Uh, please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> Barry, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? >> My pledge to God of the United States of America, and to the republic for which stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Valerie. Please read the statement of public notice. >> The Little Falls Township Planning Board meeting of Thursday, November 6, 2025 is called to order. Please take notice that
adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with NJSA104-8 and NJSA104-10 as follows. Notice of the meeting was promptly posted on the bulletin board at the municipal building located at 225
Main Street, Little Falls, New Jersey on January 9th, 2025. Copy of the notice was sent via email to the North Jersey Herald and News and a copy of the notice was filed at the office of the township clerk on set date. Please note that this meeting is being taped. Therefore, we
ask that you speak loud and clear into the microphones. >> Please call the rule. >> Mr. Barry >> here. >> Mr. Karage >> here. >> Mr. Luke Damiano >> here. >> Miss Gataldo >> here. >> Mr. Sber. Mr. Prochious >> here.
>> Mayor Damiano >> here. >> Councilman Scoba >> here. >> Dr. Abdi. Mr. Wade. >> Mr. Dolan >> here. >> Mr. Remma >> here. >> Mr. Brookladoro. Mr. Klars >> here. >> Mr. Kilpatrick
>> here. Um, are there any comments from the council for us? >> Chairman, no one came before the governing body at our last council meeting with concerns of the planning board. >> Very good. May I have a motion for the approval of the minutes of October 9th, 2025?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Please pull the board. >> Mr. Kash, >> yes. >> Miss Gataldo, yes. Mr. Posus, >> yes. >> Mr. Rema, >> Mr. Kilpatrick, >> uh, Chair, yes. Minutes are approved.
Um, please, uh, may I have a motion for memorializing the resolution for 188 NPT Realy LLC, 188 York Compton Insurance? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Please call the board.
>> Mr. Kar, >> yes. >> Miss Catalo, >> yes. >> Mr. Posus, >> yes. >> Mr. Remo, Mr. Kilpatrick, >> Chair V, yes. the resolution memorialized. Uh before we start the evening tonight, I have a statement uh
which I would like to present to everyone. An immense amount of work went into the development of the present comprehensive little falls master plan. master plan was developed over a year-long process involving our licensed
municipal engineer, our licensed town planner, council, mayor, our land use attorney, our business administrator, as well as members of the planning board. Input from resident surveys and advertised town meetings were taken into
consideration throughout the process. The committee members developed and were comfortable in the body of work that evolved and that it maintained the character and development of our town. As chairman, I prefer that developers
and land owners minimize variances and make every effort to meet the lawful requirements of the zoning ordinances in effect. Thank you. First application, JSL Properties LLC,
117 Main Street and 1 Censor Avenue. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, local public. Hello, entering my appearance on behalf of JSL Properties, John Federy Jr., 3 University Plaza, Sweet 207. Uh, so uh I
see we have a big crowd tonight. I'll try to be as efficient as possible with our time. We do have a lot of witnesses for this application, but I'd like to give a little bit of um of an overview as I always do. So, the the applicant tonight is preparing and proposing a
redevelopment for properties located at 117 Main Street and 1 Center Avenue. Together, properties are about half an acre located on the corner of Center Avenue and Main Street. They're located in the Transit Village zone. uh transit
zone permits threestory mixeduse buildings. Uh we all know this site as the Kirk's Goodyear site uh which has been vacant for many years and an office excuse me. So the site history
both properties initially had Victorian homes located on the site and that was common along Main Street at that time. properties were demolished and there was a small gas station located there at the corner of the property. We did have a prior
application. The board heard that prior application back or didn't hear it, but we submitted the application back in 2024. 2024 we had an application that had uh residentical units located on the first
floor which would have required a use variant. that is now elimination also had tandem parking. Tandem parking is where you have parking one in front of the other. That has been eliminated. We also had some other variances that
were eliminated. We had the opportunity to speak with the board professionals uh some neighbors as well with the board attorney and the board engineer in coming up and arriving with uh the plans that you see before the board this
evening. So in looking at the plan right now we have a vacant building in Kirk's Goodyear. Uh the building was originally a Pontiac dealership. Uh there was a few luxury homes that were located there,
big Victorians way back when. Uh there was a gas station located there. And then on the one center avenue property, that was the location of some remember the Marston family. They had a home there, turned into an office. It was an insurance uh brokerage firm that was
located there and real estate firm. And then First Savings and Loan acquired that property that later was acquired by Valley National Bank. And then Highland Capital Corporation was located there before the site was purchased by JSL Properties. So we're left with two
vacant buildings located in the Transit Village Central Business District. Mixeduse buildings are permitted in this district. When the original application was submitted back in 2024, it included larger density and it included, as I
mentioned, residential units on the first floor, which have now been uh eliminated. And I want to thank the township and the board professionals for their input in making this building a better application and a better site plan as compared to the original site
plan with better access, more green space as well as better site circulation. So, what's the proposal tonight? The proposal is a very elegant mixeduse building. Um, I've been calling it the Bonavville at Little Falls. I think I'm the only one in tribute to the
Pontiac Pass for those of us who remember the brand. Also in French means good village, which is a testament to our good village here in Little Falls. the proposed building, which is appropriately scaled for this location, not seeking a uh any type of uh height
variance and certainly not a use variance. And it includes approximately 2900 square ft of retail space on the first floor. You'll notice when the architect comes up to give his testimony that there's some unique features to the site, including a walk through the
building. So rather than have to have uh either residents or members of the public looking to go to the retail stores to get to the parking and go around the building, there's a corridor that goes through the building to get access to the back parking and created a lot of architectural detail. U again
going back to what we're seeking here tonight. So we have some what are called bulk variances based upon the configuration of the site and our planner is going to give testimony justifying those variances. We do not have a height variance. We do not have a density variance. We do not have a
variance for use. If you look at what's proposed in the transit village zone and what's in our master plan, this is the prototypical building of what was envisioned in this area. It's a uh really a very dynamic uh new landmark
building for our downtown and it will have the impact of extending our downtown sort of unofficially. the downtown almost ends at the Valley National Bank because the site that's there now always had a parking lot in the front and was always automotive whether there were cars waiting to be
serviced there or there was parking uh small parking area for uh the Highland Capital building which didn't lead to an attractive uh streetscape. Uh as you'll see momentarily, the design is um you know quite elegant and really very much
in keeping with the design standards that were set forth in the transit village zone. So before we bring up the professionals, I just want to run through some of the variances. Members of the public did get notice of the variances. There are three variances
that are no longer uh being sought. uh two of which were never uh part of the application in that uh the relief that we were seeking with respect to the minimum sideyard setback the vegetative buffer and also for the rear yard
setback vegetative buffer is only applicable if the properties surrounding the site are residentially zoned. In this case, the properties behind it and the properties to uh to the right of it, the church property are not located in
the residential zones. Therefore, those two variances are no longer required and are not being sold. In addition, after receiving a letter from the board engineer and looking at some of the relief that was sought, we tried to determine a way to eliminate the parking variance that we had. There was a
parking variance for just one space under the code in the transit village zone. We need one space for every 250 square feet of retail as well as 1.25 parking spaces for every uh residential dwelling unit. And uh so that left us
with a variance. We were able to reduce the size of the retail store so that we're no longer seeking a variance for parking. So, we're left with the variance for uh setback, minimum parking setback against the building because
there's some parking under the building and it's less than 5T from the building. We're left with a variance for coverage and a variance for uh parking in the rear. We do have a a request for a what's called a design waiver from RSIS.
So it's not a variance that we're seeking but RSIS says that 48 spaces are required whereas 33 are being proposed. And lastly we have variance for the uh minimum size of the parking spaces. Uh
very typical that we seek a variance for a parking space size of 9 by 18 as opposed to 10 by 20 which is more of a standard for a shopping center. So our lineup this evening is uh we have our architect who has uh handled some
applications here before most notably the 8284 New York pump and turnpike application and I think you'll see some similarities in the design Adam Lod is going to testify in the area of architecture our engineer Connor Ritter from Stonefield Engineering uh traffic
consultant Justine Fox and planner Marchella Trainer both of which are from Stonefield Engineering. So, with that overview, uh, I'd like to call our first witness, Adam Lotto, who's going to testify in the area of detention.
This was also submitted electronically. Um you're able to put it on the TV as well. >> Um I just want to make one and not Mr. Brigley Duro. Should we mention Morena will not be heard tonight? Am
I the public? on the party tonight. >> Correct. to the college. >> Mr. the reviews December 4th.
>> And one more uh note that this meeting will end at 10 Senate. >> Proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Will you give the board the benefit of your swearing? >> Yes, I do.
Yes, it's Adam Lota Lot Ta of Lotto Architects Incorporated. Uh my address is 2424 East York Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125, although I am based in Philadelphia. I was born and raised New Jersey, a little bit south of here. And for my
credentials, I graduated from the NGIT, New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2012 with a Bark in architecture and then got licensed in 2018 in the state of New Jersey. I hold licenses in many other states in the country. All
>> thank you. I offer him as an expert in the area of architecture. >> Are your licenses up to date? >> Yes. >> Accepted. >> Okay. Thank you, Adam. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh give the board an overview of the architectural plan starting with the exterior and then going into the number
of units and speaking about the floor plans and elevation. An answer questions. >> Absolutely. And then I'm going to go by the board here too just so you're seeing the rendering here. Um as John had explained that we are proposing a three-story building. One of the challenges that we had when
designing this was, you know, the the frontage along Main Street was 160 ft. So, how do we design a building across that 160 ft that doesn't look like a blank 160 ft wall? So, that was our
biggest challenge when coming up with this design. And I think we came up with something very iconic, but also very quote Main Street USA. what is a building that is new but that still fits within an old fabric like Little Falls. So, we didn't want to propose anything
too modern um not too contemporary, some contemporary details but done in a very kind of Main Street USA uh avenue. So, and the benefit of that is we started to create these many moments across the facade and that's why you're seeing a lot of articulation of the facade both
inwards and outwards. Uh, more importantly, we tried to activate the streets and as had John had said before, we did propose a walkth through condition. So this way, if anyone is using the the parking lot in the back, instead of having to walk all the way up and around and up center avenue, there's
a nice public quote throughway under the building through that first floor. And within those two areas, there's also a number of stairs and ramps, which I'll get to in a second. uh but primarily also focusing on the zoning requirements in understanding that we have to have a
plinch meaning that first floor has to be activated and separated from the rest of the building. So it looks like a two over one as opposed to a three-story building. We were very cognizant in adhering to and trying to enhance and even further show others that you you
really can create something beautiful even though some might call the zoning restrictions say restrictive. I we take that as a challenge. So just going to move the rendering down and also go over some of the drawings also. Uh this exhibit is a little bit different than
what was submitted. Uh we do have additional copies here that we can distribute to the board. Uh mainly >> so why don't we uh enter this as exhibit A1 and if you could explain the difference on this site plan as compared to what was uh originally submitted to the board.
