mber 13 meeting. Uh, this meeting will be livereamed via Zoom public comments. Um, well, oh, I'm sorry, reading from the wrong prompt. My apologies. This meeting is called to order in compliance with the open public public meetings act.
Notice of this meeting was provided to the Home News Tribune, the Star Ledger, and the Highland Park Planet on February 3rd, 2025, and was posted on the Burough website at www.hpbau.com, and on the bulletin board at Burrow Hall, 221 South Avenue, Highland Park,
New Jersey, and has remained continuously posted as required by law. Fire exits are to the left and right, and please, as always, remember to speak into your microphones. Uh just before we get started on things, I'm just going to take a moment to step outside of our
regularly scheduled agenda. Our uh regular engineer representative from CME Associates, Bruce Cotch, has announced that he's retired and he's no longer going to be joining us. I wish I'd known at our last meeting and when we had him
that it was going to be the last time, but I just want to say, Bruce, I'm sure you're watching from home because you miss us. But I appreciate all the hard work you've done. You've been an excellent engineer for our board and for the town
in general for many, many years, and you will be very much missed. So, enjoy your retirement. If you feel like coming back, we would always love to see you. That being said, we'll go on to the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. Let's take a roll call, please. Miss Han, >> yes. >> Mr. Brusher, >> here. >> Mr. Chin, >> here.
>> Mr. Hazy, >> here. Mr. H >> here. >> Mr. Yes. >> Mr. Lares. >> Mr. Malay. >> Mr. Perman >> here. >> Mr. Strong Cardell >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here. >> Mr. Thomas >> here. >> Mr. Cassenza
>> here. >> Okay. Very good. And of course, Mr. Cotch is not here. We will have a new representative from CME at our next meeting, I suppose, and then we'll get to know him when he joins us. All right. Let's do some housekeeping. We have two
sets of minutes to review. We'll start with the big one, the March 6, 2025 regular meeting minutes. And as is my privilege, I have a couple of comments to get us started off with on changes on
page six in the second paragraph. It uses the word um ballards, but it's spelled with an A. It's goes I believe it's Ballards with an O. It's B O L L A R D S. There's two instances of that. And then on the one one two three four
five fifth paragraph or the second paragraph up from the bottom it's there's in the second sentence it says litler I think that word's supposed to be litter and then going later on on page 15
on the second to last paragraph there's a reference to a case Lner versus Campoi Lochner spelled L O E C H N R And then in the last paragraph, there's a case uh Kevin Langja versus West Orange. I
believe that name is Malangja. M A L A N G A. And those are my comments. So I'll um open it up to the rest of the board for their comments on our voluminous March 6, 2025 meeting minutes. >> I have a comment. >> Yes. So I know that these minutes are
not verbatim and it's not like one forward. So, um I won't correct any of the other things because I spoke a lot at that meeting. Um but I will say on page 27, paragraph 4, sentence two, I would like to clarify that I did not say
that I think the burrow uh we should be applauded. I said that I think the burrow should be applauding a business such as classic cleaners. So, I just want to make sure that that sentiment is expressed.
should be applauding not applauded. >> Well, it says she thinks as a burrow you should be applauded. That's not what I said. >> Right. So, is is it correct to say we we should be applaud >> like oh applauding a successful business? >> Yes. Because my sentiment was that we
should be applauding Classic Cleaners for being a great business. And I I think that the modification that the chair suggested if you agree is an appropriate >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. I've got that one in my marked up set here that I'm going to go
by. Anybody else? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> On page 26, second paragraph, the public's comments. Um one, two, three, four, five lines down. I just wanted to uh get I'm
not sure what is referred to by the BB ugly gun uh but with possible we check to see if that uh that was a miser >> I don't know what an ugly a BB ugly gun is
>> maybe it's really a BB gun >> maybe it's a reference to the the former BB big >> that's what I think it is yeah >> I I think it's a reference to the former BB big Somehow autocorrect turned that into BB ugly gun. >> I I think that was a the nature of that
comment might have been why are we doing it for this property not the BB big property? >> Yes, that's what I >> All right. Anyone? Uh yes, I do have a question uh whether we should be uh mentioning the uh the
first names of uh of Mr. Olsen. I think that's Thomas Olsen, Mr. Lee. I think that's Robert Lee. >> What page are we on? >> Uh sorry. On page nine, I believe is where they first get mentioned. >> Page. >> Okay. Page nine, first paragraph, Mr.
Olsson. Yes, I see at the very top the first words are that first instance. What was his first name? >> I believe it's Thomas. >> It's not. It is now. All right. >> It does say his full name other places in the document.
>> It does say Thomas. >> Okay. >> And then you had the same comment for Mr. Lee later in the same paragraph. >> Yes. >> Is his first name? Do we know? >> Robert. >> Yes.
>> And then uh on the bottom of page 12, Mr. >> I think that's the first aware his name isn't in in speech by someone else present. So that would be Peter. >> Peter.
>> Yes. Peter. All right, I've got Peter in there now. >> Okay, >> I would just say that I really enjoy the minutes. whoever this is so detailed a lot of time to do these and I know I I
mean I think we're really privileged to have such detailed minutes and want to thank >> I thought the uh the uh was really good it's a great it's a great story like it is really good that the public that read this can weren't there actually know
what was said and understood the details fantastic >> it can be trying sometimes to watch the video and try to scroll through to see where things are and having something that you can reference with you know look find function is often very helpful. So >> do you have anything
>> really good job? >> Okay. Uh last call. Anyone else? Okay. I'll solicit a motion to approve our March 6 minutes subject to the adjustments that we just put on the record. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second by Alan.
Great. >> You don't really need to call. You can do it if you want by a voice vote and then make sure you get the abstensions. >> Okay. All in favor of approving. >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? >> Motion passes. All right. Moving to our
much more streamlined October 16th, 2025 minutes. I'll open it up to see if anyone has any comments on these. Okay, seeing none, I'll solicit a motion to approve the October 16th, 2025
minutes as presented. >> So move motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded. Uh, all in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Any abstensions? >> All right, let's take Wait, we got we got to call on the abstension. You know
what? Let's do a roll call on this one so at least we can get the abstensions right. Mr. Brusher >> Mr. Chin. >> Mr. Chin, do you approve or abstain? >> No. >> I approve.
>> Okay. Mr. Hazy. >> Mr. Hill. >> Yes. >> Mr. H. >> Mr. Corman. >> I abain. >> Mr. Stein Cardell. >> I abain. Was anybody at this meeting?
