Uh, welcome to a special meeting of the Maplewood Township Committee, Wednesday, March 11th, 2026. Um, this meeting is also on Zoom. And um, I'm going to read the 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, >> Miss Adams here, Miss Collins Golding >> here. >> Mr. Daffus,
Miss Herman, >> present. >> Mayor Duca >> here. >> Mr. Harris, chapter 231, public laws of 1975, commonly known as the open public meetings act requires that all means of 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 is desire of the governing body to comply with the provision of this act same time to
conduct its business in an orderly and expeditious manner. Now therefore be resolved by the township committee, township of Mapwood that it's hereby prohibited except to set forth in a formal agenda active participation in the deliberations of the governing body by the public and
except as otherwise described by law those limit the public to the observations of the actions and discussions of the governing body over its regular and special meetings. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Madams, >> yes. Miss Collins Cing,
>> yes. >> Miss Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you. Um, please join us in a salute to the flag. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
>> and to the republic for it stands nation and justice for all. Again, good evening everyone. We are going to um have public comment in just a moment. And uh again, you can speak on these agenda items. There are also
public hearings at these agenda item at each individual agenda items. You'll be able to speak at that time. Also, >> Mr. Mayor, before we proceed, just if I could make a supplemental note for the record about the notice for this meeting. >> Um, because it is a special meeting,
there was also additional notice posted with respect to the time and place and agenda for this meeting. It was posted on the township website. the special notice as well as all of the ordinances and the notices of their uh introduction
and carry were posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building on the evening of March 3rd. >> Thank you. >> Um we're going to start with public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address the township committee? >> We ask that you give us your name and
your address and you have three minutes. Hello, Andrew Nagger, 10 reinder road. Um, the 75 unit uh building in the area 1744 Springfield Avenue is
being proposed. This is a project style project which in the past we've had projects before of this scale
large sizes in the New York New Jersey area. This is inconsistent with the spirit of integrating affordable housing throughout the entire
township of Maplewood. Having such large units being put together in places is a is a process of segregation instead of integration.
and it is direct conflict with the entire spirit of having affordable housing throughout the entire township of Maplewood. That includes the west side of of Maplewood,
west of the train tracks, as well as being on the wrong side of the train tracks. These affordable housing units should be equitably equitably distributed
across both sides of the train tracks. Um further furthermore, the residents on the west side of the train tracks, they may not want to have affordable housing families going to their elementary schools. Okay, this may
be what's driving this whole process here because in this ordinance, there isn't one single property here that's on the west side of the train tracks. And from what we heard last week, there's only one affordable housing unit that
exists on the west side of the train tracks. So it doesn't it is unfair to exclusively put the elementary schools which on the which are on the wrong side of the train tracks with the responsibility of all of
these affordable housing units. They should be equitably distributed across the elementary schools on the west side of train tracks as well as on the wrong side of train tracks. Now another thing I discussed last week.
So 2144 that is also known as the propheta building. >> You have 10 seconds. >> Okay. Yeah. As soon as I mentioned the propheta building then my then my time ran ran up. Right. My understanding Mr. Duca you were you
worked with Fred Proffetta on this township committee in 2007. Is that is that accurate? >> Thank you very much. Your time is up. I think the township committee should ask these questions. He he he refuses to answer these questions. I think the township committee should understand
what the relationship has been with Fred Preretta. >> Your time is up, sir. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> If there's any conflict of interest, there should be a recusal on this vote. >> Thank you. Anyone else want to address the township committee? >> Be rejected. >> Hi again, Riley. Also, Ten Windsor Road.
