No, just I just wanted to move the air for a few. >> Do you want to leave the fans on? >> We can turn them off. I just wanted to get the air moving. Good evening everyone to our June 16th meeting.
I will read the opening statement. Pursuant to section 5, chapter 231, public laws 1975. This is to state for the record that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public by posting and maintaining the annual notice of regular meetings on the
bulletin board of the municipal building. by mailing the annual notice of regular meetings for 2026 to the news record in Star Ledger in December 2025 and by filing said notice in the office of the township clerk. >> Mr. Adams >> here, Collins
>> here, >> Mr. Daffis >> present. >> Surman >> here. Mayor Duca >> here. Whereas chapter 231 public laws 1975 commonly known as the open public meetings act requires that all public
bodies be open to the public and whereas section 7A provides that the governing body has a discretion to permit prohibit or regulate the act of participation of the public at any meeting and whereas desire are the governing body to comply with the provisions this act same time
to conduct its business in an orderly and expeditious manner. Now therefore, be it resolved by the township committee, the township of Mapwood, that it does hereby prohibit except as set forth in the formal agenda, active participation in the deliberations of the governing body by the public, except
as otherwise described by law, does limit the public to the observations of the actions and discussions of the governing body at all regular and special meetings. >> So moved. >> Second, >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis,
>> yes. Chairman. >> Yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. Thank you. Please join us in a salute to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Again, welcome to our meeting of June 16th. We are going to start off with a couple of proclamations. First, on Junth and second, I immigrant
heritage month. Then we'll have a presentation on Maple Woodstock. We'll have a hearing on the Springfield Avenue Partnership annual budget. And then we'll have a hearing on the Maplewood Village Alliance annual budget. After those hearings, we'll be
voting on those budgets. We'll have our public first public comment period. That's on agenda items only. Anyone who's here to talk about the bike lanes on prospect or if you're online that would be a time to talk uh at that time.
Uh if you're here to talk about the immigrant trust act or the uh restriction uh restricted areas ordinance that we're introducing, that would also be the time to talk about that at the beginning in the first public comment. After that, we have a
number of ordinances on final which we'll have a public hearing for each and then um move forward with uh voting on those. And as I said, we'll be introducing the two ordinances. one on restricted areas
and to the immigrant trust act. Uh from there we'll go to uh administrative reports reports from elected officials. Then we have three discussion items. The first is an outdoor dining sidewalk cafe uh discussion that's fees use and
enforcement. Second will be the prospect street traffic calming and bike lane. And we will go through a number of decision points that we have to make. And last will be a request from the Cougar Soccer for temporary lighting at
Bordon Memorial and Maplerrest parks. We'll then go to our consent agenda, which is a number of items. And by the way, the agendas are up here on the table if you'd like to get a copy. Uh these agenda deal with ABC licenses, uh u payment of
bills, uh some contracts that we're going to be purchasing, things like that. Um and then lastly, we'll have a public a second public comment that's on any subject matter and then we will adjourn. So we'll go right back to the
proclamations and I will ask uh committeewoman Collins Colding if she would do the Junth proclamation. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to be doing the Junth um proclamation today and um thank you.
Whereas on June 10th, June 19th, 1865, more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, enslaved African-Americans in Gavston, Texas, finally learned of their freedom, marking a defining moment
in our nation's long and a finished journey toward liberty and justice for all. And whereas we can scarcely imagine the anguish of living every day unaware that freedom had already been declared
yet deliberately withheld. And Joan T reminds us that freedom delayed is freedom denied. While history affirms that truth cannot be hidden forever and justice cannot be
denied forever. And whereas Junth is a both is both a celebration and solemn remembrance of powerful tribute to the strength, resilience, and perseverance of black Americans who endured slavery,
segregation, and discrimination, yet continue to build families, communities, institutions, and movements that strengthen our nation. And whereas despite centuries of oppression,
black Americans have made extraordinary and enduring contributions to every facet of American life, helping to shape the ideal of freedom, justice, and equality upon which our nation expires and stand. And whereas newly freed
Americans received neither wealth, land, nor security, yet they carried forward the freedom for which our generations had fought, prayed, labored, and sacrificed and too often given their
lives for. And whereas Junth honors the countless men, women, and children who endured the brutal realities of enslavement, resisted oppression in all its forms,
and whose courage and sacrifice laid the foundation for the rights, opportunities, and freedom that we enjoy today. And whereas those who celebrated Junth understood a profound truth. Freedom is not only inherited but it
must be remembered. It must be protected and it has to pass on from generation to generation. And whereas those who celebrated Junth understood a profound truth. Freedom is not only protected but
it must be remembered. Whereas the Township of Maplewood recognizes and celebrates the lasting contribution of black residents who leadership and service and achievements continue to strengthen our community, reaffirm our
shared commitment to dignity, respect, diversity, and more just and inclusive future for all. So now therefore be it resolved that I Jane Collins Cen of the Township of Maywood and the Maplewood
Township Committee, our mayor Vic Duca, our deputy mayor Malia Herman, our township committee and former mayor Nancy Adams and our township committee man and former mayor Daffis proclaimed
June 19, 2026 as June 10th in the township of Maplewood and urge all residents to join in celebrating, reflecting, and ensuring a Junth remains merely a holiday, but a day of remembrance, a day of gratitude, a day
of education, a renewed commitment to ensuring and enduring ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for all. Thank you. >> Yeah. Now we'll have committeeman Daffus do the immigrant heritage proclamation.
>> Thank you mayor. This is a proclamation for celebrating immigrant heritage month. Whereas the township of Maplewood has long been a vibrant community enriched by diverse faiths, cultures, beliefs, and ideas. Whereas Maplewood is
strengthened when all individuals, regardless of their origin, have the opportunity to reach their full potential and contribute to the community. And whereas immigrants play a vital role in Maplewood's prosperity by starting businesses, creating jobs, and
bringing innovative ideas that drive economic growth and community development. And whereas the exchange of traditions, languages, and customs brought by immigrants enhances Maplewood's cultural vibrance vibrancy and fosters a deeper understanding among
residents. Whereas the resilience, dedication, and hard work of immigrants continue to shape Maplewood into a stronger, more inclusive community. And whereas immigrant heritage month provides an opportunity to honor the
invaluable contributions of immigrants and to promote unity, mutual respect, and appreciation for our shared heritage. And whereas the Township of Maplewood is committed to upholding the values of inclusivity,
equity, and justice, ensuring that the rights and dignity of all residents, especially immigrants, are protected and respected. Now therefore, I, Committeeman Dean Daffis, on behalf
of Mayor Victor Duca and the rest of my colleagues on the Maplewood Township Committee, do hereby proclaim June as immigrant heritage month in the township of Maplewood. And be it further resolved that Maplewood reaffirms its commitment
to being a welcoming and supportive community where everyone can thrive and contribute to the common good as is evidenced by many things that we do all year round and this evening with the introduction of our Maplewood Immigrant
Trust Act. Thank you, Mayor Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we're going to have a presentation from the 2026 Maple Woodstock team. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Susan Rogers and with me this season this evening is
Allison Oxman and we are here to represent the Maple Woodstock Volunteer Organizing Committee. As we have in past years, the Maplewood Stock Volunteer Committee is requesting the Township Committee, Maplewood's Alcohol Beverage Control, and the Maplewood Police
Department permit a wine and beer garden at this year's Maple Woodstock Art and Music Festival, the 21st Maple Woodstock. We've applied for and received a social affairs permit from the state of New Jersey. And in that application, we detailed the controls
and security protocols that are planned to prohibit sales to minors and to prevent any beverages from leaving the infencedin area. And as has been the case in prior years, the South Orange Elks Lodge will manage the beer garden and all bartenders will be appropriately
certified. I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to thank this group, the township committee, the department heads for ma helping us make Maple Woodstock
possible for the last 20 events. We could not do this fabulous free festival without all of you. And as you know, it is with your support that this year we received a grant from the state of New Jersey as part of the New Jersey World
Cup community initiative. This funding will allow us to have some expanded programming this year celebrating a g global perspective, the diversity of this community and the energy of the World Cup. It will also allow us to increase logistical support for the
festival, including security and police. We are 24 days away from the stage arriving on the field and we hope to see all of you there. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. >> Anyone have any questions? >> No. >> So, just so we're clear, um our
ordinance is uh and 7 our code 79 uh one C requires a resolution of the township committee to approve this. So, >> we have no questions. Go ahead. So, >> I'd move uh that we approve the
permission for beer garden as long as there's, you know, good wine as well. Um, >> is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> That's right. >> Any discussion? Let's call the role. >> Adams, yes. Scolins, >> yes. >> Daffis, >> yes.
>> Herman, yes. Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Please relay our gratitude to all that. We know it's a lot of work. I mean, >> absolutely. >> An event like this takes a full year to plan.
>> Um, so appreciate that. Congratulations on the grant. >> Um, will you have a large screen there to watch World Cup? No, >> we we are not we are not an official watch party. >> Got it. Okay. So, >> but there'll be those are going to be heightened >> Yes.
>> awareness of the World Cup at that time. Absolutely. Those are getting >> Yes. >> We're right there. >> So, thank you. Thank you both. And thank you. >> Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, we have the Springfield Avenue Partnership Budget. We have a
resolution to read by title. >> Yes, Mayor. Uh read by title, resolution to read by title the Special Improvement District budget for 2026, Springfield Avenue Partnership Budget. >> They presented it already.
Mayor, I move the adoption of this resolution. >> I second. Let's >> call the role. S >> Adams, >> yes. Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Daffis, >> yes. >> Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Can we have another resolution?
>> Uh, yes, Mayor. Resolution number 224-26 confirming the assessment role for the special improvement district Springfield Avenue Partnership and the public hearing for the confirmation of the special district assessments.
>> So before we move this resolution, is there anyone here in the room who would like to speak on the 2026 uh budget for the Springfield Avenue Partnership, including the special assessment? Seeing no one here, is there anyone online?
>> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom? If you'd like to speak on this resolution, please raise your hand. >> I see no hands. Mayor. >> Okay, then we'll close the hearing. Can we get a resolution? >> Mayor, I move this for the adoption of this resolution.
>> I second the motion. >> M. Adams? >> Yes. >> M. Collins Cing? >> Yes. >> Mr. Davis? >> Yes. >> Herman? >> Yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. Thank you. And then we'll flip it. Now we have the Maplewood Village Alliance. >> Resolution number 221-26.
Resolutions read by title the Special Improvement District budget for 2026, Maplewood Village Alliance Budget. >> Yes. Uh I move the resolution. >> I second. >> Please call the RO. Mr. Adams, >> yes.
>> Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Herman, yes. Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you. We have a second resolution here. >> Uh, yes, Mayor. Resolution number 223-26 confirming the assessment role for the special improvement district, Maplewood
Village Alliance, and the public hearing for the confirmation of the special district assessments. >> Okay. Before we move this resolution, we'll have our hearing on this. This is the annual budget and special assessment for the Maplewood Village Alliance. Is
there anyone in the room who'd like to speak on this? Seeing no one, is there anyone online? >> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom would like to speak on this resolution? Please raise your hand. >> I see no hands. Mayor. >> Okay, we'll close the hearing. Can we
get a resolution? >> I'll move the resolution. Mayor, >> a second. Mayor, >> please call the role. >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> M. Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffus, >> yes. >> Mr. Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you. We'll now move to our first public comment on agenda items
only. And this again, if you would like to speak about the Prospect uh street improvements, this would be the time. If you want to speak about the immigrant trust act, this would be the time. Restricted areas, this would be the time. Or anything else that's on the agenda.
And just we need your name and your address and you have three minutes. >> Thank you. Uh my name is Mark Mucci. I live at 47 North Terrace in Maplewood. I'm here addressing consent agenda agenda item 16V resolution 24226.