>> Yes. So there's two main differences. One is of course Sure. the differences uh the different No. >> Oh, yes. So, sorry. Yeah. So, this is just an architectural site plan. Um again, this is uh with working with Stonefield Engineering as well. Uh a lot
of coordination back and forth. We really wanted to show the So, oh that it is dated the 5th two days ago. Yep. So, we should our full set is updated. So, should the full set be as exhibited or not? It's not per page is
it? >> So if you Yeah. If you had the update if we can circulate them. Uh yes. The essentially the the difference here. >> So Stonefield engineer when they come up they'll they'll explain maybe a little bit more detail about the loading zone and also the location of the
transformer. Uh but our main concern was providing a loading zone near a trash room. So, there was always a trash room in the previous design. Uh, but in this most recent version, we enlarged the trash room. This way, the the dumpster would be kept inside and only during trash days would it be wheeled out into
that loading zone. Of course, it' be picked up, collected, and then the dumpster would be put back in. So, there's no longer a need for a dumpster enclosure. There won't be a dumpster outside. Only for those times when, of course, a trash truck has to come and take care of the trash. And one of one of the comments that we got back uh in
the 2024 iteration and talking to the neighbors was about having a garbage dumpster on the outside. Uh we know the neighboring uh property does have a dumpster enclosure recycling on the inside and we were able to accommodate that. We'll speak about that when Stonefield comes up and talks about the
review comments from Mr. Post. And and then the other the other main difference that we're going to show on the next page is the reduction of the retail spaces in order for us to eliminate the parking variance. So if you go on to the third page of
that >> Okay. Can you tell us what that reduction was? >> Uh it was it was only a couple hundred square feet. It was you know we were just a little bit over we're at like 3100 square feet. Now we're just under at 2900 ft. >> About 230 ft total. Exactly. So we we
reduced it down in order for us to be below that 3,000 ft² threshold and thus for us eliminating that parking variance. Uh so that so showing the the net retail spaces we uh added also uh bathrooms in there as well because one bathroom especially for these spaces was
not adequate. We enlarged also some of their back of house and storage areas. Uh so this way the square footages now of the net retail are under 3,000 square feet. that and also the trash room on the latest drawings is shown as enlarge and
and also we show a little square in the corner there for a size of a typical dumpster. So going through the plan, one of the main striking features of that facade articulation that I spoke about earlier, you can actually really start to see in the uh first floor plan. You can see
that the building both pushes out almost to the limit of the property line but on the majority it actually pulls back uh especially giving that extra space to the street and thus you know giving some extra width to that sidewalk. Also enhancing that you know we want this
building to be an extension of Main Street and we wanted to have a presence and not just be right to the lot line gaining every single bit of square footage. We wanted to pull the building back by creating these nice moments of entry into the retail spaces and to give
some extra width along that sidewalk. So this way, no one's going to feel cramped walking up and down that sidewalk if we were position that building right up to the property line. So as you can see here, we're both flanking that that center space with two separate retail spaces. And you'll see that middle area
in between is that pass through that I spoke about earlier when I was presenting the rendering. So, from the street uh from uh Main Street, you'll be able to actually walk under the building. Uh there's a series of both ramps and stairs. You know, we want to make sure it's also ADA accessible that
meander their way up from the higher elevation of the parking lot down to the lower elevation along Main Street. So again, by having to cut through the building, it saves someone to walk that extra, you know, over 100 ft all the way around the building in the event where
say either one of the future tenants or if anyone utilizing the retail can be able to actually walk into that center space, walk down the center and be able to go right out. So again, a lot of this was trying to incorporate the building in a way that helped to enhance the
streetscape and not just create a physical barrier. So moving on to the next and also here one last thing is the parking underneath the building. We know that the previous application had tandem parking under the building where cars were parking like one in front of the other that creates a
a nightmare in case you know if your neighbor blocks you in, you got to knock on their door and try to get them to move. We've eliminated that. the this strip of parking here which is facing the the parking lot at the rear at the rear are parking spaces uh that will park underneath the building versus the
rest of the parking is out in the open. There's nothing covering them. >> I have a question. You have five electric charging parking space. >> Yes, we do. And those five charging stations are going to be in this covered area. Can anyone park in those or is any
of us share that 25% of your car is going to be electric? >> Well, there's a state mandate that we do have to incorporate EV charging as well. So, we are meeting that requirement. >> We do have to meet that requirement, but five is 25%.
>> And I believe Stonefield too, I think that's a better question, I think, for the engineers because there they we position those spaces on the engineers plans. Uh but we did we did pro >> Yeah. M if if it's by Mr. Chairman Mr. Ritter will testify as to what the EVSSE
spaces. >> Yeah. >> Okay. He's the architect. The spaces are here. I asked >> Nope. Understood. >> Great question. This we worked we tried to work uh we we coordinated a lot so that way there there is some spillage of information between us because we wanted
to make sure that what that our drawings and also Stonefield's drawings coordinated. This way we're both showing the same number of spaces. So, moving on to the next floor plan. Uh, the second and third plan, third floor plans are very similar to each other. Uh, they consist of 10
apartments. Uh, four on each floor being two bedrooms. Uh, those are the ones on the ends kind of in this light orange color. And all the other one-bedroom apartments are the the pastel green color in the middle. Uh, again, they all meet the standards of m hitting the
minimum 800 foot for onebedroom requirement and also,000 foot minimum for two-bedroom apartment. So the building is ones and twos primarily onebedrooms. So it'll be a total of 20 units and of those 20 eight are two bedrooms and 12 are onebedrooms. So the
second and third floor plan are almost identical with the change of that you know kind of mansard roof and dormer bumpin that happens along main street and center. So I'll go right through. of the second floor plan and the third floor plan. You
can see they're all very they're very similar to each other. Same same layout of units. Um and basically the same floor plan on on both the second and third floor. We did show a roof plan as well. We wanted to make sure that we are positioning any rooftop equipment as
center into the building as possible. Uh because of perspective lines, we want to make sure that as you're standing on the street, you're never going to see a unit stick out above the roof line. So between positioning them as center as possible and providing those cornises along center and main street, you're not
going to be able to have a direct view of any of the rooftop units. And again, the rooftop units are going to be fairly small. Each apartment is going to get their own. So we're not going to have a situation where we're going to have this massive cooling tower or massive piece of equipment on the roof.
The next phase, we go to the elevation. So again the 2D and we got the 3D also view below. Again here you're seeing that same facade articulation. Uh we're also being very conscious and providing great materials. You know not showing any vinyl siding every anywhere because again it's not it's against the zoning
regulations. Plus we don't really like vinyl siding either. So for us we provided a a masonry stone base. We're going to do a masonry uh facade along with a series of concrete bands to be able to differentiate between that first floor and the floors above. And the
materials across the facade above is going to be a mixture of uh fiber cement siding. Uh also fiber paneling as well with a slight reveal and also a board and batton. So all of these will be fiber cement products. They're not going to be vinyl. They're going to have great
longevity, great color, and also not much maintenance as well. So, it's a great product and it's going to look great for many years. >> Is this comparable to Hardy Board? >> Exactly. So, James Hardy is a manufacturer of Hardy Board. So, we like to say there's other manufacturers that make great products, too, but yes, it's
James Hardy is a great manufacturer for these types of products that we're proposing on sods. And more importantly, we wanted to also chamfer the corner as well. We wanted to accentuate that corner and providing that 45° angle uh again to activate that corner. So again,
all of this is in response to really creating a building that sits kind of more harmoniously with the urban fabric of Little Falls. And lastly, we carry that same facade of course up center. We didn't want it just this to be a one-facing facade, especially of how prominent this corner is. And you'll
notice that as the site slopes up, we have this little bit of a quote unquote blank wall that we're showing it as a Little Falls mural. We would love to approach a local artist to be able to give them a blank slate and design and paint on a beautiful mural, of course,
in tribute to Little Falls. >> Yeah. So, so that is conceptual that would require a variance uh in order for us to put a mural there. Mr. D Marie, if you pull up the um the rendering, you could zoom in on that there. There is a uh we have a little false historic
picture shown in the in the rendering. It's it pointed out a little bit hard to see. Um we've done it in other Yeah, it's actually on the rendering, not on >> So, it's in the latest uh file that we sent you >> and um yeah, it's been done successfully
in other towns in uh in Westfield and Grantford that we've worked on some projects. But this would be something if the board wants to do, we could also, you know, always come back to the board at that time if the board has an interest in seeing that. Otherwise, it would just remain uh plain there.
>> On top of that too, that is a wall that helps to screen off the parking that is parking underneath. We didn't want to create any openings there. Again, we understand that we need parking. So that way that wall continues and helps to screen and block the parking that's happening under the building on that
side elevation. That's why we wanted to do something solid and we thought it was actually something kind of playful uh but kind of anchoring this building in where it's located is providing that mural space for that. >> You show tables and chairs at the
entrance to the pass through. What's the purpose of that? >> It's just conceptual you know to have some benches or to have the you know seating area in that area. That's just purely conceptual. >> Thank you. So lastly, we wanted to continue that same language as well. And one of the
comments that we did receive was the facade, the sideyard facade facing the church was, I guess, left to be a little bit desired. So we did come up with a revision to that and also adding another mural on that wall as well to help brighten it up. Uh we were able to
include two actually real windows into the stairwell that you're seeing on that side elevation on that page. Uh unfortunately we can't we cannot by code extend and provide additional windows on the side elevation. Uh what we're showing there
is faux windows. They would be board and batten. It would be made to look like a window but we can't put a window there by code because we're so close to the property line there in ter for the building code. It we it would just never be allowed. Uh so that's why even though we took the opportunity to put some
windows in the stairwell, who doesn't like a little bit of sunlight in a stairwell? And we continued that uh language across that facade in order to give it some more visual interest. In our previous submission, we did wrap and turn the corner with the harder hardy
panel siding as well. Uh but we just continued also the concrete band and added another mural below to help bring some more visual interest to that side of the building. And of course, lastly, the back elevation as well. It's all hardy siding and we also provided some
also some more visual interest a little bit subdued. Then of course on Main Street we also wanted to provide those uh articulations on the facade and finishing them with a board and batten sighting. So yep that's that's my presentation on
the the architectural design. >> Thank you Michoda. Uh no further questions of Mr. Are there any questions from the members of the board? >> Question. >> Um, in these uh pictures, it looks like
that the building is going onto the sidewalk that is currently there. Is there is it going up to the line of where the sidewalk is now or is it going be taking over some of the sidewalk that's there now? So some of the areas where the building bumps out, those few
areas, it is going to take up some of the sidewalk because some of that existing sidewalk is on the property, but a majority across that facade. We actually stepped it back and we're providing even a wider area of sidewalk. So it's a it's a cobbl. We we had looked at that um on a phone conference earlier
in the week to see it looks like maybe some of the township improvements were encroaching on uh on the property. And I my guess is that most if not all of that will have to be redone when the construction is done just based on the grading plan and the applicant has um
has no problem doing that. So it's it's really quite close. The surveyors have to look at it. I mean we're talking about a matter of inches, but um in some areas it'll be larger and maybe in some other areas it will not be quite as large as >> So you're encroaching on the streetscape.
>> Uh no, it was the the township was encroaching on the private property. Mr. Reverse. Yes. >> Very well. Is there any way the front facade could continue around the entire would be the right side of the building if you're facing it and the rear of the building?
>> Well, the side we did wrap it around to that corner and that's why we also added some more articulation past that corner. That view is going to be obstructed by both the church and also other vegetation that's actually on the church's property. So that strip that we had adorned even more in this
resubmission that's the side that's the area that's going to be the most vis visible uh in terms of wrapping it around the rear. Reason why the rear is as I guess I guess not as articulated as the street facing sides. One because it's not the street facing sides. We
really wanted to focus on those two. And also the difficulty of having to have that much articulation on the back is going to be would be too much of a challenge especially from a structural standpoint. So the rear had to be somewhat simplified in order for us to
have that open parking underneath the building. >> But the materiality is the same. So the hardy board, the HVAC paneling, the uh >> Yeah. All of that same detailing. Yes. that same siding and the same uh white
board and batten that's on the other sides of the building is that same material at the rear. The rear just does not have the the Hardy paneling, but it does have the Hardy siding and also it does have the board and batten siding. Of course, Mayor, we didn't render the
rear, so you know, the the rendered picture is, you know, what it will look like. The back rendered would have a nice appearance as well because the materials the same, the windows are the same, the furnace is the same. But if the mayor or the board has any recommendations for the back. Um, but we
did, you know, we did make sure that material it wasn't just a blank to your facade that it carried the same material to get even portion of the articulation along the front to the rear. You're saying is possible or is it just diff?
>> Difficult. No, it's just very difficult. That's why those facade articulations at the rear don't stick out as much. It's really because of trying to keep the back facade simplified to allow for the constructibility of all that parking underneath.
>> Mr. De, could you show the rear elevation just for a moment? >> Yeah, I'll show you here too. >> And I think that the thing you're also missing on that lower floor is that plintth. Of course, we can't have anything solid there because of all the parking, right? That
>> so we should showing. So there there are it looks as though those are blank walls where the columns are, but there's debt. So that's not it's about 20 ft there. So that's parking underneath whereas you're looking at it facially. They do look like blank walls in practice. You know,
there's there's a full area of about 20 feet there. So we um so in appearance, we could have rendered it shown the vehicles. >> Yeah. But we are going to do even the the back wall where the cars are going to be parking I guess towards that whole wall is also going to be masonry as well. So that same masonry finish that
we're showing on the front on the both fronts. The front on center and the front of course on Main Street that same masonry is going to be carried inwards as well. It's just not shown here from an elevation standpoint. hard to really kind of get that understanding without that being just either a very blank wall
or worse if I were to put like a really dark shadow it would look I think it would it would look even more obtrusive. >> Is there a way if you look at the very first page of the exhibit to work in any of those angled roofs? >> So the angled So we're not showing any
of the angled roofs because the this the roof actually slopes from front to back. So guess any rain water we're going to capture it with gutters along that whole side. We can potentially add maybe some some peaks at those two um board and batten elements that stick out. We can
be able to provide some roof. Uh but as you can see and even on the rendering as well, the elevations show an angled roof with some asphalt shingles, but especially from the perspective of being so low, they're hard to see. So even when you're that high up, it's
definitely a detail that is harder to capture and see. So that's why we we eliminated any kind of uh shingle roofing roofing on those two elements because one wouldn't really be seen as well especially with it being that back
elevation and two it was really we just wanted to accentuate that same cornis line of that white board and batten uh aesthetic that we showed on both center and main street facads and articulate that at the rear. >> I understand majority of people are going to see this from main street that
are driving through town. Mhm. >> But there's a lot of people who will also be coming down center or who live in the rear of the building >> who are going to be seeing the rear of the building >> and adding I think a level of some aesthetic in the rear might give it just
some additional you know improved value. Again, if you look at the first page as you have along the front, I mean, I think the one more element of adding that roof really changed the the look of it because and there it is. The angled roofs I'm referring to along the front.