>> There were five of us. >> It was just five or that's all you need. >> I was there. >> Yes. >> Miss I was there too. I say yes. >> Okay. >> Just to go back really quickly. I I
needed abstain from March 6 minutes. >> All right. >> Not there. >> We'll amend our official vote on the March 6 minutes. Thank you for that. It feels like you've always been with us to note that Mr. >> All right. And with that, we'll go on to
>> Strong. >> It's my mic on Tuesday. Don't break it. Don't touch being there. >> With that, we'll go to our new matter. We have presented to us from our burough council a consistency review of
ordinance 25-2117, an ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan entitled 330-334 Ritton Avenue redevelopment plan pursuant to NJSA 48128-1. Um, >> Madam Chair, if I can. Uh this is
actually a uh consistency review in accordance with the municipal land law section 26 26A uh which is your standard uh type of consistency review in terms of the um redevelopment law. uh you have already dealt with that and you've
already made recommendations as referenced in uh the ordinance which is 25-12 that 2117 and in second paragraph it does acknowledge the fact that the planning board reviewed uh the new development plan and provided its recommendations
pursuant to the provisions of subsection 7E. So that's already been taken care of. But now what you're doing is matter has been introduced for first reason by the burough council and as per the municipal language law under the section stated you are required to make comments as to whether or not you feel as though
this is consistent with the master plan. I note that you've had a fairly extensive discussion about that very fact previously but you still have the obligation to do that. >> Very good. Thank you for the clarifications as always. It's much appreciated because there's a lot of statutes flowing around and a lot of
procedural back and forth. So, here we are checking on the consistency of what's before us and we'll turn it over to our >> um oh my gosh, our beloved planner for the township to give us a review and overview on what's been presented to us. >> Well, he's
exactly >> uh thank you for that. Um let's see. Can we decide to work in >> but screen is what you see? It definitely works. >> Great. So we are here as uh madam chair
person has indicated a ordinance has been introduced by council for the red plan titled 330 334 Avenue red plan. Simply this is the right age property.
This concerns block 30001 block 17 18 19 20 21 22 30 So in terms of the area, as you're probably well aware, the Randy property takes a about, you know, pretty big signed part of the 400 300 block between
South Fourth, South Fifth Avenue. Uh consists of a large building and the large parking lot. Uh this is across the street from the Wells Fargo parcel. That's part of the Super Fresh uh site, which is al formerly the stop and shop red plan area.
And as part of the procedure, as council indicated, we uh the burough council prepared a dum plan and introduced the ordinance and is now before this board. So we're down here sort of the second to last step for consistency of this plan
with the master plan. Uh and then upon the recommendations from the planning board, it will be forwarded to the governing body for the second reading just like any other typical land development ordinance. In terms of the statutory requirements that's provided in local house, local redo and housing
law. Um the there's eight components of the redo plan that must be met and I'm going to go through each of them very very briefly. Uh mainly we talk about the relationship to local objectives. That's really talking about the master plan, county plan, uh contiguous
as well as the state plan, proposed land use and building requirements. That's the zoning requirements in the plan. provisions for relocations of housing units, properties to be acquired, uh inventory of housing units on the site, as well as plans for affordable housing replacement and plan for uh zero
emission target. Those last two, the sorry, the last one was a recent amendment to the redevelopment law. Uh as council has indicated, planning board's role is two parts. One must find that all provisions shall be either substantially consistent or be designed
to be effect to effectuate the master plan. A little bit different than the traditional uh land development orders which you might must find that's uh not inconsistent with the master plan. Here you could actually make a finding that it's not that consistent but does effectuate the master plan. So in terms of the redevelopment law uh does allow
you for the board to make that determination on a little bit different matter but it's very similar to the whether or not it's consistent with the master plan and in terms of time frame uh the plane board within 45 days referral must provide its report which
is usually by virtue of a resolution uh containing its recommendations uh in terms of the redone activities that were redone. So in terms of this the Bright Aid property, this is just a Bright A property, not no additional properties, just bright a property. Uh
back in 2005, it was part of the larger downtown areas to be studied and was designated area needed redevelopment. And later that year in September, a plan was adopted including right a property. Five years later, as a result
of litigation between Bright Aid and her burough, as council remembers well, um the property was renovated through site plan application and uh as part of that uh the agreement was to remove the right a property from the redevelopment plan as well as from the area needed
redevelopment designation. What that meant was they reverted back to the original zoning was no longer part of red plan. Uh six years later, right around the time LRK came became involved and I became the planner uh we the burrow put together and designated the
entire town as an area needed uh rehabilitation. Again, what this means is that despite it being removed from the redone plan from the 2005 red plan, uh it is under the uh area needed rehab designation for our entire town, which means you can still do a red on the plan just under
the rehab designation instead of the redevelopment designation. That just means you can't use combination. You can't offer 30-year pilots. You can only do rehab programs or you can still do reopen plans. And since that time, obviously, as you all have been aware of, has been in instrumental in playing
this role of uh adopting many of your own plans and cycling applications that effectuate downtown planning uh which includes the development of the downtown plaza at South. I say that that that's important. It does relate to why we're here related to the radio property.
As you're aware, uh 2023, Friday first went through his uh first volunteer uh chapter 11 bankruptcy and again second time in May this past year, May 2025 and as of last month, this at the bottom heading, you see all this writing
stories have closed and you can hardly tell and that's partly why there's a problem with the building. Sort of the white elephant in our downtown. Uh it's not as dramatic as the stop and shop closure, but it still has there's some similarities uh related
to this. Uh so this is the Friday property as it was a few months ago before it closure, but it's hardly any different than it is today. You can hardly tell it's vacant. Uh and then at the back property, that's sort of your secondary entrance, but that's where a lot of the vehicular traffic uh entered into the building. Uh the property is
not very well maintained. Uh has a very large parking area, but does not connect to South. That's the bottom left photo. That's the view. It's so easily you can so easily connect to it but just can't because there's a landscape island in between. Uh so the purpose of this red
plan really is to uh because it is limited to one site obviously a sight specific implementation plan. What this really is is a I would say it's more of a burrow driven. It's not necessarily a developer driven project where someone comes in and say, "Hey, I have my project. Let's negotiate. Let's
collaborate and then we have a plan and put together the zoning to effectuate that project." This is more of a zoning strategy to effectuate options to allow the property owner to consider other uses that would not otherwise be allowed
through underlying zoning. Uh so then that speaks to the second point providing additional permitted uses that are appropriate for this white elephant. Frankly, it's not a great looking building. It's extremely expensive and cost prohibitive to just simply uh in a perfect world simply just cut it into
