This meeting is called to order in accordance with the open public meeting act. Notice of this meeting was provided to the home distributed the star leisure the Highland Park Plant on January 8, 2025 and was posted on Borough Hall website at www.hpb.com hbar.com
and on the bulletin board of borrow 221 South 5th Avenue Park, New Jersey and has been remain continuously posted as required by law. for our exit are to my right and left council chambers.
First up 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 >> here. >> Council member George >> here. >> Council member Hill >> here. >> Council member Hurst >> here. >> President Kim Johan. Council member Pon >> here. >> Council member Vargas. >> B attorney L
>> here. Ber Penza >> here. >> And B administrator Hair >> here. >> Okay. Tonight in our work agenda, we're going to move right into discussion items. And the first one up is a gas leaf blower task force proposal.
>> Thank you, mayor. Uh good evening everybody. Uh so I'm just going to provide a little intro to this uh and then we can get right into it. Um but the report that's been circulated uh before you is the uh work of the uh gas power leaf grower task force that uh was
assembled earlier this year. Some members are here. Thank you. Uh and this task force was really the result of several disperate boards and commissions um all indiv individually separately requesting that the bureau look into um
uh an ordinance that would place uh uh guard rails on operation of commercial gas power uh in line with what we're seeing uh throughout a lot of communities in the state. Um, this also, you know, this this has been a um this is in line with sustainable Jersey uh
goals, but it's also been kind of a philosophical goal for many residents uh here in the bureau for quite some time. And I think when you know when we were home during the pandemic, um that's really when at least I started hearing more and more kind of general interest
from the public about this this type of ordinance. uh when folks are home more, obviously there's going to be more uh you're going to be around during the day more and you're going to hear uh the extent of the uh commercial landscaping that takes place. There are a number of
reasons why this this this should cause concern. Obviously, it's a uh you know obviously obviously it's a it's it's it's an element of noise pollution. Um there are there is loss of sleep, loss of concentration. Uh and it can really have an effect on uh on the day-to-day
uh well-being of residents uh if if if if um uh if machinery is is operating too noisily um uh throughout the day. And so um we uh um these these requests were were were being formally submitted
from from several boards and commissions including the board of health, the environmental commission and sustainable uh Hana Park uh among others. So as liaison uh as as as the chair of the public works and public uh utilities committee, I happen to be liazison to
the environmental commission and and to sustainable uh Highland Park. Um, and so it was a little bit of an easier lift to kind of coordinate and get a uh and get a task force put together, the members of which you'll see uh on the sheet. And I just want to thank the mayor for uh
for for endorsing this task force uh uh when we when we first um we first convene. Uh this uh effort also I should note this effort uh was launched um back in January, February. Um and uh uh at the time uh Tina Weiss House, the former
chair of sustainable uh Highland Park was was involved in the process too. This is this was a so this continues um a very uh clear goal of of Tina and sustainable Highland Parks uh and also of you know of I think um I think
generally we all understand the spirit of why towns do things like this. Um I uh uh this report is the result of not only uh some extensive research on behalf of the task force uh but a series of of uh public meetings as well as a
survey uh as well as a community survey and a and a um uh a survey of uh commercial landscapers in the area. And um so you'll see some of the findings. Um we went through uh a number of items uh for for for consideration. Obviously
an overview of the health and environmental impacts of gas leaf blowers which you can see and then you can also on the on the second page you can see the second and third pages you can see what other municipalities have done. Uh uh they they range from a
complete band to a partial band to seasonal band to a there's a gas flow right there. Right. >> Oh my gosh. I didn't plan for that. Uh um
so you'll see either full bands, partial bands, certain times of day, certain times of year. It really is tailored to the desires of the community and kind of what it is that we think that you know is uh is appropriate for Highland Park. You'll also see the um what I just
mentioned. There's the um um timeline of public education and outreach. Uh we got a meeting in the community room at the in the Kushner room at the library. Um um the Zoom um the follow-up meeting at the library and obviously the uh the surveys.
Um I am not I'm going to actually leave it at that because I know uh Terry did you have anything? >> Sure. So we discussed the report at a public works committee meeting and the I
promised to kind of look into it main kind of one of the things I was I tested and I think we all agreed that whatever policy we would want to put into place if any would be one the burough can live with you know with our operations because we too run gas power leaf
blowers at different times of the year and are part of our landscaping um protocols. Currently uh we do have one electric uh is not popular but our understanding is this is now two or three years ago. I think the batteries have gotten better
and things like that but we do have we have started to incrementally add electrified uh leaf blowers into our force. Um but again you know wanted to think through what would be impacts be kind of starting selfishly from there uh
and then kind of thinking out and just one kind of clarification I think and I don't know if you said it or not Matt but I just want to make sure we're all on the same page this would apply at least the way I understood the recommendation to the entire bureau
meaning residents commercial you name it you know we would all live under this new policy At least that was what we discussed. We can always change our minds about that, but when I was thinking about it that and that is certainly how the um examples from the other towns,
>> um so just to be clear, so that would be you and me in our own yard work. Whatever we would do would apply similarly. So I took a little look at um our own operations with the help of uh our leadership there. And by and large,
while we do use the gas leaf blowers now, the bulk of that work is when we have lots of leaves to collect, we're fortunate in that we don't have huge grounds that we maintain. You know, our properties aren't as huge as some communities have big parks and things that, you know, that they're responsible
for clearing leaves from. But but we do use them um and we do use them to clean up after routine landscaping work, kind of shorter stints, but you know, getting the glass blowing the glass grass clippings back onto the yard, things like that, all the things you see professional landscaping
teams do and homeowners do. Um, and so when I posed the question, you know, a partial ban, just to clarify, my interpretation of a partial band would be you to select a time of year whereby, I'll put it this way, the you restrict
the use of gas powered leaf blowers to the high leaf season. Okay? Meaning when you know, I'm thinking it's the autumn, right? When you got a lot of leaves to clear. Um and then but a total ban is nobody can use gas leaf blowers ever.
Okay, just to be real clear in our bureau, I should say. Um so I asked DPW, you know, if we were going to build towards and the proposal in the task force report is a two-year partial ban, meaning seasonally only, and then a
complete ban after two years. If we had to live with that, could we? And the general sense is we could we could over the next two years purchase the necessary uh get electrified equipment. And um in fact we use this as an excuse
at the lead conference. Mike, our public works director checked out the latest and greatest in in in uh in battery packs and and other things. So we could do it. Will it will it be a little more like we have to have multiple batteries. We have to kind of ramp up on on that
front. But, you know, again, because our our general use of gas leaf floors is more kind of manicuring and it's not like large slots of property, um, we feel like we could do it. We'd have to make an investment and we'd have to
purchase probably another at least three electric ones with additional battery backups. And I didn't do the numbers to say how much that would cost, but we could live with it. Um, I think it's important to point out that and the report does a good job
indicating like some key constituents are uh obviously the burrow which I just but private landscaping companies >> um larger apartment complexes of which we have many that have large grounds um and schools and I know the task force
did try to get in touch with them but I think that's something I would feel better if we did another if if the council was supportive of some sort of policy, we would need to do a little more outreach to those communities to make sure we understand their concerns
and you know how this would roll out for them. Um, but I think one the last thing I want to leave you with um and you may have questions about the report which I may or may not know the answer to. Um, but the I did reach out to Maplewood because I think they've had theirs in
place the longest and I talked to their BA who wasn't there at the start of the policy but he owned it upon arrival and um the year in which the ban went into place and they did the two-year and then
the total and their experience was pretty good. uh they found, you know, while there was a lot of concern initially that it worked out. Uh however, they did do quite a bit of enforcement at the start of their
program and that's something they have it for code enforcement folks. They were able to deploy. We do not have that. So that would be my kind of wanting to think through how would we especially in the first six months or the first season
make sure a we get the word out to those companies so they know to do the right thing and residents know to do the right thing and give out warnings and second tries and you know do all of that kind of stuff. I think we would have to figure out what kind of capacity we have
to do that without causing too much animosity and we don't want to just be neighbors calling us and complaining about neighbors and private landscaping companies. I think that's something I'm concerned about because we don't have
quite as many uh uh staff members. Um I have some ideas about ways we might be able to uh add some capacity. Maybe that's something through our county health program. Uh we currently use them for our uh health inspections and
various other so maybe we could add that onto our contract. I don't think it would be free. uh I haven't broached that with them, but they've done some one-offs with other communities on different issues. So, that seems to me like especially that first year, that first, you know, I think if you know how
it is, if you don't enforce it, everybody knows it and the the programs don't work. So those are kind of the so I think in general it's doable whatever approach we want to take at any range of the spectrum but I do if we go
especially if we go to uh complete ban um I think that we want to do an ease in as recommended by by the report to allow that two years of education. Um and I think one of the sustainable Jersey action components uh they recommend is a
registry for all commercial landscaping operations which to me it's no cost but that way we can communicate. We have a point of contact with all the ones that are doing business in town. So I think things like that are going to be necessary and will be work for staff
that we might otherwise be doing other things. So you need to just keep that in mind as well. But I thought the the report did a nice job of kind of covering all the bases and certainly convened quite a few meetings with our community. So I felt much more
comfortable, you know, going into the going into it. Um, so that's kind of what I had I had gone into and you know, but might be useful for you guys to hear as you contemplate this idea. >> Yeah, I think that's basically it. I you
know, we I did want to acknowledge the members of the task. I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge the members of the task was that that were here. We have a Jonathan Abrahams from the uh uh from the park environmental commission. Um uh B Stevens from the board of health in
there and um Diane like a member of the community but so much more. Um and Mark Leco is not is not here but he was he was uh he conducts our town cleanups and is a member of sustainable and the environmental commission. Uh and so
that's you know really where our discussion begins and um our experts are also available to answer any questions that uh anybody might have uh as well. But this is um you know it's it's an era of doing things slightly
differently. Um you know but we're not in the lead on on on this issue. Other towns have done this successfully. Um and clearly there's a uh a desire um from from residents and whether we can manage that or not is is is really up to up to us to decide. I agree about the um
remaining concerns over enforcement um and uh and and management. So those are areas that we're really going to have to uh discuss as we move forward. And then any equipment any expenditures related uh obviously council would review
cost equipment necessary. >> I have a question. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, you you I would be inclined to the 2-year phased in program because we
have a lot of residents that use out of town services and use these landscaping landscaping services and it will only be fair for people to get time enough to get their equipment retrofitted because there's going to be a cost to the people who provide the services. Even if you're
doing it at home yourself, it's still going to be a cost because you're going to be a part of this. universe that does this. So, the the phasing method that other towns I've read over the maplewood report, they were very comprehensive. I like the phasing method that they use and Terry and I spoke a little bit and
we talked about the county and to see if what that conversation would look like um and what would the cost would be for us to look at that that part of the service. And I do like the registry that if we created a register with sustainable New Jersey that that
register would be in place so we can easily get information out to these landscaping companies that are there because and I would urge like residents themselves if they have companies that they use that they if they were so inclined to send that information to us
so we can inform and we can do a a PR campaign so to speak to bring awareness to this. we have say two years to make it happen and just keep bringing that information home and maybe when we do the magnets this year if we do the magnets for DPW we can put a number on
there a notification that leaf blow is blah blah blah it's going to be phased out some kind of language to let people know that received those magnets on the refrigerator that this is coming if we're doing that >> the door hangers are already at the printer it'll have to BE FOR THE NEXT OUT IN FOR
January so sorry that was a good idea Okay. So, next year they go on the leaf bags and they go on the door hangers. >> Figure it out. That's a good point. >> Those are those are my three staple items. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> I know. So, the public the public works
committee did did review this. Um uh but we still had I think everybody still had questions too. So, I just wanted to mention that >> first. I'm sorry. Well, I should have more of a universe look. It's okay. Um, so I'm in favor of the phase in approach
or partial ban for the time being or when we're ready to get there. I guess there sounds like there's some more outreach that we should do which I think would be appropriate to discuss with the broader um uh landscaping uh service community. Um, but one idea that I had, so I mean there's obvious uh
environmental noise and nuisance concerns that we could address by uh limiting or prohibiting these devices. Uh but there is also the cost issue. This will be a cost for the employers for the landscaping companies as well which will just get passed on to our
residents maybe in the form of rent or just the service charges. Uh so one idea that I had to help address that would be we should see if there's any legislation at the state level that would provide some sort of tax um incentives or breaks to offset the cost of upgrading to
electric equipment. Um, and if not, we should adopt like we do sometimes a resolution calling on a legislature to put together uh legislation to do just that. So that way and that would also and I don't know if that necessarily benefit us because it may just be like a
corporate uh or income tax type uh uh tax deduction or exemption or exclusion or whatever it might be. Um but uh I think maybe we should still encourage that to help our residents and folks that work in town. So, you know, and that's something we could also outreach with our legislators like separate from
just doing a resolution. >> Otherwise, I like it. >> I do want to just one second. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I need to respond. >> I mean, first thing, anytime you get 500 people to answer a survey, that's
pretty amazing that that many. So, um uh but there are a couple things that I wanted to just um in the survey of the landscaping companies, two out of seven said they would leave Highland Park if they if this became the law. Um that's
not an insignificant. And then two out of seven also said they would raise rates. um so that that more than half of them are either going to leave and they may not leave but they you know in the survey they say they're going to leave or they're going to raise rates. I think
at a minimum we expect that rates would go up for for consumers. Um uh I don't have there's you know getting seven of of the landscape companies was was good.
