainly, you know, businesses are welcome to sell these products in town, but maybe just don't have it all up in
the front window for the whole to be displayed for the entire public to see. Um, that's really it in a nutshell. >> Any questions? >> I don't think there's anything else to this draft ordinance that missing. >> And you do have I apologize. Right. It's
send quickly enough on the draft, but the you have a it's pretty it's a one pager pretty much. So hopefully it's pretty self-explanatory, >> right? And we've discussed this ordinance at both the health and human services committee and economic development committees and everyone's even on board with the general. >> Okay. So it came out of all the committees.
>> It came out both committees. >> People were generally supportive. >> Any questions? >> Final answer, right? >> Did it go to finance? Oh, I wasn't there for that. >> Final. >> No, that was his committee. That was your Oh, that was your committee.
>> The the disorderly conduct. Uh I assume there's a attached fine to that. Is that something that would be in an ordinance or is that something >> Well, that's certainly more of an errand question, but I do feel like this looks like this was adding on to a list of existing um sort of uh prohibitions. So
this would just attach to the sort of normal penalties that apply to this grouping of >> Yeah. The the answer to that question, I know it's going to sound kind of strange, is where the it was currently in the code was in chapter 165 disorderly conduct and article three under that is the retail sale of tobacco
and electronic smoking devices. >> So it why it was placed there initially, I I I can't quite answer to that. We we edited the article where it was. Um, and so the only thing we we really did is we we created a new uh 165-10 and then we
just we edited, you know, the old 16510 was the violations and penalties and then enforcement. So we just move those down. Okay. >> We just kind of let it stay where it was. >> So there are existing penalties there. It's nice. Yeah. There's actually money attached to it. >> Yeah. If you go so for a lot of the
items in your code, you go to chapter one, article 3 is a generic set of enforcement and that that gives you that range of, you know, a fine not to, you know, a minimum of $250 or whatever it is that kind of outlines it. Most of your code routes back to the same violation section.
>> Hope that answers the question. >> It did. >> Question. I'm I'm sorry, m I I didn't I didn't I haven't seen the uh the journal yet. Um, but uh what types of I guess what and I think this is this came up in your committee too is that is that what
what types of products are we talking about as far as display? Are we looking at the cannabis retail model where it's where where where where they have to have a you know kind of a visible entrance before you actually get to the product showroom floor or I guess what
types of products are um some of these retailers allowed to do because in in many cases the the glassear is is an art that you know some people find valuable and you know and displayable. So I just kind of I think that's that's you know along the lines
of what I was thinking like what would would they be able to would it be limited to basically what we see from from the cannabis retailer? >> So effectively the way >> you can't see anything from the cannabis retailer because it's all covered. >> Well that's right because that's the law. >> Yeah I'm saying this effectively says if you're standing on the exterior of the building and you look in you shouldn't
be able to see any and the window. >> Yeah. No tobacco products paraphernalia electronics like you should be able to see them from the window when you're standing on the outside. Um, I'm not not naive, so I if somebody goes and they press their face up against the window and they look inside the store,
they're going to see at some point something, right? I mean, there's going to be a pack of cigarettes somewhere, whatever. We're not going to I don't the intention isn't to police that kind of activity. I think it's just when you're coming down generically, you're not seeing, you know, everything from, you know, ecigarettes and and
>> I get the big old bang as the kind of colloquial aspect of it, but I'm just saying it's like the law. So, you're saying it's art? >> Well, no. I'm saying I'm saying the law requires that you could can't see the state law requires that you can't see cannabis products sold in state approved cannabis retailers, but bongs are not
illegal and glasswware is not illegal. And that's kind of what I'm trying to contend with. >> This will probably fall under the that those would fall under the paraphernalia inevitably. >> Yeah. So, >> so who does stuff? Yeah. So, that's all the things that they display.
