Good evening. Good evening everyone and welcome to the October 16th meeting of the Montlair Historic Preservation Commission. Notice has been given in accordance with the open public meetings act by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to the
Montlair Times, the Star Ledger and the Herald News. We are being broadcast live on channel 34 Monontlair and also remotely streamed on YouTube channel. Senator, could you please call the role? >> Yes. Uh, Chair Bennett
>> present. >> Vice Chair Graham is not present. Mr. Ramnet >> here. Mr. Rooney >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Giuliano >> here. >> Uh Mr. Pier is uh not present.
Um Mr. Mixer is not present. Miss Floyd is not present. Um Miss Bower >> here. >> Mr. Smallen >> here. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And also we have our secretary who we can't do without.
>> Yeah. Miss I'm here. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'd just like to inform everybody that we received a letter of resignation from Kevin Pierre. So, um, he will not be obviously he won't be joining us. So, I just would like to thank him if for his service uh
that he, you know, performed on the commission for the past two years, I guess, three years. And, um, I have a an appointment with our mayor to get a uh to see who we can have as a replacement.
So, we'll be hopefully be working with a full compliment on the commission. Uh, approval of minutes of July 24th, 2025. And as you're all aware, I think we did not meet in August or September. August,
we had no applications. In September, we did not have a quorum. So, uh, no meetings means no minutes. And now we're looking at the minutes of July 24th, 2025. Does anyone have any um changes, suggestions?
>> I I have some a comment on uh the design re under design review committee on page two. Um it says we provided recommendations but doesn't list the recommendations we
made and I think that's important that you know people see the recommen recommendations we made and what were incorporated and what weren't you know um so maybe we could elaborate on that >> right I can include the bulleted
recommendations from the memorandum we sent into >> I'm sorry >> I can include the recommendations that were on the memorandum sent to the applicant >> underneath as a bulleted list. >> Okay. >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> That's it. That's all I have.
>> Um and what about on page five? >> Uh other than the same comment on on the marcado. Uh >> well, we need to >> language up that language there. >> Right. So, uh, on page five,
number three, uh, I, uh, the the, uh, slats across the top of the of the storefront where it's are to be continuous. Uh, obviously, if they're too the the seam should not be
all fall in the same place. So, I think the the sentence should read, "The composite material used for the wooden slats must closely replic replicate the appearance of the existing white oak." Oh, that's one. And then the second uh
sentence would be that seams in the horizontal wood slats uh must be minimized and staggered on the staggered on the on the uh the >> facade >> facade.
And then that language should be incorporated into the resolution. Okay. >> And number four, uh, stopping that sentence after facade. >> Right. So the storefront design must be
consistent across the entire facade and then and then and do and then take out stating over rather than beginning midway. Okay. So there are those three changes on page five and then the one on page
two. Does anyone else have any other comments or? >> No. So may I have a a motion to approve the minutes as amended of July 24th? I have to abstain. I was >> Oh, you weren't here. Okay.
>> I I uh move to approve as amended >> and second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, great. Then we move to the resolution for application 25 2025-14
605 to 607 Valley Road the Marcato storefront and the uh changes that we did we just mentioned for the minutes should be included in that resolution and if those are included then we can vote on that as as well. So can can I um
who can vote on that? Uh, everybody that was here, >> Chair Bennett, Mr. Rhynitz, Mr. Sweeney, and Mr. Giuliano can vote. >> Okay. So, I make a a a motion that we approve the resolution with the amended
language as discussed. Second >> and all in favor. >> I Okay, great. Committee reports. So even though we were not here for two months with the committees were actually were very uh busy uh minor applications
on August 15th application 2025-15 46 Church Street the right group was approved application 2025-9300 Bloomfield Avenue Terra Modern Cuisine was approved application 2025-21
at 332 Bloomfield Avenue Insomnia Cookies was improve was approved September 11th. Application 2025-20602 Bloomfield Avenue Pure Green Smoothies was approved. Application 2025-22510
Bloomfield Avenue. Juichi is uh pending. Uh and then on September 23rd, 369 Bluefield Avenue, Monontlair check cashaching signage was approved. The design review committee met uh with
Eagle Scout uh Wyatt Foster for the information board that he installed. He he created he designed and created and now it's installed at Wong Plaza Park. we worked the uh the design review committee and I work very closely with
him to make sure that all the uh information was accurate and I think if you go to the park now you'll see that it's a really nice addition to the park and next month he's going to come here to introduce himself and just tell us uh