I think there's a lot more um that that we might try and also reach out to to others to see if that's consistent um in in some respect. Um uh one thing and to Jason's point in terms of cost um I I
was actually thinking that I wonder if there is um not that I'm interested in spending all that much more money but is there is is there a process to is there a bulk discount and if we are buying these anyway if we if if we're buying
and then those could be we could we could help the transition to the landscape companies where they could get them at a discounted rate as opposed to a rate that they might like. I don't know if that's legal, but it might be another way of sort of saving some of those costs for the the landscape
companies. Um, but then in also in terms of of um enforcement, how easy is it to tell one a gas blower from an electric blower? I I I I don't
have a sense of like one is a rocket ship and the other is a >> everyone is extremely loud. >> Smells fair. >> Smell the gas. >> There might be a more technical fair enough. Um one of the biggest concerns that I hear about leaf blowers
is that they show up at 8:30 in the morning, right? Or they show up when you're really really early. Um I wonder if in the phase in stage we might think about hours restrictions um at at some point so that that try and
concentrate that in the middle of the day um um as opposed to doing it at 7 o'clock in the morning or you know at at night maybe there are restrictions on hours as part of that that phase in um and then I guess the the the last thing
to just bring up the way that came across to me is that we're guaranteed of having a ban in two years in the phase in process for the first two years. What is what if it's a disaster? What if
like what if we can't get you know I mean >> the >> I mean we'd have to repeal it or we'd have to do that change it at some point. So, I just wonder if we would do a two-year pilot program and then adopt after the two-year pilot program what we
would consider sort of the what we've learned in those two years or three years or something that we we we have this strategy that we've been using and and if at the end in 18 months everybody's into has done it really well. um all the
landscape companies are nobody's leaving or or they're they've made that transition or we've made that transition. Well, would it be better to hold off on the the ban until we learn from the phase in process? Um to say in
the phase in process is our our pilot program um to see how it how it might work. Um I'm not wed to that. I just think that's something to consider is not having a guaranteed ban at the end of two years, but try and have the ban fit what we learned in the initial
process. >> Playing devil's advocate. If we say, "Okay, we have two years we're going to phase." And if we say we're going to make this happen in two years, we we put the enforcement parameters for this to happen in two years. If it's not working, then we can say it's not
working. But if we say, "Oh, we're going to um look at it and then evaluate and come back," then people are going to be much more relaxed not to comply. If we say this is going to happen, then people are they're going to take preventative measures to make sure that they can take care of their properties and they'll go
out and they'll make that extra effort. >> So without the ban, you're saying that people won't there's no incentive. Another thing is >> if we put just to if we put restrictions on hours the incentive is that's >> and that's where I was going to
restriction on hours. Most of these people who you see doing landscaping um and they're out early in the morning. These people have families. They have homes that they go to. They're minority workers. First we're putting a cost on them and we're going to restrict their hours again. So even more they're being penalized.
>> We're restricting the hours for gas leaf prod. >> We're restricting the hours for their operation. You mentioned restriction of operation hours. No, I said >> so it would not be they wouldn't come at 8:00 in the morning, for example. >> They wouldn't my I'm sorry if I misspoke. What I was saying is they wouldn't blow leaves at 8:00 in the
morning. They would do other things around that because landscape companies don't come to just blow leaves. They come to do other things. So if the the the biggest concern that I hear is they're there at the crack of dawn and and it's noisy and it's loud. So I don't
hear that about lawnmowers. I don't hear that about clipping. I don't hear about raking. I don't hear about that. But if the leaf blowers started at 10 or something like that, I think a lot of and and I I'm not saying you can't show up earlier. I'm just saying you can't leaf blow during those those early hours. I'm wondering if that's something
that could be considered. It's not saying you can't come earlier. It's just saying no leaf blow until a certain time. >> Yes. Um I don't have a response to the hours. Uh, I I'll be curious to see if I I didn't dive into some of the other
talents to see if they also played around. I feel like I read that some also limited hours a day, but I don't want to swear to that. One point I wanted to say because when I asked in Maplewood about the question you had about the two out of seven saying we're
leaving, blah blah. They did get a lot of like there was a lot of like no way, we'll never. It didn't come to pass. That was the rea. I'm not saying that's predictive of final park. That's one town. That's a survey of one. Uh but >> I think when you know surveys better
than I do, like when asked, >> would you you know, and you don't want it, you're going to say, I will absolutely leave this town immediately. But so I think, you know, take that for what it's worth. But I I had that exact concern and they said they absolutely said that. I expected all hell to break
loose on ban year and it didn't. and they didn't they didn't really get a lot of feedback from residents either. Now, their socioeconomics might be different than ours. There may be a lot of other other things we got to consider. They're a bigger town than we are. So, they might have like we may have more lands
giving companies that work in multiple towns and so now we're giving them different rules here than they have in Edison or So, those were thoughts that crossed my mind that challenging for some of these businesses to manage. Um, but the the you know, do I think they're
all going to just vaporize because No, because they've been here a long time. Um, but but anyway, I thought that was interesting. Anyway, >> for George, >> I've been following this for a long long time and I've been to the meetings at the library and Zoom and I I still have
misgivings on a couple of grounds. One is if you're just looking to do it because you don't like the law noise, that's too bad because they also use lawnmowers and everybody has their own. Anecdotally, on a street that shall remain nameless that looks just like
South Second, there's a neighbor who comes home and obsessively blows his lawn every night. Every night. It can't be one blade of grass or one leaf. And it's not steady for 10 minutes. It's on and off and on and off
for 45 days. If it's just about noise, that's too bad. This is the 21st century. Get over it. Um, and yet, and Matt was right, we did notice it when we were all home during the pandemic, >> and it never stops. Never stops. >> Oil is the operative word.
>> One of the I have a I went to electric, but I actually have a corded one that plugs in >> because it's the smallest carbon footprint because there's no battery. No batteries that get thrown away that use up rare earths. And it has a low setting and it's not anywhere near
65 dB. And it's mulching so you can reverse it and mulches the leaves and puts them in a bag. And literally my lawn, which isn't the world's biggest, is three bags of leaves instead of 20. So there way there are ways to do it.
But now in particular, when you're talking about regardless of whether it's a private program or a two-year phase out or or a one year and it's that's it, you do it with the tariffs in place. Now, I checked the
machinery over the weekend and I stopped again tonight at a hardware store where they actually sell the big commercial units and they're up significantly and the guy said it's because of the tariffs. They're super machines and they have a quiet setting,
but they are like he said they're 50 50% more than they were. So if we're looking at an increased cost to get our fleet going, you're imposing the same kind of um tariff essentially a tariff on the
commercial companies and they survive on their profit margins. Um, I'd also agree with the mayor uh with the fact that I've said I said this in the very beginning of these debates probably five or six years ago. This targets a particular minority population and I
have a significant issue for that. Um, and you can't get around it. It is si it is a straightforward question and you hear the ridiculous ideas being put out by our federal government and some federal legislators fortunately not ours
that well we won't enforce immigration against our landscapers and our and our kitchen help because we need them. Utter showing of how discriminatory this can possibly on an as applied basis. So,
I I still have that misgiving. Um, and the mayor pointed out an interesting point, which is when you're enforcing this and whether they do go out of business or not or they reduce their staffs, this is people's livelihood. my landscaper
um who and they're all Spanish, Hispanic um told me the last time he was in doing leaf cleanup that to get by they're actually offering house cleaning services now um year round, including
getting bridging over the um the the non-landscaping season. So to to get by. So if if we're looking at putting a cost on top of that the other issues um I'm not sure
I I might have been able to get over that misgiving and say you know it's the cost of doing business but it's not that much more but with the tariffs and with a business that I've been doing business with ever since I was no longer physically able to do my leaves that um
when they tell me that it means that something's going on. Um, and that was one of the questions I did have that Terry was talking about was what has been the experiential level. I'd like to know what Montlair has been experiencing with the total
ban. >> Um, >> and Maplewood has a total ban, too. Um, but I I reached out to Montlair. They have a new administrator, like literally brand new. So, and he didn't know and he put me in touch with the council person who didn't get back to me anymore. Yeah, I I I I knew a lot of the older
administration, but a lot of them are a lot of them are new. >> So, yeah. So, I I thought that was probably a little more comparable to us and that's I was hoping to So, that I'll pick back up on that. I think that's a good >> Yeah. Yeah. And you know, obviously this is a project for 2026 and and but I am I
the flip side of it is I'm I am in favor of moving something forward so that we get the public debate going on it and everybody gets gets to share one way or another because this is there there are a lot of aspects to to this issue uh
that don't necessarily you know necessarily surface and I and I think that discussion should phase should be around a one-year get ready for it, it's coming, and then a total bath because I I don't support the
two-year phase in because the question is on a commercial basis, I now have to go refit. I I have to go refit my business. I have to start planning on that. Um, so when do I start doing it? Start doing it now.