It's the Oakland Road pilot program for prohibiting the left turns at Prospect Street and Oakland. And uh the reason I'm commenting is I see that there is now a study that is going to be taking place. Uh that was one of the questions
that a number of us had when there was a proposal to not have a left turn at Oakland and Prospect. We are concerned about the effect that prohibiting that will have in sending traffic especially
trucks onto other streets. And I think people on both sides of Prospect on the side streets there, they have that same concern. So I see that in the proposal there will be um
traffic counts and data collection uh taking place on weekdays only from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and then from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. And yes, they are in at the streets which are of concern,
including North Terrace and Oakland Road, which happens to be the corner that I live at. One thing that uh is of concern is the limited time period for looking at
uh the traffic and where they go. How many days will this be looked at? Also, it doesn't appear that there was any study of who is making a left turn prior to putting in the pilot. Uh we kind of
had hoped when we heard about this that there had already been a study of left turns taking place at that location, but now apparently there was some sort of study which took place between May 26
and putting in the barrier. I would hope that when you get the report, you evaluate it as to whether or not there was sufficient time given, sufficient time during the days, sufficient time in terms of the number
of days to evaluate whether there has actually been an impact on the traffic where you've actually captured trucks and other large vehicles going down narrower roads like Franklin and
whether or not you your study that they're giving you shows you the full impact especially since school will be essentially out and other big events are not taking place during the time period of the study. I'm not an expert at this,
but I would hope that your experts will tell you that there is good solid backup for a claim that this study was sufficient to evaluate the impact of the changing to no left turn at Oakland and Prospect.
Thank you. >> Thank you. There anyone else who would like to speak on an agenda item? Hi, good evening. Hi, my name is Cynthia Gallota and I'm one of the co-chairs of Soma Action Immigration and I'm here to
speak on the Maplewood Immigration Trust Act and I just want to say thank you for allowing us to review the working document and now that Congress with the House and Senate Senate passed bills giving $70 billion to DHS to fully fund
CPB and ICE for the next three years without any strings attached. It is now more than ever more important to do whatever we can to slow down ICE and make it harder for them to do their job. And I think the working document right
now, the Maplewood Trust Act, goes a long way towards doing that. But um Susan and I, the other co-chair of the Soma Action Immigration, feel that there are also areas that could be strengthened more fully. Um, one is a
required training and that would be that the request that the training would include regular training so that all employees can be up todate at certain intervals on this fast changing immigration environment and be fully
aware of the responsible way to interact with federal immigration authorities. There should be um a designation of a point of contact, meaning that we request in each department a designated supervisor would be responsible for
communicating with federal immigration authorities and that all employees would be aware of who that person is and if that person was absent that day that there would be a chain chain of command.
Um, also for community engagement, Maplewood needs to make it a priority to expand community-based education, including know your rights and also in different languages. And that brings me to the next one, language access,
uh, free language services for those who are not proficient in English. And actually, this could be as simple as pairing up with a community organization that might already have a ve an available list of volunteer translators
and legal services. Um the DDDI, the defense detention deportation initiative that was is funded by the state that provides proono services to immigrants facing detention and deportation.
Recently received increased funding to the tune of $20 million this year um for proono legal services. But unfortunately this will only increase capacity to be able to serve about 30 36% of the people
that need these services. So there is still a really huge urgent need um for legal services, legal representation. So, we just hope you will take this into considerate these requests into consideration and um you know, thank you
for allowing us to participate in this process and I'm really grateful that this town is pursuing this. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Can you see if there's any is there anyone else here in the room who would like to speak on an agenda item?
Can you check online? >> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom? If you'd like to speak on any agenda items only, please raise your hand. I see no hands, mayor. >> Okay, then we'll close this public comment session. We have a second one
coming up a bit later. Uh we have an ordinance on final. >> Yes, mayor. Uh ordinance on final 10A, ordinance number 407-26. Ordinance amending chapter 237 article
one of the code of the township of Mapwood with respect to design criteria in the Maplewood Village Special Improvement District. This ordinance will revise certain design standards with respect to signage
within the Maplewood Village Special Improvement District. >> Um this ordinance >> Yeah. Just just procedurally, we don't have to have a hearing if we're going to withdraw it. >> No, mayor. >> Okay, Mr. Davis.
>> Uh, mayor, I make a motion to withdraw. We will come back and reintroduce at a later date. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Please call the role on the withdrawal of the ordinance. >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes.
>> Mr. Davis, >> yes. >> Herman, >> yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. Thank you. We have ordinance 10B. >> Yes, Mayor. Ordinance number 408-26 is an ordinance to amend and supplement
chapter 257 of the code of the township of Mapwood entitled vehicles and traffic with respect to right turn on red restrictions. This ordinance will prohibit right turns on red from the southbound lanes of
Valley Street onto Baker Street. >> This ordinance has been published. Copies posted on the has I'm sorry, has been published on the township website, copies posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building, and copies made
available to the general public in accordance with the law. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this ordinance which prohibits uh right turns on red from Valley Street to Baker Street? >> Seeing no one in the room, can you check online, please?
>> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise your hand. >> I see no hands, mayor. >> Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Can we get an ordinance? >> I mean, a motion, rather.
I move this ordinance to be adopted as a whole and the clerk be directed to post the same as a past ordinance on the township's website and town hall bulletin board according to law. >> I second the motion. >> Any discussion? Please call the role. >> Mr. Adams,
>> yes. >> Miss Collins Golding, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> I before I vote, I think Miss Adams wants to correct her vote. >> Yes. Sorry, I was thinking it was
different ordinance. So, I vote no. >> I vote yes. Motion passed. >> Correct. >> Okay. Next ordinance. >> 10 C. Ordinance number 409-26.
An ordinance to amend classification of employment positions within the township of Mapwood and to establish salary ranges for employees. This ordinance will revise classification of employment positions and salaries within the township of
Maplewood consistent with the revision of the table of organization established within the township of Maplewood. >> This ordinance has been published on the township website, copies posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building,
and copies made available to the general public in accordance with the law. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this ordinance on employee classification? I see no one in the room. Can you please check online? >> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom would like to speak on this
ordinance, please raise your hand. >> I see no hands, mayor. >> Okay. Can we get a motion? >> Mayor, I move this audience be adopted as a whole and the clerk be directed to post the same as past audience on the township's website, town hall bulletin board according to the law.
>> Second. Any discussion? Please call the role. >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. We have an introduction of two ordinances. >> Yes, Mayor. Item 11A, ordinance number
4010-26 is an ordinance supplementing chapter 206 of the township code, public property use of with a new article entitled restricted areas. This ordinance establishes a new article
six entitled restricted areas of chapter 206 of the township code entitled public property use of to designate certain municipal property as restricted to authorized personnel only in order to
ensure the safe and efficient operation of township departments and protect township residents and confidential government records. Mayor, I move the passage of this ordinance on first reading and its publication according to law on the
township's website and town hall bulletin board and a hearing to be held on July 7th. >> I second. >> Please call the role. >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Miss Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca,
>> yes. And also on introduction, mayor, uh, item 11B, ordinance number 4011-26, an ordinance establishing a new chapter 44 C of the code of the Township of
Mapwood entitled Maplewood Immigrant Trust Act. This ordinance establishes a new chapter 44 C of the township code to clarify the township's policies regarding the use of municipal resources in connection with
federal civil immigration enforcement operations to protect the rights and privacy of all residents and to ensure compliance with state law including the attorney general's im immigrant trust directive. Mayor, I move the passage of
this ordinance on first reading and its publication according to law on the township's website and town hall bulletin board in a hearing to be held on July 7th. >> Second. >> Please call the role. >> Madams, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins Golding, >> yes. >> Mr. Davis, >> yes.
>> Sherman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. >> Reports from administrative reports. Mr. Weary, >> I have no report. Mayor. >> Any questions for Mr. Weary? Don't let him off that easy.
>> Okay. Uh, township attorney Jennifer Credidio. >> I have no report. Mayor, >> okay. Must be summer. >> Township clerk. >> Thank you. >> A quick report.
Uh I just wanted to report that um upcoming we will have a summer intern in the clerk's office. Uh re requested one and that uh intern will be starting uh soon as school is out. So that's um a
great thing. Um also we have had plenty of event planning meetings and we have more scheduled for later this week. And as you can see, we have many many uh larger scale events happening within the township.
And that's my report. >> Any questions from Miss Fritzen? All right, we'll move on to township elected officials committee woman Jane Collins Colding. >> Uh thank you, mayor. So I just have uh a
couple of things. Uh Maplewood Arts and Culture presents Troublemakers, a new exhibition by our artist Derek Carter at the 1978 Maplewood Arts Center started this weekend. Uh June 13 it was from 2 to 5 and the gallery is open for this uh
2 to 5 on Saturdays and Sundays June 14th, the 20th 21st, 27th and 28 at 1978 Maplewood Art Center. Uh this series actually is wall-mounted uh sculptural faces that exist between um mask and portraits. Carter explores themes of
identifying belonging, self-expression, and complexity of queer experience, drawing and drawing from his upbringing across different countries and cultures. This artist examines what it means to navigate multiple identities. It was great. We got the opportunity to draw
and compete, make faces, and the faces we made with were put on the walls. So, I think um Tom sh um Deputy Mayor Malia and I did that and I think I won, but it's not a competition. It was great and we had a wonderful
time. And I just want to also remind everyone our June 10th celebration is June 19th, this Friday. It's going to be exciting. We have a big ceremony planned. We want to invite everyone. We have a evening of music, culture,
community reflection on uh enslaved African-Americans celebrating and enduring contributions to black culture. Uh this is free. It's familyfriendly event to bring people together, performers, local leaders, arts, uh activities, food vendors, community
organization. This is inspirations to celebration of freedom and resilience and unity. So this is going to be good and it starts at 5:00 p. am uh we're going to have blending jazz uh music. We going to have um I just uh we just have
lots of stuff for you guys. So, please come out. We're going to have the fireworks at 900 p.m. So, we're going to have some um musicians perform. Uh between 5 and 5:45 we're going to have a few speeches and after that uh we're going to have some musicians perform. At
9:00 p.m. the the fireworks will begin in Memorial Park. So, this is a familyfriendly event. join us on Junth. That will be Friday the 19th at 5:00. And I just want to just mention our kids
uh camp, the Maplerest will be starting on Maplerest uh and tennis camp will start on Monday on the 22nd, just to let you know. Um please go online if you still have to register the kits. So that's our Jones Heath and our
Maplerrest camp event. And at 1978 we have acoustic jam session on June Sunday June 22nd from 5 to 7. So if you play any acoustic instruments or you love to sing join us uh just to share your tones, learn new ones, collect with
fellow um music lovers of all ages and experience levels. So this will be held on the 21st from 5 to 7 at 1978. And that is my report. Mayor, thank you. Thank you very much,
Committeewoman Nancy Adams. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, couple of things just a reminder for the public that DeHeart Field will be in honor about June 22nd, reconstruction. So, the field will be closed um through the fall. Uh
so just know that the playground will still be open, the rest of the park, the community center, and for the most part during construction, the walkway around the field will also be open. Um Duran Heden is also having Junth celebrations
this uh Friday, Junth from noon to 4 I believe um with demonstrations and um a whole history show and I forget what the presentation is that the guy's doing but um should be really interesting. that
starts at 12:00 um with a performance and then 12:45 with some opening some remarks and then more celebration going on. So that's all afternoon. So Junth is a full day >> into the evening and then um I just
wanted to bring up something from engineering public works and planning department. Uh there was a discussion and this has been brought up before of issues with parking along Uklid Avenue during um drop off at Dia Balden School.