three parts and say here's three new stores. It's just too expensive. It's not going to happen. So you can either redevelop it, but you can't do that because there's no pilot and it's being super expensive to do it. So that's not happening. So the other option was what can we do? What's the trend have been in
these types of buildings? Because after all, all these writings are closing and other uses are going in. Uh a lot of the uses that we've been hearing about are medical offices which includes urgent care, outpatient services, daycare centers. I believe there's one open to the right on Hamilton Avenue in
Franklin. >> Uh this was like of course and then in in touching the CVS that was on Pearl and New Street that closed in favor of Atlantic Health medical office. So, it's this is not some far-fetched concept from the west coast. This is happening
locally. Uh, and I think step to the credit to the mayor and council trying to be proactive. Uh, store only closed a couple months ago and trying to put the zoning in place for something to be allowed be put into its place. That being said, there's an opportunity allow
open up these use for this particular site, for this particular building type. This is an opportunity to create that connection to that south third especially given the plaza to be there closing off south third. This is a great opportunity to connect between south fourth and south third just like what we
did for the stop and shop site which was maintain that access from south fifth to south fourth. That way you le rely less on access and prevent curb cuts on which is important to the burrow and and its master plan. uh existing conditions that
again it's one property consists of seven lots 1.67 six, seven acres. Pretty big. Uh 15,000 square foot building. That's pretty big on its own, but it's pretty fairly small relative to the uh size of a lot. That's very suburban concept, which is odd in a downtown setting. Uh in a perfect world, this
should be redeveloped and that's still on the table. This plan allows for a future redevelopment, but this is a sort of an interim measure to allow for other permitted uses in this current building. Uh the property again because of the litigation lost its 2005 downtown plan
standard. So it's now down to the underlying zoning. It's split zone between CBD and C uh the PO professional office. Uh your ordinance indicates thankfully not not many towns have this uh your ordinance says depending on if
you're split zone you go to the zone that's predominantly the land area that occupies most of the properties. So we rely on the CBD but offices are not allowed on the ground floor and neither are daycare. Terms of the planning relationship uh as
we did the 2019 master plan a lot of comments that came from the public as well as the subcommittee and us as planners but we found there's a high number of vacant properties empty storefronts high turnover and a lack of consolidated parking and access. Uh so we it was interesting that this is a
perfect opportunity to sort of rectify this issue for this specific site. So uh it's our determination and my recommendation that the board find that this plan as you find out what the standards are uh is uh consistent and intends to affectuate the master plan
doesn't really have a major impact on Edison uh Piscatoaway and New Brunswick because this property is in the middle of town doesn't really affect any development there is consistent with the comprehensive plan to in terms of business development and development on route 27 and for the state plans really
focusing on on centering and recentering and uh economic development of its downtown cores. So in terms of its relationship to all the plans, our local answer plan, contiguous municipalities, county plan, the state plan, this plan
effectuates and promotes those documents in terms of what the zoning requirements do. So we are amending the land use regulations at least relative to the CBD zoning. Uh so what we're doing is we're bringing in all the permitted uses that we brought in in our other downtown red
plans like track A to D. Uh so a little bit more modern uses which we're going to be bringing into our CBD zone elsewhere. That's a project that uh Terry Rich and I are working on to update our CBD zoning uh and CZ zoning for that matter. Uh but for the benefit
of right aid and property owner uh not right aid but just for the property owner we also permitting additional permitted uses but they require redevelopment and that's be important. Uh these additional permitted uses would include medical facilities which would be urgent care outpatient uh nursery
schools and child daycare centers indoor amusement recreation as well as offices. Uh in terms of the development standards where a redevelopment agreement is required, meaning if the property owner wants to bring in a tenant that has those medical office, indoor recreation,
uh amusement or nursing school, they will be required to provide a cross access and parking use between the property and the burrow owned properties fronting on South. This will ensure pedestrian and behavioral connection and circulation between south third and
south fourth. Uh, in terms of other development standards, the modest park requirements that one per 500 square feet of office space, uh, one per 1,000 square feet of other non-residential space, and then one space for every 1.33
uh, sorry, 1.33 spaces for every one dwelling unit in the future redevelopment if there is one for uh, future mixeduse development. So we're sort of forward thinking about in the future there's going to be development we set the standards uh in terms of the
setbacks and uh coverage and height control. So similar to the CBD four stories 50 ft is pretty generous uh that again is for the benefit for future redevelopment for mixed use u when it happens in the
future. uh and these the design standards that follow through I believe in section 6.5 all are consistent with the standards that we've been putting into our other readon plans including tracks ADA so we're trying to set a higher level of detail uh for parking
lot landscaping parking structure screening and whatnot as well as for again for really future development of things like uh uh universal access design and uh green infrastructure and sustainable design.
So going back to the statute requirements, so we talked about the relation to the local objectives. We find that this plan will be consistent and effectuate the master plan uh in terms of really addressing vacant and u turnover, vacant properties and turnover uh and really trying to use the
opportunity of this building type, the white elephant. What types of uses are appropriate and consistent with uh other developments surrounding Highland Park that's appropriate for park? uh we had considered should we just be allowing this all over CBD and we did not think that was appropriate. So
that's why this is sort of looked at this fits in this particular building but we don't want to harm the rest of the community by allowing it everywhere. So we felt this is a good opportunity to put these types of uses at this particular location because of its uh building form and the parking behind it.
the proposed land use and building requirements. We did talk about what the zoning standards are, just additional permitted uses, but they require red agreement and that redevelopment agreement requires cross access agreement. So, it's a a win-win for both the burrow as well as the property owner. In terms of provision for relocation of
housing units and my number six, that's number three and also number six, inventory all affordable housing units. There's no housing on the site, so we don't need to be concerned with relocating them. We don't need to worry about a workable relocation assistance plan for businesses or residents because
the property is vacant. We already talked about relationship to other plans. Uh that should have been Edison Scoutway and New Brunswick. I copied this from touching. My apologies. Um uh number seven, the plan for replacement
housing units. Again, we don't need to worry about that since there's no one existing. And number eight, plan for zero emission sharp infrastructure. Um the plan does anticipate the need for public EV. Uh so we encourage property owner to include public EV charge
infrastructure uh in collaboration with the burrow especially as it seeks to build and activate the uh south plaza as well as the parking area. Uh that's pretty much it. Pretty simple plan reszoning strategy. Uh this will
serve as a superseding plan over the underlying zoning. This will be the new zoning. So, we'll have to update our zoning map as part of this effort as well. >> Okay. Thank you so much. I'll open it up to the board for questions and comments about your presentation.