Um once again on the overlay ordinance just my comments um similar to Mr. teenager. Um, just again equitable. It feels doesn't feel equitable. It feels like everything's on train tracks, whatever we want to use as a divide. Seems like everything is located on one
in one section of Maplewood versus another section. So, just I guess it was the Mount Laurel doctrine, just making sure it's equitably distributed um within the township. So, we all participate in in in housing. Um, and then the other thing is I know that the
last time we were here, the traffic and all the surveys and studies for the location are done after the fact once you know if there's a building going in and who's going to be there and everything. But I would just say that um I think that should be cons that still needs to be considered when passing this
ordinance, especially for the property on Milbour Avenue because that is in a really terrible place to include have 75 more units. you already have an apartment building across the street and I just just coming here there was a lot of traffic. So I think traffic and
congestion all play a important role as does the lighting and the shade and all those homes that are right there. All that needs to be considered about the location, the proximity to the homes um on Minja Road as well as Melman Terrace um all in that area there. So I think
that needs to really be considered and I really do hope that you could vote against this ordinance and we've got time. Let's just find some other places within Maplewood um to identify. I understand we have to meet certain requirements for New Jersey. That's no problem. I don't have any problem with
fair housing. It's just huge units so close to residential property. We bought that was commercial property and to turn into residential property when we've all been there for so many years really changes our lifestyle. So I would ask you to seriously consider that when making your decisions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else want to address the township committee? Again, these are going to be there will be public hearings on each ordinance and there'll be an opportunity to speak on each ordinance in addition to the time right now. Is there anyone else who would like
to address the township committee? Okay. Is there anyone on Zoom who would like to address the township committee? >> If anyone on Zoom would like to address the township committee, please raise your hand. I see no hands. Mayor, >> thank you. Okay, we're going to close the public comment period. There is a
second one at the end of the meeting. And again, if you want to speak on a specific ordinance, you'll be given an opportunity during the time of a public hearing. Um, before we get into this, I'd just like to read a statement. Um, and before I get to the statement, just
remember that tonight we have a special meeting. We're going to be moving forward on um a number of ordinances on second reading public hearing and second uh and final passage. Um and then most of these three of them deal with
affordable housing. And then there's one on parking and that's it. Uh oh, and the storm water facility on Maple Terrace. Right. So, um and again, you'll be able to speak on any of those
ordinances as they come up. Uh so, I'd like to read a statement before we go forward. On March 8th, the developers 161 Maplewood Investors LLC issued a press statement and a set of frequently asked questions.
These developers, Reed Kaine and Octavio Mendes, are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The truth of the matter is that these developers have tried to maximize the number of units from the very first meeting with the township
on May 24th, 2024. At that time, they proposed an apartment building that included the bank property, movie theater, municipal parking lot, and the property at 11 Inwood Place. At the initial meeting, the developers
asked us to quote, "Partner with them by providing as much guidance as to what the township envisions." We gave them guidance that day, saying the building was too high and the massing too dense.
We told them our ceiling was 60 units an acre or about 100 total units for the entire redevelopment area. It appears the developers ignored our guidance when on January 14th, 2025.
They came back with a proposal for 140 housing units for the entire site. Again, we told them the project was too much and too dense for the village. And as to our vision, the township committee made it very
clear in its approval of the initial housing element and fair share plan on June 17, 2025. Quote, "The movie theater redevelopment study consists of the former Maplewood Theater, former Bank of America
property, commercial properties, and parking lot areas. The township envisions a density of up to 100 residential units to be constructed within the redevelopment area. The redevelopment of these
properties will allow multifamily residential development with an inclusionary 20% set aside or up to 20 affordable housing units to contribute to the fourth round unmet need. So what did these developers do?
Well, their lawyer wrote a letter to the township on May 15, 2025 proposing a development of 158 residential units for four properties in the redevelopment area. This included 32
affordable units on the sale of the movie. After the once the sale of the movie theater was off the table, these developers came back to us with a proposal for 85 total units just on two properties, the bank
building and the property at 11 Inwood Place. The building proposed was six stories high. The township rejected that density and agreed to a total of 65 apartments with
20% affordable. This included the property at 11 Inwood Place so that the height of the building could be within the 55 ft limitation set forth in the draft redevelopment plan and the building's massing could be
reduced. The township committee kept its word and asked the planning board to include 11 Inwood Place in the redevelopment area. The planning board rejected the inclusion of 11 Inwood Place.