Um especially pickup between 2 and 3 p.m. There's some issues and residents on uh Uklid are having issues with cars blocking their driveways. So after discussion at engineering public works meeting um it was determined that this
committee should consider and discuss a potential ordinance for 5T from the driveway parking restriction um to allow for residents on Uklid to have easy access in and out during those times. So
I open it up for discussion. Is there any objection or anything from We've done this on other streets throughout town. I don't know if engineering got you a draft ordinance or not. I didn't see one. So, right. Um, so that's why I thought I'd mention it during my report
instead of making it Wait. >> Why are you making that face? >> Yeah, I think we should uh move forward. This actually came up when we did the safe streets to schools >> meeting here. We had the resident on Uklid. We went up there and checked it
out. And so, I think it's consistent with what we're trying to do. Agreed. >> Yeah, I agree. I have a question though. Um I thought that it was five feet from driveway on every street. That's we do it street by street. >> No, it's not by ordinance. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think it's definitely warranted
>> on this one. >> And the engineering will then do just a stripe to mark five feet. Um Miss Credio, would you mind reaching out to uh the assistant engineer? Okay, great. So, we have consensus on that. Sorry, I
didn't put it on for discussion, but we got it done really quickly. So that's my report. >> Thank you, Committeeman Daffis. >> Thank you, Mayor. Just very briefly, I want to express first my deep gratitude to North Jersey Pride for putting on one of their most uh successful Pride
festivals uh this past Sunday in Maplewood, 14 years strong. Uh there isn't a single person on that uh committee that gets paid. It is all strictly volunteer-based. it remains a free familyfriendly event open to all
and they guesstimate that they received um about 10,000 people in attendance throughout the day on Sunday between 12 and 6:00 p.m. It is really important to highlight this in light of the fact that there have been less pride festivals
this June in surrounding communities and some communities are actually officially saying they will no longer acknowledge pride, no longer raise the flag. Um and and uh this is obviously
uh catering to um the national anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. So, I'm really proud of North Jersey Pride and what they do for Maplewood, for the region. Um, and I want to express my uh deep gratitude to
this governing body and every single member on it, including the mayor, who have been not just prefuncter supporters of pride in this community, but active supporters of pride with their actions, with their words, and the support uh of
all the pride activities that we do uh throughout the month. Uh and of course none of these events, which are logistical nightmares, um go on successfully without the support of our township clerk who coordinates massive
event planning meetings. and thank you for your coordination and your flawless coordination and of course the support of our uh public works team who's out there throughout the day to support support the event, our police and fire
and our um uh South Orange EMS who was also there. So I really really am proud of that and I wanted to mention that. Uh the other only other thing I want to say quickly is that uh we got some public comment earlier about uh other things
that we should consider adding to Maplewood's Immigrant Trust Act that we just introduced a few moments ago and we are taking those suggestions uh into consideration before final passage on July 7th. That's it, Mayor. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor Herman. Thank you. Um, that was a really wonderful Pride celebration on Sunday and I love the familyfriendly aspect. >> It's free. >> Free.
>> Uh, one of my favorite things is walking around and seeing our youth being completely at home, comfortable, and and just absolutely enjoying it. That's one of my favorite things. So, I I want to
say a big thank you to everyone who came and joined us for our Wear Orange event here last Friday. That was for National Gun Violence Prevention Awareness. Um, it's important that we stand up and we
affirm that this is this is this problem is not going away. We need to do what we can and do our part. and we had some really powerful speakers and I really want to thank our Maplewood Police Department. Um, our deputy chief
Mallaloy came out in addition to our two captains, Captain Kunzel and Captain Lawson. And I thought it was a really strong show of our uh, police department to have our top three uh, leaders come here and be with us in unity and in Orange. And everyone on the township
committee was here. We had individuals from South Orange. We had our assemblyman Chagier Nema and we had um our uh Essex County Commissioner Adorian um was there and um so I thought it was a really good event. I want to thank
everyone for your for for for coming out. >> Our assistant administrator and our director of community services. >> Yes, our assistant administrator was there and took amazing pictures. So you should see them online because they've been posted. And um we also had our um
director of community services there. Um oh my gosh, there was just so much orange. And it was all in the building, too. When I was in the building earlier, even individuals on our staff, our township staff who didn't come were wearing orange. Um which I thought was really nice. Um so, thank you to
everyone. Um, I wanted to mention just a couple of quick things for our uh we're going to have fireworks at two occasions this year. There's been some confusion online Junth. Yay. That's this Friday. And then
I'm sure we'll hear from the mayor on July 4th, but we're going to have um headphones and earplugs available um to borrow. And this is for, you know, if you do show up and have noise sensitivities. Um, this is something that we're we're we're trying to do. Um,
and um, in that vein, our recreation committee had a small meeting on inclusive programming last week. So, I just wanted to put that out there. You know, we're talking about it and if you have any specific ideas, reach out to me. But, this is something we're talking about and we want to get some things
going. And finally, the pool starting. So, this weekend um is our last only weekend, meaning that starting next Monday, the pool is open every day. So, I know it's warm
this week and the kids are half days in school and everyone's off on Friday and you know, you can't go to the pool on Friday, but Miss Collins Colding just told us all of the amazing things we can do to celebrate Junth, so there's no time to go to the pool on Friday. next
Monday. Starting next Monday, you can go to the pool every single day. And that's my report. >> Thank you. I have a few items. Uh tomorrow night, the Hilton Neighborhood Association will be celebrating their 31st
anniversary at 7 p.m. at the gazebo with a concert with the um community band, uh the swing band. And then um so come on out for that. And next item I want to mention is on June 24th, which is a
Wednesday night at 7:30. Uh the CCR is having a housing and community development forum and I'm speaking along with Mayor Colum from South Orange. It's going to be in the library. Again, that's at 7:30. I guess I can say this now. It's going to be in
the Vic Duca community room. Um so, uh it'll be there. And uh the World Cup, we're ready. It's starting to heat up a little bit. On Thursday, June 25th, USA
is playing Turkey. And that day or that evening at 6 PM, we're going to have a family movie in Memorial Park. We're going to be showing Airbud World Pup on a big screen. We're going to have lawn games, music, photo booth, uh practice your penalty kick, and that's all going
to be from 6:00 to 7:00. 7 o'clock we'll show the movie. Then at 9:00 we're going to have a village watch party. So come down to Maplewood Village. We'll be closing down the streets. We'll be putting a big outdoor screen. Uh you can grab a bite to eat. You can do some bar
hopping. You can listen to the DJ we're going to have there. You can hang out with your friends and neighbors. We're going to lift the u alcohol consumption in public uh at that event so you can walk around like at Migra. Uh so again that's on the 25th and that's the USA
versus Turkey. The game actually starts at 10 PM and we'll be there to the end. And then uh 4th of July we are going to be putting this information out. I think we put it out today. Uh we have a roster
here that's really uh exciting. We're 8 a.m. we're going to start the 5K race. 10:00 a.m. we do the bike parade. 10:30 we have the kids fun run in Memorial Park. Uh also in Memorial Park at noon we'll do adult softball. Then we move
the the uh activities over to Deheart Park at the community center. We at 1:30 we'll have bingo. This is a chance to come on inside and get some air conditioning and have a good time. 3 p.m. we'll do the pet parade and then at 400 pm we'll do the ice cream eating
contest again. Uh, >> oh yeah, I can't wait. >> And everybody has to play by the rules, >> but we'll be doing the ice cream eating contest at 450, >> including the person speaking. >> Including the person speaking. And that's all I have. So, we're now going
to move to discussion items. And we have the outdoor dining sidewalk cafes. Mayor, if if I may uh just >> mayor ask uh tomorrow morning you are speaking at >> I am I speaking at the library again 8:00 in the morning on uh
>> business >> how we're helping businesses >> that's the chamber of commerce you're welcome to come to that too >> I thought that already happened >> no >> no that's tomorrow morning >> it's been a busy week >> all right >> dining thank you mayor uh so we have two
types of outdoor dining in Maplewood as in a lot of other towns. We have sidewalk cafes. These are the tables on the sidewalks and we have streeteries. Those are the parkletits. These are the outdoor dining uh in the parking spots.
What we're talking about this evening here is the sidewalk cafes, the tables on the sidewalks. This is a topic that we've been discussing it seems uh endlessly uh in one of our subcommittees the code committee uh where it doesn't
seem uh we have reached consensus. So I am bringing this topic here to the full township committee uh to receive some guidance from all of you uh to see how we move forward. Now a little bit of context. Why are we talking about this?
Well, we constantly look of all all of our ordinances and we make revisions as as necessary. We recently made revisions to our parkletits in one way or another, including the fees that we charge. Uh so
for outdoor dining in the parking spots, we now charge not just an application fee to apply to do that as a restaurant or other merchant, but we also charge a $5 per square foot fee for taking up the
public right of way. When we did that, we decided, well, maybe we should look at sidewalk cafes as well, the the tables uh on the on the sidewalks. And so that started a discussion that
got uh very complicated. Uh the proposal initially was to uh the current fee for uh tables on the sidewalk is $150. Should we change the fee? Uh should we
lower the fee? Should we add uh public rightway $5 per square foot as we do with the parklets to make it uniform? Should different parts of town have different fees and rules? For instance,
uh when we're thinking about the tables on the sidewalk outside of Abel Baker, uh you know, the utilization of those tables is a lot different than say a couple of decorative tables or possibly even a bench uh outside one of our
businesses on Springfield Avenue. And even more different than some of the table service on this on the sidewalks that has popped up in the very dynamic hot restaurant area of Jacobe Street and
Bdon Avenue. So um the initial proposal that uh came to us from uh community development for us to consider in the code committee um bifurcated
table service and no table service. So, we would have to figure out where is their table service on the sidewalk tables and where isn't their table service. We know for instance that a lot of the tables on the sidewalks uh
don't actually get table service. Um and then in some instances that is the case. We decided as a committee that that was a little bit complicated certainly uh from an enforcement perspective to try and um enforce that all the time in all
of the places where that happens. Certainly our current ordinance that created sidewalk cafes does not speak to table service or no table service. It merely says tables on the sidewalk where
food is served. It presumes table service. So, um that's something there. Uh we received input from our Springfield Avenue partnership manager who recommends that
we lower the fee for sidewalk cafes on Springfield Avenue because their utilization there is a lot different. the return on investment to merchants who use it there is a lot different than say in Maplewood Village. But again, when she was speaking about this, she
was referring to benches. Benches are not tables on the sidewalk and they're decorative. And while someone may use a bench to sit there and eat their to-go sandwich or their ice cream,
it's not table service. Again, our ordinance does not distinguish uh it just includes benches but does not make that distin uh um distinguishing feature. So, um my recommendation after
hearing all of this over the course of now four separate meetings uh is to um highly recommend that we go back and rewrite our sidewalk cafe ordinance.
um to uh distinguish table service um to exclude benches and other decorative tables um from this and to find a path forward that is uniform
and appropriate for town. Um one committee member Collins Golding recommended that maybe we have a tiered system and we do different things all across town. I'm not sure how everyone feels about that. Uh I recommend that when we go back and re rewrite our
ordinance and make it clear what we're talking about here that we have a uniform fee. The current fee that we use, don't change it and charge the $5 per public right ofway use. I also recommend that our ordinance get strengthened to include uh better
enforcement of the five of the 4ft clearance. That's a big recommendation that we got from the all access committee. And also to recommend that the tables are only seasonal again like the parklets are only seasonal, not left
out on the sidewalk all year round. another recommendation from the all access committee because things get loosey goosey during inclement weather and certainly when snow happens um you know those tables get stuck and they they crowd up the sidewalk and don't
make access possible. So that's everything you need to know about what we've been talking about. I'm going to open it up for discussion. Anyone? Again, my recommendation is that we go back and we rewrite our ordinance, uh, which I think will help us get to where we need to be.
>> I think we talked about some definitions needing. >> Yeah, we're going to need some definitions, right? >> Um, because when whether there's service or not, and we talked about this a lot at these meetings >> is where it gets confusing. Um because essentially if a restaurant has several
tables and chairs out um even if they're not serving they're expanding their their footprint of of the actual business. Um that's kind of one of the things that I just wanted to add to what you said. Um, and that there be consistency because it's um, it's not a
huge amount that we're talking about charging because the smaller the space is, the smaller the fee is for the year. Um, and and eliminating things like you phrase decorative, maybe that's a a definition we should put in or a word.