Do I gut out a year and say, "Well, maybe I'll start it later. Maybe things will be cheaper. Maybe maybe I'll have more employees. Maybe I'll be able to get more employees. Um maybe and and I need to see what the burrow and the other bur other
municipalities are going to do timing wise. Um because if you observe it, yeah, they start early and they also run late because they have to make that quota. they have to do that business and they have to do it during the season
because they have to bridge over. Uh, you know, having worked in the trades for 10 years, I'm used to that bridge over in the cold season. Um, when you can't lay brick, then you can't lay stone. And I did that for 10 years. Um, so that's part of it. And and as the
mayor said, it's supporting the families, but it's bringing the money home, not just getting home for dinner. It's bringing the money home during the season. So that the the hourly part, you know, uh uh making it 9 to5 or 9 to4 and
not not on Sundays. I'm not sure. I think we have to engineer that a little more carefully. But I think that the discussion should be a one-year get ready for it and and then a total ban should be our focus so we can
discuss all these issues and see if that's what the residents want to do. Yes. Um so um task force members are here as a resource for us. Um uh and if we wanted to I think um we Jonathan can probably speak more about the um
outreach to the business community as well. I did just want to mention a couple of things uh here just as um matter of course. So Jason yeah you mentioned you mentioned a state uh law. There is a there is a proposed state law um sponsored by our neighboring Senator
Smith um that would ban some gas leaf blowers for most of the year and provides credits for up to 50% uh for people who buy electric ones. Uh now this is pending legislation. It's not passed. We have a new administration coming in. So take that for what this is. But there is certainly interest in
the legislature uh to to to move forward with some type of statewide guidance. uh at the state the bill would prohibit um well the bill would be the the the ban would be effective four years after the bill's passage uh and would also limit um the permitted use of a gas powered
leaf blower that has a um oh excuse me I'm sorry uh and it would limit um excuse me uh it places limits between March 15th and May 15th and October 15th and December 15th
>> um just very quickly just kind of an overview of what some of the other towns do. And I think that this we should, you know, moving forward, we will dive further into other municipalities, but Montlair uh has a ban on gas powered leaf blowers year round. Princeton uh
prohibits uh gas leaf blowers from December 16th to March 14th and May 16th to December 30th. Um so September 30th, excuse me. Uh Glen Ridge uh permits gas powered leaf blowers during specific
periods of the year. Maplewood has a full ban. Manaloing has a partial ban. Uh West Orange uh uh uh is going into a full ban in 2026. Uh currently though they have limited usage. Uh the prohibition is March to April and
October through December. And the uh the hours uh are limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6 pm. Uh so you know this is uh and I can go on but um you know so this these are the guidelines that we can kind of draw from uh based and based on our own
experience you know here in town and I think this report provides a really nice foundation for us to build off of. As chair of the public works committee, I have some major, you know, not negative concerns, but just concerns
about the investment that the bureau is going to have to make. And, you know, that's there's going to be some lead in uh to that and prep time. So I I certainly endorse, you know, having a um a a a a a delayed launch as we you know,
if we have an ordinance thereby begins this program and then we can start putting building blocks in place before, uh you know, it actually gets moving. Um but if there's any you know if there's any questions about the business uh outreach um uh I think
>> my biggest concern was that to restrict people hours for making a living and you know it's very it's it's liveable wage that they're working on and it's hard work it's not easy work and to limit them to limit the time in which people can earn a decent living I don't I just
don't think that's that's not fair 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I think that's good. In the springtime, 7:30 a.m. the sun is is up sometimes at 5:30 in the morning or 6 o'clock in the morning. So, you know, we all have to we're going to be
all inconvenience somehow. But I don't think 7:30 is an unfair time for people to start start their day and to make what it is that they for a living. I think 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. is good.
You had a question. >> Oh, I thought you thought you >> Oh, no. No. I was just looking at >> I was just rambling, but but I think the 7:30 to 6 p.m. is very fair. And I and I also think that, you
know, a phased in approach, a two-year phase in approach because as council member George says, the tariff 50% increase. So, you're really going to need a phase in time so people can afford to retrofit their fleet to to get these these items to purchase them. It's
going to take some time. Council member H. >> Um, just real quick, I think the bill in the state legislature has been there since 2024, if not earlier, and never moved out of committee. So I don't >> it's not a hot hot. But one one question I have and maybe the the experts know
this. >> Are landscaping companies likely to retrofit or buy new ones or like like can you retrofit a gas to turn it into No, you can't. You have to buy a brand new one. So it's not about >> changing the equipment. It's about
shifting to the >> But they're changing them over anyway because equipment wears out after a couple of years. They're constantly they're constantly buying new equipment. Uh there's a landscaper out of Princeton who um who's all electric and he's a big
advocate of this and he's he claims and he runs this is you know like a like a called green sky blue earth was it green earth blue sky um something like that in there and he claims that it's cheaper to do it because he doesn't have maintenance because electric is without
maintenance. interesting compared to gas. PS has a lot of maintenance and uh once you turn over and the batteries is the biggest issue any of any but once you overcome the battery part of it let's say I'm not I'm not an expert in at that from that perspective it's less
expensive to operate the electric >> I'm going to ask you because where this is being taped yes you could either speak to the microphone >> I got to turn off the mic's not on >> okay you want me to take it over there you if you you're actually on camera
from there. >> Okay. So, so what we found is with this um landscaper um I don't remember the exact name, Blue Sky Green, possibly um all electric, all electric in everything, not just his gas powered leaf blowers, but everything all of his
equipment. He claims that you can run an all electric and he's he's actually tried to come into Highland Park, but uh he needs to have since he's out of Princeton, he needs a certain minimum minimum number of clients. to uh to service this area.
>> It can be less expensive to operate because of maintenance. In addition to all the other benefits, you get environmental benefits, health benefits. The operators themselves get a health benefit. Someone who's operating a gas powered leaf blower, you have noise issues, and you have air pollution
issues. Those are those are and a lot of them don't wear hearing, they don't hearing uh you know the headphones or whatever it is. And and also they're not wearing masks. So, it's actually an issue. Yes, it's a huge economic uh issue on the on the companies. We know that and we're
not we're not sidest stepping that. And in fact, we we we discussed this environmental commission with Councilman George when he was on there. Um we we we uh are definitely uh um you know, understand that. But to be honest with you, right now they're already violating the noise ordinance. I guarantee you
anybody who's operating a gas power leaf blower is already they're already um could be cited for violating the noise ordinance straight out like they could be cited for that and when nobody's enforcing that because these things are operating such high levels. There's so
many other reasons why the gas car leaf loaders are the soft spot in >> going it really is everything actually. It's all equipment like you mentioned. It's lawnmowers. It's everything, but this is the this is probably the most um environmentally
and health-wise uh piece of equipment that's overused. Uh you don't they don't do it for blowing leaves. We know that they clean up the sidewalks >> and they're doing it out of season. So, if we started to at least get them to say, "Okay, you have a leaf blower, use it for leaves only in season." And then
we'll, you know, then we want to get them to like now start using things that are a little bit, you know, they really shouldn't be blowing leaves anyway because even if they're using the electric, they're blowing dust and all sorts of pollins and that can give you that health perspectives of that. Um,
I'm looking more at just environmental perspectives. Health is the health problems are, you know, you know, much worse. Actually, we we saw this more as a health issue than an environmental issue to be honest with you. That's how we we pushed it. So, I've been really pushing it more into the board of health
to show why it's a board of health issue and environmental is a secondary issue. But like, you know, Highland Park uh has to think about, do we want to do we want to have um leadership and follow the other towns that are going forward or we want to wait till the state maybe does
something? Um you know, we're a small town, small properties. Do they really need to do this? Can they figure out better ways to clean up the lawns a little bit longer, a little bit more expensive? Um, can they use a electric? There's there's other ways to do it. And um, we can give them we can educate
them. We can give them time to do it. Could be three years, could be four years, but it has to be something. If it's like you said, if it's just like a partial ban, probably it'll slip and uh, it's hard to enforce it. Oh, it's the day after the uh, who remembers what day you can stop operating them. So, you
know, these are all the consideration points I think as as the council starts to think about what they want to do, where they really want to be, you know, at the forefront of it, where they want to follow other towns leads and um, you know, consider what uh you think is best for Highland Park.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, if there is a company that is an all electric company, we should get that company to come here to talk to our landscapers. If there's an economic benefit of that, we should try and as part of our outreach effort in the future, we should have a presentation or
a explanation or someone to make that argument because they're going to listen. Other landscapers seem to me to be more likely to listen to other landscapers um who have experience with this. And so if there is evidence that this is cheaper and and which I think is
going to be the primary driver for landscape companies and all that will he's willing to >> I mean to the extent that there is that >> he does a lot this Amner is his name the one who runs this blue sky um he's not the only one I think even in town I've
seen other small operators that are I do all electric but these are not professional landscapers maybe these are mom and pop or even a teenager but they do advertise, hey, I'm going to do your lawn for, you know, I'll see them like on Facebook or something. I'll do your lawn and I don't use and you'll do
electric. You know, these are probably not commercial people, but again, that that isn't that will appeal, I think, to some residents. We we know that because there's a lot of people who uh think about these things. In addition to the, you know, the noise is also I don't know if particularly, you mentioned something about having a 7:30 in the morning.
Well, the garbage trucks come by, they start around that time. Um, but it's really people also working from home or or somebody who's not even working from home wants to sit out in their yard. Um, you can't sit in your yard when they're, you know, when you're the properties are so on top of each other. Uh, so it's a
it's also a quality of life issue uh throughout the whole day and throughout whenever they use these whenever they operate any of the equipment. But these are particularly egregious I think is the uh if it were up to me from the environmental maybe from the board of health we we would say go back to rakes
and uh you know brooms and stuff. I mean you know that's you know go back to the the old days right but like you said progress is here. So we'll we'll we'll maybe we'll take the one that's a real outlier and start with that one and maybe we'll start getting people think about better ways of doing things. Um
you know you got to start somewhere. I I would just one small thing to to point out. Monontlair, Princeton, and Maplewood are different communities in Highland Park. It meaning that the increased cost in Princeton doesn't mean as much as it does here.