kind of process we have too long of an agenda tonight so we had to uh uh ask him to come back next uh to come next month on September 4th First, uh, the design review committee met with the architect and owners for facade
review for 510-516 Bloomfield Avenue. We had an on-site meeting and discussed uh facade, which we'll see later on tonight with what their application that they're submitting. on October 2nd and October
14th, we met with the uh Bloom uh Belleview Theater uh owners and mural artists to discuss what the um design of the murals will be. And I think we had a very successful meeting this past meeting. We're in the
process of giving um some design inspiration to the artists and the owner and we hope to see that the next meeting which hopefully will be next week will have a more filled out fleshed out idea of what the two murals will be. One is
to be on the the east facade which faces the plaza and the other will be on the west facade which faces the park. um grants. Uh we had applied for a CLG grant for the South End Miller Street district which was denied. We the Upper
Monontlair Commuter District Phase 2 grant uh which is also a CLG grant. The survey is finalized and is filed with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office. And tonight we'll have a uh presentation by the consultant uh as to
uh the work that she did on that grant. And we're very happy to to announce that we received a $48,000 grant for a preservation plan for the building at 647 Bloomfield Avenue, which you might
know now as the police building, but originally it was the first municipal building of Montlair. So, we'll be working with that, trying to help the township uh with the infrastructure and buildings committee come up with a plan
to augment what they're going to do with the buildings that they that the township owns. And this will give them a clear idea of what that building even though it was originally designed as a municipal building with today's needs um and all changes uh they'll help the
township and uh decide on how what area how they want to go forward with with that. Excuse me. um outreach. We are having a we're collaborating again with the library in the Monontlair History Center on a research your home your house uh
workshop that will be on October 28th which is a Wednesday 10 to 12 and November 1st which is a Saturday 10 to 12. So anyone that's interested in in uh volunteering you're more than welcome to. Um, and then, uh, we worked with the
Rotary Club, the garden club, and community fairs to refurbish the entry plaza in front of the entrance to the YMCA on Park Street. I was there this morning helping them plant. And just want to announce it's a it's a clever idea for adaptive reuse of the benches
that were in the uh, Wong Park uh, that they they part of that refurbishment were new benches. So, we're hoping that two benches, two old benches will now be placed in the uh in the plaza. So, it is a way to make the entrance to the Y more
welcoming. Okay. So, with that, according to our agenda, we have public comment and the public is welcome to come up. If you would keep your if you have anything to say, keep it under three minutes. Um, just you have to state your name and
address. and make Yeah, make sure it's on. >> Is it on? >> Uh, good evening members of the commission. My name is Jason Street. I'm the owner of Applegate Farm. Uh, located at 616 Gro Street in Monontlair.
My wife and I have proudly operated the business for nearly 35 years as a second generation owner at that. Throughout the time, we've maintained a strong, positive relationship with the township of Monontlair.
We deeply value this community. We've always tried to give back in meaningful ways. To highlight just a few of the examples, the ways we've supported Monontlair over the years, um, very strong supporter of
the Monontlair Police Department. We consistently support and contribute to their annual events, including their Easter egg hunt they have in the spring, clothing drives. We help them with Hurricane Sandy, collecting clothes, helped purchase a trailer for them to
assist with all their community events, and with the Monontlair public schools. This is a a monthly ongoing uh give back to the community. We're we're consistently doing ice cream socials for the schools, teacher toasts, free movie nights for Northeast School. we've done
on a regular basis being a neighbor of Northeast School. Highly support them. We support the high school backpack program every single year and project graduation as well. We've been a long time long-term supporter of
them by donating ice cream to the to the seniors. Monontlair Parks and Recck Department over the years we've worked with Pat Brushka. Uh we've worked with Eileen Shehan over the years in years past as well as well as you know sponsoring free
movie nights for the parks pardon me. Uh we've done free hay rides at the at the park up in for after the 4th of July uh parade. Uh we've also done the uh picnic for the township of Monontlair up through co
the uh you know township picnics sports teams um over the years back when they were redoing Woodman Field and they turfed it. Um talking to Pat Brushka and Eye Shehan they expressed the fact that they didn't have um you know any any
funds to help put on the fireworks. We donated the fireworks two years in a row, over $15,000 worth of donations to help make sure that the community didn't have to put money out to go to the fireworks. And then we moved the fireworks o over to the Jackal Stadium.