stuff. >> Um, two things. One, one, I think the organization >> was it was the idea and maybe maybe we have to think about language that maybe articulates this point a little better
was the idea that the the window would just be basically paraphernalia display because you do see that in some of these shops, not all. Then there's other ones that don't do that. Um because a lot of them, they may be artistic, but a lot of
them are often like I saw one, it was like a Baby Yoda that, you know, clearly is kind of a kid-friendly, you know, and they're not all that way. You're right. Some of them are just like really intricate, you know, um glass designs. So, the thought was getting it out of
that kind of right in your face front window. I don't think at least in my conversations the intention was to have the level of screen that the cannabis businesses have to but I don't know if that's going to be too hard to enforce to your point. So something to think
about. But the one thing we did take out of this draft that was based on your I believe the conversation at the health and human was that advertising displays were initially included and that was removed because those would have had to you know if it was like I keep using
like jewel as the like you know I see those ads in windows those meet federal guidelines not to market to children. Uh and so that the idea is those have already been kind of screened these formal advertis. So that is not in this draft which is the only change since the
one that the human looked at. Um but I don't know Erin if if you know I had your similar practical view of how this was. It was just like it shouldn't just be a shelf with a bunch of paraphernalia on it as the window display. But I don't want to get into these things while I
could see it when I turned around the corner. Like I don't want Scott having to navigate, you know, our code enforcement having to navigate that question. So I want to make sure it was, you know, okay, >> manageable. >> Before you ask your question, you said
this went through committees, right? >> Yes. >> None of these questions came up in committee. >> Some of we they were debated. So we we discussed it but I think we still we decided in health and human services with respect to just uh there was originally language in here that would ban advertising of these kinds of
products and we decided maybe that was going a bit too far and that wasn't necessary. So we we we pulled that out, but that beyond that that we were still generally satisfied if you know maybe not I'll be perfect in everyone's mind but I think we're okay with moving it forward but let me know if I have that
wrong or at least the majority of the committees and both. >> No, we all agree. Yeah, we all agreed to >> Oh, you're on the committee, too? >> Yeah. >> Oh, I I didn't. >> No, we did. But we hadn't seen the the ordinance, you know, and I just I think we we left it saying that, you know, we would we would, you know, also workshop,
you know, whatever it is that was put in front of us. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think you raised a good so what I was raising my hand to say was similar to Tererry's point. Um and I think you know I think you're right this continued to work together. I think you raised some good points that you know we certainly weren't trying to be overly prescriptive here. So um maybe instead
of having language that speaks to just being visible like at all even theoretically visible from the exterior of the establishment we just are very specific that we're just talking about the exterior window. So, it's not like if there's some other displays in the back and you can see it through the window, but it's not all up in
everyone's face, for lack of a better term. Um, you know, we could try to tighten it up that way. And, you know, there's no requirement in here at least in terms of screening the windows or anything. So, I think at least that's covered, but I think we could at least I think it would be okay to narrow it so
that it's just talking about the exterior window quite >> as >> Yeah, display window. Display windows. That's the term. I don't know it's used for >> exterior windows like I >> No, they display windows. >> I I knew what you meant, but I was just thinking. >> Okay. Council member Hill,
>> just want to make sure they can sell Baby Yoda bongs in the back room. You just can't put Baby Yoda bongs on the front window. >> Yeah, cuz that would be like kind of advertising. >> They put on the back counter, >> right? Once you walk in. >> Oh, once you walk in. >> And we don't want you just can't see it from the street. >> We're not regulating the product.
>> We're not regulating the product. We're regulating the display of the product on the front. Right. I just wanted to make sure I was understood that correctly. Okay, Council Member Hirs. >> Thank you. Uh, no, I'm just honestly I'm just more, you know, obviously storefronts are very important in our downtown. We have a problem with too
many being covered up. Um, there was a smoke shop, you know, that that that existed. I, you know, on the Avenue that used to very nice man, but they used to, but he used to just put up postits and colorful pieces of paper all over the window and it was just >> terrible. Uh, what are you doing? Um, so
I think you know with this it does seem like there could be some guidance >> to prospective retailers on on how to situate their their display, what they can put in because if they can't showcase, you know, as a retailer, these these
pieces that we're discussing are their are their prized, you know, inventory. So what can they put in the window? because obviously it can't be marketing, you know, messaging to the public, you know, um but it it would need to be
something that's appealing to passers by the avenue, not just, you know, shoppers, but just for the beautifification of the >> But what else do they sell? >> I don't know what else they sell. This is all I know. I know it's >> it's not stuff they can describe. I mean, it's kind of a catch, too, right?