And that's that's >> they're all different. You're right. Clair is ethnically diverse though. It's very diverse. It's got very large multi-million dollar properties. It's also got the the small properties, uh, you know, which also exist, too. So, yeah. You're right. Everyone is
different, but I don't know Park's a good example. Westfield's been trying to get it enacted, by the way. Just we didn't go into the negative, the ones that failed. There's communities that have failed. In fact, unfortunately, West that report I wrote, West Orange actually reverted theirs, >> right? >> And it's not report because I think at
the time I wrote the report, it hadn't been or either I was unaware of it. So, West Orange actually, like you said, they they actually I think they pulled a uh they were going to do a full ban and they actually pulled it. But we have to you know it's hard to keep up with all the
>> doings of every community. Uh so but it is possible if it doesn't work out then you know you can always you can always reverse it if you if you really but I can't I think it's like anything else. I think people will eventually adjust and I don't buy in the fact that the
landscapers are going to stop servicing the community. I think that's kind of a uh maybe just a uh a little bit upset you know a threat maybe. I feel that there's there'll be somebody who will step in. Competition is always good. Um,
alternate ways of doing things. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate >> questions. No, there's two more questions. >> In a moment, please. In a moment, Jason. >> Oh, yeah. I just have a quick point with regards to the legislation. So I can
definitely see that particular bill which also had the component of an outright ban statewide struggling politically and not really having a mention to move. I was >> you just me you mentioned if there was any state efforts that's why I said that you're not
banking on that legislation. >> Oh yeah yeah no I was just responding to the other Matt's concern that that wasn't moving but I was thinking what I think might have more likelihood of success of actually moving and becoming law is a standalone tax credit bill. So that's why I was saying like maybe we should just go back to the idea of a reszo to kind of encourage that kind of
legislation that the standalone tax credit which I think may have a better you know not that that legislation isn't worthy as well but I'm just saying in terms that this a standalone tax credit may have a better chance of actually passing becoming law in the short term. So >> I don't think so with this economy.
>> I'm just saying that was my inside voice. >> Sorry. I um I just wanted to speak in part to the the uh cost of the transition. And there are some towns
around the country that uh have worked out deals with their local banks to offer discounted loans for contractors to purchase the equipment that they have
to purchase. Um, that's some, you know, we've got Unity Bank, we've got Provident Bank, you know, we have a couple of places that are, you know, based in this town and they might be willing to do something like that because it's a community, um, banking
requirement that they help out the communities they're in. They're they have, you know, um, pressure to do that and they might be willing to do that. Um, so it's one thing to to think about. Um the other thing is that just to it's
tariffs aside the cost of those of electric has been going steadily down. Now I don't know how the the tariffs are going to mess with that but I just wanted to get that. Uh lastly the batteries are getting much better and
they last longer and what a lot of the companies do is they have batteries that are interchangeable. your weed whacker and you take it out, you put it into lawn mower, you can put it into the blower. So, there's a constant kind of uh rotation. So, it's
getting easier to do. Um, but if anybody has any uh questions about the health uh aspects of it, just let me know. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Um I uh I just wanted to mention uh a couple of things. I So, obviously the
towns that that that were cited are wealthier. Um, let me back up. So, um, you know, I'm I'm fundamentally a reporter. Uh, and so I don't try to bring dogma or I don't I try not to suppose anything. So,
if we do, you know, as we move if if we move forward with this, I think a lot of the fact the the economic benefit discussions with with with with local businesses are going to be necessary to help inform us as we move forward. The point of this is not to move forward with an ordinance right now. it's to
just kind of get the council to see if this is something that we want to move forward with. Um, so I agree and I think that, you know, from an economic development standpoint, I think it's hugely important. I do have um I think I think I'm I'm really comfortable in our
role to regulate business. Um, I'm a little less comfortable and I would like to hear more about regulating uh individual personal equipment. Um, that's something that, you know, I just want to know a little bit more about. And then when it comes to wealthier
communities, you know, it's the same old it's the same old adage. It's like, you know, the the the environmental justice communities tend to be the poorer, less resourced ones, and the ones that are wealthy have the resources to remove particulates from the air, to remove
sound from the air. Um, and I just kind of wanted to state that upfront that this is not a rich people ordinance. Um, and I think it's really important for us not to look at this in that way. Yes, there's going to be, you know, some type of added burden as there is with any regulation. Uh, and it's really
important that, you know, we find partners in the, you know, in in in the industry who can really inform us clearly on what some of the sacrifices are. Um, but when it comes to clean environment and when it comes to, you know, um, uh, uh, noise reduction, uh,
that is not the domain of rich people. And I think that's just important for us to to point out. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks for coming out. Thanks for sharing. All right. Now, we're going to move on
to track a redevelopment plan amendment and Wait, do we want to just get a sense here? >> Oh, you want to go? It's three of you that can move. Oh, >> yeah. I don't >> Oh, it's four of you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking Okay. So, not not enough for a quum for a vote, but go ahead.
>> Oh, no. I just I mean, do we want to do an informal kind of are we okay to kind of move forward and do and do more facting and explore? >> Oh, that's what I thought this whole discussion was about. >> Okay. All right. No, I just that that's >> No, I thought the whole discussion was about, you know, >> I probably set the expectations of the
task force. I was like, this is when we know this is when we know whether we can go forward or not. So, no, thank you. Thank you for that, >> council members. Um, how would you like would you like to proceed or not like to proceed? >> I think we should proceed. >> Okay. >> Oh, absolutely. We should continue to
investigate and I think we should push for that res. >> Thank you. Thank you, task. Thank you for coming. There's no reason we can't do can't do all of that. >> Awesome. All right, we're going to move on to the next subject. Track day
redevelopment. Amendments. >> Amendments. >> Amendments. Yay. >> Um, so just a reminder on my birthday we had a wonderful community meeting. I was like, how do I remember this date so well? um uh to talk about the proposed
development for tract A uh which for those of us who don't know where that is that's basically starts at 101 RTON right up through to the edge of where the new Alen uh cafe is. Um and 101
Ronin is Bergen Auto or Joe's garage or whatever many number of iterations. Um, so similar to with track C, which is our farmers market lot area, um, we knew when we did the plan, we wouldn't
exactly know what building we'd end up soliciting, you know, ideas for. And similarly, we did amendments coming out of our community meeting for track C. We're now coming out of our community meeting for track A. Behind me are the boards, but I actually may with your
permission I'd like to share my screen just so anybody watching from home or on the video later uh just to these are just the the uh images we shared at our um community meeting. Um hold on let's see
>> that's the before. >> Okay, make it a little bigger. No, it doesn't seem to matter. Oh, there we go. Uh, so this is the before and this is the after shot looking with your back to New Brunswick looking down Rariton Avenue
>> and then the other way. There's that Atlanticon. Yeah, >> I have to jump it. It's so nice. >> Atlantic said the same thing to me every time. They was like looking down from Atlanta toward New Brunswick. So we're trying to figure out, okay, we developed
this plan. I guess it was what 2021 and we now know there are certain areas uh that we need to look at in order to have a fully conforming project because we essentially want to set them up for success when they get to the planning board assuming we agree with the tweaks
to the plan that we think they're reasonable. Um, so what I was hoping Chris might do, just this was just to kind of remind us all what we're looking to try to achieve um, is just kind of walk you through um, and because of just we're at the year end, we had actually
hoped to be able to get this done in December, but it just didn't happen. Um, and so the idea was to get you all kind of familiar with what we're thinking in terms of and we work with the developer and their design team to try to identify
these areas in the plan that might need adjustment. So that way we can move quickly in the new year to the towards these amendments. You'll obviously have a chance to see these amendments um and so will the public, you know, as part of the usual ordinance adoption process. So
with that, Chris, maybe you could walk uh the group through what we've been looking at. >> Yeah. Uh no, no presentation because the comments we received from the conditional pre-developer um was actually pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, which is good because we started with a concept plan with no
developer. So to hear that we're just looking for tweaks, it's actually a good sign. Um so there's really two categories of changes. One that's specific to tract A and others that are really applicable to all standards, really minor things. Uh so specific to track A, it's to allow for residential
on the ground floor as you see in the rendering. There's some town houses and duplex mainly on the walkway side. So limited footprint. Same type of amendment we did for track C. Um another amendment is to clarify the height of the building. It's five stories is already allowed um really as a tower
element and it's step back on the fifth floor. This is to clarify to allow for a little bit longer building that loft look brick building style just a little bit more distance on front edge to allow for uh the concept plan as shown. >> And just just to step back uh a second,
Chris mentioned those duplexes on the ground level. This is that corner we're we're looking at. It kind of wrap around that little walkway break down the massing as you transition to the neighboring office building. Um, another amendment that we're seeking
is on the side of the building next to Lenon is to make it five feet, but also push back the top floor so it doesn't loom over uh the residential property owners fronting on North Second. That's always been a concern of ours. As a reminder, the underlying zoning, the
CBD, allows for zero foot setback of N to 50 ft height. So, this is like adding a little bit more stepping back um really in protection of the homeowners. assume she can be created. Uh and lastly, specifically track A is to really an internal discussion, but just
want to put it out there, they're asking for some temporary staging area for a trash recycling. Uh we wanted to make sure you don't see trash cans sitting out next to the Lenon, but this is intended to be only for a limited amount of time in the morning for pickup. Uh
since the retail will have a little it's a little trickier to have it downstairs, but these are some things that we'll continue to work with them prior to site plan. And just to be clear, because I think that's probably of all the little tweaks that we knew were coming, that was the one that Chris and I were most concerned and something that we are
really being mindful of in all of our discussions with downtown redevelopment is the waste management and how we want to kind of elevate. We know we've had the toers are everywhere. So, we're trying to when we have redevelopment opportunities, how can we make it almost
invisible to the public? So basically what's the current thinking is and you can't really see in this image but along and my I don't know how to make it like a hand or something sorry but the basically there would be a door access there that they would then bring the
stuff out on garbage pickup day private hall not you know that's part of our plan but that we're that no in no way would the people sitting in the cafe in Alen be looking at garbage sitting in the alleyway for that building. So, we've gotten that clarified to our
satisfaction. Um, but we may we're going to make sure that the plan is amended to reflect what is allowed and what isn't allowed. >> I would say those are the really main changes specific to track a minor. >> That's a really big one with me that the garbages because we have enough issues
with that on the avenue. So, right >> any new development must they must that must be hidden away nicely. And >> this might actually be an opportunity to help the Lacon trash pickups. we have five apartments. So that could be a way to kind of resolve some of that too. >> Great. >> Um so those are the really big changes
for track A. Some of the minor tweaks that apply to all tracks would be um there's a good comment raised by their planner which was to how do we deal with the like transformers and they were concerned about it being subject to principal structure setbacks. It's a nuance thing. So I'm going to be writing
in accessory structure setbacks. They're a little bit limited step back but make sure it's not on an avenue. no more no front yard uh AC units or transformers. So, I mean adding accessory structure setbacks. Um some tweaks on allowing for projections like bay windows. Right now
it's 3 ft. They asked for four and the thought was well for me personally I would love to get windows on the side of bays, get more light into the units. So I think a increase of four feet is reasonable and I'll probably make that suggestion for the underlying zoning in the future anyway. Um since the building
is so long and so big but broken up into different parts, uh we're going to tweak the provision that says it must be made with masonry to say it's primarily masonry just so that the air lab to do uh fiber cement panels and boards and whatnot. Um and make sure those changes
happen at inside corners as you see in the >> Oh, I took it down for you. Sorry. Even if there's gone, >> right? It's a nice picture. >> It'll be the last image. >> That one. There you go. >> Yes. So, you can see on the fivetory
building with the brick, how the brick returns and hits the gray part of the building. >> That makes the building look like a masonry building. If it was just the face of it, it would look like it was stuck on it real cheap. And so, that's more of an architectural treatment. Make sure transitions happen at inside. >> I had to study I had to listen carefully
during our meeting to understand what he meant by inside corner. And I was like, "Oh, >> but Nancy the architect, which who also did the presentation, uh, she's really good." And we're like on the same page. We were clicking. >> Yeah. Or even here, you see how there's this here and it would wrap around the side, I guess.