The uh we support we supported the township when PCNG was doing all the all the pipe work for the gas lines in town. And you know, over the course of that time, you know, we we allowed the PCNG uh working with the township with PS&G to to put all their equipment and stuff
on our property to alleviate it from the the side streets in the neighborhood. And we've also on a regular supporter of the Monontlair Library and the histo in the history uh center there as well. We understand that, you know, we understand that uh you know, this is only a small
sample of what we've done over the past 35 plus years. Uh but we also understand that there is something going on with the Connelly and Connelly Connelly and Hickeyi uh conducting a survey on our property as well as our neighbors properties. Uh creating this creating really an
unnecessary and unfair financial burden for everyone involved. Honestly, this is so disheartening and it bothers me personally being a long-term, you know, member of this community and and you know, tonight to have to
come here and express my feelings in this manner is you know, it really feels like, you know, we've been abandoned and unappreciated. I'm letting you know that we strongly object to the potential historical designation of our property, our structures on our property at 616 Grove
Street, and we'll take the necessary steps to protect our our rights side by side with every one of our neighbors that we're that we're close with. Let me be clear, uh there's been really no formal state, federal,
uh or local historic designations made on our site. and we've not received any notice of such designations over the years. The NJHPO grant for $30,000 was required to be concluded on September
30th, 2025. And what I I don't understand is, you know, why how and why is it continuing? And it's my understanding that 616 Grocery is not currently in, you know, tonight's agenda, but it's to be included in the coming
months. who authorized any extension of the September 30th deadline. Uh who's paying for this beyond September 30th, beyond the grant, beyond the $30,000 grant? You know, this this proposed designation
is not just unwelcome. It's really in in my view unfair and would cause real negative impacts on our property, our neighborhood and our neighbors properties as well as the township of Monontlair as a whole and our family.
Let me remind the commission that you know Applegate Farm is a federally registered trademark that we own under a separate entity and we're not required to operate Applegate Farm on that property at 616 Grove Street. and if unreasonable restrictions are placed on
the property, you know, we don't need to be there. Um, you know, basically we really urge the commission to reconsider any efforts towards historical designation of our site and the and our neighbors properties around it. We've always been
proud to be part of Monontlair. We simply want to continue operating and giving back without undue hardship. And this is really hard on me and our family. I want to thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Street. Anyone else would like to address the commission? No. Okay. So before we have uh Miss uh Hickeyy's uh comments on the uh on the
grant, what I would like to do is just give a little bit of history of what a CLG grant is. This is not a designation for a local district. It's not a designation for a district. Uh we have four local
districts in Monontlair. They are Pine Street, Bloomfield Avenue, uh, Upper Monontlair, and Watung Avenue, which currently are considered commercial districts. Those are local districts. And because they're local districts, we
are we it enables us the the uh HPC to um really have uh say on signage. That's basically what what it is is signage. So I just would like to be be very clear
that this is not a local designation. What this is what the monies are or are CLG grant and I'd like to read what a CLG grant is. The purpose of funding the historic preservation office in partnership with the National Park
Service administers the certified local government program. That's what a CLG grant is. C lo certified local government. It doesn't only cons uh concern preservation. It also Monontlair receives uh grant monies under this
grant title for water uh abatement studies. The goals of the program here specifically for preservation. The goals are to ensure the broadest possible participation of local governments in the National Historic Preservation Program while maintaining standards
consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior standards and guidelines for archaeology and Historic Preservation to enrich, develop and ma maintain local historic preservation programs. the cooperation and
coordination with with Shipo, the state historic preservation office, and to provide financial and technical assistance to further these uh purposes. The historic preservation office is required to regrant 10% of the state's allocation of federal historic
preservation funds for pass through such as subrants to certified local government communities. The goals for the grant projects are to identify buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts which are significant in the areas of history, architecture,
archaeology, and engineering, and which meet the criteria for inclusion in the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, and to design and implement planning tools for the protection of historic resources. This is all on the uh Department of New
Jersey government website under grant and loan programs. Uh since I've been involved with the HPC, we have received seven uh CLG grants. 2015, we received monies to create the historic design
guidelines. In 2016, we received monies to uh uh monies to uh write the excuse me historic preservation element of the master plan. In 2019, we received grant
monies to conduct conduct an intensive level survey of Oakraftoft and Wheeler Street area, which is a uh you know, it's really a neighborhood area. In 2021, we received monies for an intensive level of survey of the estate
section, which again is a study of the um buildings, the structures and also a development development of the neighborhood, how it developed from uh you know farmland to being subdivided by
in 1900. Uh in 2022 we received monies to create the Monontlair residential historic design guidelines and also a brochure trifold brochure which we distribute to the
library actually to um hardware stores and also to the Montlair History Center. In 2024, uh, the grant, uh, gave us monies for an intensive level survey of phase one of the upper Montlair commuter district.
And in 2025, we received monies for the intensive level survey of phase two of the upper commuter uh, upper Montlair Commuter District. And I should uh tell you that the reason we couldn't do them, we couldn't combine the two is because
there were over 600 properties in in within that that uh and we had to divide it into two. So um everybody will I I'm going to ask Miss Hickey to come up now and give her uh remarks her uh the
report that was just completed. I because honestly um we have not really uh had the opportunity disc to discuss it either as as a uh as a commission yet.
And then if the if the if anybody in the audience has questions of Miss Hickey, you're more than welcome to to ask them when she's finished with her report. So, um, Margaret Hickeyi is is a principal in the firm of Connley and
Hickeyi. Um, she has written, I think, four of the CL drug grants that we we've uh been able to uh attain. Uh, it's not easy to to really uh get these grants.