>> You spoke about um creating another point of eress for South Third Avenue uh with this by combining this parking lot. And I know that in that area there's the Petar building and they
have their parking lot there. It's like kind of a little drop where you can access it from South Third Avenue and then it's just kind of a weird kind of maneuvering that you have to get to that parking lot. Yes. Um, would you be
considering combining all of that into one large parking lot that's accessible both on South Fourth and South Third, but consist of parking spaces for all of
the buildings on that stretch between South Third and South Fourth? That's Rene Basic. Uh, >> so some of those properties do have their own parking, but to the corner building you were talking about doesn't. Um, this plan doesn't address that, but it doesn't mean that we can't consider
that. Um, it's something we've talked about like this should be a shared parking facility, >> right, >> for all this. There's also a odd driveway condition where you have to go through the right a property to get to the rear of another property. So, there already is an easement or de facto easement condition there. Uh, that's all
on the table. So when it we do work with the property owner to consolidate the access to south third through the three last burough zones into a larger parking facility for a farmers market parking and just general parking. Uh that's definitely on the table but it needs some further coordination. This plan
didn't really plan ahead that far because it's getting too much in the weeds but it's definitely on the table because it is a concern and it'll be a lot easier to address all that at once. Agreed. For sure. Okay. Anyone else? Yes. Go ahead. Ken,
>> you want to go? No. Um, so, um, great work. Um, the the the the use of daycare centers, childcare centers. Um, I think you said it's not currently in peritted in the zone,
right? And then adding it in. Um, I guess maybe maybe council can help, but I I thought there's a statute that supersedes municipal zoning that allows for all daycare centers in non-commercial zones, but that's just state state law. So even if a
municipality zoning didn't reflect that, it's there. So it's it's already there. I mean, you know, so I think you're adding it. So you're just being more consistent with state law. The other thing I think I read was that um parking requirements aren't aren't open
management parking requirements for daycare centers. Um and I got I mean I'm I've got just open so I I really I think we might look at that. Um but I I it also doesn't include include F calculations or anything like that. So
you know I just think maybe just sort of check the statutes again because I know you do have some parking requirements for daycare centers. Um that was someone mentioned that um can you explain the difference between as you structure the submitted uses there's permitted uses
6.2.1 and then there's permitted uses requiring a redevelopment 6.2.5. So if the property owner wants to feel like it's almost like a a tiered menu like if you you have one of the principal uses under 6.2.1 2.1
you don't need a redevelopment plan. If you want some of the I guess tax benefits of a rehabil this is a redevelopment plan but under a rehabilitation uh designation some tax benefits you have to use these languages to be open to having some sort of you
know tax uh incentives right is that how it's >> I would say it is a menu of options for sure for 6.2.1 2.1 is just a list of really updated zoning standards for the peritted uses they're allowed to use now. And given that this would mean
superseding zoning, we had to create a situation where you had to allow for certain uses that don't require because that would probably violate the 14th amendment um at least some attorneys I've talked to uh for 6.2
five. Those are these are other uses, but you have to enter to read agreement. I'm not sure we ever talked about tax >> okay >> break or benefit and I don't want to comment on that. Uh this is mainly if you want to use these uses you have to enter an agreement basically saying if you want those uses and not get a use
variance work with the bureau to agree but to get that those uses you have to give us access. Exactly. >> Oh okay that clarify. Thank you. I wasn't sure. I'm like >> aren't they all permitted and but I I see what you're saying. I think they have a choice. They could go down and enter into redevelopment agreement and
there are some things that will be part of that agreement like cross access or they can just go ahead and and say, "Well, we're just going to tenant out the building >> and just get the building permits and be done with it, right? They could do that." >> They could, which they could do now, >> right? >> But I mean, part of the reason we're
going through this effort is because the property owner is working with the burrow to help me to fill up the space. Yeah, I mean we could have said just split the building to three. It's just not practical. Um and we we would run the risk of just building empty for
years. And I think this is a good opportunity to get the access that we want. >> Yeah, that that clar thank you. >> Yeah, I was just saying but people who want to permitted principal use are not procluded from doing a redevelopment agreement. >> Yes, Matt. Um I just want to clarify
that tax of maintainance or pilots or anything are not on the table. So this is not a tax um it's not part of any discussions that we've had in any way, shape or form. >> Yes. >> Could uh solar panels be put uh over the
parking lot? Could solar panels put over the parking lot like Ruters has in many of their properties? Um I I would argue that there are customarily incidental accessory structures and uses. There was probably a site plan. Uh and then I
think as per the statute uh only the concrete pillars count towards improve coverage but the relevance is the what's underneath is the paint parking lot. >> That is the case in terms of certainly the solar panels. >> Yeah. It's only it's only the structures
that are holding them up, >> right? that are accounted for impervious coverage. >> I think Al wants to go with that. I have a comment about that. >> Yeah, I have a question about the uh about if a childare facility were to be located at
this site. Um it's my belief that all New Jersey uh licensed child care centers have to have outdoor play areas. Um, I'm not sure if we want children playing in the parking lot, that probably
wouldn't be the outcome, but I'm leerary of uh of having that use in the facility without, you know, significant changes to the existing traffic circulation on the property. >> Yeah, we're we're a little skeptical as
well. It requires significant changes to the property. Uh my assumption if in terms of urban design how I would envision it would be they would take away part of the building and keep it near the what's left of the building. Uh 15,000 square feet is a pretty big child
daycare center. I think my son goes to one about that size Kenny Academy. >> Um but yes, there would be a requirement for outdoor space and it logically it should be not in the parking lot and certainly not detached with a parking lot in the middle. Um but that's something they would have to figure out
and obviously we need to come here for site plan for that. >> Okay. >> Did you wanna come back to >> can I just um >> Sure. >> I I was had a thought to the childcare facility aspect of it. Uh specifically
related to the um thank you for getting the exact wording be substantially consistent with or designed to affectuate you know the the burrow master plan the county all the all the various goals that we have in place here. And I'm kind of thinking about this in terms of the specific, you know,
we've talked lots of times about the master plan, the specific things for the downtown of the master plan, right? Vibrant downtown, um, pedestrian friendly, walkable, all that stuff. And there are a couple uses in there and the
daycare is at the top of the list for me that I think are a problem with some of those goals as specifically with like uh pick up and drop off car circulation. And I'm thinking um not to pick on Noah's Arc because I think Noah's Arc is great, but during like certain times of
day that parking lot backs up onto Raven Avenue. Um and that is and this is already one of the busiest intersections in town. We know it's like dangerous. Um we have that no left turn policy there now, but um we all know it's not actually enforced to any degree. I see
people making left turns there all the time. Um so there are certain uses that I think are very um automobile intensive. That would be a substantial downgrade uh relative to the revenue for that site. Um thinking, you know,
office, you know, not like a medical office, but like an actual like go to work office. um a daycare facility where I'm having trouble seeing how it is substantially consistent with or designed to affectuate those goals for the downtown at that site. Of course,
the problem that we have is what Jeff has already mentioned and that is under section 66.6 of the municipal land use law. It indicates that if it's a licensed uh child care center that it is permitted in all non-residential zones in all nonres.
So you know this is really just affectuating what's already a part of the law. >> I I would disagree with Mr. Carnell about uh the value of daycare centers in downtown
area. Uh especially if parents are walking their children from town to another location in town. It's a great opportunity to uh for parents to I guess engage in uh retail activity. Uh, for example, people who used to go to Yellow
Rick Road uh daycare center and then stop at Pentop um either before or after and get a a croissant and a fo milk for the child. Um, >> it's very specific >> and this is close enough to keep that going if there was.
>> Yeah. So, I see some some value in uh in if not prioritizing that at least um ensuring that we don't uh try to discourage it indirectly. um perhaps through thoughtful traffic and loading
policies, but again um that's getting a bit ahead of >> Yes, out of curiosity, what happens to the retail liquor license at that location?
>> Um I'll defer to Mr. Mr. H. >> Um the liquor license has been sold. So that liquor license is now um has been bought by another party. Um so they own that liquor license. The this the building itself does not have a liquor license.