Check the, you know, for synonyms that would look >> kind of >> separate out things that people do sit on, but not necessarily have to um pay for for that to be there because it does bring life to the street to have such
furniture out front of your store um without necessarily having to get a cafe. outdoor cafe seating permit port. So, I'm in agreement with you. I I think we need some to tighten up some definitions and then I think I do think it should be consistent throughout and
the simpler the better. Um yeah, and I feel like there was something else, but I'll pipe in. >> Yeah, I think that the charging for the public right of way again where there is service, >> right, >> where you're expanding your footprint,
right? um is probably the way to go because we're seeing that we're getting successful businesses who can afford that who are taking up the sidewalk all over town. >> And I don't I don't think it needs to be based on affordability or or whether a
business can afford it. I think that's that's problematic on its own. But I think successful um outdoor cafes do add to the to the footprint. But that's why I defined before what I just said was that we
should whether there's service or not I think should be irrelevant. Whether it's decorative tables or or uh benches is one thing, but there are some places that don't have service, but they have sever they have a lot of sidewalk space being utilized because they don't have
seats inside their restaurant. So, I don't think those should be excluded just because they're not >> u bringing a server out to bring the food. >> Right. Right. And in most places in Maplewood, uh with the exception of a couple notable businesses that we're all aware of, there isn't actually table
service on the sidewalks, >> right? That's what I mean. So, they they still use public. >> Yeah. So, our ordinance doesn't even is not even in keeping with the reality of what's happening in our town because um they're not tables where food is served. That is the language of our current
ordinance that needs to be >> and that's what we talked about that we need to define what that means. >> Yeah. >> Because because of what we're both saying. >> Yeah. And committee member Adams has been part of these discussions um since uh four months ago when we started it
feels like if not longer. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah. So I want to thank committeewoman Adams for sending that um chart from summit. I thought that was really helpful to look at. >> Glad I did it. Um, yeah, because what some the way Summit lays it out is they
have different tiers and so there's like the bare bones tier and then it keeps going if you have like table service or how many number but I think what was really tripping the committee up was there's so many different um situations like there's the situations of the
restaurants on Springfield Avenue, the situations of the restaurants in the village, the situation of restaurants who have just one table and chair or one bench and those who have a lot those who do table service. And so it seemed to me that having some kind of um specific
like um you know tier one, tier 2, tier three might be more fair because you'd be able to address these different circumstances >> in a fair way. Um the other way to look at it would be so
that's one option is doing like these different tiers. The other way to look at it would be if we're if we're charging 150 right now, what if we said that 150
means you get one twoerson table and two individual chairs? Like that's like your ba basic what you get with that. And then if you want more then we have you know um a price system of how much more you get. Or you could
also do with the five foot, you could say you get this mount with your basic fee and then if you want more space, these are the this is what you would pay for that more space and you do it that way. So just different ways to sort of take into account. I think the big
situation really is the footprint, right? Because when you have because this is public sidewalks that we're talking about and when you're going to put when we're going to allow a business to put their um table and chairs on the sidewalk, it is a benefit to the community because
it's makes it more vibrant, more inviting, more friendly. That's that's wonderful and everyone likes sitting outside, especially in nice weather, right? Um but also it is a public side sidewalk and we have heard from residents both um you know in Maplewood Avenue area and then over in the uh
Jacobe Bdon area that sometimes there isn't enough space on the sidewalk for individuals to get past and so we have to make sure that the the public right of way is preserved. Um, you know, I I I feel like the only when these residents come to us, I feel like the only thing
we can say to them is we okay, we've reported this to code enforcement and it doesn't really solve the problem for them because they come back and they see the same thing and we reported it to code enforcement and you know, so I feel that's where um, you know, one of the
things I had brought up, you know, that was um, having some kind of like three strikes and you're out, you know, or you know, something where you know there's some little more teeth in it where you know if you continually cannot make that four feet um there
>> and um and you know then there are some consequences. So but um >> that could go into the new ordinance. >> Yeah, absolutely. Right. >> So those are my thoughts. >> Yeah. Mayor. >> Yes. So, I uh I guess I attended or listened to one of these conversations
at a code meeting and uh I'm I'm still struck with the same question is what are we trying to solve? What is the problem we're trying to solve? And what are what are we trying to gain? Is this a revenue opportunity? Are we or are we just covering costs? Um
I think there's a benefit to having people eat outside. I think it just makes the place look >> of course >> more vibrant. Um people want to eat outside >> and so I think >> um the outdoor cafes been been on the books for a long time and that's the
reason we put it on the books and I think we we charged something in the beginning. We charged a nominal amount to cover our cost of sending people out to do measurements and do the processing. So I I just think it has to be simple. I think charging people who
serve versus people who What's the difference if I take a piece of pizza at a Roman gourmet and sit in the front or if Vinnie serves it to me? >> What's the difference? >> If he says go sit down, I'll bring it to you. Is that, you know, why why should
there be more or less? I don't know. I just think it should be simple. Um I absolutely agree on the forefoot. Uh, and I think it's just not tables. We have, particularly on Jacobe Street, there are benches and planters that get put out there. And I think maybe a whole
definition of what street furniture is. >> Um, because that what happens is they say, "Well, my tables are there." But then they have a planter or they have something else and it just gets narrow and people aren't able to walk. We hear constantly from folks who who have
difficulty walking. So, um, we used to have the a very tight time restriction. We used to say you had to get the tables off >> overnight. >> That's not practical. >> All that up. Yeah. >> You know, I don't know. People sit out there sometimes. It's warm in
December. I don't know if we want to have a cut off. I I just think it needs to be simple. And it also needs to, you know, remember I think we have tables outside the the cafe on Rididgewood. We certainly have tables outside the cafe at True at True Salvage. Um we don't
have much on Springfield Avenue other than at the ice cream place. Um you know it's mostly in Maplewood Village. I I'm just not again I'm not sure what we're trying to solve, what the problem is. I think to answer that in some part
is that first of all our fees. I think all of us up here agree that outdoor dining uh creates life on the street and we want that. Um but on the other hand there are um an application process should include a diagram that includes
all other parts including planters, anything they're putting out on the sidewalk. Um in with regard to enforcement, I think you know there needs obviously we need to be tighter on enforcement and that we do get replicated
uh enforcement I mean summones given out or or or uh notices to those businesses and they keep repeating the same offense. So I think that's why um there's a problem that problem shouldn't lead us to make
it not 12 months a year but rather be um have more whether it's penalties or or fines or just eventual elimination of your outdoor sidewalk cafe um for the repeat offenders that could handle that.
But I think a diagram of the the layout of tables and chairs I think that's important to ensure that four feet and to ensure and to give code enforcement a diagram to compare what's actually happening outside to what they applied
for and for what they were approved. So I think that's important. I do think um I think it's more than the work involved is because of the number of times code enforcement has to go out is much more than just setting up the cafe. So I
think we are undercompensating ourselves in that kind of work and I think that should be replicated and I don't think it's a huge detriment to any businesses that are having it. But that that's different than arguing that because I heard the argument in one
of the or or the put forth the argument that um outdoor cafes expand the table space of the business so therefore they should pay Four in the fee and I would agree with that but that's what that's that's we should
come up with a fee that has that relationship. I do believe that when they make the application there's supposed to be a map that's get sent over >> whether whether that diagram is real or not or whether you know if if I you know we know the one business on um well
actually we had the business on uh the corner of Mapwood Avenue and Baker if they turned their tables one way >> out in our >> Yeah. They turn them the other way and that's the same thing on the corner of Jacobe and Bdon, >> right? >> They turn the tables the other way, they can be consistent, but they can't get as
many tables, >> right? >> So, they may pro provide us a diagram that has the tables there. When they're actually implementing it, they turn the tables the other way and they stick out. >> So, they do have diagram does have to be the scale, >> right?
>> And so, and has to be adhered to throughout the whole permit season. >> Yeah, I would agree on the enforcement stuff. if I would agree on, you know, whether it's penalties and you can't, you know, you have to take it in or something, whatever, however that is. >> So, >> and I would just say
>> I'd like to can I invite >> Could I just add to one thing before? >> Yeah. >> I just want to invite our other >> one. Yeah. One of the fees aside from the 150 was a per square foot fee so that it would be consist. >> You said that. Yeah. >> Oh, did you? I just wanted to make sure
that was included. And I just wanted to say with regard to the year round aspect, the challenge was um this past winter we had a lot of snow and I know winters before that we didn't have a lot of snow, but when we had a lot of snow, we do have it in our ordinance that when
in in inclement weather that they are supposed to remove them, but none of them did. >> Wow. >> Not a single one. Like you you know, and so it just clogs up the sidewalk. And so they maybe they just got a fine for that. I I have no idea if anyone got a
fine for not removing them during inclement weather, but it just it it makes it more difficult. And so that's that's why I'm looking at it not being I would prefer for it not to be all year round because, you know, when we do have
a snow emergency, we can't have these on the sidewalk. >> But that's easy to resolve because we can do we can do a lot of stuff in ordering people. We tell people you can't park on roads. We can tell people you can't have tables out there. I don't think every >> we can do that. We can enforce that. >> Yeah. I don't think the whole program
should be >> We haven't. So, no, we could we should and we have >> maybe not as much in with so much going on with snow and I'm sorry. >> No, that's >> so committee member Collins Colding, please. >> I think that's a problem we want to solve. U Maplewood is not making u more
land. Um what we have is what we have. Um there's no free land in Maplewood. So um when we talk about the businesses and enforcing what we have I think um the system we have we have to look at the structure and I think we're trying to build structure and the space we're in
with the businesses right now and the restaurants we have right now we don't have a solid structure because more restaurants are coming in we're expanding and they're doing different things and we are not keeping up with the different things they're doing so in order for us to when you talk about code
right if I'm an electrician I give a diagram diagram to the code department. I go and put my electrical any way I like. No, doesn't work that way. You have to do it the way the way the code tells you to do it. So, I think is teaching businesses how to work with us
and vice versa. So, we have to put a structure in place. What does the structure look like? Does it look like a two-tier system? Does it look like a one-tier system? Does it look like uh we do it Springfield, Springfield, Maplewood A, you know, downtown Maplewood? Do we do it in Newark way? We
do it the same way or we create a structure where we lay out something that is slightly different like u for the benches and for the restaurants that are serving. It makes sense that we do t two tiers where we work within our
guidelines and it's going to take a lot of work. But for now, since we can jump into all of that, we put something in place and we start working on that structure of what it looks like for restaurants to participate and have that
outside space to use. It can't be free, you know, is we just can't give it to them. Does it go into the permit? Do we put into the permit? Do we look at our average workers? how much time to spend going back and forth on each restaurant and do the data analysis and see what it
cost and what it's cost in the township. Do we go back and do that? That's a lot of work. So, we have to do our homework, lay it out properly and do it the way it should be done so we're not going back and forth. >> Yeah. I mean, I appreciate everyone's input. Anyone else have anything else
they want to say? >> No. >> Okay. Um, we will return with a new ordinance for consideration. Thank you for your input. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, anybody object if
we did item 15 C first, the request for Cougar Soccer because I see >> Yes. >> Yes. Cougar Patiently here and I know he's dying to hear us go on about cafes and Prospect Street, but >> that depends. >> Not exciting.