As I told everybody, uh, our grant for the the intensive level survey for the south end was not approved this year. So, but I think having received seven grants within the past 10 years says something about the integrity of the commission and what we do to try to
maintain the historic resources of the of Monontlair. So, uh, Miss Hickey. >> Okay. So, Margaret Hickey, historic preservation specialist. Um I uh we our firm was hired to continue um the survey of the upper Montlair commuter area that
we began in 2024. Um and as part of this so what happened at the the last uh survey area is um uh we we designate so I actually wrote this before I was done because I was supposed to present last month. So, a
couple of the numbers are a little off. Um, uh, we did basically the core of the the the survey area which went from Lraine, uh, to the south, uh, Mount Hebrron to the
north, um, the west side of Park Street to the east side of Valley Road, right? So, sort of and then this this uh survey was basically for that perimeter. um along Lraine uh Valley
um to the railroad, Mount Hebrron and uh Na Nassau and a couple little streets at the top and then the east side of Park Street uh totaling uh 226 properties um at 2009 of those which were buildings
mostly residences and there were a number of empty lots that are included in that 226 Um we determined that the period of proposed significance or the period of significance of the area is 1886 to circa 1948. Um which expands the period
of significance which is the which is the time period in which uh basically the most development happened in this area and that kind of defined how everyone perceives the the the the neighborhood um uh a few years from part one. Um and we also then within that
determined uh uh contributing resources and non-contributing resources. So non-contributing resources are either properties that were built after 1948, you know, buildings after 1948 or those that had been radically changed enough along their front facade to no longer
reflect uh their original uh construction. Um and then within that non-contributing uh category, Montlair has subcategories of harmonizing, harmonizing, altered, and then intrusions, meaning that those buildings like don't even match their neighbor
kind of thing. Um there's not too many of those actually. Most most of the properties that were non-contributing were considered harmonizing. So this uh because the district took on more area, there's several maps. uh what
we what we basically used is the 1986 Sandborn maps as our base. Now, of course, the properties on those have changed a little bit, but um the the it just designates the area. So, as you can see, the darker areas bottom and top are the newer areas that we just surveyed.
This middle section is what we had determined the last time. And then the the coding the the hatches and stuff like that show whether it's contributing non-contributing um and and various other there's another thing. Uh so
little map that shows a little bit of Valley Road. So there's a there's a number of maps here that just kind of show all the way up Valley Road and then all the way up Park Street. So of a ball a
of all the properties. So 226 180 of seven of them were considered tri contributing. Uh 39 of the uh the the properties were um non-contributing but seven of those were empty lots. Um and
then in designating the boundary we actually excluded four properties um that were on the peripheral and that post date the period of significance. So, uh, two Laurel Place Plaza, four Laurel Place Plaza, 10 to 50 Belden Place, and 42 Mount Hebrron Road were
excluded. Well, if you if you drew a boundary, if you decided to go for a historic district in the future, we would ex we would recommend excluding those even from consideration in the in the boundary district. So, I'm just going to go over a couple of I'm going to go through the slides
and kind of just the highlights of the the significance of the upper Montlair Commuter area. We do have to look at this holistically because it really is an area that goes from the railroad to Park Street. Um, just because we
separated into two parts doesn't kind of the history is still the same, right? Um, so what really defines this property or this area particularly is the advent of the railroad and the fact that it it it
came to this area and and really brought about the the residential development that we're seeing. Um, so an self-promotion of the the the the neighborhood in the New York Trabune in 1911 because a lot Monontlair was really
trying to attract um uh residents from New York and and Newark to get away from sort of the city living uh gateway to the mountain and lake region of northern New Jersey. It links the old Manhattan, Bloomfield, Montlairlair, upper Montlair and many other p picturesque suburban
places um by direct railroad. So that was sort of the the the advertisement for the railroad. Um the first upper Montlair station was constructed in 1884 and then later enlarged. And then the station at Laura Plaza and Laura Place Plaza, which is the one that is directly mostly directly
related to the upper Montlair commuter area along with the one that's at at in the upper Montlair business district. Um was constructed in 1893 in the tutor revival style. I'm supposed to be like just zipping through these. Okay. But this is just some characteristics.
These are properties that are character defining of the district. Um this um so that that station tutor revival style was already a popular style in up in the upper Montlair commuter area at the
time. Uh further development was then uh increased with the new trolley line in 1898. Um connecting upper Montlair with the oranges um along Valley Road and and down uh to Montlair proper. Um so the
historical overview in the in the report so we create a report with this discusses how the streets were laid out how the development started really generating from the the um upper Montlair business district to the north to Mount Hebrron. Uh so Mount Hebrron
def which is the defining northern boundary um you know started as a twoacre property in 1863 but by 1900 had expanded to 18 acres and today covers 30 acres and then Immaculate Conception Cemetery um which covers 30 acres was
dedicated in 1895. So, um, and then two of the streets south of, um, the cemetery where most the properties along these streets actually back up to Mount Hebrron.