>> Okay. So the liquor license that was sold is it for someone to build another establishment in Highland Park? >> That's unclear. It's um the person I uh it's unclear exactly what he intends
the person who bought the electric license. It's unclear exactly what he intends to do. >> I think I'm unfamiliar with how the labor licenses work. I think I was under the impression that liver lices specific to a municipality. So are liquor licenses if you purchase one, you can
use it anywhere in the state or how does that work? >> In partic another another question just um thinking about like we What we're hearing is that likely the building will be tenanted and not be
torn down in the short term. Um you said in the long term ideally it would be so I I think as as look at this redevelopment plan it it sort of tries to accomplish both event both possibilities. I mean, your thought would be that at some point down
the road um and you don't know, obviously some speculation that that you might have to amend this for this be a new construction if that were eventually to take place new construction that would >> uh it's possible, but I would argue the four stories, 50 ft reduced parking
standards, really high coverage requirements, >> but it should it's pretty beneficial. The only way they would want to seek an amendment is they want to go to fifth story and that's really policy discussion. So >> follow up with that would be as you if you're doing if you're undergo a
redevelopment agreement with the property owner for you know uh things like and I'm going to just ground mounted solar on a parking lot makes any improvements like that kind of make re future redevelopment for MK use a lot harder. So just my thought would
be that it >> long term we really want to see >> mixed use we would not encourage investments that make future reuse harder and I think roundup solar would do that you know over you know the
canopies the canopy solar over sort of parking lot that's that's an investment that now makes it harder to rip up. Uh I agree and it also goes to how long the lease is for these new tenants go forth. So that's why we're always in active
discussions for the property owner. So ultimately we do want to see the property being redeveloped mixed use much higher better use. Right now it's only 15,000 square feet on 1.67 acres. That's extremely inefficient >> low but temporarily this is a burough
council feels a good solution. But I totally see your point. In the future, should someone decide to tear this building down and build something else and they build up to the max height of four stories, could you use the rooftop as
space for like a restaurant space or retail? Not retail, but as some sort of like event or restaurant space without that counting as a story. Um, let me go back to the definition of height that we put in here. One second.
>> Page 24. >> The definition of >> 24 height. So, I would say they could put in a element to get access to it. It would have to be just a rooftop
restaurant with no structure to it. >> Right. So if they were using rooftop is just like outdoor seating. >> Yeah. >> They could potentially that could potentially be of use. >> Yeah. Um but if there's something comes before the burrow and they find that
really attractive and they find doesn't neatly fit into this, that's what become the opportunity to go, uh we're going to amend this because we want that project. That that's the great thing of working at Highland Park. very flexible. Um, making sure to come forward with the right thing that benefits both parties. We're quick to amend these things. Well,
wish we were quicker. I'm backed up, but stay tuned in January. We're going to have a few of these. Uh, but yeah, uh, that's a good thought, but once it becomes a real concept and provided to us and seriously consider it, those types of things are like
definitely amend it for you because a benefit for the burrow to consider these types of pieces. So can I just kind of based on those two comments if that's the kind of thing that we're talking like short-term versus long-term short-term reuse the existing building long-term mixed use
for story change the plan to allow for rooftop use whatever if that's the ultimate goal why isn't that stuff in here now we could just like do it allow it now it doesn't say you have to do it but
>> I would say it's it is there now I think we're talking about very very specific speific design elements that you can if you read reading through these standards are very consistent with the tracks A through D standards. Uh but some of those standards you might see in track C and what you probably will be seeing for
track A are very specific because now we have a real project. Um I I could spend hours and hours and hours and days and bankrupt the burrow and try to figure out figure out an idealistic project but it would not serve the burrow. Um but I I think what we have is a very very very
good baseline. Four stories if you reduced parking standards uh reduced uh stepback standards making sure to have fronts on Maran Avenue curb cuts uh and more landscaping sustainable infrastructure uh sustainable design and green infrastructure. I think all the
elements that make for a great project still allow that for happen. If there's anything very very specific that needs to happen need to change that that that can happen. Um but I don't think we need to worry about getting to that final detail. Now >> when when you saying um a few minutes
ago said uh I forget what the exact context was. When you use the phrase short term for reusing the existing structure with the idea that down the road four story mixed use would be the ideal thing, right? What does that mean for something like this short term? Is that five years 15 years?
>> Well, that's probably a misnomer. I probably shouldn't have said short term. Short term could be 40 years. uh depends on the lease that the property owner comes into agreement with the uh new tenant. Uh we'll be curious ourselves because it would mean well I guess we're stuck with that for a while but at least
it's an active hopefully well-paying positions that act that use downtown. Um so we'll be working with the property owner to make sure it fits. >> It sounds like that would inform any redevelopment agreement when the time >> Yeah. And we can't restrict the lease agreement. I mean, that's nature of all these
>> bearing in mind the long-term use. Um, Matt, why don't you go? >> Yeah. Um, as as Chris said, we would love to have mixed use for stories tomorrow. Um, but that takes a partner that wants to do mixed use for stories tomorrow and we
don't have the owner is very clear that that's not something that they're prepared to to or or interested in moving forward with at this time. And so um uh as a result that's why this process of doing this the I'm not going
to say short term anymore organiz >> um uh that's the reason for for moving this forward. It obviously our goal would be to to have it redeveloped um into what we really want at some point but that's not um something that the property owner is interested in at this
point. Yeah, technically we could wait two years and they could qualify under criteria B. That means we got to wait two years and empty the storefront. And that's I don't think that's what the mayor and council wants to see. We do not. Yeah, >> Jeff. >> Um, thinking uh creatively, um, so let's say
you have, you know, a daycare or medical office facility for the right building. Um given the reduced parking uh ratios and the really underutilized nature of of the one over one and a half acres nothing this redevelopment plan prevents
let's say the proer from taking a part of the property and putting in mixed use building right I mean they could still do that under this redevelopment right so if they realize that the they have a lot of extra parking and they're not utilizing it they could do that and they can we don't need we would not revel
written so they could do that multiple buildings. You have a one story metal building and you have a threetory MCU building and you can do that, right? >> Breaking up the current building or
>> no the lot is huge. So yeah, so another building >> adding another building to that lot. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think in theory could happen. I think what we just want to avoid happening is another retail or auto heavy centric use behind that. just
that's something we have to negotiate with the property. >> We could ne I mean it could be negotiate. I mean the thing is we're trying to get around this interim thing where we there's something we really want long term longer beyond interim use that we have we could that could be a possible or mixeduse building for sure.