>> You know, the dormant roofs. >> The dormant roofs along the front. >> Oh, the dormant roofs at the third floor. Those those inbetweens, >> right? >> Okay. >> Is it possible to add those along the rear? >> Is it possible?
potentially. Yes. We would have to explore how that would that aesthetic would impact that rear facade, especially with the rear facade not being as articulated and broken up as the front. >> The other thing that we could do, mayor, is I think um which probably would
complement the back more is I think it would be very contrived putting that like dormers in the back is enhancing it with trim like architectural trim uh cornice on the top. So if you look This scary
along here. >> Yeah, we can definitely provide some additional trim work uh in order to really further enhance it. In addition, and we're going to talk about this when we get to the site engineering, um we're there's quite a big elevation difference between the backyard on Warren Street
and uh and this site. And right now there's a lot of fencing there and disrepair. We're proposed of new retaining walls, new trees, new fencing along the that entire perimeter, which will you know help to mitigate seeing anything. But we made sure to make uh to
make sure that all of the materials are the same. Like we didn't, you know, much like with the Brahm the materials are exactly the same. We have ASAC trim, you know, we have Hardy P blank and that's, you know, got the same exact, you know, high standard windows that are proposed here. But I think we could add
additional cornice board here, a band at the bottom that would, you know, help to mitigate the massing and show some definition to the back of the building. I would like to make that a transition if possible. >> Yes.
>> Any other questions to the board? >> I'm thinking now in addition to the corners that you're referring to, if we carry that gooseeneck light around the back as well, I think that might add to it. >> Yeah, >> just a little something. So, especially if we do that, if we carry that same
horizontal band that's along center and also Main Street, carrying that to the rear and positioning those gooseenecks right above it, similar to the other facads, then yeah, >> it'll add to safety in that situation, too. >> Absolutely. We were planning on having lighting here, of course, especially under the parking, but having the
gooseeneck neck lights serve as both aesthetic and also add lighting that I'm very much agree with. >> It would add some dimension as well. That would be attractive. And then that white area is the is the cut through, I'm assuming. Right. >> Yes. The white in the middle, that is the cut through. Yep.
>> Cut through. Completely open. >> Yes. Completely open. Open to the public. It's >> It's open air. >> Open air. Yep. We wanted that to be completely open air. >> I mean, it isn't open air above. It's It's open on either side. >> Open air on the sides. Yeah. not open to the general public, but it's, you know,
it's open to the public to access the retail stores and uh and it's open to residents of the building, but it would be regulated by management after the retail stores are closed that it's not accessible. >> So, parking restricted just to the people in the apartments or they say if
I want to buy something in the retail store. >> Oh, it's it's open. Yeah, we're going to talk about that. We have a traffic and parking. Um to to your point where you said that you're um that it would be by it would be managed by building management um to
prevent uh public access to that uh covered outdoor seating um or the other flat area for covered outdoor seating. Um would there be some sort of obstruction to the walk? So there were it's not on this elevation. There were decorative row iron gates if you
remember in the earlier plan that was submitted to the board uh last year. Uh and I would think that something like that you know would probably return. Um you know we do have you know sites like this uh around the town uh especially
now that are managed and if someone a trespasser is there after hours then just like any other site within the township. But um you know that's uh that's an element that if the board would like to see that that may be also another decorative element that could be added to the site as well.
>> Additional question are the windows operational throughout the building? >> Yes. >> In the residential area? >> Yes. Absolutely. >> Casement style or up? >> So we're we're actually toying between two different styles. Either casement or tilt turn. So a lot of like if you ever have experienced European style windows
where they'll actually tilt and also case they'll almost they'll open inward. So it's like an inward casement. One of those two. >> Okay. >> Except Mr. B chairman the windows that we pointed out that are faux that we can't have on. >> Yeah. Except the faux windows the windows in the in the stairwell they
will be just fixed windows. They will not be operable. Only the windows in the apartments. All the windows in all of the apartments will be operable. Of course, the storefront windows along the retail facade, those will not be operable, but of course, the doors will be. >> Thank you.
>> I have a question, chairman, to the floor. Is this building higher or at the same height or lower than the Methodist church to the to the right of it? >> We're actually That's a great question. I'm not sure. I'm not sure the height of the Methodist church. Uh but from
driving by even today, the Methodist church and the existing national the the National Valley Bank building, uh this building is going to be very comparable in size. We're not going to be taller. I don't think we're going to be shorter. We're going to be somewhat right where we need to be with this design.
>> And just to read, we're not seeking a variance for height. >> No, we're not seeking a variance for height. No. I guess we're done. Okay. All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You wanted questions of the public at the end. >> At the end. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
>> So, our next witness is going to be Connor Ritter who's going to testify in the area of engineering. >> I do. Uh my name is Connor Ritter Ri Ter of Stonefield Engineering and Zion. Uh
address is 92 Park Avenue, New Jersey. >> Sure. I am licensed as a professional engineer in the states of New Jersey and Maine. Uh I have a bachelor of science and civil engineering from the University of Vermont and over eight years of experience in civil site
engineering focused on land development. >> Uh I'm sorry but licenses up to date. >> Oh yes, licenses are both in good standing. >> Accepted. Thank you. >> Okay. See, I want to make sure that we go through the comments of Mr. Kovalears.
I'm gonna let you give an over to Sure. I'll try not to uh rehab recre on too many things here uh as we go. Um as stated before, this is three story mixeduse building at mainstream center.
Um we've received that engineer review letter dated October 30th, 2025 from Almo Group. Uh we also have the original engineering review letters that we take into consideration uh from back in May of 2024 uh that were provided for
planning by H2M and uh engineering by Alimo group. Again um the project site is on block 93 lots 3 and 14. Uh this is one of the comments
from the engineering review. These lots will be consolidated uh into a single lot as part of this project. Uh the address is 117 Main Street, also known as 1 Center Avenue. Uh Main Street is County Route 631 and Center Avenue is
County Route 643. Um so with these frontages being on county roads, we will be uh we are seeking uh subplan review from the Sy County Planning Board as well. we've uh submitted our application to them uh
back on October 15th of this year uh alongside their approval. We also have approvals from uh the Hudson Essex Paic soil conservation district that we've submitted for uh and we will be looking to get utility uh approvals from uh PBSC
pursuer New Jersey American water for water service and PS&G for gas and electric. Um, go ahead. I'll pull up an exhibit here.
as soon as >> Yes, this is a colorized site plan that's been prepared by my office at uh Stonefield. Uh the date on this rendering is October 29th, 2025.
Wonderful. Um so I won't tread on too much of this again, but as as seen here, we have the building uh the three-story building with frontage on uh both Main Street and Center Avenue. Uh in the rear of the building,
we have that 33 space surface parking lot. Uh those 33 spaces is to meet the requirement for parking as dictated by the township. um that parking is shared by both the residential and the uh retail components
of the project. Uh and then surrounding the property here uh is going to be uh landscaping features as well as a fence along the rear property line uh to provide additional privacy to those uh
neighboring residential uses. Uh the topography on the site uh down at Main Street and Centerrev at that corner intersection is the lowest portion of the site and then as we move our way south across the property. Uh we start
gaining grade um as as we look at up center avenue that sidewalk is fairly steep through there. Um, so once we reach the parking lot in the back, we're a bit elevated compared to Main Street. So we have those stairwells and ramping
through the center corridor of the building to provide uh that access through to the back parking lot. Um, surrounding the back parking lot under the existing condition. Now, uh, this this whole area is set fairly low and
flat. Um, and then right as we get to the perimeter uh property line in that back area, we see the grades jump up uh a good 2 to 6 ft in some places. With the proposed site plan here, we are
proposing uh a series of low retaining walls surrounding the perimeter of the parking lot uh in order to better support that slope and stabilize it. Right now it's in a bit of an eroded condition. It's it's not too stable. Um
so the idea is that with those retaining walls, not only would we uh provide something a little more secure, but it would support support that slope, support uh some additional plantings above it uh as well as that privacy fence mentioned previously.
Um going through some of the other streetscaping and landscaping that was mentioned. You had some questions before about the streetscaping on Main Street. Um this was also mentioned in that engineer review letter we pro we were uh
provided where the building is right up near the property line. I believe we are um about.3 ft off at its closest point from that property line which provides a uh a
sidewalk with a 5.3 ft minimum width where the building then uh articulates inward. That width expands upwards of 8.6 ft. So there is at least that minimum of 5.3 ft often times wider for
walking along Main Street. Um once we reach the corner of Main Street and Center Avenue, that new streetscaping that has been um constructed along there uh ends once you turn the corner. We're
proposing to continue that same streetscaping style up center street for the extent of the property frontage. Um, and along Center Avenue there, it's going to be much wider. It's going to be uh over 10 ft wide for that sidewalk. So
allowing for uh a couple of street trees, a much wider sidewalk, paper band uh to accentuate that front uh that that front facade along center avenue and the residential lobby there. >> And the design standard the same as the town has implemented throughout the
streetscape so that the look and feel same going all the way up center avenue as it is along Main Street. >> Correct. Uh it was noted in the engineer review letter that the streetscape standards that have been applied along Main Street uh differ from those that
are typically seen or required by the town. So we are looking to uh work with the town and make sure to replicate that same standard and continue it around the corner as opposed to um using a typical standard uh that would not match that in
time. Um, from the standpoint of storm water of the property, uh, the existing site has, uh, has the two buildings that are currently vacant, a large parking lot that's along Main Street, and in the
rear of the building is, uh, fairly occupied with gravel. Um so with the proposed development we are looking to uh have a little bit of an increase to the lot coverage there. Um but alongside
that we are proposing a storm water detention system beneath the parking lot. Um, and that storm water detention system will ensure that there are no uh adverse impacts to uh the the storm
water runoff coming from the site. Uh, there's a couple surface inlets along the driveway. Uh the building will have uh roof leaders that connect directly into those structures subsurface and then the parking lot itself uh is all
sloped to uh drain down into that area. So nothing is intending to run off into Center Avenue. It's all going to be collected on site, detained by the system uh before being uh connected into the uh storm drain system in Center
Avenue subsurface from there. >> And currently there's no detention on site. There's no storm water regular storm water management site. >> Correct. The the current site is uh entirely unmanaged. Uh there's there's no treatment, no detention, nothing of
the sort. Um for utilities coming into the property, the existing property has uh utility connections coming from both Main Street and Center Avenue. Uh there are water manes, sewer mains, and gas
mains available along both street frontages as well as overhead electrical power and telecom uh on the poles running along each frontage as well. Um, we're looking to run the majority of our
utilities off of center A. Um, so that's that that storm drain connection that I mentioned previously. It'll be our electrical connection and our gas connection uh to attempt to reutilize a lot of the existing connection points that are in Center Avenue. um off of
Main Street, we will have our domestic water service and our fire suppression service coming off uh there where the water man is on the near side of Main Street as opposed to in Center Avenue where the water man is kind of on the
far side and and much further reach to to bring into the site. Um, another comment that was uh received and noted is uh in question of the transformer on the
property. We are showing a uh proposed transformer location near the driveway entrance. uh this location is uh conceptual and to be coordinated with ESEng and confirmed as to uh the exact
positioning size and uh specifications necessary. >> If we just go over Mr. Chairman had asked about the EVSSE spaces. >> Yes. Um so for the EVSSE spaces we have those 33 parking spaces
uh for the entire project as required and as such for 33 parking spaces we are required to provide 15% of those as uh EVSSE spaces. Uh and that's where that five parking space count comes from. Um,
so that's that's a state requirement that we're working with and we have located those uh along the eastern half of the building uh tucked under that overhang there um where they uh where they kind of just sit in line against
the building. >> And Mr. Chairman, they can be moved if the board would like us to put two on the exterior and two under the building. >> It's not a matter of being moved. The question was can they be shared? >> They can. So, if I if I do not have an electric vehicle, can I park it?
>> Um, so they're supposed to be for electric vehicles, whether it's for members of the public that are visiting the building in the retail stores or guests or typically they are used by residents in practice.