Faced with that reality, the township committee had to act to protect its immunity from other developers seeking remedies, meaning that they can go beyond regulations in our building code. The township committee went back to the
initial housing element number of 100 units with 20 affordables. 50 total units were to be built on the bank site in the short term and 50 total units would be built in the future on
other properties in the redevelopment area. Of the 100 units, 20 would be affordable. What did the developers do? They threaten lawsuits. They continue to hide behind an easement
between the two properties. They they own an easement that the property owners could get rid of. They have not come to the table to discuss alternatives. These developers talk about the constitutional mandate of affordable
housing. We agree these developers should include more than 20% affordable units. They can build 100% affordable units if they want and the township will work with them to get that done. As to the claim that Maplewood is not
taking its affordable housing obligation seriously, let me share with you what the Fair Share Housing Center wrote in their filing with the court on August 30th, 2025. quote, "Maplewood
has made tremendous progress on its affordable housing obligations over the past decade. The Fair Share Housing Center hopes to work with Maplewood to continue that progress.
So, in conclusion, the township's housing element and fair share plan is solid and will produce affordable units over the next 10 years. These developers, Reed Kaine and Octtov
Octavio Mendes, should sit down with us and come up with a plan to get these affordable housing units built. All right. We have an ordinance on final.
>> Yes, mayor. Um, item number 6A, ordinance number 3181-26 is an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 150 housing affordable of the code of the township of Maplewood to address the requirements
of the Fair Housing Act, FHA, as amended and the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls UHAC as amended. regarding compliance with the township's affordable housing obligations and repealing any portion of
the township code inconsistent therewith. This ordinance will enact new affordable housing regulations within the township to reflect amendments to the Fair Housing Act and the Uniform Housing
Affordability Controls and to repeal any current township ordinance to the extent that it is inconsistent with those amendments. Uh, this ordinance has been published, 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? Ordinance number 31-26. >> You're not. You either can speak on this ordinance or you can wait for the next
public comment period. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this ordinance? Seeing no one here. Is there anyone on Zoom? If anyone on Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise your hand.
>> I see no hands. Mayor. >> Okay. Uh, can we get a motion? >> I move this ordinance be adopted as a whole. The clerk be directed to post post the same as a past ordinance in the township's website and town hall bulletin board according to the law.
>> I second. >> Any discussion? >> No. >> Please call the role. >> Miss Adams? >> Yes. >> Miss Collins Cing? >> Yes. >> Miss Herman? >> Yes. >> Mayor Duca? >> Yes. Thank you. We have another ordinance on final. >> Uh yes, Mayor. Item 6B, ordinance number
3182-26, is an ordinance to amend chapter 271, zoning and development regulations of the code of the township of Maplewood to address compliance with the township's affordable housing obligations by
establishing the affordable housing overlay one zone, AHO-1. This ordinance will amend section 271-70 zone requirements of article 5 zoning
provisions in chapter 271 zoning and development regulations of the code of the township of Mapwood to establish the affordable housing overlay one zone AHO-1 which shall include the following properties
88 Bernade Avenue identified as block 48.47 lot 5 1734-44 Springfield Avenue identified as block 30.04 04 lot 127
2128-2144 Milbour Avenue identified as block 21.12 lot 61 79 Denell Road identified as block 176 lot 161
275 Parker Avenue identified as block 42.08 8 lot 146, 2011 Springfield Avenue identified as block 29.04 lot 536
and 333 Elmwood Avenue identified as block 31 34 lot 4 on the township tax map. >> Thank you. Uh, this ordinance has been published, copies posted on the bulletin
board in the municipal building and copies made available to the general public in accordance with the law. This is the overlay ordinance which I think a number of you are here about. So, we're now going to open the public hearing. If anyone would like to come on up, just give us your name and your address.
Again, this is about this specific ordinance 3182-26. Um, good evening. Marta Figureroa 11 Cherry Place in Maplewood. Um, I live near the 275 Parker Avenue location and um, I know I and I believe some of my
neighbors were also intent on sending some public comment to the um, township committee as well as the planning board. So, um, I would like to request that um, that be considered as part of the formal
record. And honestly, I am so sorry, but I don't know what the formalities of this are. So, a question that I would have is when one sends something like that, does that become part of the formal record as part of this meeting or should we present?