>> And the last change, you can actually keep that up there. Um, is relative to landscaping along the avenue. Mhm. >> Um if those who are you who are in construction uh are aware in a fire sub code I believe there's a prohibition now of combustible materials along buildings
meaning you can't mulch >> against a commercial building. Um so this is to the request and I agree completely uh since it's timely uh to separate the landscaping requirements that will be along the curb in which case that's our opportunity to enhance
it because we also want track C to do the same thing just enhance tree pits uh some storm water management uh at the curb to the extent that state allows it uh as well as and separate that from the landscape along the base of the building. That's pretty much it for
>> it was actually >> create more rain gardens >> to the extent possible. Well, I don't know if we're I think we're looking at the the tree pits the and the kind of these >> on steroid tree pits kind of serve as >> a different kind of green in but not the rain gardens where we've had
>> no no not those moderniz >> uh but but what we really want these trees to thrive and I think if we get those enhanced pits will be in we'd like to at least see if that makes a big difference. Um >> can we get cherry blossom?
really pretty. >> I do not believe it's on our list. Probably >> they would look really nice in the spring where the root systems are diagonal. >> Yeah. So, I'm pretty sure that's a nogo, >> but maybe there's something flowering to
your point that we could consider. Um, so yeah. So, it's it was it was relief in going through the memo. At first it looked like this really long memo, but then we mainly they did a very thorough job. But the a lot of the the kind of adjustments and amendments that were
looking at for a are very comparable to the kinds of adjustments we had to make for track Z's building to work. So we felt very comfortable. So uh Chris will be working on the amendments to the actual plan. We'll also update the history and how we got here to reflect
where we are now versus you know where we were in 2021. Same thing we did with uh track C. And the only other kind of major substantive easy change but very substantive uh we will be uh
recommending we add uh the the block and lots for the classic leaner properties as area in need of redevelopment with condemnation which would be a necessary amendment should we decide to proceed with the condemnation effort. So we're still in negotiations. We may never need
to go to that point, but it's an administrative step we will have to take. And if we don't amend the plan to do that, we can't pursue that. Um, so it's just following through on the that designation. Um, so that would be
another amendment to the plan that's not specific to the design, but is uh important to potentially the implementation of the project. Oh, I think Matt was first this time. I'll hold my time to Matt. That's
>> Oh, wow. Look at you. >> I just thought to give you a good idea. U The amendments are coming to us. The amendments. Can you just walk people through the process? >> So, uh yeah, I feel like I'll come but I recognize we don't do this every day. So, we're talking about them now.
Crystal will draft them. We'll we'll then review them both by the attorney and the council will have the opportunity to review them. Eventually, when we think they're ready for prime time, there'll be an ordinance to adopt those amendments. They'll be introduced at a council meeting. At that same
council meeting, there are typical practices to refer the plan to the um planning board for review and master plan consistency review. they will do their thing and hopefully they'll agree these are consistent and then council
comes back to council first for a public hearing so the public would have an another opportunity to comment on any of these amendments and then uh then adoption. So there's uh three meetings of public bodies uh once we have an
amendment in which to uh present. So, uh, and then and then hopefully it will get adopted and then we're one step closer to actually building this building. >> Okay, Jason, >> I was just going to say real briefly
that all the amendments sound very reasonable. Um, I guess we need to finesse the waste management bit piece, but hopefully we can work that out relatively >> and that could also be some of it is in our redevelopment agreement. We can probably, you know, we can handle some of it in the plan and some in the agreement.
>> Perfect. I was going to say, I think someone astutely noted earlier that this is very nice. So, I think we should >> I I think we should move forward. >> All right. >> Agreed. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> And we're in a good place. The the team from Tan has already done a good first
pass. So, we kind of know it's more about the word smithing that Chris is so good at. So, >> all right. >> Thank you. >> All righty. 420 to 424 RAND. >> Good news. All I'm going to say is we had hoped to have those done and and
ready for review before the end of the year. We are still working on it. We talked about that previously. This plan amendment was authorized over a year ago. Um, essentially we wanted to extend updated zoning to the full block where now the Superfresh is. Uh right now it
just applies to the properties uh that are you know the parking area and the super fresh building. This would include from fifth to fourth. Um and so we just want to we're going to get that done you know and I just wanted to it was secretly a hope that we would have
something to share but we didn't quite get to it but it's okay. It's just we feel like >> we'll regret not getting that done because then that'll be the next kind of building goes for sale and we don't have the plan in place. Uh so it's just trying to get out ahead of that a little
since we're really extending down to the corners. We're not really coming up with some radical new concept there. Uh so that's all that is. >> Great. >> So any questions on that? >> Cool. Okay. Updating permit usage
central business district and commercial zone. >> Yeah. So this this we talked a little bit about when we started talking about the Wraid. I shouldn't call it that. former write aid location and what kind of uses are permitted there. Um, and I
had mentioned that Chris and Ratuja and I were working on kind of we we felt like we need to look at our permitted uses and just these are uses that are allowed in the central business district which is basically what we consider main
street as well as this commercial zone which is basically uh Porsche Woodbridge up and an upper raritin to for those are our main commercial zones. There are maybe some pockets here or there, but those are the ones that I think. So, Chris, um, I'm going to hand it off to
you because you've done a lot of the thinking and organizing, but essentially, you know, we felt a the definitions were wanting in a couple times like we've had to bandandy about. Somebody comes in with a use and we all
have to just like try to get our decoder rings out to decide if we think our zoning allows it or not, which isn't a good place to be. So, we wanted to try to add some clarity and also open up opportunities for other uses uh that we
might want that just for legacy reasons aren't allowed. So, with that, Chris, maybe walk us through kind of where you are and some of the things you put in in your memo. Yeah, in the memo I really indicate the purpose of this is to really modernize and expand use for
purposes of supporting economic development and also to really for ease of administration because um the worst thing the worst situation be in is does the bureau want this? Do I need how do I interpret this? Do I need to go to the board for interpretation? Um, and from
our practices as a planner is sometimes you see ordinances where they list every single possible use and you have to go through pages and pages like, "Oh, I don't see office showroom. I guess we're not permitted." Um, my suggestion is uh, which I think we all agreed internally was stick with broad categories, but
stick the really detail uses into the definition such as in including uh, as well as similar us. That way there's some balance of interpretation but also make it very clear. Um in the ordinance at black uh in your memo which is what we currently permit and in red are
>> but not organized as nicely. >> So we're cleaning up. >> Yeah. A lot of clean up, a lot of administrative change. We'll make significant change. Um among the change the uses that we're adding is indoor amusement establishments. That'll be like arcades, game rooms, escape rooms,
and whatnot. Uh indoor recreation. That's clarifying that gyms, dance, studio, yoga suit is permitted. Uh massage body work only because while they are considered personal service, I want to separate the two because massage uh shops are separately regulated by
license uh through the borrow code. Uh the banks and financial institutions are only allowed on second floors, but there's many banks on the ground floor, but so it is allowed on the ground ground floor, but still prohibit drive-thru banks. uh just really expanding food to food and beverage
obviously uh still prohibiting fast food as well as drive-through restaurants uh packet stores and taverns which is really where you need a license to sell alcohol but also adding for clarity brew pubs breweries wineries because of the modern use um in your current ordinance
you have a an allowance for art studios and art instruction space but only as an accessory use on second floors like I thought park was about the arts So, we're going to make the visual and performing arts and maker spaces sort of like ultra light manufacturing as well as art galleries to make it clear that
they're all loud. Uh, essentially places where you can create art and display art or practice art like music, acting, um, music, dance and working on theater production. So, we're going to make that permitted use on the ground floor. Uh, a public assembly facilities like what does that mean? So, we're going to add a
definition as and clarify that also includes flex pieces. So, party rental spaces, demonstration kitchens, and whatnot. >> Um, pursuant to state law as as is required for all non-residential districts, child daycare centers,
licensed ones. That means we're going to add that in our zones just to make it clear. So, when people see, oh, I guess they don't allow for uh nursery schools and uh daycare centers, but they are allowed pursuant to miscellaneous law. >> Uh, offices are only allowed. We look I learned at the planning board.
>> Council member here, would you like to speak? >> I want to hear what's just finished his statement. Sorry. >> I I just wanted to add that that we learned at the planning board you can't stop and daycare centers. And I know that
there was some discussion when we were talking about the property formerly known as RA whether or not we we that was one thing he added as a and as we were having that discussion the planning board attorney informed us that >> they're always allowed and so we had not
allowed them now we would so >> this is more of a cleanup cleanup >> we all learned that one that that planning board meeting >> sorry mayor I did the same >> did the same thing >> that one just finish his statement. >> He made you do it, huh? Go ahead.