>> Uh, next, is it okay or you don't object to asking questions about parking? >> No. with the >> We have a parking traffic consultant, but we can ask Mr. >> Well, he's a traffic consultant. Is he also a parking consultant? >> Yep, we do. We have someone who's going
to speak specifically to traffic. >> That's all I have. >> Okay. Thank um will these parking spaces the EV parking spaces are they simply make ready or are they actually going to be EVU? So, I believe the intention was that
they're they're all make ready, but there probably will be um you know, at least two or three of them that are actually going to be electric, you know, have the actual charging stations. >> Yeah, our our traffic professional can speak more to that. Um but the the state
mandate is that uh we we provide 15% make ready parking of EV parking spaces and those will um begin to be filled in as proper EVSSE parking space. >> We get this question a lot from boards across the state and they always ask
>> and they're good question because they ask the question like are these spaces just going to be sitting there? So you know we're regulated to provide these by the state but at least we have a phasing. So they're make ready spaces. So while you know this is developing and electric cars we don't know where we'll
be in you know 5 years 10 years at least we'll have them make ready and maybe the intention would be that at least two or three of them are actual electric spaces with >> to clarify since this is a planning board and we like to be specific. Are
you going to have two or three actual spaces where you can charge? >> So, the our requirement is that we have five make ready spaces and I would say if we're going to put on the record tonight that two of that if uh and we're going to speak to this in a moment uh and I just want to speak to the traffic
consultant if we're able to that two of them would be dead. >> Thank you. >> Question related to utilities, electric, cable, Verizon all those will be underground. >> Correct. Yes. Uh there's an existing utility pole along Center Avenue that we
intend to uh drop utility connections from. So electric, telecom, all of your internet communications will drop from there. Uh and then it will uh be carried through that rear parking area into the building from there.
>> Okay. And if you would just show I know Adam showed the loading zone but just show that uh on your plan because you have uh you were able to address concern of Mr. Cobbars about having a space for whether it's Amazon trucks or you know trucks or vans moving through.
>> Yeah. So on the uh left-hand side of the plan right by the room that is labeled as trash and maintenance um that that previously had a exterior trash enclosure uh proposed for it. We have since expanded that trash and
maintenance space. Um yes right there as as shown on the screens there. Um, we've expanded that trash and management space to allow for uh that trash enclosure to be relocated inside. Uh, by doing so, we've eliminated the need for an
exterior trash enclosure. So, we don't have to have anything uh fenced in, walled in in that area and instead uh we're proposing to stripe it off to be utilized as a loading space. Um, so it can be utilized for uh those trash
pickups where the the trash hauler comes in once a week. The maintenance crew pulls the dumpster out into that space, they can pick it up and then it can be wheeled back inside. or in the case of commercial or residential loading, so
moveins or uh any kind of merchandise loading necessary, uh they can pull in through to that back loading area and then access the building from that point through uh the uh middle corridor of the building. So that middle corridor allows
them uh ramping to wheel uh wheel down into both the residential and the two retail spaces from there. >> Thank you. >> At what point we discuss signage? >> Yeah, perfect. >> So the signage is so we're not proposing
any variances with the signage. We showed u you know sample signage on the architectural plans uh for both the residential area as well as um as well as the front and that that we would comply with the sign ordinance and not
seek any back. >> Yeah. Um, if we look back at the architectural rendering, um, we can see that we have, uh, we have signage for each of the retail spaces, uh, shown
above along Main Street, as well as there will be residential signage, uh, at the lobby entrance along Center Avenue, uh, which follows in compliance with the, uh, town standards. >> And with regard to lighting, Mr. Bars I
believe were satisfied with the lighting and now it's Commissioner Capelo's recommendation for the gooseseneck lighting and people have ample lighting. >> Yep. Yeah, we have lighting all along the face of the building. There's a combination of uh gooseeneck lights as well as uh some sconce lighting uh along
the building facade that will uh improve and uh create uh thorough illumination along both the sidewalks uh in addition to the existing street lights that uh are along Main Street. And then in the
parking lot area, we have a we have a few uh overhead lights that are uh distributed around the parking to provide uh an even distribution of lighting across there. And then we'll we'll have those loose neck lights on
the rear of the building uh as well as a few overhead lights uh to illuminate the uh the parking below the building there uh where that overhang lies as well as through the central corridor >> and the lighting intensity was taken
into consideration with respect to the residentially used properties in the rear on street. >> Correct. Yes. Uh everything is uh going to be dark sky compliant. Everything is downward facing for this. Um our the
project site here is actually set uh a few feet lower than the surrounding properties. So a lot of that illumination. We're not expecting that to spill over. Uh we've reviewed the intensities at the property line uh as
it uh comes around the edges with those uh abudding properties uh to ensure that there's no uh undue impacts. >> Awnings uh solid canvas >> I'm sorry Mr. Chair.
>> Awnings. >> Awnings. Yes. Uh they're cannons. >> I'm sorry. They're what? >> Canvas. I have a couple of questions. The temperature of the light, what temperature is the light going to be on the side? >> Uh, so the temperature of the light,
we're looking at uh 4,000 lights on those uh to kind of give a a warm lighting throughout. Um, but if there's if there's a preference as to what that is desired to be, we're we're open to hearing it >> even to the front of the building as
well. All the way around. >> Correct. because I personally frankly hate the color that PSEG requires at 5,000. It's too bright of a light and it's frankly obnoxious. But the only color option they give us, I think when
there's an option to soften up the light, I think it makes buildings look warmer rather than >> so commercial in use. And I think somewhere in like the 3 to 4,000 range is probably preferred by people coming by or people visiting or neighbors in the area. So definitely a softer
coloring possible. We we >> we've discussed this and yeah we agree completely. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Agreed on that. Um we are proposing 4,000 lights right now. Um we
can certainly look at if that wants to be even softer to 3,000. Uh >> yeah, provided we comply. Sure. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. Y uh question about the block wall. What would the maximum height of the block wall be at any point around the property? Make sure we get some high points. I know the highest point of the
southern property line, but what what's the height of the wall there? >> So, the highest point of the wall uh in the proposed condition is going to be less than 3 feet. So just under 3 ft as as you come along that um that rear
parking uh row >> and the wall will be entirely on the property of the correct >> correct. Yes. It'll it'll be set back from the property line uh a few feet inward. >> And then fencing fencing around the property. What is being proposed
exactly? Uh we're proposing a 6ft tall fence uh along the property line uh along the rear property line in particular. So running from that um southwestmost corner uh continuing along
eastward until we reach center avenue. >> Six feet on top of the wall or six feet from the >> from the three foot lower level. >> It would be six feet from the top of the wall. >> All right. So vehicles pointing below would theoretically have a 9 ft difference between where the tires are and where the top of the fence line is.
>> Correct. It would be 9 9 ft at max. >> Yeah, there's currently fencing there. I don't know. Some of it may be owned by the former Goodyear site. Some of may be neighbors. Um and we've offered to do all new fencing throughout the entire rear of the site. Also on the if you can just point out the residential house on
uh on right on center avenue. So that that has all new fencing around. >> Yep. There is existing fencing along the rear of that property um that that we would be looking to work with them to replace with new fencing to provide that screening.
>> Just speak to the uh to the landscaping and to that uh new center island which is new for this application which it does create some additional green space. If I ask question, um in regards to the grading, uh that's the the current property versus what is planned or
proposed. Um does is the grading going to uh bring the property uh level uh to meet the neighbors uh or the church side um or increase the the level in any way or is it going to maintain the same uh social?
So under the existing condition, uh the property is is fairly low uh fairly low and flat until you reach that property line where it then jumps up two to six feet under the under existing. Um under the proposed condition, what we intend
on doing is uh lifting that uh lifting that parking lot up a little bit above the existing grade. We're not able to uh completely bring it in line with the surrounding properties given that significant height difference between
them. Um but we are bringing it up so that the uh that difference is now under 3 ft as opposed to previously where it was 6 feet. So uh the the parking lot will still uh sit lower than the adjacent properties uh but not as low as
it does today. So, it's going to go it's you're going to grade up towards that back property line by 3 ft. >> Yes. >> I have a question about the transformer. It's proposed to be on adjacent to the sidewalk on Center Avenue, I guess,
subject to PSCG approval. Uh right there. Um would you consider redesigning that retaining wall so the retaining wall covers and obstructs the transformer so that people on the street aren't within arms reach of it.
>> One of the other location for preference where we have it at the Brmpley is in the island in the back. We could loc in the island. >> Oh there's more room there. >> We have parking lot in the parking the parking island. We have you go back to Brmley and you take a look if landscape
in an area around >> you >> if Yeah. Is that the preference? >> Thank >> Yeah. It would be less visible from Center Avenue and it would work. There's more room there. >> Yeah. Well, we'll have to um >> consider it.
>> Yeah. Uh and >> so the trans so the transformer we've currently located uh the area uh right on uh on Center Avenue. We're going to relocate that to the traffic island in
the middle of the park with landscaping in Speaking of Wood. >> Yes. So uh with that like said previously the transform and all that that'll be uh coordinated with PSC as
well ensure that they have uh what's necessary for them for their um their sighting. Um but speaking of that center island there uh we now have a landscape center island which is new uh compared to the previous application back in
2024. Um so this adds a little bit of green space in the middle of the parking lot uh and adds separation uh around it. Uh we have a tree proposed here as well as along the southern property line u where we reach the
corner corners of the uh parking lots there. And then we are also proposing uh additional shrubs and vegetation along the property line to provide a little more greenery in in that vegetated buffer uh where possible.
>> Uh Mr. Veterary, you'll get together with landscaping committee and >> we will. Yep. And we'll share that with the Little Falls Shape Commission. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Um, concerning the the garbage container,
I think that would be awfully small. It would probably be the same size as the front desk here where Mr. Arena and Mr. Dolan are sitting. If if it's a roll garbage container, it's not much bigger than that front desk, but probably a little bit higher. Um, that's not a very
large container for 40 I mean, for 20 apartments. Um, I mean we had the ability that room could be much larger like the room the trash room that I mean you bring a good point up about recycling also simply that be uh we can make the room even
larger to accommodate to it >> right because if it's one that's being wheeled I don't know how large I know we have one at the civic center that's wheeled um >> I think the the proposed was five feet >> yeah the the proposed was a um was a 5x5
rolling dumpster that uh tenants would be able to access that trash room from a side door, dispose of their trash, and then there's uh larger double doors at the front where maintenance could then wheel it out into the loading area for for pickup.
>> So, by way of example, Mr. Sco, we have two at the Bramley, you know, that's 34 dwelling units and six retail stores with a larger building. Um, and it's a weekly pickup by gada once a week >> and it's that size. >> Yeah. Well, the two fivefooters. >> Two five-footers.
>> So, I think we can accommodate that. >> Yeah, because I think definitely one five-footer isn't going to cut it here. >> Yeah. No, good recommendation. >> Okay. Um, Mr. If I may one more site question. Is there any way along the back row, the
most southern part of the site, where there's currently six spaces, although I hate to lose any green space, it's literally 9 ft below neighboring properties after a fence. Is there no way to add an additional parking spot? Even if the front of the spaces were 15
feet wide, the rear of it was still at least nine to kind of create >> the way you're thinking. I don't I think we did look at that in an effort. I I'll let Connor answer the question. I don't believe so. >> Yeah, we we have looked at uh that spacing uh around around the site to try
to include as much parking as possible to serve both the retail and residential portions of uh the development. uh the spacing we there's just not enough space given the dimensional requirements necessary for uh the parking spaces
being 9 by18 for the um for the residential use and even in the case of this application we are already requesting that the uh the parking spaces for the retail use be reduced in
size from the required 10 ft by 20 ft down to uh 9 ft by 20 ft. In this case, we're proposing 9 ft by 20 and 1/2 ft. Uh just to to try to make as as much of it as as we can.
>> The ADA spaces will have the striping on the sides for fair access. >> Yes. >> Yeah. There will be one uh van accessible ADA space and then a uh second standard ADA space. >> Thank you. Thank you. Hold up. Yeah,
>> I'm sorry. This might be a question for the architect, but I just noticed that the in the gymnasium it says residential gym slashoff suites. Could you clarify what that is? >> So, yeah, there's some amenity space for only for uh residents in the building.
>> Yeah, that would be strictly for the residents. So, in a lot of multif family buildings, we offer uh we'll design small little office suites. So if someone's working from home and they don't want to work in their apartment, they can go down there and that's just for the tenants only. These are not leasable office spaces for the public.
This is strictly amenity spaces for the residents >> and may wind up being a library, lobby space, some other, you know, additional part of the gym. It's conceptual, but it would not be. >> Thank you. Any further questions from the board? I'd like to ask our engineer,
Mr. Kovalears, if he has any comments. this uh >> the 5.3 ft is from the face of the curb to the building. Correct. >> Correct. Uh the the building base at its closest is about.3 feet from the
property line. Um which then leaves that additional 5 ft uh on the right of way side of the property line for sidewalk. Uh the the recommendation given with the uh engineer review I
believe included uh or look sought out a minimum of 5 ft sidewalk width that we want to ensure that we're meeting with that. Um and as well we are um the insetss of the
building are placed in such a way to uh complement the existing streetscape features that would otherwise act as obstruction. So where the sidewalk then becomes uh 8 ft that's where the light post the street trees those things
exist. Um so we're maintaining that minimum 5 foot wide um access all the way along the sidewalk >> and and the applicants prepared to work with Mr. Kovalears with regard to what I believe is probably going to be a complete redoing of that street.