There's only a few properties that face Mount Hebrron, Nassau, Road and Patton Place. Uh, they were developed in the 1920s by Aaron Godfrey, who was a dabbler in many industries before settling on real estate development. Um and then the final road in the district
was uh Powder Court um which is 19 in 1947. Uh it was developed by the Carile Road Corporation uh which specialized in constructing single family houses for veterans of World War II. Um and their
houses kind of show a distinct change um in how the architecture developed. So this is uh one of the Carly road uh corporations where they incorporated the garages within the devel within the
building which kind of showed uh less reliance on the railroad and a greater reliance on the automobile sort of changing the American suburb um at that time. So other noteworthy houses include 1798
Valley Road which is the home of artist James S. King. um 473 Park Street which I had here. Uh this is a tutor revival uh that was um designed by local architect Clifford uh C. Wendhack in
1926 um who who was uh inspired by the tutor revival clonal revival Norman and Spanish revival styles and he actually designed a number of country clubs uh golf clubs and I've actually worked on uh a number of his properties uh because
he's also done women's clubs as well and a property like this would be considering a key contributing resource within the historic So, lots of craftsman style, a colonial revival is probably the most prominent uh architectural style within the
district. Uh like I said, a simpler uh colonial revival, uh neocclassical, um and then just really it's mostly residential. This is probably the mo the key uh commercial property in the
district or in the area. Um this is the James S. King residence uh 1890. And that this property is actually recognized uh individually um by Montlair and by the New Jersey and National Register Historic Places.
Um Queen Anne, again another simple colonial revival. Um so I prepared this for the September meeting. Uh at that time we were to uh finish up writing that's done. Finish up
the report that's complete. Um and uh basically uh take our recommendations which includes um basically combining the two reports to
see whether it would be a potential historic district. Um we do think it would be uh if the historic preservation commission wanted to go in that direction. Um it is we did look at possibly combining it with uh the
commuter the the business district upper Montlair business district and we thought it it'd be best as a standalone uh since it's primarily residential and uh Lraine um yeah Lraine sort of is a good boundary uh between the
Montlair business district and the upper Montlair commuter area. That's it. I may have talked a little fast. >> Subsequently, um we we discussed about including the
the area that went down to uh Applegate Farm. That's what Mr. Street is here uh addressing. So, what what where are we with that? because on June 19th is the expansion of the study area for cultural
resources and on July 22nd the um the council voted to include that. So are where where are we with that? So because this had a deadline, we finished with
this and then with regard to Applegate because Applegate is not in the database, what our plan is is to just do architectural description and a brief history of the area. And so this way you can use that as uh a means of
determining whether you actually wanted to proceed with another uh upper with another intensive level survey or not. So we won't be making any recommendations as to whether it's historically significant. We're just going to do the baseline documentation.
So this way if you want to, you could use that to then possibly go for another grant. >> Okay. Yeah. >> All right. So basically the June So basically the July 22nd we're not we're not dealing with that. The July 20 June 19
>> I'm dealing with that. Right. So we're we're we're not charging you for that. Right. >> So, um, we've build this out. We have a long history and relationship with Montlair and the HPC. Um,
I'll be honest, I questioned the Applegate designation in the master plan. Um, so this is why we offered to see what what whether or not possibly that we could at least start to kind of look to see whether it's significant or not. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. Wait just a second. So, does it this concludes your report then? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So, if we have questions from the audience, you will they'll they can ask they can come up and ask you. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hi.
>> Jason Street, 616 Grove Street upper Montlair. >> Yes. Um, so I I have a question in regards to based on the map that you have on the on the website, it shows the area around the 616 Grove Street property. >> Okay.
>> It does. It's in pink here. It doesn't include >> the Apple property. It goes around the property. >> Okay. >> Two questions. One is I noticed that we are designated here. We're we're not designated, but we have a blue dot which states here it's preservation
Monontlair's inventory. historic historic properties. So, I guess my question is when was it quote unquote placed into the inventory of historic properties uh in Montlair because we never got notice of it?
>> Well, that was 1982. >> That was the that was 1982. >> That was the historic survey structure from 1982 that the state >> it was just a survey, >> right? the historic survey, >> historic structure survey.
>> Okay. >> So, going back to my question, everything that's in pink here is the potential historic individual properties. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, the study that you're doing is only on the homes that are around Apple Farms, not on Apple Farm. Correct.