>> The irony is when you read the statute, it's been in place since the 80s. Uh anyway, so offices, so they're only allowed accessory use on second floor. We're going to allow them on the ground floor, but not front Ren Avenue. That's sort of I would say of all the changes, it's probably the biggest
change. >> Why not front? >> I think the concern is that you have a lot of empty space after 5:00. Uh that's really the primary reason that I I've really >> and wizard display boots on the ground. >> Yeah. >> But this will include professional offices. It include physicians, medical
lawyers, architects, uh government offices, post office, that's already allowed on the ground floor. There already is one. And also clarifying this could include shared and co-working spaces. >> Um medical cannabis and class 5 and class six already allowed. Uh that's not changing. Uh one other big change in
addition to office is allowing for multif family apartments not an accessory use but as a principal use >> but not located on the ground floor. >> Oh okay. >> Really no change just moving from accessory to principal principal. And then lastly burrow and or county
operated public facilities. For whatever reason it wasn't in there. Now we're going to add it in for clarity in case there's community space you want to have downtown which could include um well actually it's me and track >> the um park main street uh the C zone it
really is the same thing as CBD but allowing for offices on the ground floor fronting the street uh and multif family apartments on the ground floor but not fronting Ridan Avenue and Woodbridge Avenue. Um,
and that's just strictly apartments. So, I mean, we I asked the board uh council if they have any thoughts on what that means or should we limit or expand it. That's my really my main question before we start ordinance. But that that's the
really the main changes. Also, the difference between the CBD and CZO is that CZO allows for laboratories, but that's an existing permitted use. We're just we're not changing that. just briefly because Chris touched on it too. It's always pretty much something
of a concern is um looking at a little little more of a liberal use of ground floor ground floor residential because there are ways to plan it where it's not on directly on Raritin but can be part of a unit that's built on Raritin. Uh
there's several reasons for it. Number one is affordability. Number two is ADA access. When you when you have a have to provide ADA low income or or sub level
income for with ADA access or for targeted populations. Um you want to be able to provide that and not have to build it as an um as an exception. But it also
provides more available space for affordability. So, if I put up a building, but I'm not allowed to have ground for apartments, I've got to put in commercial space, whether I want to or not, >> including down the block, there's three
more new vacancies. So, why why are you going to make me build commercial where I can limit that commercial to the front where I can do a maker space or a flex space, but in the back I I can put ground level apartments. Ground level is
immediately accessible. No elevators, no steps, no curbs, no nothing. So I'm not put I don't have to put extra money into it there. Um so now I think I the building where I was going to put six units, I can now put nine units and that
increases my affordability count by one and ADA accessible and afford. So I think when we formularize that I I I totally understand the formula you know the planning the concept goes back way
way back of not having offices that go dark at 5:00 facing your prime boots on the ground space but when we ban it completely we're cutting off that back access. So I think we I think we need to plan
that a little bit better. I'm also not a huge fan of the old 80s formula of com all commercial on the ground because I think I think it's failing in a lot of ways or it's just not reaching goals in a lot of ways. We're cutting we're cutting off affordability living space
and the trend of our Gen Z people, some of whom have those in their households are are moving away from that. You know, they're moving back to the city. They want to be where it's funky and loud and fun and not driving anywhere. And that's
that's who's moving in. That's who's moving in. >> Council member Hail. >> Um, uh, obviously I 100% support these. Just a couple questions. Burrow or county operated facilities. Does that
exclude if the state of New Jersey wants to put a facility? And I guess what I was thinking is technically Ruckers is a state of New Jersey. there's a state of New Jersey facility. Um, I don't know if that if if Burrow or county covers it, but let's say that
something from, you know, Ruckers wants to academic use, >> academic, >> academic or governmental. >> I mean, I just think maybe we could add the state of New Jersey if they want to do something. We'll take them as long as they pay rent. >> Academic, administrative, and governmental. Um
>> yeah because in in light of that question the question I wrote down was um when our track development we're looking at putting Main Street somewhere in that development area with that crypto plan. >> Uh so they are regulatory a redevelopment plan and they will be
considered office space. Um just a um on the medical can this dispensaries and this may have just been time when we talk about class 5 retailers in class six there's this clause about consistent with our
existing ordinance um subject to the requirements set forth in in the code about cannabis. Um just want to make sure that the medical is also subject to those just in terms of it's the way it read on this particular
page is medical cannabis is just a term but medical cannabis is subject to the same cannabis rules that we have for for retail. So just make sure that that's um um consistent. Um,
and then this is I don't know how to say this other than saying it. Um, I have a memory that we've had some issues with massage parlors being >> Yes. Yes. memory serves you well.
>> Being something other other than massage parlor. >> That's why it comes under personal service. Um, you know, I I there are legitimate massage parlors and there are illegitimate I I just figured that
>> if we're talking about massage parlors um that might be something we want to consider that we we have massage parlors in town um on the second floor. >> I'm sorry. >> I knew I knew you were coming.
So I separate >> trying to be delicate. >> I I I don't know. I just it it um is is there is there a way or a distinction or something about the difference between somatic therapy and body work and stretch? Like there's
there's Matuchin has stretch lab which is a >> you know it's it's not a massage place it's a stretching place and it's it's somehow >> so a place like that will be still personal service. The issue is once they start touching the skin, right? >> Um, and in the touching, they actually
just recently adopted an ordinance to restrict the number of licenses offered. >> That's something you could do here. Uh, for the purpose of zoning, uh, the reason I separated two because they're, in my opinion, are distinctly different uses. And this gives us the opportunity to potentially remove them from the CBD
or the C or both as permitted uses. But that that's a bigger discussion which we should have. Um, that's partly the reason I want to separate too because I want to I'm kind glad you brought that up because I want to hear from you how you want to where you want them to be located permitted in addition to
potentially expanding your licensing ordinance, which I think is chapter one uh 147 247. I'm gonna expect a fair number of emails telling me how wrong I am about this, but I don't think I want massage parlors
in downtown. Just my initial reaction is is I'd rather focus on gyms and other I but again I I I guess I don't know enough about the distinctions among those appliances. >> I'm not touching that one.
No, >> no, no. >> No pun intended. >> Then you're on the massage parlor. It's not personal services. The issue the issue there is, you know, you have uh an
establishment that that offers a a number of different exercises, uh gymnastic um gymnastics, hot yoga, regular yoga, and massage >> or stretching therapy. How do you how do you you know is that an accessory to the
use or is it separately regulated? Do they have to have a separate license? Um and and again one of the concerns I have the biggest concern I have is a dark street at 8:00 at night. Good boots on the ground with lights makes money
and and I don't care what you say about it. But when you have half the town dark, you got a problem. When you have a vacancy in every block every other month, you got a problem. M >> and and that's one of the problems we need to work on if they're going to keep the lights on on a Thursday and Friday
night. You know, some of the corners if you if you watch especially this autumn um especially the block around Mr. Pie and then the bubble tea across the street. There's a lot of liveless there. The people are filling up our supposed,
you know, living rooms on the corners are actually full of people >> and that's what they're doing. But the the lights are on there. There's a lot going on. The music is out on the street. It's really pretty cool. You know, it looks like a real urban town.
But, uh, my bigger concern is, you know, is having a proper business. I still I I I think that the massage parlors uh need to be regulated because we have had our problems. On the other hand, most of them are small operations. They
don't tend to be gigantic. They're try they try at least to be spa-like and quiet, you know, play the zen music and all that kind of stuff. Um, and they're good for business. And they stay open on a Friday night. The lights are on go, you know, at 8 o'clock. That's a good
thing. >> I see. Sorry, I see. I I again I just brought it up as >> No, I I I know why you did. That's good. Good point. >> Something that needs to be considered deeper dive. Council member, >> thank you, mayor. Just really quick. Um,
thank you, Chris. I just wanted to clarify a couple things. Um, you mentioned um fast food. U Can can you can can you expand on that? We had a prohibition on fast food. I thought we just had a prohibition on signage. >> We don't want a McDonald's.
>> I'm just saying I don't know. >> But what is fast food? It could be anything. Currently have a prohibition on fast food establishment, >> which I may have to adjust. >> What is fast? It's all fast food. I well I can refer to the ordinance but
um it's mainly food that is prepared quickly and prepackaged >> often from frozen >> and every bubble tea >> sorry every bubble tea ever made >> right >> that's why we need to tweak the definition make sure it
>> in in a way prevents the >> I guess the McDonald's you're talking about but still allows for a restaurant for for example >> like a 409 burgers you know that we have in fast food because of the way you order food, you can you can customize your sandwich. >> Um, but like Chick-fil-A will still be fast food.
>> Yeah. >> But Chipotle would not because you're building your sle your >> bowl. Mayor, sorry you had your back on. >> So, I actually I'm glad you raised that, Matt, because um I wondered about I
guess personally I'm sorry we like I feel a little uncomfortable with the term fat. I think for me the fast food was drive-throughs. Like I and I I 100% agreed we didn't want the, you know, with with the with the drive, but to me it was the fast food part of being in
your car and you don't even have to get out of your car. You can eat it driving away. That was kind of what I thought. So, it's interesting to hear how everybody else is interpreting fast food because in my mind, I guess I didn't think that a McDonald's would be prohibited if they didn't have a
drive-thru and that that could possibly be considered, >> you know. So, I think it's worth exploring that a little bit because I hear from people sometimes more than I'd like to love a chain. Like, why don't we have
any of the chains? which to me I'm like but we have all these cool little places but I hear that you know you need a balance and so I get a little nervous you know because then it's like well we don't like McDonald's but we like bad guys well why you know how do we from a zoning perspective I agree with you from
a consumption perspective mayor you know like for but so I think it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on that because I would rather be more inclusive than less and control how they look and how they function than trying to engineer what chain does
or doesn't come to the burrow. But that's just my bias. Um, so I'd be curious how you guys think about that. >> So the current definition of fast food restaurant is an establishment includes one or more of the following characteristics and among them is serves food through a drive-in.
>> That's maybe where I got the idea there. Okay. >> Three other things like devoting 45% of your establishment to food preparation. >> Okay. >> That's really a function of how much space you have. >> True. uh the overall store usually whatever it usually means uh serves food over a general service counter or
takeout counter but I think my sense is takeout food is okay I think I think we've seen the changes from the pandmic that's >> also the way the world works >> but takeout it was for a while not permitted especially in the C zone I believe >> so as part of the changes the definition
I do want to reook at the fast food restaurant >> yeah I think that would be really good >> I I was One. One. One more. >> No, I wasn't. I wasn't done. I'm sorry. No, no, I >> Oh, you weren't done. >> No, I'm sorry. No, no. I apologize. And honestly, >> All right. Go ahead. >> Just a little. Um,
>> so on fast food, I just wanted to say that if it's the difference between Chipotle and McDonald's, I think I don't think that's something that we should necessarily uh differentiate. Um, uh, and then thank you, Chris. I just wanted to mention the
uh office uh use. I just wanted to agree with with Councilman George that um you know the importance of lighting on ground level office space. Um I'm sorry I I lost it. Uh would there be a you know with this
change? Obviously there are some legacy properties and uses >> um uh and they would remain right >> for offices. >> Correct. >> Allow for more offices on the ground floor. Okay. So, whatever it exists now. >> Oh, wait. Where did I Yeah, actually, I think that's what I was going to It was
I was a little confused by the >> Yeah. So, in the CBD currently, officers are only allowed to accessory use uh on upper floors. This ordinance, which suggests allowed on the ground floor, just can't front on >> frontacing. This is more flexibility.