Um, but just to be clear, the um cut through between the parking lot and the south third, we wouldn't want to put a new building blocking off all access to their through that. >> I'm just saying hypothetically it's possible. >> Yeah, hypothetically, but I think the
access is Yeah. >> And one more one more uh just a little bit of history. So, uh, but the right aid back in 2014, you were given a little bit of history of the property. Um, the I I don't know if it was 2005 or
2007, the uh the plane board um to take right out of the the old redevelopment area. Um there was some provision about making sure window the windows on North Fourth were stayed open. You can see in
light can come out. Some point in 2014 aid covered up those windows had to come back here before the planning board because they had done so in violation of the condition of approval and the agreement was that they would have arc installation. So that's how the arc
installation got there. I was in the audience at that time listening to board meeting. Um and I see in in the rebone plan that that's going to continue. It looks like with the existing building. >> Yeah, that was important to the administration and the mayor and council
is two things. One to maintain the window treatments as well as the front door >> access. The building gets torn down, those provisions are not applicable. In other words, like if we're in a new building, the North Fourth facade shouldn't be art. Like that shouldn't be
like what the new building should have to be like. We should reimagine that, right? that the art display was a was a compromise. >> It was a reflection of the fact that they covered up the windows. >> Yes, >> that was the whole point. >> That was the whole point, >> right? Because they've done so without
>> So the question is, is the art display mandatory for any future development? >> And I don't think it's I don't I suspect it's not >> uh No, not the standards. You talked about ex maintaining existing entrance to the building existing art displays
>> uh that fall under subsection A 6.511 which is only where the adaptive reuse of the existing >> but if there's a brand new building >> I'm sure there'll be a red agreement and there'll be some sort of elements of that um to be maintained to some degree but not exactly as
>> or replace another way. >> Yeah. Or replace in some other way. ask for a mural on the whole side of the building. >> Anyway, >> got >> in the master plan, is there a cap on the amount of mixed use residential
commercial uh development for avenue? >> Yeah. >> So, there's just kind of like unlimited build as many residential spaces. >> Uh I would say it's not that either. Uh the master plan is more of a a vision
for development in general. what direction it should head into. The standards you'll be looking for will be in the zoning ordinance and those don't exist. >> Okay. The reason I ask is because I know there's a residential element for the proposed use of this space and I know that a lot of redevelopment that's come
before the planning board has had that in it where it's like this could potentially be residential. My concern is that we are opening ourselves up without like not saying that we shouldn't allow for the potential use of
residential mixed use space but if there is a limit to how much residential property gets built on Rton Avenue and not leaving an opportunity for more
commercial business to come into Highland Park. I mean, Highland Park is only so big. We only have so much space for commercial business to come in and have space for um have building space for businesses that are larger than just
your like small mom and pop restaurants. Um, so I say this just to say, um, for us to kind of keep that in mind with the redevelopment that does come into Highland Park and as developers come and want to build that we are looking
towards not just having a lot of very expensive luxury apartment buildings and then no space for commercial business. So, I don't know if there's any >> Doesn't Does the plan say you the residential has to be on the upper floors? Right. That's what these
>> in this plan. >> Yes. >> Right. And I see that that that's like we're not putting residential apartments on the ground floor. It leaves the ground floors open for restaurants, stores,
>> commercial activities or Yeah. offices, whatever the case may be. >> Right. But if I mean there there are some buildings sorry >> for example um there's a there was a
space in Edison that was a food hall and it was a big space and inside they had all these different food vendors and it was just like this cool food food hall and it required a large space that something like this riding building could like take and you could apply that
same business model to this layout. Um, I just I'm I'm I'm excited for the redevelopment of Highland Park, but it does give me a little bit of pause when I think that, you know, we could be losing
opportunities for more commercial business to come in. Um, because we've used all of our commercial business district for a small amount of commercial business on the bottom and then the majority of the building like 70 80% of the building is residential.
And I'm just worried that that could keep happening with every new development because we've allotted so much zoning for mixed use residential space. >> Um, understand your concern and just one way
of addressing that is is if you look at tract A, there's not a lot of retail space. there's essentially one on the corner, but if track C, but if you look at track A, there's a lot more commercial space. And so the the idea was that the first development out of
the shoot, we wanted to focus on getting people down there. The second development on track A has a lot has has significantly more resident uh commercial space and and so that's something we've talked about the need that we have to make sure that we have
places for businesses to go. And so we I don't know if we formalize that, but we certainly are aware that we need to have improved um as bigger um more more modern types of commercial spaces. And so the the difference between A and C is
that we recognized that A was going to have a little bit of commercial, but C was going to have a little bit of commercial, but A was going to have a lot more. And so we anticipate that with into development that that process should continue. So we understand the need for more commercial space as well. um uh but one time
>> and I think when we look at track B in the future whether it's standalone or maybe part of Sonoko BB bigs or whatever that's another opportunity for more commercial space right now there is none literally none >> right >> being that's active
that being said if I'm hearing right so it's the concern that perhaps a ground floor is being used is too much residential >> no that's not my concern um it's clear that the ground floor would be residential and the ground floor would be commercial. My concern is that there
isn't enough commercial space that you know I don't see that there is a shortage of need for restaurants. Um I see restaurants popping up in other towns and they're very busy and very active. Um I know Highland Park doesn't have the luxury of the same amount of
space as like Edison for example and they built this whole entertainment uh plaza on one that is very very popular. We don't have that type of space but I know that the demand for restaurant space for retail space it is there. It's
just that we lack the infrastructure to house those modern businesses. And so people are opening these businesses, but they're not looking to Highland Park for those. And I wish they would. So I just want to make sure that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot by creating the
opportunity for all of this residential and we're not allowing adequate space for these modern companies and new businesses to come into our town. >> Okay. All right. Oh, one more. One more.
We'll take one more. >> One more thought. just listening to everybody kind of thinking about this as we're talking about it. So, this is we've seen a lot of like redevelopment plans over the last few years in front of the planning board and one thing that jumped out to me when uh we got the
materials for this meeting was how fast the turnaround was for this like this closed relatively recently and we've got a redevelopment plan and that's good. We want, you know, fast turnaround on this stuff. Um but a few minutes ago and I I forget who exactly said it might have
been that might have been Chris somebody said uh you know we might get stuck with the existing building was the expression that somebody used and if we're going to be concerned that we're going to get stuck with the existing building then that indicates that that's not what we
want right like the the redevelopment plan permits the existing building and uh other uses is mixed use whatever right we're concerned that as again I forget who said it we might get stuck with the existing building um there are
things that we've seen that are pretty timesensitive like the uh stop and shop like we need to get a new supermarket in there and that was not uh a time to nitpick over the details like we need a supermarket in town right so just like go um but this is not the same kind of
thing we have a new pharmacy opening right across the street from this we have uh Ignite just down the street a couple blocks. Um there's not like a void in terms of a need that is not being met for the community because this site is not occupied by writing, right?