>> Um Mr. Coalar's comments. It says a minimum four feet. >> Thank you. You have any other comments for questions? Uh >> my name Yeah, the the lighting on site will be on solar cells, so it'll react to uh
dust till dawn. >> Oh, sorry. I didn't understand. >> So, it'll be dust to dawn. It's going to be automatic so we don't have to worry about regulating it so that the device will be on, but it's >> beyond 24 hours. Not >> Yeah. >> from the dog.
Chairman, I know there's a zero foot setback from the front property line permitted, but is there any way to push the building back 6 12 18 in? Can you still make it fit if the park space is in the rear? >> I don't counter I don't It's awfully
tight, Connor. That >> in the rear of the building. It it is awfully tight in the rear as to where that where that space would lie. Everything would end up pushed further
back where we're already uh we're already seeking a a close proximity to those other uh property lines there where we like to maintain some amount of space. Um it we can look at it.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm trying to think you could you can take half foot out of the boat. It's just it's the design is tight. But what if the entire building moved back 12? >> Yeah. So, so the entire building moved back 12 in. Uh we have a minimum
driveway width that we're that we need to maintain off of Center Avenue. Then we have the uh parallel parking spaces along that drive as well. So, shifting everything back in that direction. uh would just bring the entire site even closer to the rear property lines where
those those walls would end up very close on top of it. And uh likewise with the the fencing that wants to be on the high side of those walls. I noticed mayor in some of the streetscape areas there's evenly an area over by the brownstone department where they have
mitigated this by making the the paver area somewhat narrower in the areas that we have to. So if that is acceptable, Mr. Path, like we could look just redo that entire front and then adjust the area in the curb, the sidewalk where the papers are only in the areas that we
need. It's discreet, but if you see if you're walking west on Main Street by the Brownstone Apartments, um you know, where the Mars Canal walkway is, there's areas there where that brick paver area comes in very narrow and it leaves the sidewalk.
Keep in mind part of the spec. >> It was only in the areas that we need diameter. >> Yeah. So minimum. >> Yeah. We we would we would only be we'd only be seeking to um we'd only be
seeking to reduce the paver band width in the sections where the building uh face is right up against the property line in order to provide that. And the building has been designed um to set the set the face back further where those
streetscape features lie. So when we're when we're talking about the uh the street trees and the street lights uh along Main Street, that is where the building set further back. So there is that additional width available where we're in fact going to be widening the
sidewalk from its uh existing width to then meet the building face. But just so the members of the board understand, members of the public understand, so what what the width of the sidewalk, >> the the the width of the sidewalk in the
front ranges from 5.3 ft from building face to face of the curb at the uh narrowest portions with no obstructions in those areas. Um or it is upwards of
8.6 six feet in the areas where in this case as on the screen there's 8.4 feet there where we have the tree uh the street tree and the planter as shown and then along the other face it's upwards of 8.6 ft uh where the building face is
set back uh where once again there is a street lampost and a street tree. So in the in the areas where the building juts out, that's the area I'm suggesting that we just made sure that the sidewalk is larger where the brick paper is is you
know >> correct in those areas there are no uh streetscaping features in that paper band and that's that would be >> impact the trees wouldn't impact the correct. Yeah. >> Right.
>> Would it be possible to can the lever the building just in that that corner of the property? Uh, in other words, have the ground floor set back a foot or two in the second and third floor over it. >> I like that idea.
>> Yeah. >> That way you would not lose any part. >> We We certainly can. construction wise, make it a little bit more complicated, but we can make it work. >> You know, our our main the main reason why we only provided those articulations
forward was only on those three moments, the center because we wanted that to be inviting and then the ends where you know the the the the one end which is the second means of egress and then the other one is at the corner. So, but we could
>> wouldn't recommend it at the corner. That's such a significant feature. I wouldn't do it at the corner, the center portion and also the the other end. We could potentially move the lower floor inwards and the second and third floor would can lever over just to give us a little bit more room to maneuver at the
sidewalk if that's >> necessary. Is that acceptable? >> Yes. >> I think I think one of the major issues is on the corner of Main Street in Center A on Main Street are multiple manholes and I think a massive telephone call. And I say that because I know that
the streetscape in that area required there already to be no 30-inch stamped section red. >> I was there with you the day they were doing. >> And the reason was because there were obstacles in the way in the intersection that didn't permit us to put the stamped
red paper concrete all the way to the corner. So my concern is with that portion of the building having what is being proposed as a 64 inch total setback from the face of the curb that is literally leaving
you know with a four or six inch curb I think it is is leaving a 58 inch actual wide sidewall. Is that is that right? uh what five 5.3 feet is 60 inches plus
four is 64 inches. If a curb and that's from the face of the curb. >> If the curb is 6 in wide that's leaving us with 58 in of sidewalk from building >> to inside of the curb that's not a very
wide area at all. And I agree the building looks better with the jutouts, but the issue I think we face here is really the just practicality of >> we're talking I assume you're I mean we're only talking about the first
>> you still have that articulation above. >> I agree. If I walked someone my size past my size on the sidewalk, one of us is pushing the other into the street, you know. So I think that's >> they are pushing people in public. I think >> so. I think that's part of my concern here is that it's a narrow very narrow
on the main street side. >> Yeah, Mr. Pop, would that be acceptable to you if we set if we set those back just on the first floor? >> Yeah. >> Yep. We'll make it work. Agreed. So
>> yeah. So why don't why don't you So we have maybe you could point them out on your exhibit. So we have three areas on the first floor where the building uh juts out by I can't see what that dimension is. >> Yeah. So we have on the uh northwestern
corner we have the building that juts out providing uh 5 foot 5.3 foot sidewalk uh width from face of building to curb. Um that area would look to um get pulled
in further to provide a wider sidewalk uh at the ground floor level. Um where we meet the center of the building where the corridor uh lies through. Uh that's another position where this would be pulled back to provide a wider sidewalk.
Uh and then lastly at the corner intersection of Main Street and Center Avenue. Uh that is the last position that would want to pull back at the ground floor to provide uh that wider sidewalk. >> Thank
any additional comments from the board. >> I can Mr. Ritter, would you clarify again at the beginning, and forgive me, I may not have been listening, but you mentioned the Paya County Planning Board. Did you say you were already granted approval or you have yet to go to the planning board? >> Uh, we submitted our application to the
planning board uh back in mid October and we are awaiting their review uh review comments to then uh be seen in front of their board. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, we're in agreement with all of Mr. Kovalevar's comments with one exception
and that had to do with a comment and we're going to speak about this in planning with regard to affordable housing. So there's a little bit of a conflict. So the township had settled uh you know with the fair share housing back in 2016 and that um required any multifamily building going forward post
settlement we have a set aside of 15% for rental 20% for for sale. There is something that one of the planners noted in the uh transit village CBD zone and maybe that's where Mr. cobalt family as well that spoke to 20% but there's a
conflict I think in the code if it's at least my understanding if it was rental is 15% 20% so to the extent that we need to request a variance from that we're going to speak about that in the planning testimonies it's not the intention that um there be a 20% set
aside would be you know a maximum of 15% unless the applicant can show a hardship and um the special master and gets approved by um judge dosardo here at the state county but uh we want to make sure that we're not agreeing to a 20% set
aside. >> What are you agreeing to? >> That we're agreeing to work with special master for the town and planner and um and then we have to comply with fair share housing. It's not a town requirement. It's a state federal.
>> Very well. >> Thank you. >> Um is that it for the presentation? That is it for the engineering. We do have um uh traffic and then a wrap of the plane. >> Last opportunity for questions or comments from the board member.
>> Very well. Thank you very much. I am going to declare a 10 minutes cupboard break. >> We are on break. >> But it is on. Well, that announcement did a better job than me calling the morning meeting back to order. Meeting is called back to
order. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next uh witness is going to testify in the area of traffic and parking. Justine Cox of Stonefield Engineering. Good evening everyone. >> Good evening. >> Yes, I do.
>> Sure. My name is Justine Fox. Last name FOX. Business address 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current and good standing.
>> License is update. >> What was that? >> Are the licenses current? >> Yes, my license is current and good standing and I can go through my credentials. Um, I received my degree in civil and environmental engineering from the University of Maryland. I have over nine years of experience in land use um
in the state of New Jersey and I've worked on dozens if not probably close to hundred projects uh such as the one presented here tonight. >> Thank you. You accepted. >> Sorry, I can slow down if needed. >> Uh so our office did provide a traffic
study for the proposed development tonight. Um I'll correct I'll go briefly over the traffic and uh based on the board's question so far I'll go in depth in the parking. So the pros
development is located at the southwestly quadrant of central avenue and main street as per as as uh sorry center avenue. You're correct. Um as previously mentioned these are both under county jurisdiction.
Um the existing frontages um are about equal in width and under existing conditions there used to be two curb cuts along the main street frontage. Those have been uh recently closed and then along Central Avenue
under existing conditions today. Sorry, sorry everyone. Center Avenue, uh there is a current two-way driveway that is um located within feet of Main Street. So, our proposed development here is
relocating a driveway for the development about 70 ft away from that main street intersection. Terms of traffic into and out of the site, this would be a significant improvement out of what's um currently existing there today. Now, the traffic generated by the
site for that we refer to the IT, that's the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The manual looks at land uses across the country similar to this and based on data points um different criteria comes up with the amount of traffic you would
anticipate a development like this to generate. For this development we did look at both the residential component as well as the retail component of the site. Um I'll start with the residential component. We looked at the 20 units
proposed here. Um, and as a conservative estimate, we did not take into account the walkability and the proximity of transit options within Little Falls. We are located less than a 10-minute walk from the train station. So really you
would expect residents to be uh utilizing um you know the advantages of being in a well um in a welllo uh location where you would not need your vehicle for every trip in and out
of the site. So at most um our calculations we estimated about 20 vehicles in and out of sight within an hour. So this is less than one vehicle every few minutes uh based on residentials. And again that's an overestimate of what we'd anticipate
because that assumes that we're in an area where you could not walk anywhere. You could not use the buses or trains. Um one vehicle in and out of the site. Um the way the trips work, one vehicle that maybe leaves maybe doing their
partner a favor and driving them to the train station and comes back within the same hour. Even though that is one vehicle, it does count as two trips in our calculations. So again, at most um we estimated that within one hour there'd be 20 trips, but really that
would be possibly 15 vehicles, even less. And again with the availability of the other retail, the other uses on Main Street, the proximity of the trains, um
we do not anticipate the residential component would be a significant traffic generator here. Um in addition, we did look at that retail um trip generation. However, you know, we came up with trip generation for the weekday morning, evening, and Saturday peak hours. So
that's about the one hour in the busiest um during a day where it would be most busy uh for the retail component. However, we do not know the tenants here. So, you know, we have estimates, but it's possible that during the weekday morning that retail might not be
opening till 9 or 10:00 a.m. So, that is peing at a different time of that residential component. Our estimates in our traffic report did not um did not take into account any interaction between the two uses and at most when
adding up the two different uses on site, we found there would be at most 51 trips per hour. Um it sets a threshold for when um it and the New Jersey Department of Transportation set thresholds for when they anticipate
traffic could um impact a nearby intersection. And that would be a 100 vehicle trips per hour at one intersection. So here with um you know access both uh from center avenue both from the north and south you would not
anticipate anywhere being close anywhere near to that threshold of the traffic generated. So overall this is a very low trip generation trip generator um for the development and again we did not take into account any of the existing
traffic that was there from the previous use that the office building or the um or what it used to be like when it was an auto shop. Um in terms of parking we do meet the parking requirement per the redevelopment area. Um for residential,
the redevelopment plan does require 1.25 parking spaces per unit. This is within industry standards. Um again, looking at IT, that's the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Um they have a parking generation manual that again
studies uses such as this and looks at the the peak parking demand of residential developments um for suburban um settings. So again this is not that typical of a suburban setting because we
are close to buses, other uses, trains um but for suburban settings the parking demand is also 1.25 spaces per unit. So, when you look at accounting for the setting um and the type of bedrooms,
onebedroom versus two-bedroom, really the industry anticipates um that the parking demand could go as low as 1.0 spaces per unit. So, you're um providing more than enough with an industry standards for the parking for the residential. And then again with the
retail, we are meeting the parking requirement with that EB space credit. Um I do want to note that again retail parking demands do peak very differently than residential parking demands. So during the day um retail parking demands
typically will peak around 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Again, it depends on the use of that commercial space, but during that time residents would not be home. The residential parking demand peaks overnight around from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00
a.m. So this parking lot that provides 35 physical spaces would be more than sufficient to meet the parking demand of the >> development in terms of >> you broke it.
chairman. >> While we're waiting, can you also go into RSIS? Any differences for parking? >> Sure. Um, does this work? Can you all hear me? >> Yes. >> So, RSIS has a much higher parking demand per unit and
it does consider this type of use more of a garden apartment. um which I do not think is a great um descriptor of this mixeduse uh you know building with two residential floors.