>> That's my understanding. We are doing a few to the to the north and south of that. So this way I have context. >> Okay. So my question I guess is >> according to what you just said
>> the future survey >> or the first survey that you're conducting after the 30th, right? >> After the grant expired, >> right? >> It's stating that you're doing the properties around Applegate Farm >> and and this and the blue and the pink that current pink. >> Why not? >> Okay.
>> No, the round what I mean by around Applegate farm, it says it's pink. >> Oh, I see what you mean. Okay. >> That goes around the 616. >> It is called the Applegate farm potential. >> But what I'm saying is you're not surveying our property. Correct. >> I don't know. I don't know for sure. But
we it's up to them if they tell me they want to or not to. >> Secondly, I guess my question is >> knowing the property, knowing the history of that area, >> Uhhuh. >> who determined that pink area that's in the map? That would have been the consultant who prepared the master plan.
>> That was a just to add in the 2016 historic preservation element that was identified by a working group. >> Right. I can I have their I don't know their uh uh title or their entity. It was determined by
uh building conservation associates 44 East 32nd Street New York. Okay. So I guess my question is knowing been here for almost 35 years and knowing the history and knowing the little fields very closely who used to own it for
three generations prior to us. We still talk on a regular basis. The Applegate farm plot that Mr. Tinkam owned years ago covers all the way down to Yankataw Brook covers all of Northeast school covers all the way over to Buckingham.
This is inaccurate information. So I I uh I be can I be brutally honest? I questioned that district myself. So >> and these homes are nothing special. The
homes that are around it really are just high level homes. >> Okay. So I I So two things, right? It did seem a little odd to me that it was on its own like that since there was a district on either side of it. >> And I feel bad for our neighbors. Well,
so what I do, just clarify, what I do does not automatically mean designation. It just means they're asking me to take look at look at the properties for my professional opinion and put them in a historical context to determine whether
a district would be strong enough like whether whether it's actually potentially be a historic district. But there's like nine more steps after I'm done. So I did the Wheeler and the Oakraftoft and those are not historic districts currently even based on the
study and my recommendations. >> So I just wanted to ask a question for clarity. So when you do the Applegate research, would that count as a survey form for the property? Because our local ordinance is set up for um whenever an individual property has been surveyed,
so it has one of those dots on it in the inventory, then it is subject to total demolition ordinance. So would the Applegate farm research be like a precursor to a survey form? >> That's correct. Okay. Yes. It's not going to be a full survey form. >> Okay. So it wouldn't automatically mean
designation as a potential site and then subject to demolition. >> That's right. This is more the way I look at it is a more of a way for you to start the process to see whether you want to proceed further. Like I said, I questioned that district,
that potential district, the way it was written in the in the master plan. >> So, it's always kind of bothered me. This is my second time in this area, and I've worked in other areas of Montlair to see why it was determined that way.
That's that's where I'm headed. I have >> I I understand. But that doesn't mean what I do doesn't necessarily mean it gets it puts restrictions on you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm I'm correct in that. Right. I mean what I do doesn't I mean Wheeler and
Oakraftoft >> the the nothing's changed since I did since I did the work. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Street. This is the our attorney. >> I just want to let you know that um
properties are locally designated and when they're locally designated they're regulated and I think that's what you're objecting to the potential for regulation by the planning board in the master plan or by the governing body not
the historic preservation commission. So, um, we're very happy to have you here tonight and to understand what your thoughts and opinions are and to have your input, but, um, we're not the body that designates anything.
>> Okay. >> You make recommen recommendations because you're >> we do the research. >> Okay. >> And we figure out by hiring professionals, we figure out um what's potentially designatable. >> So, we're happy to be part of this community. And like I said, you can see
I'm very passionate about Applegate corn. >> I understand. I just wanted you to know where what the forums different forums did. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Uh thank you, Margaret. >> Oh, >> are there But I was just Are there any
other questions from the community? Are there any questions from our commission, our consultant? Oh, >> where is this document that she just presented or where do we have access to it?
>> Yeah, where do we have access to it, Mark? >> I haven't uploaded the presentation itself, but the final report and all of the survey forms are on our township website under historic preservation. Um, and then it'll there's a subtab for commuter area. >> Okay.
>> For one and two. >> Yeah, both reports are on that same web page. >> Oh, okay. I can see that today and and just to know all all of the reports are on that on our website and um all as what as Miss Bower started to say uh we
we are governed by ordinances. So there's a process that has to occur before anything is uh designated. This is not a this is not a designation. This is really an opportunity as one of our
uh uh our uh focuses to really identify and study the historic structures, the historic uh sites and historic neighborhoods of Montlair, which as we all know we're losing every day. So, uh
that's that's really our our focus. It's also in our bylaws. It's also uh on our ordinance when this commission was uh created in 1986. So, do you have do you want to come back? Please come up.