>> Can't be front facing on rarity. Okay. >> And in a C zone, you're already allowed professional offices, but I'm just going to remove the word professional and say offices in general. I don't want to I didn't want to single out any specific uses, but I will. Anyway, I've noticed that you know we there there is kind of a burgeoning um courier uh you know re
kind of um courier operations in town that do shipping uh to far away places. Uh we have I think we've we've had at least two and I think the countbridge is now a shipping company. Um are there any spec do you have anything specific
about courier use shipping? um UPS store, you know, you know that that type of thing. >> We used to have one. >> Yeah, we did. >> Yeah. So, I would say if you were ask me to interpret what it is, it's falls under personal service establishment, which would be under the photocopying
and printing service. I could add and shipping facilities, but UPS store is more of a store that also ships. I would say shipping is more of a session use. Um, but if you have a concern about allowing those types of uses, which I would not recommend prohibiting, um, I just need
to know and make sure to carve that out as not being permitted. But for for the moment, I would include that as similar to printing. >> No concern. My only and just with the office, my only my only issue is was is I just want to second what Phil said is that is that when they're dark at night, especially corner property we have in
town. We have ground, you know, we have we have buildings that used to be ground level retail that are now ground level office and it really changes things for not for the better. >> Yeah. Related to that, I just want to make sure I call attention to this. I want to make sure this is clear. Under personal service establishments for a
moment I've included uses like travel agency, CPA and tax preparation offices and real estate services. So in many towns it really comes down to a preference and policy decision. They make they may classify them as office or
commercial offices and or commercial offices are allowing the ground for but not general office. So I just want to get your feedback on CPA tax offices uh a real estate office on the ground floor on the avenue. Uh this ordinance would
classify as personal service business which mean it would be allowed on the ground floor which many of them do already >> exist. do >> just if you >> uh the one >> I've been Chris and I have been grappling with this one a little longer
and you know the way I've been trying to think about it if this helps and maybe it makes it worse is I'm trying to think about personal use like businesses where an office where anybody can walk in and
ask or you know like it's got a more of an open door storefront quality to it. So, like, "Hi, I need to get my taxes done. Knock knock. Can I come in?" Like that. That kind of seemed okay. Where I got where I get a little more apprehensive about offices is more were
like it's just a private office than is just doing a workspace that they just happen to have a good rent or something and there's it has no real reason it has to be on a main drag in our downtown. So, but maybe that's too fine of a
distinction. But that's where I kind of was like, well, those the first kind of can add some dynamism. I I can think of many towns where there's a real estate office and you look in the window, you look at what's for sale. It's it's it adds something. Well, usually they're
>> I know, but I'm saying like this would basically permit that >> in a more overt way than it is currently in our ordinance. So I I just wanted so conceivably there could be four more and so I guess I want to just make sure that
was clear but I guess I think that's how I've been trying to kind of think about it are things that kind of add value to the streetscape that have a little more dynamic quality uh as opposed to just the curtains are drawn and we're just getting our work done in here and yes
there's a door but it's not really you know the public. >> Yes. So the current definition of personal service business is odd. I'll tell you that uh it's providing a service to individuals regarding their apparel. >> So our apparel >> it's only apparel but this the ordinance
the intent of this ordinance is to clarify that we're providing a service to individual and businesses >> allow clears which are and to the point of making sure that the windows are not the shades are drawn. Um, part of this could include adding a couple design
standards as performance standards to make sure individual accessory office space or office space in general are are not abuing the storefront and the windows can't be, you know, drawn with shades at all hours during the day. >> So, there are certain performance
standards that are not related to zoning that could be added to the ordinance. Would you add? >> I like council member Jason had a question before but I'll let you go. >> I could you add something about um general public access to like during
business like like if if you're if you are a lawyer in a in an office doing a job, people have to make appointments to come in. But if you are uh if someone >> access to you know that somehow because
the part of the goal that we're trying to get to is that the things on the bottom floor are things that people go in and out of correct because they're go in and then they're go to Alen or they're going to go someplace else. So could you add a >> public access? So you could strengthen the current ordinance which says I
believe in the CBD and C zones or whatever um there must be an access point from the front of the building but it could be enhanced so that it's more of a publicly available space like a lobby or reception space but not individual offices. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Against the window.
>> That would get to the idea of trying to make sure everything that's there is activated. >> Correct. >> Even if it's not occupied at least there's a space it might read as an art gallery, >> but at least you can walk in. Mhm. >> And then engage with someone.
>> Council member Jason. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, so there's a lot brought up and I'm trying to remember everything, but I think I had an opinion on most of it, but uh, just at the outset, I just want to note that uh, generally I'm in favor of this and want to see this move forward. It's sort of a
no-brainer that we h I mean the fact that we haven't allowed indoor amusement establishments, recreation facilities, like all sorts of fun uses group areas to use. I mean I think this is long overdue and we really need to move that forward. There are a couple of nuance items that came up here that we may want
to have a little bit more discussion about. Um >> the very first point that you made uh Councilman George about the multif family apartments. Um, so I know that when we were just talking about amendments to track A, we specifically
were considering or including an amendment to allow for a limited amount of even rared front-facing um, living spaces. So, I'm open to that if others are open to that. Maybe it's just a percentage of the property. So,
like a bigger property can't have the the entirety if it's uh Riden or Woodbridge Avenue facing um first floor and maybe this is limited to the commercial zone as opposed to the CDD. Um but maybe there's some opportunities
for a couple of ground floor units that even face but like not the entirety of the building, maybe just some because again like those spaces certainly better. Yeah, it could that's good from an accessibility standpoint. It's good from an affordability standpoint and there just may not necessarily be the market for all the commercialies offer
like flexibility on it. >> Um, on the fast food, I agree with Councilman Hirs that I'm not sure about the distinction between McDonald's and Chipotle making sense and I was with Terry that I had no idea that we had a complete ban on on fast food as is. I
thought I think the the drive I mean we we already do have Dunkin Donuts and Papa John's downtown which I would consider fast food. I'm not opposed to having you know a few more. Um I but also I just can't think of a really good justification to necessarily exclude
those save for I think not having a drive-thru especially in the CBD that just wouldn't from a traffic safety standpoint make any sense. it also just isn't the property for that to work but certainly shouldn't allow it. Uh but beyond that, in terms of the different
types of theories, I'm flexible. Um I don't know if I want to weigh in on the or if I'm prepared to weigh in on the other topics, but I was uh intrigued by the idea of not necessarily, you know, or having
limits on the extent to which your property can have uh you know, shader enclosures or screens up for the entirety of the or just I guess for all times. like I feel like that >> it just I don't know it just doesn't seem like an inviting space. Um I don't
know if it I think it detracts from I guess the uh vibes of the downtown. Um so maybe we should explore maybe that's something we want to think about. But again, since we're carving out here for purposes of this proposed idea, we're just carving it out as a separate um uh
class that we could regulate separately and not necessarily have to address all of those issues here. Maybe that's something that's a separate working session meeting or something. >> Well, I'm separating it now because it's already separately regulated. So it makes sense to separate them for purpose
of licensing >> and also future proofs changes where if you do decide to you know let's take it out of that zone or let's add more standards on the licensing which is a separate ordinance that affect land use that gives us ability to kind of deal with that >> right so with the in terms of limiting
the screening that they could have on their uh the windows on the raid facing or woodbridge facing um uh storefronts would that fall under that separate licensing or would that be part of this? >> I would say design standards should
apply to all uses downtown. >> And for a use like that, it would require some sort of space, reception space you walk into. >> Yeah, I think if there's private suites >> for massage therapy, that's fine. It's deeper in the building, >> right? I think I would like to see that at this level then and move at least
that piece forward. And then, >> oh, what were the other things that we covered? I know that um Councilman Hail just made the point about the distinction for um uh offices that serve the general public or businesses so that people are coming
through the door. I think that's a good distinction. We should move forward with that. Um and I also agree with Councilman Hersh's point about allowing the courier services so that we should add that to the definition. Um shipping I think but that probably falls into sort of like it's a service or an office
that is generally serving the public. Um, I think that was everything I wanted to address. Um, so otherwise I would just say let's move it forward with these little tweaks. I think that it seems like that we're on the same page on >> that's all.
>> Um, just one thing on the windows. There's the building on the corner of Raron and Fifth >> that is an office building that is locked up tight during, you know, it's got shades in front of it. It's just a a it's a cool looking building, but it's
definitely doesn't feel accessible to the public. If this moves forward, would that change what they would need to the existing building would the >> an army community that the grandfather then I just but I didn't know what the
toy >> with the toy stories. Yeah. >> Okay, Terry, >> that's actually a good segue of what I wanted to say. Um, we also did a lot of work on our signage and and did develop some storefront standards and there are
places that are violating that for various reasons. >> We've deliberately not just gone out there like violation violation. You know what we want to try to do as a separate project is some some outreach and we've been talking with Chris about developing
like a easier to understand kind of interpretation of what we want to try to encourage and uh but have a little more of a soft touch perhaps you know a knock on the door you may not be aware you're papering up your front is actually >> right
>> doesn't you know so I well I I think there are some things already in our our uh ordinances that would allow us to pursue some of those remedies. I think that office is already there. So, I tend to agree it's grandfather. I don't know
how it got there, but it did. And so, we're kind of living with it. But, um the we can certainly start to carve out some outreach and just try to find some of the kind of the worst um offenders, select a better term, and try to work
with them a little more collaboratively. Um, and I think the issue about lighting is something I've been thinking out about a lot and Retreat has already done some research into some programs some towns have done elsewhere, not in New Jersey that I could find where with
small grants like to try to incentivize storefronts to have some kind of even if it is a salon and they're not open at after 6 or 7, they can put some rope lighting on the interior to just kind of illuminate. So it adds to just the the
safety and the kind of vibe so that you're not just going from a lit building to an empty empty lit, you know, it gives it a little more character. So I think there's ways we can achieve some of these things even if there are no changes in what's there for a little while, you know, as as things
cycle in and out that I'm hoping to find some time to pursue. Uh because I think they're all really valid and and would go a long way toward making things nicer. Before I go to Jason, I just want to ask, I thought we already had it on the books that there could be no covering of the storefront that we just
have been very relaxed in our policy. >> I think there are and Chris, I'll defer to you on the most recent update. I think, you know, we have sign limits and things like that >> and covering of windows and stuff like that. >> Exception beings for some of the cannabis businesses because of the state law. >> Yeah, that was separated out.