>> I'm going to ask our attorney to inform us all. If if you have a statement, it would be preferable to read it into the record at this time because um in order for it to be considered part of the record that the township committee can consider in voting on the ordinance,
they'd have to have an opportunity to consider it. So, um just submitting it in writing wouldn't give them that opportunity before they cast their vote. >> I see. Okay. >> Do you want to read it? >> Well, actually, there is bad signal in
here, so I wasn't able to bring it down. want to read my hard copy of it. >> Oh, that would be excellent. >> This is from Presley. So, you just have to change the name. >> I appreciate. >> And it's not it's not formatted, but it's here. It starts here. >> Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. And
>> you want to restart the clock? >> Yeah. I don't think we need a clock on that public hearing. >> Me, too. All right, great. So again, Marta Figareroa 11 Cherry Place in Maplewood. Um so as
members of the committee of the neighborhood uh where 275 Parker is uh to be um I think slated for development including affordable housing. Uh we wanted to again state that um we are not
against the affordable housing in our neighborhood. We welcome that. Um however we would like uh the committee and the planning board to consider uh some requests to negotiate with the developer whomever that may be uh to
consider a reduction of bulk and intensity. Um so a total of uh 25 units we think is a lot for that location. Uh so we're proposing a cap of uh 15 to 18
units which uh would hopefully still allow uh for the five affordable uh units to be included into the building footprint yet allow us to address you know the hopefully the height. So, the height is another issue. We would like
the township and the planning board to consider requesting that the li the building be limited to 2.5 stories or 30 feet um at the at the um property line. Also allowing some buffer uh between um
the property and the uh other locations uh with landscaping and space. Um also to consider occupancy restrictions uh for the housing uh promoting senior housing um as part of the development uh
because it uh according to what we've seen in the data the allowing for senior housing will um reduce the amount of peak hour traffic since most hopefully those people would be retired. um also consider um doing a traffic impact study
for uh this location since I don't believe there has been one. So making sure that the developer does that and makes that available to the committee for review as well as the um as well as the neighbors. Um and uh also uh considering in general
um how the traffic is going to be coming in and out of that development is also of concern uh to the neighborhood since um you know there are a lot of gates and dead ends on that. and Parker is a very busy street including um you know some
uh bike lanes now or you know having the bike lane which we also uh support and would like uh to continue um you know promoting as a safe way of uh commuting in our neighborhood or getting around. So, in general, uh the the neighborhood
and the members of our neighborhood of the Hillrest uh road association would like uh the township and the planning board to consider uh and negotiation negotiation with the um developer and also encouraging uh the township and the
planning board uh to um promote participation of the neighbors as part of the negotiation. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the township committee on this ordinance on this particular ordinance?
>> Uh my name is Octavio Mendesh and um I have business in Meod. Um actually been in business in Mapood since 2007. And um I met Mayor Vic Luke prior to
that. Um my first interaction as a business person in Maple Wood with um Mayor Duke was a big disappointment because he came into my office to ask for a privilege information that was
supposed to be privileged and in the same evening was posted online and had to do with the women's club. Now my question in here is we keep doing the same thing. >> Is is this the ordinance? >> Is this with respect to the ordinance? This >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Um my my first question in here is regarding 333 Elmwood Avenue um which most people should know as the Winchester Gardens. I don't understand
why is this in here included with um fair housing um affordable housing because it's already there. It's a commercial uh business. they provide elderly care as most people knows. And um I'd like to know if this is another
intent to mislead the affordable housing the same way it was done during our negotiations when you were presented units to be built in the theater and at the same time you were already negotiating to rent the theater for
someone that wanted to use it as a movie theater. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else want to address the township committee on this ordinance? >> Yes, Andrew N your tender in the road again. Um, so I'm requesting that the
township delay voting upon this issue until an equal number of units have been identified on the west side of the township
uh west of the railroad tracks to give an indication that there is going to be an equitable distribution of the fair housing units and that it will not all be done on the wrong side of the tracks. Given the pattern that we've seen of
only one affordable housing unit having been created on the west side of the tracks, we have 10 years to do this. We can delay right now until we've identified a a number of other
uh positions so that we have a fair distribution of housing units on both sides other tracks. I don't see why there is any urgency to do this uh right now. So I am asking for a delay on this.