I also just wanted to clarify um that the properties that were surveyed and presented on tonight while not um being formally historically designated um under our ordinance, they are now subject to total demolition approval. um
which is whenever a property is individually surveyed and then recorded with the state historic preservation office, it is um subject to total demolition approval, which means if you're demolishing more than 50% of all of the exterior facades or um more than
50% of any of the publicly visible facades individually, you would have to file an application with the Historic Preservation Commission. >> Yeah. So, you clarified what I came up here for. Okay. And really what I was boil boiling down to is being that you had mentioned that the 1982
survey that was conducted by the state of New Jersey back then uh basically triggered the blue dot for Applegate farm to be on the on the list of historic inventory >> right >> for for Monontlair. question you just
clarified was being that you're doing a survey on the surrounding areas, how did that impact the homes, each individual home that's within that pink area that's being surveyed? >> So would they obviously you clarified that every home that's around in that
pink area, they can't they're subjected to the demolition clause, >> right? >> Now that they've been surveyed. >> Yeah. the ones that were included in the original um proposal that was just west um east of Park Street and then around that central core. So that doesn't include the Applegate farm properties.
And from the consultant, she's um saying that this research work that would be done on the Applegate farm properties would be a precursor. >> You're saying properties around Applegate, not Applegate farm properties. the Applegate farm uh area um would uh be researched to then
determine if it should be surveyed. So it wouldn't be subject to total demolition based on the work >> pre-ervey. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So once it does get to that point and it is surveyed technically every one of those homes will have blue dots on them. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Good. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um anybody else? No. All right. Well, with that, Margaret, do you have any closer remarks or uh >> um No, I mean other than No.
>> No. Okay. So, this has been this is finalized now. >> It is final. Yes. >> Okay. And then >> So, if you have comments or questions, please, we'll make edits. >> Yes. That that that was going to be my question. So, this is your final draft.
And that um how many pages is it? Uh >> what is it? >> This is the binder that we received. Thank you. So >> word itself is I think >> all right something and then there's about 600 pages of survey. >> Okay. So when do you need our comments
by? >> Uh when when is it when does it get filed with the state? >> It's already filed with the state. You have it had to be filed by >> by September 30th. So, but we're able to to amend it. >> That's correct. >> Up until what time? Up until
>> I don't think they have time. >> Okay. >> I'm not billing you for it. >> Okay. All right. So then why don't we say commissioners and the commissioners that aren't here within the next month if we have any com if you have any comments to please send them uh to
Margaret through Zanup through the office. Okay. All right. Thank you Margaret. Thank you for your work. Um, okay. Moving on. Our next new business, Board of Adjustment Referral Application
2941, 105 Wildwood Avenue, which is a Hold on. This is a recommendation to the uh board of adjustment.
Do we have anybody here from 105 Wildwood Avenue? Oh, please come up. So, our attorney will swear you in. You do you want to sit down? >> Oh, I'm standing inside. >> Okay. Our attorney will will you identify yourself and then our attorney will swear you in.
>> I'm Victoria Monty, the owner of 105 Wildwood Avenue. >> Uh, Miss Monty, raise your right hand. Yes. >> Will you uh tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony on this application to the commission tonight? >> I will.
>> Go ahead. So, um before you begin, I just I just uh will give a little introduction. Uh the project description is the applica the applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached two-car garage and construct a new enlarged garage in the same location. The new
garage will measure 24 ft in depth and width with widened base to accommodate modern vehicles. The paved driveway will be widened in the area leading up to the garage. And the historic the historic significance is uh this Wildwood Avenue
area which is a potential historic district was primarily built between 1910 and 1929. This is as identified in our um in our master plan, historic preservation of the master plan.