RSIS does require 1.8 spaces per one-bedroom unit and 2.0 spaces per two-bedroom unit. should be noted that within RSIS there's a built-in 0.5 space per unit guest parking that's built into
those um rates. So really when you look at the not including the guest parking, uh the RSIS um parking demand really goes down to about 28 spaces for these 20 units plus
the 10 spaces for guests which would overlap with the retail here. um RS that's is why we're seeking a um a >> variant >> a wa design waiver for RSAs. But again
um the New Jersey standards do have um do say that they refer to individual municipalities to determine parking demand for residential developments based on what best fits their towns. Um and then a question about the EV
spaces earlier um at the initial construction. So for residential developments, 15% of the parking supply must be um allocated for make ready spaces. At the time the construction is
complete, the first 5% of that 15% needs to be installed. So that would be two vehicle spaces here. Yes. >> She did a very good job. >> And then within three years, the next 5%
and the um within six years of construction, all of them would need to be installed. So that's looking at probably the year 2033 that all uh sorry, all five of them would be installed. >> Any questions for the board? So, I have a little concern with not knowing all of
the retail spaces. I understand that. My concern is that we're asking for a waiver parking spaces, but you have residents, you have 20 units. Am I saying that right? Yeah. 20 units. And now, what happens if retail one becomes
a restaurant and retail two becomes Starbucks? Now everybody's parking in the spots. People coming home from daycare or from work or they're coming home from the soccer game and now all the parking spots.
>> Yeah. So it's a good question. Usually the response we get this question the response to that is a Starbucks or restaurant would not locate in the city based upon based upon and they did you probably not be successful at this side
you see this problem you know as property makers as building owners it's your job to select the right detail so you know when you look transit village many years ago. What's what
standard could be applied given that there is some public parking now we have better public parking that's maybe a little easier it's large canal parking lot but it's legitimate question we are
only speak only so we can only go by what the town has said if and that work and that's why we reduce the size of police
something that we detail from a practical standpoint that we want to I understand >> the question from Mr. Fosis is a very good one. In my opinion, the site cannot
handle the uh traffic parking from a uh restaurant. Would you agree to make it a condition that a restaurant not be allowed into this? You think that the appropriate way to handle that would be perhaps that in the resolution that
should the restaurant seek to go into the site that they would have to before the board. >> I would I would prefer to have it as a condition that the restaurant not be allowed at all >> as a prohibition but then legally so they would still have the right to come
before his board to seek a waiver to seek relief from that. So yeah, so I think we're we're getting I I would prefer to have it that uh you just don't have we don't have a prohibition against it, but
restaurant I think we're at the parking requirement for a restaurant is very different than it is for a retail establishment in the central business district because the parking requirement is one parking space I believe per two seats where the park in
a restaurant the parking requirement in and commercial space one space every two seats and one space every one I don't know if there's a difference that's but
that you can restaurant there for restaurant quantity without >> Were Were you going to make a comment, Bisa? >> I was just going to say that these retail spaces are very small. It's less than 3,000 total and split in half. No
restaurant would be large enough to create a parking demand higher than what's provided when taking in account the 35 spaces provided on site. Thank you. Chairman, >> did I understand correctly that um the
RSIS doesn't take into consideration, it only takes into consideration residential, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, our parking requirement is for the residential purposes only. No, speech for residential our code
which we have to we have to see wave not a wave but a fair 1.25 two spaces for every wheat says one point for typically RSI is speaking to developments that are off
the highway that have absolutely no other collateral whatsoever. And 1.8 I think you don't believe Um so uh to to satisfy what I'm thinking as well as other board
members are thinking um is there a way to um assign parking uh to the tenants specifically to support that our tenants have spaces when they when they come back to their homes rather than it being succumbed by
whatever traffic is brought in by the by the >> Yeah. that best to the building uh rather than the mandate. I you know what I've seen in practice is you dedicate the spaces for every 20
dedicated spaces and then no one parks there during the day. So it seemed like the idea of having a shared parking room as well. I think it's better that building. >> Yeah. When you assign a specific space
per unit, you may accidentally create an artificial retail parking problem. I think uh in my professional opinion, something like a hang tag for residents is a better solution so that residents do have priority. They can park there overnight. There's no lingering retail
that stays there. They would not have that residential sticker or hang hang tag, whatever it is. >> Yeah. The hang tags don't support um when they come home and so I I I think something should be done to in the resolution to make sure that you know
the tenants have a place to work at all times. I think that creates a part of the problem because that's 20 spaces that can never be used by anyone else versus the intention in the central business district of allowing a lighter number of
parking spaces in total because during the day the intention is that the retail establishments or people getting doing some shopping are using that exact same spot rather than dedicating it to one car only. And I guess the real issue
becomes if tenants don't have spaces turns into not a desirable place if they don't have them. And I guess rents would be adjusted accordingly. I guess my point being I don't think the tenants at night are going to have issues finding spaces because the retail component
should be closed. >> I I totally understand the point. So, are are we assuming that this parking will be available to all retail shoppers across F Street or Main Street? >> Well, I thought we
was formally we have management there. So someone's parking in any private parking lot right here signage under law code. So this is only for this building and you know I I
I I must have misunderstood the mayor's comments. say for the entire central business district. >> No, no. The intention of the lowered parking number required through the central business district was intended that there would be shared parking
amongst both the residential and retail components of buildings >> in that in each in each building. >> I thought you mention standard for just look it up restaurants. It's uh the B1 it's one over two in this C the central visit
says restaurant and taverns one space uh per se. So we're going to stipulate not to have a a restaurant here but uh should a restaurant want to come to this space any other questions?
Thank you. Our last witness is March for the severif. >> Um, do I need to qualify myself? Okay. Okay. Uh, again, my name is Marchella
Traina for the record. Last name T R A I N A. Uh, I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Both my license and certification are in good standing. Uh, and I have testified as an expert before
this forward previously. >> Accepted. >> All right. Um so again to reiterate the uh subject property is located within the transit village central business district uh where mixed use buildings are permitted and we're here this
evening seeking relief for a few items uh parking setbacks and dimensions lot coverage and affordable housing requirements where 20% is required uh per the ordinance. And I just want to note that this project will meet the
state's 15% affordable housing requirement. So we are fully going to comply with that state standard. Um will comply with state fair unless the applicant demonstrates the hardship of the law.
They not wind up being 15%. >> You going to confirm that with master? >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. In terms of parking, uh the project will comply with the total number of spaces that is required. Uh the only relief being sought for the
parking relates to setbacks and minimum stall dimensions. Uh a few parking spaces are 9 by 20 1/2 ft, which actually exceeds the industry standard of 9 by 18 ft. Uh a retaining wall, fence, and landscaping will buffer the parking area from the neighboring
property. And because the parking area will be located beneath the second floor residential units, it technically creates a zero foot uh setback uh but it's fully integrated into the building design. So really no substantial impact there. Uh this location and
configuration of the parking will maximize the uh number of parking spaces in order to meet that parking requirement. Uh and in my opinion, this clearly satisfies the C2 benefits versus detriments test as providing sufficient parking uh far outweighs any potential
detriments from setback relief uh or the parking stall dimensions which are mitigated by the proposed buffering and design improvements. Uh, regarding lot coverage, uh, while we exceed the maximum permitted, the, uh, plan introduces new landscaping along
the rear and sideyards, representing a clear benefit compared to the existing conditions. Uh, from a planning perspective, the redevelopment of the site into a permitted mixed use supports MLUL purpose A of the municipal land use law as it represents an appropriate use
of the land that promotes the general welfare. Um, it's also important to note that the property is in within walking distance of the Little Falls train station, uh, directly supporting the transit village goals. Uh, the proposal aligns with the master plan's vision to
promote transit oriented development in appropriate areas of the township. Uh and for these reasons, it's my professional opinion that these variances can be granted under the C2 benefits versus detriments criteria statute, which means that the benefits of the overall project, including being
a transit oriented development, uh a permitted use, compliant with parking, uh with new retail spaces, far outweigh any potential detriments associated with the granting of these variances. plan.
>> Uh could you just review the required variances and simple form? >> Sure. Uh so we are seeking a variance for the parking setbacks uh and the parking stall dimensions, the lot coverage and the affordable housing
requirement. >> So there are four of those. I only have three. So we need a variance for the 9 by the 9 by 20 as opposed to the 10 by >> correct >> that's my question. >> Yes. >> So it is full.
>> Yes. requesting the media. Very good. Um, any further questions from the board? Thank you very much.
You have anybody else? In that case, I would entertain a motion to open the meeting to the public. >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. >> Meeting is now open for the public.
Anyone would want to come up and address the professionals ask questions, comments, please approach today. Ma'am. >> Okay. My name is Kathleen Zener. Z E H N A C K E R. I live at 141 Brower
Town Road, Little Falls, New Jersey. I have a couple of questions. I heard conflicting um Oh, >> yes, I did. I heard conflicting um things about the parking. Um, one was
we're going to have enough parking spaces um because the tenants aren't going to be there during the day and the restaurant and the businesses will have the parking spaces. And the other side said, "Oh, we're transit. We're somebody can a tenant can take their first we're
ten a transit uh village too, so we're not going to need cars." But then somebody talking about parking said, "Oh, well the tenant can drive their person, their other partner to the train station and then return and that will count as two um tra travels." Um so
we're still talking about their car being in the parking space during the day because one of them is taking the train but the other one car is in parking space which then means that the rest the businesses don't have that space during the day. Another thing was
um about the number of cars going in and out of the driveway. The Valley National Bank is right across this their exit and entrances right across the street from this exit and entrance. If we've got 50 cars going out
of there every hour and 50 cars going in and out of this one every hour, we're talking about a hundred cars. And I realize it's not going to be 100 cars, but I was here. I I listened and participated in the Zoom meeting for the Balor National one and there was a lot
of discussion about the parking there about the traffic that was going to be uh generated and it passed with no problem. This is in addition to that traffic. This is in addition to that park.
To me, it does not seem like yes, you've got the Bramley. There's lots of parking and empty spaces around the Bra Bramley. There's parking in front of it. This has no parking in front of it. This is already congested area with not a lot of parking around
it. We're talking about a municipal parking lot a block away. He referred to, oh, if you have a a parking lot or a business on a highway, you get 1.8 eight because there isn't parking available. You have to have that
parking. Well, this building really isn't close to parking. So, it would need more than 1.25 spaces per per unit
>> and I don't think the variance should be awarded for that. I also question the affordable housing. Are we going to have affordable housing in or not? I did not see that on the variances when I looked at the variances and it was discussed tonight 15% I did not see whether that
is going to be met in the right now that's all I'm I know there was more but I'll sit down and if anybody else has >> um Mr. Very you want to respond? >> The trans zone was developed when the exhaustive studies as the chairman
pointed out when the master plan was put together. They didn't come up with the number out of thin air. They came up with the number based on studies looking at other towns and they determined that 1.25 was the right number for these type of buildings in the central business district given the other collateral
parking. And with regard to retail, it's not that difficult. you B1 zone was a B1 zone was one space for every 200. This is one space for every 250. So it's that it's not that difficult just just to clarify. So we're not seeking
there it's a an exception a waiver that we're we're seeking for RSI. So I just want >> Does anybody know what size the parking spaces are out here? Are they 10 by 20? because they're asking for 9 by 18.
Think about when you parked your car out there tonight. Do you think you had enough space if it was another foot narrower? >> The standard is kind of compared. Um, we we every statement that is made
is testimony and we can't hear you from back there. >> So, if you have any additional comments, step back up to the podium. >> It's what was required. 9 by8 is what they want you to want you to accept.
>> Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to address the board? The actual the standard game is 9 by8. I do. >> Joseph Anderson, A N D E R S O N 11 Center Avenue
and uh my comment was about previous comment I mentioned that the driveways are almost exactly going to be a case. My drive is going to be it's also right there. Multif family double line drive with two cars going in and out of this
new property have an in and out and valley across street have an in some kind of solution I know because of maybe the block the box thing that works really well on main street flow there something like that might be
recommended there or some other solution so that doesn't become like irritable Bob, thank you. We did something at all either side. just you get up to this drive under the
current conditions location and cars are coming on. So it's going to help that I believe. Yeah, that does sound like a good improvement because right now we have
>> Yeah, very liked area and often times delivery trucks are pulling on the sidewalk across the street delivered to that building. They're sometimes blocking my driveway which is usually not that big of a deal because it's just there for a minute or two.