Now, furthermore, would would it be fair to say that if anyone um on the township committee knows anyone who has an ownership interest in any of these properties,
would it be fair for them to recuse themselves from voting on this matter? >> That's a question. >> So, you're this is your opportunity to make comments. Okay. I cannot ask a question. >> You can ask questions. You may not get an answer.
>> Okay. I'm asking a question. Is it not fair that if any member of the township committee knows someone who has an ownership interest, whether it's in a limited liability corporation or in any type of owner ownership interest in any
of these properties, should they be required to recuse themselves from voting on this matter? Is that a a question for the attorney? >> So, we take our we take our legal advice from the our attorney. >> Okay. Is that Can I ask the the attorney a question?
>> No. You can make a comment about this ordinance. >> Do do any of the members of the township committee know anyone who has an ownership interest in any of the properties listed in this ordinance?
You can continue. Your time's going to get your time's going to get >> No one's going to answer. So, there may be someone on this township committee like maybe the Propheta building. Maybe someone on this township committee knows someone who has an ownership interest in
one of these properties in the ordinance because nobody's denying it. So, that means someone may have an ownership interest in it. Right, Mr. Duca? Someone might have an ownership interest in one of these pro know someone who has
an ownership interest in one of these properties. Is that possible? Mr. Duca, >> your time is up. >> Okay. I would ask the other township committee members to ask their other colleagues here and ask if they have an own if they know someone who has an ownership interest in it because
otherwise there's a direct conflict of interest and they should be recusing themselves on this matter. >> Could you stay there one second please? Did you stay there? >> Yes. >> You've come here twice and you've spoken about the west side of
town or the west side of the tracks and you've spoken about the wrong side of the tracks >> where we all live. >> And all four of us live on the east side of town. And I just want to tell you face to face that I object to your characterization
of the of the people of this community. >> Okay. I live on the east side of the tracks, too. Okay. But something's going on here when all of the proposals >> The only thing going on, sir. The only thing going on is in your head because
nothing's going on. >> Okay. Then let's then I'm asking for a delay until there are more >> properties identified on the east side of the tracks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else want to address the township committee on this particular
ordinance? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. See if there's anyone on Zoom. >> If anyone on Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise your hand. I'm moving Jennifer Smith over to panelist. >> Welcome, Miss Smith. You may unmute
yourself and address the committee. >> Good evening, everyone. This is Jennifer Phillips Smith from FBT Gibbons. I am here today on behalf of Marcus L. Ward Home, which is the owner and operator of the property at 333 Elmwood, commonly known as Winchester Gardens. I'll just
start with a question. I previously appeared at the public hearing on March 3rd to put comments on the record on behalf of Winchester Gardens. I just wanted to double check that those comments would be considered part of the overall record of your consideration of this ordinance. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Wonderful. then no need to repeat myself. I re reiterate the comments from the last hearing and I hope that you'll take them under consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? >> If anyone else on Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise
your hand. >> I see no other hands. Mayor, >> thank you. And mayor, I move this ordinance be adopted as a whole and the clerk be directed to post the same as a past ordinance on the township's website and the town hall bulletin board according to law. >> I second.
>> Um, thank you. Any discussion? I have a couple of comments, but any discussion? >> None from me. >> Okay. So, uh, I want to thank the folks from living around 275 Parker for their emails, um, and their their, uh,
comments. Um so just just a few things. Uh there was a suggestion that we do um senior housing there. You know, we're not adverse to senior housing. It'd be up to the developer. Um I'm not sure the
uh the how it works with a mix of folks who want to live in senior housing living with family housing. But I mean it's it may be possible. I I do want to just alert us that there are regulations about this in the new fair housing act.