>> Uh but but I think Chris, is that correct? If I recall, we added some general standards, >> but some of them may predate the standards that we adopted, but I think there's no reason we can't try to get them to adjust their frontage >> because I remember a number of a number of years ago, we had to speak to do in
town about people covering windows and and they were not happy, but they had to take them down and I think we just got a little relaxed over the years. Mayor, one of the challenges that we stumbled into when we looked at that ordinance initially this last round was the one
side of the street in particular gets a lot of sun exposure and so trying to think creatively about blinds and things because like even the salons they're like baking in there some of them depending on which side of the street they're on. So that's that is a challenge but there's ways to do it and
you certainly don't have to wallpaper your storefront. you know, have to have louvers that can be adjusted. So, you know, certain times of day. So, those are all kind of things that >> are just we're going to have to work our way through >> more. >> Okay, Jason. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I was I think that more or less
resolved the concern. So, we don't have to touch that maybe um that subject. >> I would like to see that. And I also think regulating like looking at how we're inspecting and getting into some of the massage licensed massage establishments. something I've been
researching. Actually, I learned about Matuchen's recent ordinance and again, the county is actually going to help them, I think, with some of their enforcement on that. So, maybe that's an area where >> routine inspection, we'll see some improvements as well. >> Okay. What touching is they limit the
number of licenses for purely massage establishments, but they also separately license individual therapists that happen to offer that as a service or day spas and whatnot. So we're catching both where it's predominantly massage therapy and where massage therapy is offered as
an accessory service. So if you can >> so we can look at that but also just look at how we've been implementing our own ordinance and just see if it's time for it to council >> member H. I think the chiropractor has massage the one of our chiropractors
also has >> it would make sense if that was true. I mean they kind of relate. >> So that's bifurcated. >> I would I would want to learn more about what kind of concern slightly negative concern
about what Matach did to a minute. Uh I'm not I'm not crazy about limiting use of anything, you know, or limiting the number of use, uh you know, unless there's obviously a pre-existing law that requires us to do so. Um so, you know, we don't have that prohibition on other stuff.
>> Well, I I I I was mostly interested in the enforcement aspects like what they were doing, you know, on that front. >> So, we did talk about the liberal use of residential on the ground floor. I just want to understand the boundaries of that. Okay.
>> I heard a few different topics. Um, so where where would you be okay with residential on the ground floor? >> Before Mayor, may I jump in real quick? Sure. I just want to make sure everybody heard Chris that what we were proposing in this draft was in the commercial
zone, apartments would be permitted on the ground level. Uh, but multif family, right? >> Yeah, multif family. But they the way it's written right now is they still can't front the street. They can be on the side street and
>> on the sides >> where it is now or where we're proposing. >> Uh the current ordinance doesn't allow reset at all. >> See, I was imagining it would allow it facing Ritton. So that's an interesting I didn't realize that. >> So you have your apartment facing Rit. >> So So for example, we've been talking about those two projects on upper
Ritton. We have a redevelopment plan that allows apartments on the ground level kind of like the Frederick on River Road where maybe we just don't have a enough they're there for commercial use or what have you. It allows commercial uses on the ground
floor. So in my thought was we have we don't know if it's a success yet because these projects are yet to come to fruition. But should we consider that the C zone's a little different and we we want to focus retail and commercial
ground level energy in the more CBD zone. Um and so to be a little more flexible to your point Phil about having more accessible uh apartment living especially with the road diet coming on the ground level facing Ron may not be
the worst idea. The Chris did ask me, "What do you think about single family homes on the ground level and the C-Zone?" There are currently a few. I think they're fine as pre-existing, but I wouldn't suggest that would be my first choice to put a single family home. Uh, so I was thinking multif
family. Uh, but I'm, you would love to hear. So, but then downtown, I get a little nervous about just allowing it on the ground floor because how big the frontage we're dealing with. And maybe the suggestion Jason had was to look at that percentage if you can limit it to a
certain percentage of your front and that's going to limit the number of buildings because we have so many small little fronts. So, there's going to be very few. But, that is part of redevelopments. that's where we've been able to be creative about it because we have more to work with and we have a little more of the tools in the toolbox
to get the design right. Um so that those are just things I wanted you to think about as you respond right here. >> So in track C there is >> housing on front row in the center and some in track A there's going to be also
the the housing there. That leads me to believe that we should consider housing in other places as well. They're not prohibited. >> Yeah, I like the idea of they're a little cautious with the ground floor. I don't think it's a bad idea to allow for ground floor apartments
could include town homes as well in the C zone. These are really the fringes of Avenue by Edison >> and on Woodbridge Avenue. Again, the fringe by Ducllas uh on CBD you instead of percentage you could say residential on the ground
floor south of First Avenue and still have a you deal with it in a core downtown area through redevelopment. There's ways to do it as long as it's easy to to administer. >> So something to think about. >> Yeah. Originally what it
>> council member Jason for a second >> I was just going to say I like the sound of you know I think that logic makes sense that that for the CBD or at least the core of the CBD maybe we only have those allowances for the larger redevelopment projects may not make as
much sense in the smaller properties that are left but then I definitely think it makes sense for um the commercial zone and maybe portions of the CBD the outline portions to the CBD to have some flexibility for the front street facing uh residential. So, kind
of along the lines of what I think we're both suggesting. >> Richard, >> um I I I like the the flexible approach I think is appropriate, especially because a project may change from block to block depending on what the builder wants to
build. One of my thoughts was that there's no re I in a single building as opposed to saying well if you build on the side streets are okay but in a single building with its primary fascia on
Raritin there's no reason why the rear of the building could accommodate apartments primarily because if you're putting in parking that's where it's going to be or underneath giving even more accessibility because you have a vehicle
near your house. Um I I and the formula to say the residences don't even have to their entrance doesn't have to be on Main Street. >> Although their their face shut the the
windows may well face Raritin. You could because they can have a side entrance. You talked about the art gallery entrance with the building, you know, more to the side. it can be, you know, I think the most more flexibility we built into it, the better off we are. Um,
but I agree with Jason's idea that you may want to limit those. For instance, so we're looking at a building here and theoretically you could in the built in the loft style building that looks like the Singer
building along the Parkway. Um, you may have six apartments that theoretically could be on ground floor, but they don't all have to face, you know, they don't all have to be apartments. Number one, only three out
of six could be apartments and they don't have to be accessed from the front. The issue is when you say you can't have apartments on the ground floor, you can't have them there at all. As opposed
to having a rear entrance where the developer could say, you know what, I could put in three more units um and give you more. I can give you three more units. Whether you make them affordable or accessible, doesn't matter. I could give you three more
units because I could I could put the door in the back. So that that's that's the flexibility I'm looking at is no reason to take the rest of the to to ban the unit from the entire building when
the developers can show you because we shouldn't be showing the developers how to build these buildings. >> We're not developers. We don't got it. Never will. Municipalities are antithetical to develop it. But if we
give them the tools to really design something that's special to Highland Park and not anywhere else, now you're going to get a really good product because they're going to come to you with a good product. and opening that up when the market is
looking less at the old formula of all commercial downstairs. Um, gives them more flexibility because they could do that if you want, but to give them the option to have ground floor units where a they could fulfill
our quotas, their quotas, which are also required, you greater flexibility than we have right now. And I agree with Jason. That's what we need to do. >> So is it a fair way to kind of state what you were saying is that basically
rather than prohibiting it on the ground floor, we would maybe allow ground floor but not facing raritin. Those units wouldn't be facing out onto Rit. We had that similar approach to the offices. >> I would I would agree with you.
>> Is that a fair way to kind of car for a general approach? I would agree with you from the doughboy to the top of the hill at the light of Adelaide, you know, no no rarit facing entryways for first floor. >> Okay. >> I think it's different in C. I think
that's more, you know, the little brownstone development of five or six units is much more appropriate there. >> Okay. And I just one just to follow I just wanted to point out we had we have another successful example of this downtown in the CVD but it was part of
the redevelopment of the what we were then calling the popoff property now I like to call it the Alen space. There is an accessible unit off on the side which was not only an ADA but I believe it might be one of our affordable units as
well. So your point is very well taken that again I tend to think they work better in these redevelopment contracts where we can really noodle with the developer on how to do it right. But it's an important the the accessibility point's a really good one and if we can figure out a way to get more accessible
apartment living downtown that's if this is a way to do that I think might be worth thinking about. >> Sorry I think that all makes sense. One thing I wanted to bring up is the development up on a um uh the 18 unit
development where the oil loop is the >> oh I don't I know it as 1010 I don't know between one and what 10 I I I thought one of the things that we had talked about in that redevelopment plan is that some of the the the units
on the ground some of the the the um office space or or retail space on the ground floor. >> Didn't we give them the flexibility that if the retail wasn't working, they could turn it into a studio? >> Familiar with that? >> Um, >> we're basically saying, should we
consider the same zoning approach that we used for the upper RAN plan, and that wasn't an amendment to the plan. That's baked into the plan. Um, >> extend it to the C zone more generally. Um, if we're comfortable with it, it's rather than try to do a redevelopment
plan for every third block. If we think that that approach kind of makes sense. Yes. And in fact the other project which is >> I forget the address. See 1010 is easy to remember. The next one up uh 11:02 their current proposal which we shared
in a previous work session is no uh commercial or office. It's 100% right >> affordable not affordable uh multif family residential. So um and we were good with that too because it was consistent with the plan and hell if
they find there's a there there for some use they can always retrofit a corner to do something or similarly if the commercial space uh currently proposed for 1010 on the corner they can't find a good occupant they could convert to
something else. So, I think basically we in working through those two projects, I think Chris and I got a little more comfortable with that whole concept for the corridor. Um, if if council sounds like you guys are at least open to that >> for the C zone
>> for the C zone. um as as kind of a general and me I that road diet which I hope will come there to me makes that more make more sense because we're now we're taking some of that uh highway vibe. It's going to still be not perfect
but hopefully over time that that eases and becomes a little friendly. Um it also addresses Park's really long-standing land use issue which is your commercial zone is too big. So by allowing residential ground floor in a C zone kind of in a way compacts it to the
core that we're designing. >> Now 10:05 you want to extend our >> does say 10:05 >> it's 9:05 we need to extend our hours. >> That's I was looking say we're out of here.
>> Oh my god it's 10:05 already. >> I was going to ask for an extension of that. Okay. Go ahead. longer results. >> Yeah, I was just going to say and this is like the first cut, >> right? >> Uh so we have a lot of work to do and you're going to have another chance to see what you think of based on this
feedback. >> Any other hands? >> Okay, we're good. >> All right. >> So, would you want to >> Okay. >> Revise memo. >> So, we we need to to give um a direction
now. So >> we did >> revise me updates and just provide us with updates. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Oh, and now it's time for public comments. >> Members from uh attending in person will be heard first followed by those on
Zoom. 21 minutes. Three minutes for speaker. >> How much you guys pay me to shut? >> You would have to come to the microphone and >> it's okay. You guys can go home. >> Okay. Anyone on Zoom? >> Uh there's one attendee but no hand up.
>> Okay. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close public participation? >> Second. >> All righty. Motion to adjourn. >> See you guys next week. Don't forget to come out to our our >> Monday night. >> Monday night. Tuesday night.
>> If you got to come out to to follow up on South Third, >> we're finishing the year hard. >> Yes. going out with a lot of people. >> Don't stop there. Come on out. >> I've been trying to make plans with a friend and I'm like working and I'm like, I'm sorry.
>> We're burning the midnight oil up to the end of the year. Story of our lives.