It's a smoke shop. >> So, chances are if you're going there, >> you're probably going for specific products that you know that they already have, right? So, you're going for an ecigarette or to get regular cigarettes or cigars or you know what I'm saying? So, >> I I I would venture to say that the vast majority of the people who are going to
those locations are purposely going to those locations for something specific. this I I the way that I read it, you know, I also help write it, so let's take that into consideration. Is, you know, again, when I'm standing on the outside, so long as I can't readily see it from the exterior, what you put on the inside that displays how beautiful
you want to do them, whatever, you're we're not affecting that at all. If you think that the language here is either too vague or too restrictive or whatever, we still we it hasn't gone to, you know, it hasn't been introduced yet. So, we still have an opportunity to amend it if that language needs to be
cleaned up a little bit more to make it more specific, less spec, however you want to do it, you have some options there. But I think the purpose of it based on my we're kind of on the same page is I just when you're walking downtown, big gorgeous glass window, store name, wonderful. They didn't want
to see all the odd products as you were walking downtown just getting in the face. >> Yeah, that's all. So, um, but we could even sit there and say it's got to be a certain amount of footage back if you want to do something more specific. You know what I'm saying? Like you you can clarify it if you feel like that's the
case. It's purely to the council's discretion at that point. >> Sure. So, we can continue to have some discussions about tweaking the ordinance and then bring it back to committee. Um, if we feel >> Well, maybe you should take it back to committee again and look at these
suggestions that were made and then bring it back. And my only caveat is that if we introduce it in this matter and then we go to amend it because effectively we're saying how do you display things and we'd be making an amendment to that it would be substantive. So then at that point we'd have to pull the ordinance amend it and
then reintroduce it. >> And that's what I suggested that they take it back to the question. >> Yeah. I was just saying that we take drafting like a draft and then we take that back to committee but yeah. Yeah. Not adopting anything. >> No. I wasn't thinking of putting it on.
Just you guys go work on it some more. Yeah. >> Get those questions that were thrown out there answered. >> I might just need a better picture. Yeah, that's But yeah, that's fine. >> Let me know how >> you both are on the committee, so you guys need to work it out. >> No, that I'm sorry.
>> I was just saying I I thought this language was clear for what it's worth, but I think it's good. >> I think it more or less gets the job done. >> It is clear. I just worry sorry. >> No, that's okay. I I think we can uh refine it as you go further. take it back to committee.
>> I always get nervous when I write something that it's clear to me because I knew what I was trying to do when I wrote. You know what I'm saying? So >> I think we all have that problem like it's CRYSTAL CLEAR IN MY HEAD. >> Like all right. >> I'm always like it's clear in my head.
But I think we should you guys need to go back to committee and discuss some more and then bring it back to another work session. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just one more comment regarding um um the A section. I think it would be
fine if we just say as as part of a window display perhaps that would be that that would bring more clarity as opposed to saying the product shall be displayed in such a manner as to be visible from the exterior of the establishment. I don't know, whatever legal ease you want to use, but as part
of a window display setup because that that that's very clear like yeah, you can't have it as a window display, which means it's pressed up against the window when you know it's not like Barbara's Fros has beautiful window display, right? Everybody knows what that is. But
I I agree with some of these smoke shops that we did have in town. It was right at the window. Was very much at the window. So you were able to see all of their product as soon as you walked in and it wasn't like in the back. So perhaps that's just my suggestion. I'm not in the committee. So you guys
discuss >> Yeah. I would just say I totally agree. I think that's the direction that we're heading in and then we just may make a couple of additional tweaks. But uh >> yeah, bring it back to committee, get it baked, and then bring it back to us.
>> Wonderful. Any other questions? Seeing none, now we move to public discussion. Three minutes per speaker or members attending by no one on in public. So, anyone on Zoom? >> Yeah, we do. Mayor, we have two
attendees. Um, first up, Alyssa Kaplan. Can you state your name, confirm it's you? >> Uh, hi, I'm Alyssa Kaplan. Um, and I live on uh Madison Avenue. We
we live on Madison Avenue uh next door to Burn Chocolate. Um I can't talk and see you at the same time somehow. Are you still hearing me? >> Yes, >> we're hearing you fine. >> Okay. Um so about the Cleveland
redevelopment which is obviously uh next door to to us. Um I would love to see a couple of things as ideas to throw out. One which you folks mentioned is some protected green space. maybe something that has
um benches or uh picnic tables or something where people in the neighborhood could gather. Um the other thing is that I'm struck that the town has uh very few residents for purchase that have
singlefloor living. In other words, something that is particularly appropriate to uh folks who may be seniors or have disabilities. Um so I mean, you know, there are some
ranch homes. There is uh River Ridge. Um, but there aren't too many residences where you have an entry like River Ridge, which is, you know, has no stairs at all. Um, and there's only two
buildings in town that actually have an elevator if it's a multifloor building. So, um, that kind of accessibility in terms of, uh, a residence, a residential situation, I think would add to the town.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Anyone else? >> Yes. Just give me one second here. >> Uh, next one up is coming up. MSB FRCT.