So, we had a we had a request from, you know, as as uh committeewoman Adams mentioned, we're going to be closing Dehart in a month, in a week rather, and it's going to be closed for many months as we rebuild that field. So, we're looking to um find other space. We've
reached out to the county, we've reached out to Irvington, we've reached out to Union. Some of that is actually panning out. Um but additionally the Cougars have asked us to consider temporary portable lights at Bordon Park, Memorial
Park and Maple Crest Park. And um the lighting would be on they would provide the lighting. It' be portable lighting on a trailer. They would um have the park lit until 8:30 at night. The lights would be solar powered so
there would not be generators so there not be noise for the immediate neighbors. They want to do scheduling Monday through Friday. Now they used Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. That would have to be worked out with um Department of Community Services. But the idea to
bring it to here is are we willing to consider allowing temporary lights in these parks that we're talking about, Maplewood Memorial, and Bordon, um which are are, you know, much more integrated
into neighborhoods around them. Um, so we would uh we would sponsor some kind of public meeting that we would advertise that you know we're pl you know planning to do this but I wanted to bring it here first to see if we have
the appetite to do that and if no one objects maybe we could have Mike come up here and just embellish anything that I did not embellish enough. >> Sure. Uh, >> just say who you are and who you represent. >> I'm Mike Connelly. I'm a resident of
Maplewood for 12 years. Um, I'm into my fourth year as president of the Cougar Soccer Club. I'm sorry I'm not better dressed. I was coaching a Villagers game right before this. The 8-year-olds turn a triple play, so that was a lot of excitement. Um, so you know, the biggest piece you lose with Dehart getting shut
down, not just the space, but the hours it can go. Um, and right now we're practicing till 8:30 most of the nights of the week there. And that allows us to have, you know, close to 500 kids playing soccer at some point in time. Um, so that's what we're really looking
for is we can find this there's spaces we can move into, but the hours just kind of go away. And why I kind of looked at 8:30 was until 20 minutes ago, it was pretty light out there. So we wouldn't be extending past the time when light exists at other points in the
year. So, I understand if I don't want light shining in my house at 10 o'clock at night, we would be cutting it off 8 8:30 somewhere in that range. We could work to figure that part of it out. And I also don't want that of a generator. So, we've looked up and there's these solar construction lights that we could test out. Um, and when I brought it to
Mayor Duca, I cast a wide net. I said, "Memorial, Maplerest, Bordon, wherever. We'll make it work from what you guys think is possible." Um, but I believe we can make any of those spaces work. Um, but wanted to make sure I I cast the net wide that we weren't saying we just want
this or just want that. We will work with you guys for that. Um, and it allows us to kind of keep community soccer going. Um, we're setting up our teams now. Already I've approved $8,000 with the scholarships and I expect that'll be hitting 20 to 30 like it does most years. So, that's kind of key to
being able to stay in town and support these kids playing soccer. >> So, I have a couple. >> Go ahead. Questions. >> Um, where you play now only at Deheart, correct? Uh, we play we practice at Dehart at night. We play our games at Bordon and Dehart. We practice at
Dehart, but in the fall it basically has to stop at >> we we run till 6:30 for a while and then once once late October, November hits, we are it's dark at 600 6:15 and we're kind of playing under that one street light that's kind of in the corner
there. Um, so that's it really cuts the time off early. Um, and we can't kind of go any earlier in the day, especially with the school hours shifting. If we start even at four o'clock, uh, my kid goes to Tuskin, that is a rush out the door to get her there. So, we're really
limited by when school gets out and when it gets dark. >> Okay. So, and so you don't necessarily need Memorial Park, for example. >> It wouldn't have to be Memorial. No. Um, I'm just looking at spaces that are large. Um, you know,
>> orchards, I would say, is not an option. I'm gonna work with Missy to possibly like do some Saturday stuff at Orchard with our little kids, but that field is not big enough for 13-year-old girls to be running on. >> I remember when my decades ago when my kids were in Cougar Soccer, they were
they played at Maplerest a lot, like especially for the holiday. >> Yeah, we've had the tournament at Maplerrest at times. Um, and I can remember >> I only say that to try to get a handle on where the fields are for Yeah. Um, yeah. So, one concern aside from the light bleeding into the neighborhoods is
um the equipment what what would happen to that is it being brought on site for every time you need it or it's just going to sit there? >> I I mean I would expect we we'd bring it on starting the first day of practice and then I would take it off at the last day of practice, but I think it would
sit there. I'm not going to be able to haul it off on like weekends, I don't think. >> Okay. Because that that could be a concern. It's just this big I don't know how many there'd be and what kind of space they're taking up that could otherwise be used. >> From what I've seen, they're pretty
close to the size of the one you guys put up at um the farmers market on Mondays when you guys had the farmers market in the fall. They have that thing and I think they put them up at Fourth of July um for fireworks. So, they seem to be about that size. Um >> but you know, as a discussion, I'd be
happy to rent one and bring one to a park so you could see what the size was. No, no. I mean that gives me it also gives me pause because I think that's you know something there from a few months that be like kind of obstruction
like and ugly and this big light thing there 24/7 just you know. >> Sure. >> Any other comments or questions? I think this is a really good workaround for not having enough field space
because as you said the light uh right in the middle of summer it's going to be like it's dark right now at 9 but you know pretty soon it will be light at 9 and so you know really just expanding expanding the time period that you can play in the fall. I mean that's that's a
really excellent way to expand our free our um field space just by by adding lights. So, I think it's a really um good solution to what we have, you know, and I would be in favor of this. >> And we'd be happy to share the lights
with Ultimate Softball. I mean, I know when fall softball is playing, like they're cutting games off, they're losing game innings at the end of it because there's not enough lights still. So, we'd be happy to share it with those community groups that share our values, which is the vast majority of them. >> And who would control the lights? Like,
how do they go on? How do they go off? >> I'd have to figure out a timer on that. I think I could give you more information on that part of it. >> When you mention using it with other groups, then that lo then you're starting to lose control a little bit. >> Yeah, I think we have to work that out. >> I'm just concerned about, you know, nonsccer
playing humans in in our town. >> Yeah. Um I think we have pretty good control over our goals locking them up. I think I could use the same type of situation with locks and chains, the stuff to make sure that they're set up correctly. We figure out how the timer works, what codes make it work. Um, and
I could share them with I mean I I text with Sean, head of Ultimate, all the time. We could figure it out. Like we're always trading spaces and things like that. So, >> any other comments or questions? >> I I I think it's a reasonable proposal. I support it.
>> I like it. I think it's a good safety um feature for the kit. And also, I'm just wondering equipment insured. And uh when the lights when you put the lights on is solar lights, right? Uh what's the >> length of time >> the the the not the time but the area
per light does it cover it in order not to reflect on the homeowners that are back there just to think about how wide the lights >> I think we'd have to have the exact angle of it you know >> the angle of it goes towards the field >> and then we would shoot it down like this is for practice it's certain areas we're not going to like have to light it
up as though it's a perfect game. >> Yeah. So you don't have a back one that goes backwards as well as well. >> I believe you can point it. >> Yeah, you point. It's sort of like the lights we have now at Deart where they aim out at the field. >> Got you. >> So that you're not tall either. >> Yeah. You're not going to get the the
you know the lumens that you get at Deart. This is going to be >> sort of a makeshift operation. And you're and to be totally honest, you're not going to have lighting that you can play softball or baseball by. It's just, you know, you can't you can't you're not going to be lighting it up to that
candle light, but you're you are going to be able to light up some areas where you can, as you say, you can maybe light up a goal and do some kicking around and practice and stuff. So, >> yeah. >> Um, >> and >> I don't think we should be over ambitious that other groups are going to be using it. >> Sure. >> I think I think you ought to focus on
what you can do. And I think the point that um committee woman Adams made about, you know, where are these things, you can work with DPW to put them out of the way >> um so that you know when you're figuring out the lighting and all that, you know, they can be on other other sides of
footpath so that you're not in the playing field because you don't want them to become a danger too as during the day when someone runs and runs into it. So >> um and there was a question about insurance. Um, we are fully insured both through our organization and we have a separate policy as well. Um, I'm in
insurance so I consider insurance very very dear to my heart. Um, and we'd be happy to share the full and we'll get a rider on it for our lights or whatever's needed to ensure that the town does not take on extra liability. >> Mayor, you said you were going to do a public meeting on this. >> Yeah, we're going to do a public Zoom
meeting for just let people know that we're thinking about this and they can join and we can explain what's going >> I feel like it needs to be narrowed down rather than three parks. Uh, I think you need to just because then you have those specific neighbors and >> Well, I think the reason that he's doing
three parks is because of the field space. Like if Missy says, "Oh, no, >> we can't accommodate you in Bordon, but can this week can you go over to Mapler?" >> Right. But I think that needs to be sort of decided before we get public input so that we can know what we're talking about. >> But I don't think we're going to know
until after the decision has to be made. >> I don't think we're going to know before the fall. >> Yeah. To be honest, I think we have to we have to go into this saying that there, you know, these three spots might be there might be two of the three, might be three or three. >> Um, and >> Memorial Park needs to confer with the
concerns >> for temporary lighting. >> Yeah, it's putting and where is it? What's it on? Where are their new plantings? Where are they, what projects have they done? and what interference might just like they work with >> Maple Woodstock and other other
festivals. >> I assume you're going to be you would be right across the street here, right? For if you would do it. >> I I would think so. I mean, either there or I guess in the outfield of the baseball field is also a nice space. Um you know, there's been soccer fields lined in there before. >> Okay.
>> Um I'm getting the feeling that we're moving ahead on this and we'll work it out. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, since it's 9:05 and I'm sure we're going to be talking about Prospect Street for a while, can we get a motion to extend
beyond 9:30? >> So moved. >> Adams, >> reluctantly second everybody. Yes. Go ahead. >> Yes. Adams. Collins. Colding. >> Yes. >> Mr. Daffis. >> Yes. >> Thurman. >> Yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. Okay. Prospect Street.
>> All right. So, I don't know if anyone's heard we've been talking about redoing Prospect Street. It kind of comes in line to uh as reconstruction of the street, not just um a pedestrian safe, not just a safety and bike lane issue.
It's a street that was uh got grants for from the state and was slated for reconstruction and redesign. Uh with that we have uh some decision points that this committee needs to make
in order to go forward with final plans. We've had three public meetings I think right three public meetings on Zoom that we've gotten a lot of input from uh the public most of whom live on or around
Prospect Street which is a lot of people. So, we had probably 50 to 70 residents at each meeting. Um, and we had input for the full what were they? 7 to 9:00 p.m. So, uh, and we've we've
redesigned between meetings and taken into consideration what the public said. Um, taken into account what could and could not be done based on even what the public might want may not be possible. Um but all of it's being accommodated to
the extent that we can. Um I think we have our consulting engineer uh the good Patrick Patrick Downey um and our engineer township engineer Paul Kitner. >> Yes, they're both with us and when they
start talking I expect they'll show up on the screen. >> Okay. So, they need to show the are they who's sharing the um whatever that is they're talking about because we do have the talk the decision points that you
delineated in an email. >> Both muted. >> They're both muted. >> Okay. Go ahead, Paul. >> Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. What is the question committee woman? >> Yeah, >> I was just giving an overview of what
we've done thus far. Um, so we have some decision points that we need to um to make so that you can move forward. No. >> Yes. So, we've identified several decision
points. Obviously, um, Prospect, as you indicated, had three separate meetings and the design was guided by many of the comments from the public. But in the decision points, uh,
we have the first one is Oakland Road, uh, no left turn restrictions. And the question is whether we adopt the restrictions of the median at Oakland Road or we continue to pilot the restrict the restrictions or remove the
restrictions altogether from the plan set. That's the first decision point. The second decision point is the Prospect Presbyterian Church. whether or not we continue with the plans that current are currently shown as a shared
uh bicycle lane or whether we create a dedicated bike lane by eliminating the parking. There's I believe six spaces in front of the church that would have to be eliminated to do that. Or we introduce a shared sidewalk which could
accommodate uh bicycles and pedestrians. That's the second decision point. The third decision point is the Springfield uh Avenue intersection. Whether we maintain three existing southbound lanes and remove the dedicated bike lane
through the intersection or we have a dedicated lane with two travel lanes and discuss a mix of left, straight, and right lanes. That's this that's the third decision point. The fourth decision point is removing two parking
spots between Hilton and Springfield A to allow longer transition from dedicated bike lanes to the shared lanes. In other words, going through the intersection with a with a dedicated uh bike lane and whether or not if the
Springfield Avenue intersection maintains three southbound lanes, uh this may be this may be a move point. So those are the decision points uh before you today. >> Okay. Why don't we start? Why don't we go one at a time and um Patrick Downey,
did you want to share um diagram based on the points in the order that Paul um mentioned them or how do you want to go through it? >> Yeah, we can do that. I will pull up the latest plan on the screen. Let me know
if everyone can see this in a moment. It's loading. That's a good sign. There we go. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, >> you're going to need to zoom in. >> Sure. >> If you can. I mean, >> how's that? >> Yeah. There you go.