Um at least 50% of the units that get built must be family units. So we have 216 units that have to get built. So 108 of them have to be family units. So, we've been um most of the people talking
to us have are building family market units and family affordable units and that goes to meet our um our requirement going to our 216 or at least 50% being families. Um and no more
than 30% can be for seniors. I will tell you in our last rounds we met that threshold. we couldn't go any higher than what we were having and most of that is due to the number of seniors that live on Irvington Avenue.
Um so that's one thing. Uh the thing about the traffic and all that I would just like to alert you to um the ordinance does say in um 9B that the township has not prepared and
this is for all the overlays including the one on Milurn Avenue. The township has not prepared utility, roadway, or traffic studies on the existing conditions, capacity, or reports on upgrades required to support the proposed development as directed by the
township engineer andor board engineer, planning board engineer. The developers shall provide utility, roadway and traffic studies evaluating the existing conditions, capacity and details of any necessary upgrades required to support
the proposed development and the developer will be responsible for paying for this. So, um, when these projects get to the site plan review and the, um, uh, you know, it's a hearing by the
planning board, these items will be addressed. Uh, as far as buffering, there are requirements in our zone on our zoning regulations that do require buffering. Everything from landscaping fencing to real fencing. Um we just did
a project uh working with a developer on Springfield Avenue and they're putting up um 10-ft fences in the back. So there are ways and buffering that with um with landscaping. So there are ways to buffer areas and we certainly would work with that. And just um on the request from
275 uh to meet with the developer, we'll certainly ask the developer. uh you'll certainly be able to meet with us as we if the developer doesn't want to do that, we'll certainly be be willing to meet with you and talk with you and bring your concerns to the table. But
I'm hoping that um we can have that developer um come. And just one other thing before we vote on um just clarifying some erroneous comments about the um office building that's at um on
Milbour Avenue. uh a former member of the township committee, Mr. Proffetta, uh did not have ownership in that building. The Proffetta family does not have ownership in that building right now. And I think it's um disappointing that someone had to um bring that in and
and um um Mr. Propheta had nothing to do with anything here and no member of the township committee has anything to do with any of the owners here. So, um, you know, I think if we would just stick to the facts, we'd be a lot better. Okay. Please call the role.
>> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Mr. Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Okay. We have another ordinance on final. >> Uh, yes, Mayor. Uh, number 6 C.
Ordinance number 3183-26 is an ordinance enacting an amendment to the amended and supplemented redevelopment plan for redevelopment area 2. This ordinance will amend the amended
and supplemented redevelopment plan for redevelopment area 2, including but not limited to section seven thereof, and to add apartment buildings and/or stacked flats consisting entirely of affordable
dwelling units as a permitted use in certain areas and to make certain other related revisions. In connection therewith, >> this ordinance has been published. 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 amends redevelopment area 2 where there's going to be 100% affordable housing built. Is there anyone on Zoom? If anyone on
Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise your hand. I see no hands. Mayor, >> we get a motion. >> I move this ordinance to be adopted as a whole and the clerk be directed to post the same as past audience on the township's website and town hall
bulletin board according to the law. >> I'll second. >> Please call the role. >> Miss Adams, >> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. Miss Herman, >> yes. >> Mayor Duca, >> yes. Thank you. We have another ordinance on final.
>> Yes, Mayor. Uh 6D, ordinance number 3184-26 is an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of repairarian credits in connection with the construction of stormwater facilities on Maple Terrace
and Berkeley Road in the township of Maplewood. This ordinance will authorize the township to acquire repairarian credits in connection with the construction of stormwater facilities on Maple Terrace and Berkeley Road.
>> This ordinance has been published, copies posted on the bulletin board of 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 3184-26? Anyone on Zoom? Anyone on Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please
raise your hand. I see no hands. Mayor, >> you got a motion? >> I move this ordinance 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 this motion.
>> Who's call the role? >> Miss Adams? >> Yes. >> Miss Collins Golding? >> Yes. >> Miss Herman? >> Yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. We have another ordinance on final. >> Uh yes, Mayor. Ordinance number 3185-26
is an ordinance amending chapter 257 of the code of the township of Mapwood entitled vehicles and traffic to prohibit parking on a portion of Carlton Court.