>> Can you state your name for us? >> Oh, hi. Uh, Mary Baution Madison A. Uh, can you guys hear me? I have the same question as Alyssa. >> Yes, we can. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah. First, I just want to say count me in among the people that
thinks the um the road uh calming so far is really terrific. It it just uh I'm really impressed and um I think it's turning out terrific over there. Um the only thing I would I would hope maybe we still could get to at that point in front of Dairy Delight if they could
possibly consider putting in some of those cement pylons. Um, I don't know whether it's up to the business or it's up to DOT or for the for the town to encourage them, but that's such a really really vulnerable spot. And um, you
know, that's just something I wanted to throw out there. Excuse me. And then the other thing is um, I'm a little confused. We keep talking about the Cleveland Avenue redevelopment plan. The only thing I see in documents would be the 433 Cleveland
A redevelopment plan or is that what we're talking about or a different plan? >> Well, mayor, will you address after public comment? >> Yeah. So, so was that the last of your questions or do you have any others and then we can >> Oh, no. Oh, I have well, yeah, I have
other questions, but you know, what are we referring to? Are you able to tell me? >> We're taking notes and when you conclude your questions, we'll answer. >> Yeah. So, if you have any other questions, if you just want to give us all of them and then we'll just respond to all them at one time. >> Okay. Um, well, as far as the 433, well,
let's see. Chris, go back to whatever you were referring to. You said, quote, "The Cleveland plan you're talking about now, you said runs from the vacant lot straddling the catwalk. Did you say all the way down to the culde-sac? >> That's another question. You have another one.
>> So, so, okay. So, we're not going to answer them as we go. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Uh well, and I'm not really sure what I'm referring to, if I'm talking or talking about the same thing or not, but um I noticed in the resolution
uh 20230, right, when they were talking about professional services with LRK for continued redevelopment planning services on Cleveland A, you know, they had my property listed on there and
including that um it it would be quote part of a parking lot >> as part of the school. So, you know, there's a lot of confusion here. If that that needs to be cleared up, whatever you're working on now, make sure you take my property off it because I'm not
looking to be a parking lot for sure. Um, and I would definitely like to know what Cleveland Avenue redevelopment plan are you referring to. Um lastly for the current the 433 plan um no one
has responded regarding the >> Can I have a few more minutes because we went back and forth discussing we were going to have answers now or not? >> Continue please. >> Thank you. um regarding this 433
there they were we we've sent in several um concerns that the developer hasn't met their obligations for example on the negligent landscaping the erosion the 7in drop um the that's a that's a safety
hazard there as well as unsightly and I think that's technically on town property so somebody needs to come address it and as as well as we also notified you of the fact that the sidewalk is already cracking and chipping and so somebody needs to get
that fixed and it's not going to be the residents. We we didn't put it in. It's not even a year. Um please somebody address that and let us know that will be done. Um and then lastly, I've tried several times uh again the the agreement
said that they would be whatever shade trees they took out, they put in for us. I really only want one replaced, but I haven't been able to reach anybody. I tried the Shade Tree Commission several times. Um, one person wrote back a year ago saying, "Well, let us know your
address and we'll make some recommendations for you." And I gave the address. I never heard anything. So, I really, we've gone two summers roasting in the sun without that shade tree. So, in the spring, I really would like to have a tree put in, please. and I'd like
to know have somebody please coordinate with me on that. That'd be really terrific. Um so yeah, thank you so much. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Uh mayor, nobody else. Okay, >> seeing none, may I have a motion to close public participation?
>> So move. >> Second. >> Council member H. >> Yes. >> Council member Hir. >> Yes. >> Council President Kel. >> Council member Bon. Yes. >> Council member Vargas. >> Yes.