>> Okay. >> So, which decision point are you speaking to now? >> So, this is the first bullet. Uh, this is the Oakland Road no right turn restriction. So, just to orient everybody uh on the screen, we have Prospect running left to right on the
page. North is to the right of the page. Uh and these two offset intersections are with Oakland Road. The configuration you see here with the center concrete median is the one that's been on the plan for a little while now. That is to provide a center median to essentially divide this intersection into two
individual right in right out only driveways. Uh so based on the feedback at the public meetings uh we know this was you know a point of a lot of questions. So we went out and collected some additional data uh over the past two weeks. One of which was before the pilot program was implemented
essentially to get the no build baseline condition and the other was a few days after the pilot program was instituted to see the after. Uh and those counts were conducted both at the affected intersection and several nearby intersections just to see uh where that redistributed traffic, you know,
ultimately made its way to. I think there's really two key results from what we've seen both with those counts and our observations when we were out there during those times. The first is that uh three of the four left turn movements that are affected here are
fairly minor in volume today. So that is the southbound left turn from Prospect to Oakland and the left turns out of both Oakland Road approaches. There is some volume that does that uh but it does not rise to the level of being significant. Just to orient everybody
it's it's less than a vehicle per minute even during the peak hours uh where it would need to be you know close to double that to raise to the level that uh an agency like DOT for example would consider quote unquote significant. Um, so we really don't see any traffic impact uh from those three movements
being eliminated. Uh, did not really see any traffic impacts at offsite intersections resulting from those three. The only existing left turn movement that seems to have some uh notable volume that we really want to key in and pay attention to is the northbound left turn movement. So that's
uh where I'm hovering with my screen from northbound Prospect turning left onto westbound Oakland. that volume um was sizable especially in the morning and even uh you know somewhat less so in the afternoon. Uh so what we see there is um a
combination of rerouting uh a fair amount of the volume I'd say a third to a half of what did uh that movement in the before condition seems to have um essentially entirely disappeared from prospect in the after condition. what we believe is happening there as people um
you know got used to the pilot that was installed and started taking alternative routes alto together. Um so that was essentially a net reduction to the area as a whole. We did see about a third of a volume uh relocate to the next northbound left turn opportunity to the north which was Franklin Place. So about
a third of what came into Oakland before now arrived to Franklin. So that was a little bit of a change there. Uh but that move seemed to operate efficiently. It didn't have that much delay uh particularly because it's fairly close to the traffic signal up at Parker and
that traffic signal provides some large gaps in the southbound traffic flow. So those northbound left turns can um you know operate with fairly minimal delay. So ultimately um we don't see any significant traffic impact from any of these movements being restricted. The only one we're paying a little bit of
attention to is that movement. Uh so what we uh essentially the conclusion of our analysis of that pilot program as it stands currently is uh we would be supportive of you know one of two options here. One would be the one you see on the screen which is to make both
intersections right in right out or one potential alternative uh that would allow that one northbound left turn movement to remain. Uh we think this island could be redesigned to maintain that movement while still providing uh much of the same safety benefits that
the island uh and crosswalk improvements here provide on the current plan. Um obviously it's been a bit of a time crunch to get that analysis done uh completed before school is out. So that analysis is essentially hot off the press. Um I don't know some of the
committee might not have had a chance to review it yet. Um so I'm happy to answer any questions but that's essentially our findings. Could you describe that second option again? >> Sure. So, the second option would essentially be to uh open up a portion
of this median that I'm hovering with my little cursor here >> to maintain one of the left turn movements. That being the left turn from northbound Prospect onto Oakland Road. that is the volume that in the current uh you know pre-pilot existing baseline
condition um it's the only movement that really had a sizable volume to begin with. So it's the only one um that has some impact at other locations based on redistributing. Still not one we believe rises to be significant. So we think the plan as it stands with the full media
enclosure is still valid. Uh but if um the town wishes to do something slightly less uh significant in terms of changing existing traffic patterns, that's one change we think that we could be made um while maintaining the overall safety benefit. >> Mr. Downey, doesn't that um if you pull
back that median, doesn't it um make it easier to do the left turn that you're really trying to minimize, which is coming off Oakland Road and turning left onto Prospect. Doesn't it make it easier for that movement to take place >> if done alone? Yes. Um I think if we
were to go forward with that being the plan, there would be other adjustments within this view that you're looking at here. Uh both to that approach, we might look to do some sort of pork chopshaped island on that approach itself. Uh such that if this median doesn't do the full job of that channelization anymore, an
additional feature over here could. Uh additionally, we would take another look at the crosswalk location. Right now, we really like the current crosswalk location because both of these intersections are right in, right out. Uh that might shift, you know, to one side or the other uh wherever we believe there's the least conflict if this
median were to open further in that area. So, there's little tweaks that could be made um >> to maintain the overall function. >> At at our engineering meeting when we discussed this at length, we talked about implementing, you know, this at a later date
potentially. we have the equipment to um pilot it again after the other improvements are done. Um I still feel that way even given your analysis. I did read it. Um and I I still think it would be something that we could study further
after the improvements are made. Most importantly, I think the stop, the allway stop at Elmwood and the allway stop forthcoming at Oak View is um particularly something that could have such a positive impact that this becomes
less problematic than it is today. Do you have any thoughts on this being piloted without those other improvements having been done? Um I think when the other improvements are in, it would certainly improve the condition um both before and after if
this change were to be considered. So yes, certainly we're not seeing the full uh benefit of the other improvements in the area yet. That is certainly true. >> I I think there was a benefit though that running the pilot now before those benefits are added now we could compare and contrast if if we end up extending
this pilot. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. Anybody else want to say anything thoughts? >> So, if you were to do that second um plan, um yeah, I'm I'm looking at that
crosswalk in between and is that >> there's a there's a black crosswalk and there's a gray crosswalk. Is the gray one being taken out? >> Yeah. So, the gray ones are the existing crosswalks. Um, under the current plan on the screen, uh, the crosswalk across
prospect was being relocated to this location, primarily as a result of the right and right out change to both sides. If that change is not made in totality on the south side, uh, we would likely either leave this crosswalk where it is or put it on the south side or both. We'd have to review that further,
but I think the central location would most likely not be the choice under that scenario. >> Okay. Yeah. I so traveling on Prospect and then turning left onto Oakland Road is one of the approaches to the high school that is used in the drop off. So
I can understand >> the need for that and I I I somewhat like the idea of allowing that. But on the other hand, um so I drove around this area, Mr. Kitner, that was a great idea. I drove quite a quite a bit around
here and I saw a lot of cars going right o driving right over the median. And so yeah, they went from like Oakland Road and took a left on a Prospect and right right over it. And um so what really concerns me is that, you know, if we
were to open up that, you know, to allow that left-hand turn onto Oakland Road, then um I could see a lot of funny business happening with cars sort of going around the median and, you know, or going over it. It just I mean
>> Yeah. And I don't like the pork chop median in the middle. >> Yeah. I I mean I kind of feel like >> we either do the whole thing or we don't because but even if we do, >> you know, there's got to be I mean obviously >> education and enforcement go along with
it, right? The three E. But like >> um >> yeah, I'm worried that if we open up part of it, it just won't be as effective. But you know um I don't know. I I hear Miss Adams also, you know, talking about, you know, once we put in
these other elements, you know, like the four-way stop sign. And I'd be curious to know like how does how is that going to affect, you know, affect it? So, yeah, I'm I'm interested others think. >> Yeah. I I think we're overengineering
this road >> and um I am in favor of not doing this. >> Engineers like to engineer. No offense, Mr. D. I think that >> taken >> it's a difficult it's a difficult intersection. We know that. But um we we
made earlier decisions about drop offs around the high school that are predicated on getting into Kensington and North Terrace. Um this makes it very difficult to do that. And
I I think that we we don't know the full impact. you you haven't spoken at all about how many more cars ended up on um North Terrace, Franklin Terrace. You talked about cars making a left, but we
don't you didn't give us anything coming. I just think it's overengineering and I'm not in favor of it. >> So, um Miss Collins Golding, Mr. Davis, >> I agree with that.
Uh so I think we're not in agreement with moving forward with this part of the plan right now. As I said, we can, you know, see what the effects once the improvements are in and then we can test it out again if we want since we already bought the equipment.
>> Yep. Understood. And I think it's worth noting um you know when we remove this from the plan, there's nothing that would be done otherwise that would in any way preclude it in the future. So, the door is still open to it. Um, if there's ever an appetite for it. >> Okay, great. Next, uh, decision item.
>> Sure. >> Yeah. The next decision is the uh, Presbyterian Church, the Prospect Presbyterian Church, whether we have a a shared lane, a dedicated bike lane, or a shared sidewalk. >> So, I'd like to say something about
this. Um, I've been, you know, a strong proponent of leaving the parking here for church purposes. Um, complete streets means not to do away with autos. Autos need to and people who
travel by auto need to be accommodated too. and the way in which you access the church's um ramps and handicap accessibility uh mechanism in there is to go through off
of Prospect Street, not off of Tuscan. Having said that though, um when I met with Mr. weary. On Monday, I did he and I did take a look at one suggestion that did come up and that was
to add more parking on Tuscin. Yeah, we talked >> and there is now I believe you've sent me something that that could accommodate five additional cars that we could eliminate the parking in front of the
church on Prospect by adding five stops, five spots on Tuscin that could serve the church with the understanding that the when the church has a need for handicapped drop off. They now put a
sign out there that says, you know, handicap drop or handicap parking that we could talk to the church about the times that they need to have someone pull into that bike lane for a handicap drop off. Just like we're saying UPS can
drop off or the oil company can drop off that someone could drop off a handicap uh passenger to be able to um exit and get into the church. So then that would lead me to believe to take the position
that we could eliminate parking on Prospect by adding parking on Tuskcen. That's not listed here as an option because it's kind of new. >> Where would you add it? There's Can you Can you show that? Do you have that? >> Where people?
>> Yeah. So, it it would be toward the bottom of the page here kind of outside the limits of this survey. If you like, I can pull up sort of a a Google map. >> Yeah. No, >> there's a no parking sign and which is pretty far from the intersection. >> Y >> you'll see.
>> Let's see here. Well, that Tuskan um there are about six or seven cars that park all along Tuskan right next >> This would be an additional five that you could put there. Okay. Because you >> Yeah. So, the existing no parking sign starts fairly far from the intersection. It would essentially be converting that space to
>> Can you make that Can you make that larger? >> Yeah. I'm going to try to find one maybe with less tree cover, too. Hold on. >> Yeah. What's this maplewood stuff? >> And I wrote this nice and wide so you can Mr. where you don't have your thing your
thing. Who sent me that? >> Patrick, do you have the diagram that you worked up for us? >> Yes, I had a sketch here. Let me put this uh aerial on the screen briefly. >> Oh, that works too. >> Yeah. So, it's really this space in the front that we're talking about. Um, so
based on our measurement from where the parking currently ends to where we think, you know, it could reach without impacting the intersection, we think there's room for about five additional in that area. >> People park there now. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's what I was going to say. I thought that was allowed. >> No, it's not allowed. >> There's always cars parked there.
>> No, no. There's cars parked generally from that sign back. >> It's usually from the sidewalk uh east and then the spaces that you're talking about currently have no stopping or standing. I don't know what that ordinance was, why that was there.
>> Well, now we would change it and we put we would strip. >> Well, yeah, I know. Just wondering about the >> So is that So would you go into some of the grass and create more pavement? I would have to >> would have to >> cuz I think that little >> it would be a restriping of the existing road. It's a fairly consistent width
here. So where the parking is permitted now. Uh it would be that same layout moving forward. Uh perhaps this center line would shift over a little bit um you know right before the intersection, but in general it's just striping within the existing road. So, so how would that affect that slip
lane there? >> Well, like you there would still be room. There would be room for the parking and also for the car to go. >> Yeah, it would stop prior to that slip lane. So, right where this sort of sidewalk connection comes out, that's where we were envisioning it ending.
>> So, yeah, I so I talked to the the church a little bit. Um they had a there was a garage sale right there and um I guess they're they're They don't have handicap like official handicap signs.
>> They put out their own signs. And I think the different there is a difference between dropping off and parking there. And I think dropping off would be absolutely allowed. Like we allow you know short Amazon drivers to drop off and food delivery drivers. So
absolutely we would allow handicap drop off anywhere. That would be, you know, we should make sure that's also in the Parker Avenue ordinance. But, um, >> it is. >> Yeah. So, um, um, I like this I this suggestion
because I've been driving that intersection and I always see at least one car there. Sometimes I see more, but even if it's not just on Sundays, like during church hours, but there's a lot of activity that happens in that building. So, there's always at least one car there, >> too, right? They have a the child care.