And so what I'm trying to articulate here is I don't think we have the urgency to rush like we did in that past case. And if we're worried about this plan uh permits something that we might get stuck with, then that doesn't sound like
itffectuates the goals of the master plan. And that's concerning to me that there's been a lot of concern over this building is not ideal for the downtown, but we're building in like extra stuff into here that allows us to keep fundamentally that same site. And as
Jeff articulated earlier, that risks putting things in place that are then difficult to undo to actually effectuate those things down the road, whether it's 5 years, 10 years, four years, whatever it is. Um, >> well, I I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think the thing to keep in mind is that it's not that we're getting stuck with, but that's the building that's there now
that the owner of the property says, "This is my building. I'm not looking to change it." So, all this redevelopment can do is give a path that if someone comes sniffing around to the current owner wanting to build something different, it makes it easier for the current owner to be like, "You know
what? Maybe this isn't such a bad idea." But the concept of getting stuck with it, there's nothing in this plan that we could do or even would impose on a current owner to say you can't have what you already have because they have it. So, I hear what you're saying, but I think a plan that would actively inhibit
the current use against the owner would be not only I would have a negative reaction. >> I do want to say I think a phrase a phrase that people tend to use and it sort of applies here in my opinion. It's not a legal phrase, but it says in effect that don't let the perfect be the
oh killer of the good. And I think that that's something that you have to be concerned about. you know, as Chris has said any number of times, u does the does the burrow want to end up having the perfect uh in place and then have the building sit for the next 10 years
as is the case down the road on Rarent Avenue where there's there's a as you all know uh there's a site that's been sitting and sitting and sitting. Um but but there's there's other external reasons for that too. But the fact of the matter is that
it's an attempt to try to move forward incrementally and that seems to me that what's what the intent of this whole thing is unless Chris tells me I'm >> No, you're right. I think flexibility of the property owner and in in collaboration with that also has gained
access for better circulation. Uh that also benefits the farmers market. I look at this very similarly to when we did the plan for the old stop and shop where we said okay we have a chance we have an opportunity let's make a plan based on what we ideally want and then whatever
goes in goes in. What we got is the same building footprint we had previously but a little bit improved new tenant cleaned up building and in the future someday in the probably and not anywhere near future but who knows there's a path to
get what the town wants eventually. So, we got our grocery store. It's in the same building footprint. We didn't get to move everything up to the front of the lot like we would have loved. It is what it is. We we the options were given and the owner who owns their property made the decisions they made and we got an okay compromise. >> I think what what I want to articulate
is that this plan seems to go out of its way to incentivize keeping it the same footprint rather than kind of saying, well, you keep it the same, but like you have all these other options. this kind of incentivizes doing the opposite of what we would like to see happen.
>> Oh, I don't have that impression at all. I actually think it's what you just said that it's you can keep it the way you want, but here's an incentive and a path to do other things. Would you like to do these lovely other things? >> So, so if I just may the fact that the expanded uses for redevelopment mostly
involve are involved in keeping the building the same, >> right? the daycare use that the medical office uses would I think keep the same building would be just repurpose the building that seems to incentivize that's what I mean when I say it incentivizes keeping it the same rather
than >> I think it's a fair observation that the expanded uses don't explicitly contemplate for cutting up the building into pieces and preserving it but I actually kind of agree with Kyra on that point that I don't think it's innately harmful to have one or two preserved
larger facilities for a larger retail establishment, especially in that area that's going to have this parking lot with this perspective planned and connected put through. Um, so while I I can respect, me personally can respect and appreciate that in a perfect world where we were designing from the ground
up, we changed the whole structure, given what we have and what we're working with, I I actually don't think it's a terrible idea to have a larger footprint commercial space just sitting there ready to go. And if someday we get a building that's four stories with housing over print, I'm okay with that, too. But we're working where we are. So
I I think this plan is working to forward and foster the master plan to encourage these alternate developments in the face of a property owner who has not expressed an interest in doing so at this point. So that's to piggyback on what you're saying. I do think that the
way this is laid out is applicable to the building in its current style and size and shape, but it's also um making this building attractive to a potential buyer should the owner of the building decide to sell it. And if they do decide to sell it, it opens up the
possibilities for someone who may want to demolish this building and build something new or add to the existing building. And it's giving that pathway for them. And that's what the really the first set of permitted principal uses which is sort of a copy paste and track a to
really developed that to death with the right bulk standards but we didn't really give them much air time because we've done it so many times we we know it works it's a lot very generous uh and does encourage mixed use development or even single use development. Um but the
primary focus was to give the property owner some leeway but also have give the ability uh give the bureau the ability to have that cross access which is extremely important for circulation. So it sounds like what I'm hearing is
and you've said in your your testimony is that the prop the current property wants to does not want to do redevelopment wants to find a tenant and what sounds like this redevelopment plan trying to do is say listen that's what your intention is there a couple things
come into the redevelopment go down the redevelopment route and get into a redevelopment agreement so there are a couple things we need like cross access right so that's that seems to be the like I'm I I don't like that we just wait around for, you know, 40 years for a four-story building. But I get the
reality is first the private owner has property rights and they want to use the building as is and unless we're going to buy it from them, that's what we're not going to do, you know, or find someone who can do it like we're he can do that or she can do that, whatever. They they
can bet our owner can reuse the building and they don't even have to go through redevelopment. They could just find a I mean, they could find a tenant and just do it right now. >> And this redevelopment plan offers that we could get something that we really
want, which is that cross access and a couple other things that we would get we would not get in a simple site plan review. >> To get those other things, we need the redevelopment the redevelopment route. Is that what I'm hearing? That's sort of okay. >> That's why the read agreement is so powerful because the planning board
can't require it. Um, but there's nothing stopping for a property owner from doing mixed use building, which we want anyway. It's just at this point, at least our observation is that the property owner wants the redevelopment towers, which we can't get because it won't qualify for redevelopment.
We're stuck under rehabilitation designation. >> So, in a sense that we're we're going to have this one-story building for decades. I come back to the point where if this is a big site, relatively big site for Holl Park, if the access works, there could be
another building behind this building. >> Absolutely. >> And we can get some residential. I mean, I actually just said for the uses again, you could have just a residential building back. >> As long as the residential uses don't front ritin or >> on
>> rarin, you can have a mixed use. Oh, not mixed. You can just have a residential apartment building. Yeah. add the residential that we want that we say we need. Uh so we wouldn't have that part on top of the right a building but we could still get some residential on
>> in concept. Yes concept. Well I I'm I'm hoping that that was considered in as you draft this that could be >> it was >> okay. >> Sorry I'm done. I will >> No, I think I think these discussions >> we heard that you're done. >> I reserve these my time
>> are important and illuminating. Um, but at this moment I'm going to actually open it up next to the public to see if there's any members of the public who wish to be heard on the ordinance proposal. We have anyone at home who wants to play along? >> There's nobody. >> All right. And seeing nobody in the
audience, I'll close the public comment portion on tonight's um consistency review. All right. So, like I said, I appreciate everyone's input. I think it's very interesting and I think it's always appreciated and especially since we have Matt's ear and
I can hold them hostage and we can listen to all these concerns as we sit here. So with that I and uh I I'm okay if people want to disagree. I didn't hear anything specific to recommend as amendments to the plan out of the board. A lot of comment, a lot of policy
feedback. All very helpful. >> Can we recommend amendments? I didn't even realize that was the thing. Uh we our our motion is to decide if this is substantially compliant. That's right. Or to the master plan. If you do make if you do make amendments now you're
causing a problem because then what's going to end up happening if they are considered to be of any substance then the first then they're not going to be able to go to second reading. They have to reintroduce this and go through the process again. So it does cause a delay
>> which I know voted on as a separate thing. >> Oh well if if if they were substantial enough they'd have to go back for >> redis like would that be like if someone was to offer an amendment would that have to be a vote among all of us as to whether it's included in the final we
have just one voice although you can talk Matt's ear off all you want. So, so with that um I uh >> can I offer an amendment or is that inappropriate? It is it is not inappropriate. And then we can
>> it would have to well uh I guess we we need to hear what the amendment is and whether or not the amendment is is going to be um substantial enough to create a problem that's going to then uh place this back uh where they're going to have
to reintroduce the whole ordinance >> because we've certainly sent things back with recommendations for the thought process. >> Um but depends on what you're suggesting. Well, let me ask a question though because I'm I like I said way back at the beginning like the car circulation situation with a daycare
like >> I'm really uncomfortable with that at this. >> Let me let me just interject. I I understand you're comfortable but the reality is the statute requires it any well right it's already in right fair. That takes care of your me.