So hopefully that resolves that issue of having FedEx truck, Amazon trucks and then you have the moving trucks across the street to put it there. Well, their problem was
that right next to the building. So that's why effort to do Actually, that picks up the question. The the fencing, is that right on the property line? any kind of setback from the property
>> on your problem but exactly at the problem and I don't know if there's a legal requirement that I don't know >> I just the question was is there a requirement that set them from the very edge of that property that exactly the
process Okay. Is that >> to answer your question? There's not a setback is what he's asking. >> I don't know. No setback requirement for the >> Okay. And he said there's going to be no just
clarify. He said there's going to be no parking except for maybe delivery char. Okay. Okay, cool. Thank you. >> Yeah, we submitted the application October 15
had some background. Okay. But if is it within the town's jurisdiction to put good signage up make sure that we don't have too many issues because it seems like right now I know not your property but across the street
that that people just park on the sidewalks maybe that would be an issue. So maybe the not a question for you but the town. Would that be something that the county would have to do or the town of course
at a good sign? Yeah. >> I've seen people park literally next to the hill. >> All right. But he was more for somebody in the town himself. But is is the signage the responsibility of the county or is the responsibility of the town? I
said enforcementally responsibility of the town. Does anybody answer that if at least the signage? >> Mr. I can answer that a little bit from the non-planning board perspective. The county typically defers to the municipality as to whether or not we want to permit or prohibit parking in
areas including on county roads. Uh so they have deferred to the municipality in the placement of parking spaces and if it's the request and unfortunately this body this board can't do that. The council would have to make the
determination as to whether or not to prohibit parking. The county could also do it but the it's the council that would have to prohibit parking in areas if the county doesn't take that action. So that's something that you'd have to come to a council meeting. you unless the council act or prohibit parking that particular
and then we possibly go alongation want to do it okay for allow you to do it correct understood that's all thank you >> thank you >> thank you for your comments anyone else wishing to do it first
>> I do Paul O SSOU OSU. I am not a resident of Little Falls, but I'm here as the duly appointed trustee of the uh Little Falls United Methodist Church. I am legally and fiduciarily responsible for the Yes,
thank you, sir. Um, so we have a couple concerns and I'll address them first with the variances on the property and the property uh coverage. Uh first, our concern is going to be on the encroachment onto our property being to the right of it at 139 uh Main Street.
Uh the constructibility of the property without encroaching on that side, there's going to be almost zero space between the property edge and our property. and when they're going to be constructing this building. Um, how are they going to access the construction on that side as well as
future maintenance without having to come onto our property and damage our property as it is? Um, as well as emergency access onto those sides of the property. Um, you know, with the rear facing parking lot, obviously emergency vehicles can now get around the side, three sides of the building fairly
easily. Uh, but on our side certainly they're going to have they would have to come up on our side. Um, additionally, you know, this much of the planning in this township happened a long time ago. The roads are very narrow. Uh, I understand as a resident of Verona, I don't have to deal with
this from day to day, but when it snows here, plowing's a problem. Um, the way their parking is going to be structured, I'd like to know where that snow is going to go. Uh, because right now it looks like it's probably going to go out into Central Street or be pushed up onto
the properties in the surrounding areas. Um, so that's most of our concerns with the usage of the of the actual property. Um, I would like to echo some of the things that were said about the the parking. Um, you know, they're going
to have 33 spots, which is a variance from the 34 required by the municipal uh code. In reality, if you have five down the road, you have five electric vehicle spots that are for electric vehicles only, you're really only going to have 28 spots. 20 of which a minimum of 20 of
which are going to be used by residents. The managerial of the building would have to then mandate that the each tenant can only have one car. You're looking at 20 to 40 cars because many families twocar family. Additionally, in the concept of the
transit village and and the gentleman the architect over here said you're going to have an potential for a work from home suite there on the first floor. That means these are people that are not leaving the building. Uh, as was pointed out too, those that take the train don't need to take their
car. The cars are going to sit there. There's a lot of faith being put into that these key these retail businesses that are moving in are going to close their door at 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, and leave and certainly not be open till 7 or 8:00.
Most stores are open later. Clothing stores, any sort of retail store, you don't, you know, there's going to be a indefinite overlap there. Um, and even if you don't use your car during the week, you know, trains are
great. Trains go where trains go. You have to lay tracks. They don't go to Willoughbrook. They don't go to the shop, right? These people, these people that are going to move in here as as residents are going to have cars. They're going to have one car. They're going to have two cars. And our concern as a trustee of the church is what
they're going to see just down the street, a block away and across the property is a is a big fat parking lot and they're going to wind up in our parking lot. And it's what we're setting ourselves up for here is a conflict with our neighbors of constantly having to call the police to tow. Uh whereas if
there's a larger footprint of of spaces and a better usage of overlap, I I think we could avoid that. So that that is our comment. on on that on behalf of the church. >> Thank you. If you can just say can you address >> Yeah. Particularly on the encroachment.
in the fall. There you bring up large property. too. there and then the area in the middle. And then from a practical standpoint, if
they have a huge opportunity then just the last comment for me and you know um as I've seen the the streets there when there's been an event at the school or library too and to echo what was said and you have the building across the way
but you also have the the municipal library, the municipal center, you have the new construction going on just down the street of the for municipal building there and you have the elementary school. It's a very busy area of town. Um and then and you add
the building usage from the residency across the street above the valley and now the the light usage here. It's going to get it's going to get packed down there. So that's our comments and thank you very much. >> Thank you. Sounds vibrant. >> Anyone else care to address the board?
Kathy Flanigan. Oh, sorry. >> I do. Kathy Flanigan, F L A N A G A N at 38 Warren Street. Um, when he says it's going to get bad there, it is bad. It is terrible. Parking on both sides. I I
don't care. There's no parking. The mayor and I have had many discussions on this. The garbage truck is there. There is a one lane. It is very dangerous. You can't see to turn down Center Avenue. If you look tonight, like at 5:30, that
parking lot occurs filled with cars because there's not enough parking now. And you're talking when the school is open, the teachers take up most of that municipal parking when they're saying, "Oh, they're the people are going to be closed at 5:00." The teachers are there
to 3:30 and that parking lot is full. It is very dangerous to live in my neighborhood that used to be a very quiet neighborhood. Our street is filled with cars that don't belong to people on our street. Our church parking lot will have cars in it. It's only makes sense.
You can say all you want that there's enough parking there, but there isn't. There isn't now enough parking. And no one here lives in that area. We're not building in Great Notch. We're not putting up threetory buildings up there and retail there. We're putting it on Main Street where there's always enough
retail and retail starts now at six o'clock in the morning in our neighborhood because the Pilates Place opens then. And then you have the hairdresser. They're very lucrative business. Thank God for them. But they fill up our streets with cars and it's
not fair to the neighbors here. We are living in a neighborhood that was I live our families lived in our homes since 1890. There wasn't cars then, so we don't have a driveway. We use the street for our parking. So, a lot of times we don't
have the parking that we need on our street. The church does accommodate for us, too. And it's not fair that the church have to accommodate for the town because you decide that you want another building that's going to be intrusive on my family's property with lights in the
back and everything. So, we're talking about a three-story building. We have trees now. It's very quiet on our street as far as in the back of our homes because we do have a a lot of greenery there that you're all going to take down and put a little bush and say we put
some green stuff. It is just not fair in our neighborhood and Valley National is a mess. It the garbage truck that does park on that sidewalk. I have called the police. I've had the police at my house for the complaint which nothing has been
done. There's parking on that side of the street all the time and it would be wonderful not to have bar parking on both sides, but that's not realistic that it's going to really happen because there are going to be delivery trucks that come the poor people like you have
the poor Uber driver that you're giving a ticket to because they park in the front of the building, but you're not giving any tickets to any of the people that park on Center Avenue. I walk my dog three to four times a day. work from home three or four times a day on Main Street. Main Street is filled all the
time with parking. That parking lot is filled. That is Kirks all the time with parking. And where are those cars going to go? Not in the 33 spaces that you have in this building. So, I I appeal to you not to approve this because it will
cause even bigger traffic problems. Main Street, you we don't turn down Center Avenue. If you live on Warren Street, you don't turn down Center Avenue. You'll go up and around because you can't turn onto Main Street. You're taking your life in your hands just crossing Center Avenue because the cars
park in front of the fire hydrant. Even you can't see down. So, you have to creep across to see hopefully because the cars drive so fast up the street. Even when you think that it's empty, cars are zipping up the street. So, you may not be able to, you know,
one of these days will be an accident. But, they do park in the sidewalk. I have pictures of them parking on the sidewalk. Um, I have called the police. They don't always respond and I just think this has been a terrible situation for us. Now, it's just going to make it worse. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments. >> Anyone else wish to address the board? >> Okay. Joseph Anderson. I like to concur with a lot of what Matthew was saying is that and I feel I feel bad for Mr.
Ver and his company because feel like this is actually relatively reasonable project and kind of the valley project kind of ruined the that neighborhood. So this feel like this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that property. I've seen that what she's saying garbage and
the garbage pick up. They're very noisy. pull it. They pull it all the way out the street. A lot of the garbage ends up in the street, drops in that and people just don't want to park in that underground parking lot. I see residents there. People go to the businesses. As
long as people you think they you would think that they have their own parking, they would not want to park on the street. I see people who live in that building park in front of my house to go. I see workers who work carrying their tools like around the
corn even like right on water on water like why are they so a block away people just don't want to park in that park and and unfortunately like damage is already done now so you're getting a lot of
consequence of that resistance your profit so I feel sorry for you for that I guess it's not really a question just a comment that >> and what he's saying and it is an issue but I'm responding
this is protoc So want to have you don't want to have you know that office right there are benefits to what the town's What do you think? This is not
wrong, but it's something about downtown, you know, having that. >> And I just also like to request that you like please contact me and when it comes to the demolition of that of that
building you just mentioned because it's looking like swamp inside of there and it's right on my property. So I appreciate the reason for as much open communication as possible discussed the debate that happened
to >> I've seen I've seen when it rains the water come out that front door the sidewalk from inside >> also another time passed but that facility I'd be curious to to see that we'll see >> I want to thank you for your comments.
Does anyone else wish to address the board? >> Hi. >> Yes, sir. >> My name is Janet Cooper, CO Per 47 O Crescent Road in Little Falls, New Jersey.
Um, I've been a resident for over 30 years. Um, I personally don't like what's going on in our town. I know that growing pains, as you say, are always more painful for the actual people that are being infected by it. And we all
have to live all your decisions. Um, and they're not really going to be good for the majority of people that are here, obviously, because you're here for a reason. I'm here because I love this town. I love what we have. That looks
really beautiful on a piece of property that can accommodate it. The property you're proposing can accommodate something like that. Um, I'd like I had a couple questions. I was taking notes. Thank you so much for everybody else for commented so far.
You've hit on some of the things you can knock off on my list some of my questions. the occupancy of the building next door at Valley, that monstrosity, is that at full capacity right now? Is it completely rented? So, we can have a
real idea of what the traffic flow is or is it just one of those things where you're kind of guesstimating? Is it at full capacity? Does anyone on the board know if it's been fully rented? >> Okay. There can be no valid answer because we don't know.
>> Okay. So, when we're when we're thinking of of adding more blockage and more traffic and more buildings, we're still not take we're we keep on throwing it, but we're not stopping taking a breath and going, "Wow, are we able to
accommodate what we already have in motion?" 381, is that been completely rented as well? Is that fully occupied right now? because we keep putting up these ugly boxes and we don't even have people that are filling them up but yet
we keep building them. That's that's one thing. The second thing that what you're proposing if the building is not fully occupied at Valley, we also have that corner of Stevens which is beautiful green grass right now. Eventually
somebody's going to be developing that. Where are we putting all of the parking for that? the center a is thin and exactly what I can't remember who said with the traffic trying to get out. Will you try to make sure that no one can
make a left if coming out of the parking lot because from Valley and this proposed parking if they're coming out and they want to get on Main Street that they can only make a right and not make a left as well as the Warren Street project. Has that been decided? Is that
going to be a green space? And then you're going to take again yet another street with parking away from the tenant from the from the citizens of Little Falls because right now there's no parking as it is. It's been the biggest argument for every business since I've
been here for over 30 some odd years that there's no parking. And although to your point, you made that parking lot Awful Stevens, which sorry, I think it's completely horrible. You can't. There's only one way in, one way out. It it's whoever designed it should be shot.
Like, no offense. Um it it just doesn't work and nobody's going to park there. So, if you're telling me that the Warren Street park project has been approved, they have to realize that's another street of parking that's going to be taken away. So, has that been approved?