Yeah. >> The pre the preschoolers generally come in the back. Some people do park on Prospect, >> but most of the people park in the back. >> Most park on Bowden and on T. >> Yeah. And this would allow a few more of them, but certainly for when the scouts meet, when there's there's other civic
activity, community groups, things they do meet there. The church is is used a lot in addition to just Sunday, but we we could provide them another equivalent on street parking spots to what we're taking away in the front
there. And that we could then solve that by not not implementing the shared lane or the shared sidewalk is complicated because it might require trees comes down. Um there's also some uh fire plugs
there, hydrants there. So that is a little more difficult. This makes it a lot simpler to extend the parking on Tuskcen and eliminate the parking on Prospect. >> Then they can also park on the on the other side on the other street because I always park on the other side. Um >> not anymore.
>> I do park, you know, >> so you can't >> not anymore on Prospect. >> Park there and walk. >> Oh, on the You're talking about the Crescent? >> Yeah. I just >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> That's another option. >> All right. So, I don't think we need >> There was another suggestion made at some point to put angled parking on the
top of Crescent because that might fit more cars that that just >> I think that's a different discussion for another time. >> Uh >> but I I like your suggestion. So if it sounds like all of us are fine if you remove the parking on Prospect and augment it with the parking on Tuscin
and then I don't think we need to discuss the shared sidewalk because not only is that more complicated, it's also more money. >> So Mr. Downey, you good? >> Yep. I think we're clear. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Quicker than you thought, right? Um next decision point. >> Yes. The next decision point is the Springfield A intersection. Whether we maintain the three existing southbound lanes and remove the dedicated bike lane through the intersection or whether we
have a dedicated bike lane with two travel lanes and we could discuss the mix if that's the case of left, straight and right lanes. >> So I have a question and Mr. Downey, in your your memo to us or the memo we got from you, it talks about it changes the
level of service there to D and E. What is that mean? >> Adam. >> Sure. So level of service is um essentially a qualitative scale that traffic capacity is rated on. Uh so when you hear traffic impact studies, a lot of times the results are expressed in
that level of service. It's a letter grading scale. uh A being the best, F being the worst, just like school. Um so what we're really seeking to avoid here with changes like this is things that degrade the level of service too far, particularly something that would degrade it uh to a level of service F.
So there's certainly some trade-off here happening with this change uh going from three lanes to two. uh one mitigating factor that would go hand inand with that is to give that approach a little bit more green time to offset that uh change in the no build or existing
condition that approach is a level of service D both in the morning and the afternoon uh with this change and that additional green time it would remain a D in the morning uh it would get to an E in the afternoon uh but critically doesn't reach an F so there is some uh
additional delay in queuing for that approach with this change um But we think it's manageable, ultimately something that would be worthwhile uh for the safety benefit that it it gets you uh with that bike lane addition. >> Have you talked with uh have you considered any timing changes on the
light at that intersection to allow for a longer time for traffic on Prospect to cross? >> Yes, that's what I was trying to describe. So along with this um because it has fewer lanes, we would be looking to change the timing of the light to give some additional time to the
prospect. >> Okay. >> That was that's the county, right? >> No, that's us. We just tell them what to do. >> Oh, >> they're just our people. >> Yeah. >> They're just our guys. >> Okay. >> So, even though we're eliminating the parking, we are reducing the amount of
lanes we have. >> No, there's no parking there now. So that's the right turn lane where you see the green there. >> There's no >> Yeah. So underneath in the gray >> on that side. Yeah. >> You see the right the through and the left that's there today. So it's going from those three to uh you know two.
>> Okay. >> And that frees up the additional width. >> Yep. >> So what I like about having the bike lane here is we don't continue a dedicated bike lane south of Springfield Avenue. And yet that community does
bike. there are kids there that bike to school from there. Um, and I feel like this this gives a safe gives a safer passage across Springfield Avenue to the Hilton neighborhood. Um, and so that's that's
what I like about this because it make otherwise without having that bike lane getting the bikers across Springfield, um, they're just kind of left on their own. So it kind of peters out and then they would have to, you know, either go up on the sidewalk and use the
crosswalk, but it just makes it a lot less safe. Um, and so I would be in favor of the keeping the bike lanes in this intersection. >> Me too. >> Anybody else? >> Me three.
>> Okay. Do you have your decision there? >> Yep. I think we're clear. Thank you. >> Okay. Mr. Kitner, next. >> Thank you. The fourth decision point in that drawing is actually considering
eliminating several parking spaces. I believe it's two parking spaces on the opposite side of Springfield Avenue to continue the bike lane through prior to it actually transferring to a shared lane.
>> Mr. Danny, you want to just point to that maybe? So, just to illustrate what that would be, um, currently everywhere south of Springfield Avenue has one lane each direction, one shared lane and parking on the southbound side. So, um, technically it's legal throughout this block. However, a lot of the block is
eaten up by driveway openings. So, really what you have here is two to three existing parking spaces in this area that I'm hovering, uh, between those driveways and Springfield Avenue. um in order to continue the bike lanes through the intersection to actually reach the south side. Uh those parking
spaces would need to be eliminated. That would free up the room to carry the southbound bike lane through at least for this block and similarly to develop the bike lane uh within this block so that it exists prior to the intersection. Um so that is essentially the kind of the trade-off on the table
is those two spaces uh and what they would gain for you if they were to be eliminated. And these spaces are right next to a lot. Correct. There is a a parking lot right there. >> Yes. So these driveway openings with the in and out arrows is the parking lot.
>> Yeah. >> They were they were they were used a lot more when the drugstore was there as people pulled in there, ran into the drugstore. There's still a fair amount of parking that goes on there, but I think it does make sense to do that. But
Mr. Mr. D, I just want to be clear about the the northbound lane is still a shared lane, correct? >> Yes. >> So, this northbound lane uh and southbound, they're both shared under this scenario. If that parking were to be removed, what we would actually have
the ability to do is shift the center line over somewhat um so that we use up that bike lane or the parking lane width to put bike lanes on both sides. So, if that parking eliminated, you could get bike lanes both sides in this area.
Oh, okay. You think there's enough room there for that? >> I don't understand that at all. >> Yes, we've got um 11:22. Don't like doing public math. 30 ft here. Uh between the parking and the two lanes. 30 ft would be enough to develop
uh 5 foot bike lanes each side and 10 foot travel lanes each side. So, between the 8t from the parking, one ft from each of the travel lanes, you would have the room uh for those lanes. And how far back would you start the bike lane where the uh
>> I guess wherever it is I guess where that where almost the the driveway is to the parking lot there. >> Yeah, I would say roughly half this block. We would need to eventually transition it back prior to the intersection to the existing configuration. Um but enough to develop
the approach. Uh likely a bike box to mirror the bike box on the southbound approach. Uh similarly in the departing direction from the intersection most likely about half the block before then merge was back in. >> Okay. >> Can you can you tell us again um
the space you're giving the size of space you're given for the bike lane and the cars on either side and the other side for the bike lane just uh the >> Sure. So it would be we have uh essentially 30 ft to work with here. So that would be enough for 15 ft on each
side. That would be a 10-ft travel lane and a 5ft bike lane. Just to actually put that in perspective here on the southbound approach, we have five foot bike lanes with two 10-ft lanes in the southbound direction. So, it's essentially that configuration, just
that rightmost lane in the bike lane in both directions. >> So, it's 10, 10, five, and five. >> Yes. And I guess that's the standard. Is that um is that the standard or slightly bigger to give room for um bigger cars
or trucks? I'm just wondering is that the 10 10 5 and 5 is standard? >> So for the majority of the project, we've been holding 11T travel lanes just to have a little bit additional comfort for larger vehicles, etc. uh in a few locations, you know, such as the Springfield Avenue area, um really where
we have tighter conditions, we have small sections that reduce to 10 just to bridge those gaps between 11, which is acceptable. I mean, 10 ft is used. Um so it would be acceptable for the lower volume southern section uh over here uh to make those bike lanes uh be
accommodated, >> but that's a heavy travel area and the trucks on that road. So when you allocate 10 feet and you have 11 foot a truck that takes us the space slightly wider. What do we do? >> So, let me just make sure I understand the
question. The question is about trucks on the south side of Prospect south of Springfield Avenue. >> Well, you said 10 ft 10 feet, right? And you said typically is 11 ft >> or you know slightly bigger trucks. So if we have a truck that comes and is 11 ft, how do we fit that comfortably with
a biker? >> Right? So fitting within the lane going straight would be okay. It's really what happens is when they need to make turns, a lot of the times they will sort of wiggle closer to those lines. Um I think the important thing to remember here is we're sort of a balancing act between
all the users. So if we essentially hold ourselves to that standard for the occasional scenario of a truck, we're giving up the accommodation for the cyclists every other hour of the day. So in my opinion, the five foot bike lanes with 10 foot
travel lanes for a small section like this is worthwhile for what it gains you all the rest of the time. >> And it's probably worth noting most trucks are 8 to 8 and 1/2 ft in width. So, even with the 10- foot lane, you
still can accommodate the truck. >> Yeah. Um, can you clarify like I'm looking at the street on Google Maps right now and um >> are you saying remove the parking spaces and then add bike lanes or like Mr. Duca
asked before, see, I just don't I don't see so on both sides. It doesn't make any sense to me. >> I'm sorry. No problem. >> So, if this parking lane were eliminated,
>> we would be able to shrink that lane from 8 to 5 just to make it a bike lane. So, that moves the southbound line over. It moves the the center line over and that provides enough room to provide the complimentary bike lane in the
northbound direction. You know, right now it's not a symmetric road here because you have the parking on one side. We would make it symmetric. We would put the center line right down the middle, 15 feet on both sides. That would be allocated 10 to the lane, five to the bike lane.
>> It it it gives a portion of the block the refuge of a bike lane. >> And then, you know, it allows them some space to transition to the shared lane. That's essentially what it does through the intersection. The refuge of a dedicated bike lane before they have to
transition. Yeah, I think we're I think we got the when you're traveling south, >> right? But >> the question is traveling north, how do you get that bike lane on the northbound side? >> Plus you plus if you're shifting over
the center line, you're also um disaligning, if that's a word, uh the bike lane on the north side of of Springfield heading north onto Prospect. So it's not lined up. So I guess I just
I'm not sure I see the benefit. I think what's nice about the sherro starting on the other side of the intersection is that it's it's a definitive stop as opposed to waiting until you get past to the parking lot
and then suddenly you're in a sher if that makes any sense. But on the other hand, removing those parking spaces leaves more space for the sher. So, an effective bike lane in some cases, but not a designated bike lane.
>> I think this makes sense and and gives it more of a like a you get across the intersection and you don't have co bikes like stopping right on the other side of the intersection or you know, it just it just makes it safer. You you get across then there's a you know, and then you
you can get into the travel lane. Um, >> so are you saying that you you prefer the sheros are right there in that block half block? Yeah. >> No, no, no, no. The dedicated bike lane that that goes into the sherro. I think it makes it makes a ton of sense because
then you go straight across the intersection. >> Yeah. And a bike lane. I mean, you have to kind of like picture it. >> Yeah. I think I think >> and then um and then it will go into a sher. But um I mean, we've got a parking lot right there. Um, we've got a
different tenant going in there. >> Well, I'm not worried about the um parking. I'm just worried about the space. >> Would it help to see this marked up so that you can see that it's fits? I mean, it sounds to me like it fits. And if he's done the measurements,
>> yeah, I Well, I don't know about the I know where he he's showing the measurements there. He's not showing the measurements at the corner, right? >> Have you measured the corner? Yeah, this block is fairly consistent at that 30 feet width.
>> I think it's tight. And I think the fact that you said that uh based on the traffic, maybe, you know, we'll have some bikers, maybe we'll have it depends on the traffic we have. I don't know what your traffic studies show, but that's a pretty busy street. >> Yeah.
>> And you know, 10 compared to 11 ft, it would have been better if it was 11. 10 is like really tiny. And those cars are racing down that street. We have a school right down the street is just >> it's just a lot of activity. >> It's a lot happening and I think it's a
good concept, but the fact that we have the bike lanes, you know, taking 5T 5T and you get another 10 to 10, >> the cars are going to be tight. >> Is it part of traffic calming for you? Is that part of what we want to do in that area? You're thinking that would slow down traffic a bit?