This ordinance will prohibit parking on the west side of the portion of Carlton Court that is adjacent to the railroad. Parking will remain permitted on the east side of the street. This ordinance has been published, 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 parking? Seeing no one, is there anyone on Zoom? If anyone on Zoom would like to speak on this ordinance, please raise your hand.
>> I see no hands. Mayor, >> get a motion. Please. >> I move this ordinance 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 this motion. >> Let's call the role. >> Miss Adams,
>> yes. >> Miss Collins Cing, >> yes. >> Miss Herman, >> yes. Mayor Duca. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh is there any other business to come before the township committee? Any you nothing there. Uh okay. We'll open up our second public
comment period on any subject matter. Is there anyone who would like to address the township committee? >> Just we just need your um your name and your address and you have three minutes. Brian Ratovicus 34 Salter Place. Uh, one comment people keep on saying it's east
and west. It's actually north and south. Just to let you know, the train tracks the train tracks go east west mostly. So, it's north of the tracks and south of the tracks. >> Just let you know. So, um, this and one other comment. The Oh, no. Two comments.
Um, who do you call about sign pollution? Meaning there's there's just a bunch of redundant signs all over the town that I was wondering how you get them to take them down. >> I couldn't hear >> sign any signs, road signs, crosswalk signs. I mean, coming here, there's two crosswalk signs for the same crosswalk,
one sign in front of the other by a foot. >> Where on what street? >> Uh um >> Valley, sorry. >> So, um that is that's a construction project done being done by uh the county. >> Yeah. And so it's still ongoing and um
at the end they'll do a walk through and clean up everything. >> Okay. Um but what do you call when you call like there's a sign on my street about a death child which moved out seven years ago. >> Uh then we would just need a if the if you can provide us an email to um
>> Mr. Weary, our township administrator. >> Okay. >> And then we can um pursue that. >> Thanks. Um, and I wanted to apologize to the township community for your extra time that I might have caused for this. >> No, you didn't do anything wrong.
>> It was It was helpful. It was helpful. Thank you. >> Oh, and thank you for printing it out actually because I didn't print out the 40 the 50page one. >> It's out there. >> I know. I got it. So, thank you very much for that. So, um, that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to address the township committee?
>> Anyone on Zoom want to address the township committee? You can sit down and someone you can hold on a minute. We're checking on Zoom first. You can wait a moment. If anyone on Zoom would like to speak in public comment on any subject matter, please
raise your hand. >> I see no hands. Mayor. >> Okay. Please give us your name and address. >> Just an actual name and address, please. >> Octavio Mendes and 181 Maplewood Avenue. 161 Maplewood Avenue. Um I have a
suggestion that's something that um I can I can see that we could help the traffic to flow ver making a right on valley because there's a a green arrow to go from valley to
Baker. If we had that same green arrow to go from Baker to Valley, it would help a lot because on peak hours of traffic, you can see how much traffic backs in there and would really help to
flow the traffic in there because it there's a sign now which to tell you the truth I agree with no turn on red. It's a little it's very dangerous in many situations. But um that green arrow there, it would be very helpful because
while people is turning left because they have the green arrow, it would facilitate the traffic the other way also. That's just a suggestion. >> Thank you. There is there is uh first of all that work is being done by the county and um we talked about it this
morning at engineering and um there is a green arrow there. Now it does go on as you described when the green arrow comes on valley to make a left onto Baker that green arrow is on Baker to make a right onto Valley. We are as we've asked our
um traffic consultants to take a look at that corner because there seems to be some confusion between that green arrow and the no turn on red sign. So we're going to be looking at that and making some recommendations to the county on how they might improve that intersection. >> Thank you. I haven't seen the green
arrow yet maybe, but yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else want to address the township committee? >> Okay. If not, we can get a motion to adjurnn. >> I move to adjourn the meeting. >> Second. >> Miss Adams? >> Yes. >> Miss Collins?
>> Yes. >> Miss Herman? >> Yes. >> Mayor Duca? >> Yes. Thank you very much. We'll see you on the 17th. Same.