>> I appreciate that, Roger. We need to punch it because you're done. >> We don't need to have a policy discussion on the merits of a dayare forward to a recommendation. >> If there is a dayare that you need to fix the circulation,
>> there's a lot that needs to be. >> Absolutely. I think you're at a point now, ladies and gentlemen, that you should be thinking about uh making a recommendation back to the board, which is in the form of a motion as to whether or not you find this is a uh consistent
with uh the master plan as well as the uh plan itself. >> I can make I make the motion. Go for it. >> I make the motion that this uh proposed redevelopment plan is not inconsistent. >> No, we're actually doing substantially inconsistent. So we're changing that
respect respectfully. I think it is substantially consistent and not inconsistent because I do think we are dealing with both um uh the uh local redevelopment law as well as the municipal language law. And unfortunately that language really stinks. Luckily I didn't offer it. So it
is is not inconsistent with the master plan and is substantially consistent with the master plan. So that's the way the resolution. >> Yeah. >> You like that? >> Yeah. All right. So, I have a motion to approve and I have a second. We'll take a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Brusher? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Chin? >> Yes. >> Mhazy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hail? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ho? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern Cardell? >> Uh, obviously I have my reservations. I'm great with like 95% of this. I don't get a line item veto. So, I'm going to
vote yes. >> Mr. Williams, >> yes. >> Miss Hand, yes. Thank you. Motion carries. I'll prepare a resolution for the next meeting. >> Thank you. Thank you. Do we need to have a review vote on the language of the resolution or will the resolution Can I
>> No, the the the resol No, you don't >> because I don't want to hold up the town if I just need to sign it. >> Uh the answer is the resolution will be made available and I I will try to get it done as quickly as possible so that it'll be I I assume I'll send it Jen to you and do that. >> Yeah, the next it's due it public
hearing is scheduled for the 25th this month. I will make sure that the resolution is available in advance of the 25th so that it can be distributed and so that the governing body knows what the board has done and I don't think that the resolution is going to be so modified by this board that it's
going to be significantly uh a concern to be governed body. >> Fair enough. All right then then we'll be good to go. All right. So that's the last Oh yes, Alan. Uh, I'd like to uh deal with an issue with uh 810 North.
>> Oh, okay. >> Uh, you know what? We'll go unless Scott has something super interesting he wants to tell us about what's happening around town. >> Um, no. They're going to be starting demo in that building shortly. >> What building? >> The North North Second building. A10
North Second. >> Oh, okay. Well, let's let's talk about it. Alan, what was your question on A10 North Second? Um the >> the condition of approval number two says the app shall you utilize a
slowrelease catch basin as part of its storm water attenuation plan which I believe those words came from uh Roger >> probably did I I >> and uh I didn't remember that actually
happening I do remember the u engineer for the applicant saying that new impervious cover they will make any any changes to the water slopes. >> Uh so then I checked with Bruce C before
he retired >> and he sent he sent a email back to me that uh that he didn't remember it either. So, we we'll cross we >> I'm sorry. You what? >> We'll we'll ask Roger where did it come
from because I don't think it came from the planning board. >> Well, if if is it in the resolution? >> It's in the resolution. >> Well, it it's it came from the planning board because even though it may have been my language, it it was ultimately adopted by the planning board and it
then becomes the planning board's language. is and repeat the language because I didn't quite hear what you were saying. >> Okay. >> In terms of the language, >> gee, applicant shall utilize a slow release catch basin as part of its storm
water attenuation. >> Okay. I can almost guarantee that is not language that I use on a daily basis. That is in all likelihood language that would have come from Bruce's report uh at some point during the course of the hearing. That's where I think the language came from. Now, I'd have to Is
that an assumption on my part? Absolutely. Would I need to go back and take a look at Bruce's report in relation to the resolution on this application? Sure. And I can be happy to report to you at the next meeting. >> Okay. Uh uh but I don't think from what
the the applicant's engineer or the applicant who was here last last month, I don't think they understand. This is what what we said. Is this what they what they have to do? >> Has Scott has this catch basin issue
come up in the permit process? >> No, they just applied for a demo. They didn't submit any of their final, you know. Okay. >> Yeah. So, we're only >> I haven't received any plans, res. >> All right. So the >> this may be something Allan it's somewhat premature but I mean
unfortunately we can't uh unless we can Shanghai Bruce um to get his his further opinion but I'll be happy to to look at that and uh try well but I'm I'm I'll be Yeah. Is that the page of the resolution? No, that's Bruce's.
>> Oh, that's Bruce's. I'll be happy to look at it in relation to Bruce's rather cryptic response, and I will be happy to also indicate what's in the resolution in relation to what was in Bruce's uh report.
>> Scott, you said they're starting demolition. >> Second Street. >> I thought they were going to >> the interior. What? >> I thought they were going to redo the interior. >> Oh, okay.
>> They're cutting the whole thing. >> If there's a question, I'll ask >> you. I'll be here. >> Okay. It's just a matter of finding the actual resolution. So, >> well, they get a copy of the resolution. So, >> well, I understand. There we go. >> Okay. Perfect.
>> All right. >> Can I steal that, Alan? >> Huh? Can I steal this? >> Sure. Thank you. >> All right, then. Any other items not on the agenda that the board wants to talk about? Ready? All right. Seeing none, I'm going to open up uh the meeting one
last time to the public public for comments on any items not on the agenda. Is there anyone at home who wants to make a comment? >> There's not. >> All right. Seeing no members of the public in the audience, I'm going to close our public comment portion of tonight's meeting. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I will solicit a motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion to motion. >> Seconded. >> Seconded. All in favor? All right. Thank you so much everybody. We're getting real good at these plans.