So, let's let's make sure we all we we can agree on things that >> is there anyone who disagrees that to have that where the parking is now should become a bike lane so that when you come across Springfield you're still in a bike lane and then you can
gradually enter into a shar >> agree. >> Yes, I like that. >> Yeah, I disagree. >> I like that idea. >> You you disagree? I disagree with it because of what Miss Collins Colding was saying and that it's there's a lot of activity there like trucks pulling over and stuff. I just don't
>> I don't understand why this delineation that we were all fine with a minute ago is now not except not as good. It's you're putting a a bike lane in for like how many feet, Mr. Downey? Like >> 100 feet. >> 100 feet
>> around that. And then and then now you're going to transition to a bike lane to a sherrow in the middle of a block by an by an exiting um parking lot by a street as opposed to right across in a fresh start
on that street. I think it's too busy at that corner personally. >> And I'm not I'm not suggesting >> Yeah, I think it's >> the bike lane on the other side. I'm just suggesting the bike lane on that side. >> Right. >> But Mr. Downey, you're suggesting a bike lane on both sides.
>> He It doesn't matter what he decides. It's us. It's us. So, I'm I'm trying to take this parcels. >> So, the question is, are we okay with this bike lane on the top side? >> Yeah.
>> The west side as a transition lane for about 100 feet. >> I'm a yes on that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are we okay with reducing the lanes and creating a bike lane on the opposite side? And I'm a no on that
because >> because I think the turning radius there at the corner and I think the number of trucks and other vehicles there do not accommodate a 10- foot wide lane. I think you need and there's absolutely no
reason to create a bike lane. We have there's no transition there. You're in a shar all the way. You get to Springfield Avenue and then you pick up the the bike lane on the other side of the block. >> Right. Which what you would >> So the whole thing would just be a shar
>> going north. >> Going north. Yeah. >> As it is now because it's going to be a shar from the Union border, >> right? >> Why wouldn't you just have it consistent a shar on both side instead of one side? >> Because the four of us said that we're okay. >> I understand that Mr. Duca. Okay. Stop.
>> Well, you keep bringing it up. >> Well, oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was just a discussion that we're supposed to discuss. >> And we are, but when we make a decision, we move on to the next decision. So, the question is the the north side going north,
>> right? And Mr. Kitner and Mr. Downey, you both think that that is feasible to have a bike lane there, too. In light of what you said, you said yes, there's trucks, but the trucks are
mostly 8 to 9 ft. You still have that additional feet, additional foot as a buffer, so you don't have a concern on the north side. Is that correct? >> The the the bike lanes are five feet and
the travel lanes are 10 feet. Um, you know, there's sufficient room for vehicles and trucks. I mean, you know, the whole purpose of narrowing lanes is to provide some friction and slow traffic down, >> right? >> So, can the trucks fit? They absolutely can fit. Mr. Danny, what are your
thoughts on on this configuration, the widths? >> Yeah. So, Paul, I would agree with you. I wouldn't take issue with the 5ft bike leads and 10 foot lanes. Just to be clear that we're not overstating anything as well. I'm also fine with the layout that's currently on the screen.
uh particularly because this southern section south of Springfield has dramatically lower volumes than the north section. It's why we've been more open to a shallow condition in the southern section for the project to begin with. So, it's not as though either option is bad. Um either one is
sound from an engineering perspective in my opinion. And I think there was a third proposal and that was the two that that was the dedicated lane uh on the southbound side and then and uh going on the northbound side you would you would
have a shared lane right a shar. So, if you had just one bike lane, in theory, the travel lanes could be expanded in width, right? Because there the the northbound lane would be as shar. >> Yes. You'd essentially have five more
feet to play with. So, you could have wider lanes. Yeah. >> So, out of the three, what is what is your recommendation in terms of efficiency, safety? Yeah, I think personally I think either
the option on the screen with the parking maintained or the option to add bike lanes. Both make sense to me once you remove the parking. It seems like you're leaving something on the table not to get both bike lanes when there is room for both. So, personally, I'm not the largest fan of
that idea. Uh, if you were to only provide a bike lane in one direction, I would even think the approaching direction might be more important because it allows you the opportunity to have the bike box which gets the bikes to the front. Um, similar even to the Parker signal further north on the plan.
Uh, in that situation, we were again constrained only with room for one bike lane. Uh, and the one that was selected was the one approaching the intersection for that reason. So, um, I think either this one or the double bike lane would be the most logical.
Okay. >> Oh yeah, the bike box. Get that >> because Yeah, you would have the bike box and Right. So I just find that there was >> we were with you there for quite some time and then you kind of like >> run >> messed it up. Um so so you're recommend
because we're only looking at I think we covered the southbound side, right? We're looking at the northbound side. That's where I think we may not have consensus or we need additional clarification andor security. So, what we're talking about is just the
northbound side. >> I think if you already made the decision to remove the parking for the southbound bike lane, you might as well add the northbound one. >> That would be my suggestion. >> Yeah, that's what I think. >> Right. And create a dedicated bike lane
along there as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, that's your recommendation. >> Yes, that's that's what that was your recommendation before is to create parking um bike lanes on both sides with 10 foot lanes. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> So, we've already agreed that we would create the one on the north side. On the south side, I I'm sorry, a northbound Dean. >> On the south side, we said yes. I also agree on the northbound side. >> Yeah. So do I. I think it keeps it
consistent and gives it the bike the bike box in the front and allows people to line up >> going across. >> I'm only on the southbound side. >> I have another question. Is there a place in town where we have 10 105 and 5
successful in uh the same thing that you're proposing here? Is there another road in town that we've done this? >> No. This is the only road we're going to do. The this um >> No, we have we have 10. >> We have another road that >> in other places >> we might have 10 on Parker Parker side
of valley. >> And how's that working out? That's the part that's not bike lane, right? >> No, that's part of bike lane >> because we got to look at >> what we've done. Um if we're going to put it here, we can look at the data from the other side. Have we done this somewhere else?
>> Certainly 10 foot lanes have been done elsewhere in town. Even for reference, these existing southbound lanes, these three lanes, they're even narrower than 10. They're about nine or nine and a half right now. Um, >> I didn't understand anything you said the bottom. You got to read the bottom if you can because it's the audio is
terrible. >> Yeah, if you >> My apologies. >> Yeah, >> 10 foot lanes. I'm sure there are a multitude of locations in town uh that have 10 foot lanes. Even the existing southbound lanes at this very intersection, these are narrower than 10 feet right now in the existing
condition. um 10-ft lanes adjacent to 5 foot bike lanes. There may be certain sections of Parker that have that. I'd have to check. Other than that, I don't think there are really many other bike lanes in town, period. So, um it would be hard to point to a specific situation where
this has been done before unless one of the blocks from Parker did. See, even if we didn't put that bike lane on that other side, I still would be in favor of reducing it to 10 feet for the for the car lanes because then it matches up on the other side. And the
whole point is reducing the lane width reduces the speed of the cars. It's trafficing traffic calming features and so it makes it safer >> and so um I think that's one of the good features about it actually. >> So did you weigh in? Nope. I I agree
with Mr. Downey on the fact that it should be consistent on the northbound and southbound lanes, which is what I was saying before. So, I'm fine with the bike lanes on both. I still prefer the sheriffs, but obviously that's not it. So, >> okay. There's three people that say both
sides. You want to weigh in, Miss Collins Golding? >> Uh, not really. I don't think we have enough data to squeeze that. It'll be tight. I I know that road is going to be really tight and I'm just concerned. >> Okay. >> One side seems fine to me, but both
sides it's going to be a tight road. >> Okay. So, let's just go down this. So, Oakland Road >> doesn't sound like we're going to move forward with that. Prospect Street, >> we're going to add those street parking on Tuskcen. Springfield intersection.
We're going to reduce it to two lanes and we're going to have bike lanes on both sides of the southbound side of Springfield. And >> yes, >> that's what we prospect. Okay. >> Do we have any other decision points or is that >> I do have one question that came up when
I was reading this. Um, we now have speed humps at River, I'm sorry, at Lexington, between Lexington and Franklin and between Franklin and Hilton. And you want to put speed tables. Could you explain why speed
tables instead of speed humps? >> Good question. >> Sure. Uh so really the two reasons we generally prefer speed tables. Um first and foremost is that they are easier to construct correctly. So you often get the product you're intending to get. The
reason being it's a series of just three straight lines that make up the speed table. The ramp up, the flat top, and the ramp down. uh forming the speed humps is sometimes challenging for the contractors to get the proper shape. Uh it's a parabola. It's just a a more
essentially more complex shape. So sometimes they come out a little more severe or a little more gradual than what was actually intended. Uh second is the speed tables are a little bit more uh gradual. They take place kind of over a longer distance. So, they still achieve, you know, the speed control you
would want for this type of block, but they're a little less um you know, cumbersome just for the daily resident use uh or emergency vehicle use. >> If if I could just add, there's one there's one other difference, and that's the size of each one. The speed hump is
shorter in cross-section, so it's a little easier to fit in between driveways uh for, you know, both residents on both sides. So sometimes it's a little easier to fit the speed humps versus the speed tables. >> So we have been living with speed humps
and I urge us not to go to speed tables. >> Mhm. >> We've had speed humps there. They work. We told the people we were going to have speed humps and then all of a sudden I see speed tables. Um I don't think speed tables
work. There's we have speed table. South Orange has speed tables on Scotland Road. You don't even know you're going over them. >> Speed humps are very clear. You're going over them. >> Yeah. >> And I think the people there want speed humps. That's what we gave them. And I
don't think we should be changing what what's there now. >> I hate to agree with Mr. Duca, but I I >> Good. I knew it. I knew eventually I'd get to you. >> You know, humps and bumps are different.
>> Yes. Humps biggest bumps. >> We need humps. >> We want humps, not >> making sure we're >> And I think what Mr. Kitner said is absolutely right. You got too many curb cuts for driveways there. >> Um they don't match up, you're going to have problems. And I I don't see any reason to change what's there. It's
working. >> Yeah. >> I don't feel strongly. So >> about the speed tables. Is it traction? It does it stop the tire a bit? Does it give a little traction when the tire rise, >> but it lasts longer? So it's a little more gentle. Okay. So,
>> do you have that, Mr. Kitner and Mr. Downey? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we can make that adjustment. No problem. >> Absolutely. >> Do you have any other decision points for us to make? >> No, I hope not. >> It's 9:59. >> I don't believe we do.
>> All right. Great. Thank you so much for uh for all the clarity and everything. >> Good night, gentlemen. Thank you. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Consent agenda. I'll move the consent agenda. >> I second it. >> Call the RO. >> M. Adams, >> yes. >> Collins Cing, >> yes.
>> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Sherman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Okay. Second public comment. There's no one in the room. Please check online. >> Lost everybody on the internet. >> Any members of the public joining us via Zoom would like to speak on any subject
matter? Please raise your hand. >> I see no hands. Mayor Okay. Uh, with that, can we >> I move we adjourn. Second. >> We'll meet again on Tuesday, July 7th. Please. Oh, >> you want to go into close? Oh, we got
>> Oh, we have to go back into closed. >> Oh, thank you very much. >> So, we cannot adjourn now. >> Yes. >> We need a motion to go back into close because before this meeting, we had >> move we go back into closed. >> Second. >> We had to go we had to um discuss some
legal matters. So, we're and personnel matters and we're going to go back in to finish that discussion. Been moved and seconded. Please call the role. >> I think I'll read the statement and then we'll call the role. Mayor, >> uh whereas section 8 of the open public meetings act, chapter 231, public laws
1975 permits exclusion of the public from meeting in certain circumstances whereas this public body is of the opinion that such circumstances presently exist. Now therefore be it resolved by township committee, township of Maplewood and County of Essex State, New Jersey as
follows. The public shall be excluded from discussion upon any action of the hearing specified subject matter general nature of the subject matter discussed as follows personnel and
>> litigation >> and litigation. It's anticipated at this time that the above stated subject matter would be made public. Uh, it's been moved and seconded. We will be going into closed. At the conclusion of closed, we will not be
coming back out here. We will adjourn from the conference room. Please call the role. >> Mr. Adams, >> yes. >> Collins Colding, >> yes. >> Mr. Daffis, >> yes. >> Furman, >> yes. Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you.