>> All right. There was a bunch of questions. Terry, I know you can answer huge amount of >> I I'll I did take notes. I did. >> Uh so the question was what plan? We're talking about a plan that has not been drafted. >> Correct. It would be a plan and Chris
can run through after I finish uh articulating the locations, but I do believe uh the corner property Miss Baution mentioned her house was in our study area uh as it's currently not even zoned as a residential use at this time.
Uh it doesn't mean anything will happen to our property and I do not believe we were proposing a parking lot uh ever at on that site. But uh Chris, could you just articulate the project area we were looking at for Cleveland Avenue again? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Let me just uh pull up the map
just so that short. >> Yeah. >> Just goes back into 2021. >> Yeah. So it is the properties from the vacant lots of catwalk all the way to callac including the um multan's property. uh that's been in the concept
planning as far the contracting purposes uh to develop a plan which has not been created. That's why we're doing this >> as yet to be created redevelopment plan. >> That's why we're having a conversation >> and basically we would I don't know if Miss Ban was here when we talked about that at the beginning of the meeting.
>> I feel like we did but again this is like five years ago. Mhm. >> Um but yes, the property's in it and I I can certainly say from a planning perspective, we would not want to do a parking lot there. If anything, just retaining us. >> We wouldn't want to do a parking lot either. >> No. Parking. Uh we would retain the
residential use unless there's an idea um that most Tam wants to share with us if you happen to consider it. >> Okay. Um, >> and then >> the there was those questions. We we answered the the
>> all the way down to the end. Uh, yes. >> And then >> addresses three questions. >> No parking lot. She mentioned the landscaping. That's something that you can look at. >> I am aware of that. Um, just be advised that that even though the school is
complete, the project is not yet complete. Um, there are areas within the school building. I believe there are religious study areas and so forth that are so that that project is not closed out even though from the outside it it's done. So we're aware that there are some
things that are likely need to be finished as part of our agreement. I'll make sure we look at those um matters that Miss Ban just mentioned including the shade tree. our shade tree committee would not be involved in uh making sure
that the redevelopment agreement gets implemented and the trees get planted. Um, and I apologize if an email was directed to me and I I missed it, but we will certainly look back on that and make sure all the items that need to be addressed by the redeveloper of the
school property get addressed um obviously when there's no snow on the ground and you know work can commence on on anything that needs to be addressed. >> Yeah. And I think there's the CO has not been issued yet. >> It's a temporary CO uh certificate of
occupancy so that they could open the school portions, but I don't believe the remainder of the building is fully complete and nor have we um kind of >> given the final cert certification of completion for the redevelopment purposes. So, I'll be doing helping the
bureau to do the inspections for the CEO >> and I'll do basically the same type of inspections again to assist Terry on close out of the project so I can get a certificate of completion. So, I'm glad we're here. >> But I I appreciate those points and we'll certainly anything that was
supposed to been done and hasn't held up, we'll we'll look at it and get it addressed. >> Okay, good. And it's Sha tree. Um, council member Hershe, you're shri. Yeah, I'm shade tree. So if there's um >> she's a request for a tree part of the agreement. >> Oh, the tree was in the envelope. It's
not a shade tree. >> Okay, we're ready to plant trees. Let's go. >> We're not finished. We're not finished. We're not finished. Punchless is not done. >> I'm ready whenever you >> All right. I think we addressed the the questions.
>> So hopefully >> more follow up to more to follow up on. That's all. No. >> Yeah, that was all. >> Yes, I think we got them all. >> Yeah. >> All righty. And now we're going to um move to executive session. Um
may I have a motion to adopt 26-2-26-71 executive session negotiation on 308 Ritan? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Council member H. >> Yes. Council member Hirs, >> yes. >> Council President Kim Shanhan,
>> yes. >> Council member Ponic, >> yes. >> Council member Vargas, >> yes. >> And now we're going to adjourn. And may I have a motion to adjourn and to executive session? >> Second. >> We will not be coming back to a public
open session after we finish with our executive sessions. Thank you all and good night. No, we need to go in there because need to go in there. Joe's stuck in Florida. He was prepared. >> He couldn't get That's right. We got to do the Zoom. >> So, I got to get it set up in there. I'm
just texting him now. >> Oh, really? >> Actually, if you don't mind hanging, it might be good just not too much. >> But yeah, I think it might be good uh to have you here. >> It's good and be stuck in Mexico.
That's true. I think. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Yes. >> That's crazy. >> That is so we won't even have our