The Warren Street? Because we have to consider that because these 30 some odd spots are not enough. Let's get real here. You're looking at me parking spot. You're looking at me quite a bit making the comments and I can appreciate why. Uh Warren Street project has not been approved. You're referring to the
pedestrian plaza, but that would actually result in an increase in parking spaces because there would be I mean, you could look at me with the the look, but there's plans that have been drawn that have increased parking because the number of spaces in the current municipal lot would extend all
the way across through where the street is. and the the four the five spaces that would be lost on the street are actually there's more but no it has not been approved it it's it's a half million dollar project that right now the council and I certainly am not looking to spend in in making that
improvement there was hope that we might get a grant for it at some point but there would not be a reduction in parking spaces >> okay but when you're saying it's not going to be a reduction in parking spaces it's going to be an increase of parking spaces farther away from the very you know businesses that you want people to they they literally be abuing
the street where the current parking is on Warren Street, it would be within, you know, 20 ft of the current parking spaces. >> Okay. So, the traffic flow when you did your traffic study, did you take into account exactly what you know, residents that live here,
the residents that try to maneuver trying to make a left out of center a you can't, especially during busy hours, you're going to have an accident there. So now you're going to funnel all these people. If the Warren Street is approved and it's taken away, the parking's away, they're all going to go on Walnut and
Walnut then the the nice big Pollock Street that it is is going to be another main thoroughfare. What happened? And and construction where are you putting all this stuff? Where are you putting you? it. There's so many things that you you're just not considering and and the
people that are actually living in the area and even the people of the town that have to try to maneuver where we all take back roads. We don't even go down Main Street anymore because it's such a fiasco and you're going to add more to this. >> See, that's an interesting point you raised. I agree with you. People from Little Falls don't take Main Street.
They take back roads. >> Yeah. >> Which just proves the point. Little Falls residents don't create Little Falls traffic. Well, then building. >> So, your point of adding residential units to Little Falls is counterintuitive to the argument you just made because Littlef Falls residents don't create Little Falls
traffic. Main Street is filled with people getting off of Route 46 trying to make their way east at the afternoon rush hour. Those are not Little Falls residents. So adding 20 units in Little Falls does not theoretically add any noticeable amount of traffic to Little
Falls because again Main Street is filled nine out of 10 vehicles not Little Falls residents. And this is something that you can do yourself. Follow vehicles from the North Pole border all the way down Main Street and see how many of them exit Little Falls on the on the way. I would venture to
say nine out of 10 do. My point being adding units to Little Falls isn't adding any noticeable number of vehicles to the main street traffic that you're seeing. So, I get what you're saying, but on one hand, you're saying, you know, they're they're not coming.
They're not they're Little Falls residents are using back roads and cutting through. I tend to agree with you. The last thing that I had emergency vehicles s you know uh uh our police our our fire are we able to cover all this?
I mean we don't have enough to to cover what we have right now and and we're adding more. Is that something that's been incorporated in any of this? Looking at this going, how's a fire truck going to get into that parking? How are they going to make that turn into that parking lot? How are emergency
vehicles going to get in and out of there? You know, >> every application is reviewed by the police department, fire department, and if there are comments to be made related to issues with turning radius, things such as that, they provide their comments. Every single application,
>> that's all I got. >> I I guess just one response to that. So, with we can only look at apps. We can't look at all the other sites. So, with regard to our site, our improvements that are being made right now, the current condition, if we were to rent that off to a 5,000 foot office building
and reopen Kirks as is and everyone was parking there, it's a dangerous situation. So, I think the county appreciated eliminating we had an entire Kirk the whole site was a curve. The cars were coming in and out on Main Street taking the left going west on
Maine and then they turned coming out of the current curve site. They come right out. So by pushing that back and I'm all for banning parking on either side of the street up to where the purple are. We don't have that. It's not our responsibility. We can only agree with
town the town may be in agreement with that and that may be a slope of the area but we can only speak to our site and there are definitely improvements being made from a parking and traffic standpoint as to what's been prepared there. We reopen the office building to
be open to be. >> Anyone else wish to address the board? >> Yes. >> Katia Anderson. A N D E R S O N. My question is, how long will this take to build? Because if I if you're going
to build it, I want to see it built fast. I'm the Marston house and I want to see it built fast before someone else takes it and maybe revises the plans to put an underground parking garage. I
guess what I'm saying is it could be worse. I don't want the valley guy getting it. So, if you're going to build, I want it to build fast. >> Yeah. >> All right. I hope so. And once it goes
down, I want to see it nine and 10 months, but they come up. So, okay. Our goal is to hopefully bring up, >> right? And I understand that there's a strong possibility that someone else could take plans and revise them because
isn't the state under a mandate to keep building all the towns in New Jersey? The office building next door has, as you said, a speestous and toxic. >> No, no. >> Okay. Sorry. >> I'm not sure about the process when you
take down a building like that that may have it smells. That building physically smells. It's a hazard. >> Yeah. So >> rodents things I have to really take care of my property. whom permit
contract debated require that entire group and yes my little 2-year-old nephew said it is that Also, I know that there will be more projects in the future for Little Falls
and I guess this is just a side note. Can we never have a valley happen again? Because I feel like it ruined the structure, traffic, regardless of studies and everything else for what the town was. And I'm so grateful to all the
people that spoke and talked tonight and that came out tonight because that's why I wanted to live here and bought the house from Karen Marston. So I hope we can keep that idea of a nice place to live in mind and never have another
valley. Thank you. I do. >> My name is Lou Acasta, Aca, I believe at 32 Warren Street. I just want to let you know that I want to ask the gentleman here to please
cuz you guys made a big deal out of the front of the building. Remember the back of the building? You got people that have their properties behind you and you put the lights up. We enjoy a privacy now. I don't want to be on the camera 24 24/7.
All right. And and the other thing is we do have a park probably people park. I see people that live in in the building the valley building park service truck. There's a pool truck. I'm going to take a picture and send it to you. You can
see he lives in a building drives a service truck and parks in the uh below. That's that's all I and >> so if I may the only thing I would do is encourage residents who may want to consider different parking arrangement
on center a in that area to attend a council meeting because it's the council the governing body in town who has the ability to change an ordinance again with again approval by the county to modify where parking is permitted and prohibited. So while this planning board
may, you know, may be sitting here able to listen to tonight, they cannot enact an ordinance that would prohibit parking in specific areas of town, the council can, I can tell you and dealing with the council, both sides of the aisle have been very receptive to listening to residents ideas regarding these types of
things and certainly something that could or should be brought before the council to consider. a chairman speaking on behalf of the council. It's something the council would take a hard look at to eliminate parking on center street. Um we'll have some discussion with council members and
see and see if that would be a possibility. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any wish to uh come on up? >> Yes. Sean May Y 24 Center.
>> Okay, this is just a couple quick questions. Um, just want to So, there's not going to be any uh emergency generator on the roof that's going to pop up magically. Just want to make sure because we had one pop up on the the other building and it recently got raised and it's still
not uh it's very visible. It's ugly. I hate it. Um so that was one question. The other one is site safety. I want to make sure this building is site safety because this uh Valley National Bank was not you got a lot of kids that walk past
this every day for school. still needs to be um safe needs to be have construction vents around the entire property not just here and there and we need to have access safely so the kids can cross website it's very busy during
daytime where kids parents could get the kids and also I just want to make sure that when we demolish this building that it's clean site I don't remember seeing any guys running around waiting so >> she hates me
I want to make sure they before you demol I want to see the record. >> Sure. >> Yeah. The record state I'm talking about mold as well. That place is loaded in black. So that's I don't want some.
>> Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Last call. No one else coming forward. I close the meeting to the public. Um, you want to summarize here, Mr. Veter? >> Sure. And I'll be brief looking at u looking at the hour. Um, so
>> we'll we'll allow you the time to summarize. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, you know, we've heard a lot of, uh, we've heard a lot of comments, uh, today from members of the public, and I appreciate everyone coming out. I care about the town very much um as I know the residents do as well and I don't live
far from this site. So I think you know what I'm really focused on here and I think that um you know what the members of the board should focus on as well is the fact that this is the prototypical building that was envisioned when the transit village zone was adopted. Now,
members of the public may disagree with that, but that is the current zone for this area that we would we would create a vibrant downtown that we have a walkable downtown. And these buildings have certainly exceeded their useful life. We have a a 5,000 foot office
building that had fallen into disrepair and a very large automotive site that has bays in the back, bays in the front. Um, also office space in the front. It was, you know, built. It's a Pontiac showroom. It's a It's a large building. Just the parking demand on that alone
would far exceed the 33 spaces if we were to reopen the site. By the way, both of those buildings would be non-conforming based upon not only the uh zoning right now, but also under the B1 zoning. The site planning for that building's atrocious. Everything was at
the road. Cars were backing onto Main Street. We've eliminated with this all of the curb cuts on Main Street. And what I think is really wonderful about this building is it's an extension of our downtown. Like I said in my opening remarks, the downtown shopping district
really ends at Valley Nashville. This is sort of bridging together this building where the apartments are and Methodist church and then starting a walkable downtown. I see so many people walking uh by this building particularly on Sundays at the nice farmers market that
the town has and there's nothing stopped into there. This is something that is really creating that classic downtown building that finally eliminates these two vacant buildings into a largely conforming building. These are bulk variances that we're seeking. We've
tried to work with the neighbors and appreciate the efforts of the township to make this a much better building than it was as originally conceived, which is a much more dense building that had um less parking. the newly bu this new
building is going to be looked at as a landmark for the area and you know I go back to I can't speak to the valley building but I look at the success of a building like the Brmley and we have retail tenants in there and it's a a very thoughtful approach as to what
tenants that you get in there. So it creates some diversity of tenants in our downtown whether it's a florist or a physical therapy place. Um in terms of having a you know a diversity of retail usage uh you know we've looked at uh how
many pizzeras and nail salons we don't have any of those at the Brmley and that was on purpose. So the the variances that we're seeking tonight I think have been more than substantiated by the planner. We have uh you know provided
and demonstrated that numerous purpose of not only the municipal land use law but our master plan um have been looked at in this development. We're looking at you know visual improvements, site improvements. We have uh addressed I
think most of the comments if not all the comments of the engineer with respect to not having an unsightly garbage dumpster outside having a dedicated loading area so Amazon trucks are not located outside having facade improvements now we've improved the
sidewalk and you know looking at the building I think the architect not going to inflate his ego but the architect knocked it out of the park with this um and if the board sees fit to looking at uh we can talk at a later date about the mural that was a nice element for this
downtown building. And I just leave you with, you know, overall this is a site that is long overdue for redevelopment and it's being redeveloped in a way that is largely conforming with uh anything substantively with respect to our
transit village zoning and our master plan. I think that uh the the applicant has more than met the legal standards for the board to approve the C variances that are being requested tonight and I appreciate everyone's time, the public, members of the uh of the board and the
board professionals and I hope the board sees fit to approve the application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions of the board? Need a motion? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Burgluro. I understandables that
probably would ever be solved with that is Yeah, I think that legally that uh we're asking for a variance because there is conflict but there is there is a part in the transit village code that speaks to there being and I think that's why Mr. Kovalars put it in his letter that
speaks to being a requirement for 20%. I have not seen that uh you know the the U settlement with fair share housing said 15%. We've seen other developments that have reduced that if they can demonstrate that it's an undue hardship for them to do that. So I think I I
before this meeting I looked up the KV realy 2022 um resolution and the language in that resolution was that the applicant will comply with the law as it relates to the affordable housing and work with the um
the planner and the master but we are technically requesting a variance from that part that we see people
in the record. William Park said that parking said that the building department just correct some addition approval. public hearing.
All right. First 125. Thank you. May I have a motion? >> Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the application with the conditions that were set forth by Mr. Big Brigliadoro.
May >> I have a second? >> Second. >> Please pull the board. Mr. Barry, >> yes. >> Mr. Karash, >> yes. >> Mr. Luke Damiano, >> yes. >> Miss Katalo, >> yes. >> Mr. Pos, >> yes. >> Mayor Damiano,
>> yes. >> Council Miss Scoba, >> yes. >> Mr. Dolan, >> Mr. Kilpatrick, >> both. Yes. The application is approved. Very much. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you everyone for coming out. >> Uh, Mr. Veter, before you turn around.
Yeah, >> we're going to end the meeting. No more applications tonight. >> Okay. We're just going to have to give notice. >> Yes, we will carry uh make that announcement. Oh, yeah.
I'm going to say midnight rich. Chairman, why don't you make it a half like that initiative? Uh we uh if I may, if the application is uh completed, can you vacate the chamber
because we have additional business to conduct. Uh we're we're okay. Um any any recommendations 13 block 8307 notice of the public here tonight. We weren't able to reach those meetings
tonight. Those matters will be fatted to the board next meeting on December 4th, 2025 at 7:00. And Mr. Chairman, I recommend that since notice was reflected for the hearing tonight that
no further notice be required at any members of the public hearing either both of those applications here on December 4th at 7:00. >> We'll be ready. >> Very well. >> Thank you everyone. >> Accepted.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is uh is there any old business? Any new business? May I have a motion for adjournment? >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I.