Overall, the area consists of two to threetory houses that exhibit a range of architectural styles and features. The houses are set back from the streets on lots that vary from medium to small in size. A number of these properties are Dutch colonial revival uh style which
feature distinct distinctive entry porticos brick stoops and gamrel or gable roofs. the um we are looking at uh this property and the reconstruction
of or or the construction of a new garage uh because you're seeking a variance uh uh which will be determined not by us but by the the board of adjustment. And so what what you are requesting is a side setback for
accessory structures of 2.3 ft where a minimum setback of 6 ft is required. The new garage aligns with the setback of the existing garage which is proposed to be demolished and reconstructed. So uh with that did you want to do you
have picture is that >> I thought sorry what did you want from me? Oh, no. I just Are you going to refer to your uh your We have the planning report with pictures and the and uh a site plan, but are do you just
>> do you need me to move this? >> No. No. >> So, that's just there for your reference if you need it. But you can just give like an explainer on why you're proposing this project. >> Oh. Um well, we the garage is already kind of falling apart. It was falling apart. The roof was caving in when we
moved in. Um, and we would like to rebuild it and make it a little bit wider just to allow play space for my son and for two cars. The lot is narrow. We don't have a shed for any outdoor storage or outdoor toys or um
decorations for seasons and that's why I want this variance. >> Okay. Um but just to clarify the um the garage will be set at it it it's a non-conforming variance now. It would be set at the same distance from the
>> house >> from the the side. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And we and when you received um Mr. Smallen our consultants uh report. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there anything before he goes
uh over it? Uh well let maybe Mrs. Smallen, you could go over the report that you and then if you have any questions then we'll and then we'll discuss it. >> Sure. Uh good evening. Um so the house
is located in the Wildwood um Avenue area um potential historic district. It's set on a block with two and threetory houses, medium to small lots. And the property that we're talking
about tonight at um 105 Wildwood has a garage that I believe was substantially damaged um about 20 years ago in a storm. So much of it uh has been rebuilt. Um so the present state that
it's in right now um the structure retains a pretty low degree of historic integrity. It's at best uh loosely related to the primary house on the structure. Um it's it certainly has
significant material degradation. The the ridge of the roof is sagging in in several of the pictures. Um the subject subject structure um I don't believe is is warranted for for preservation. Um I think it's lost um any of the historic
integrity it once had. It's not conveying any of the characteristic workmanship of the period that it was built in. And I think the proposed structure uh is modest in scale. It's keeping the two individual uh garage
door openings, which is great and consistent with historic development patterns and I think overall a compatible uh garage addition uh to the Wildwood Avenue historic district. Do you have any questions on my report?
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners >> about the proposal? >> Um, no. >> Okay. Any any No. Any comments from commissioners as far as the burials? Go
ahead. >> Yeah, I have some comments um just about the the proposed new uh elevations. I don't have a problem with you building a new garage, but uh maybe you could take
>> you could draw upon some of the details of the existing garage like the windows. I see the windows are uh divided into four panes where the existing windows are divided into six panes. >> So what you
>> um here let me um let me find it on the website here. So um just to clarify the this is an advisory review ahead of the board of adjustment. So the commission will make any recommendations and then that will be included in a report that
goes to the board of adjustment and then they can choose to make some of the comments binding or not. Okay. As a condition of approval >> are the existing windows of the existing garage. Can you visualize them? >> Kind of. Uh, not really, but they're
they're drawn on the plans you presented here. >> Feel the spiders and falling apart. >> Uh, this the scale of them are different now than what you're proposing. >> Okay. >> So, we you know, we would, you know, my comment, just me, I would comment and
say it'd be nice if you kept the same scale of the windows on this larger garage. You're making it bigger. At least scale it down where you can. Um my other comment would be um
the back you can't see this so I don't have any other comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Jordana. >> Uh Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Rooney? >> I don't have comments. >> Okay. And so the the uh the question
about the variance then does that uh has no bearing on on >> you could have avoided the variance if you just moved it over a couple feet, right? >> Um >> you wouldn't be here >> illegally. >> What? >> Illegally? >> No. Legally, we moved it. Oh yeah. Um we
would but we would have to repave the entire driveway because the driveway is already in line with the um entrance of the garage and it is a narrow driveway. So the driveway absuts the property next door and then our house. >> I understand that. So um uh our
recommendation would be to keep the same the scale of the windows and the the same fenestration of the windows. Correct, John? >> Yes. >> And and that we don't there's no issue with the variance that as Mr. Smallen has indicated in his report. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Good
luck. Okay, our next application is application 2943 14 College Avenue. Um, is anyone Hi. So,
just hold on. You could you could sit down if you're more comfortable. uh whatever's whatever is more comfortable. Okay, this as I mentioned is a referral to the board of adjustment. Um
it is the applicant proposes to remove the existing garage door and header and convert the space into a home office. The garage opening will be closed with new siding and a new threepane window and casing will be added to the facade. The siding, window and casing will match
the existing features. landscaping will be added to the area immediately in front of the new window. The asphalt on the paved driveway will be res will be uh replaced with uh hardskate pavers. Uh
this is in the uh it's located on the west side of college. It is located within the proposed district of uh Mon Mont Monontlair Heights proposed district as identified in the ma in the master plan. So as the
the uh applicant is seeking a variance from Montlair to prevent parking in the front yard. Removing the garage would require that vehicle be parked in the paved area between the dwelling and the street. So as you heard before from uh Zanib uh we'll be giving recommendations
that will then go forward and we'll also be commenting on the variance. So could you identify uh give your name and identify yourself as your relationship to the project and our lawyer will will swear you in. >> My name is Eric Schultz. I'm the
architect for the project. >> Hi Mr. Schultz. Raise your right hand. Uh, do you swear to tell the swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the application tonight in your testimony to the commission? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. So, you have a PowerPoint image, too. >> Right. Um, I assume you all have the drawings, >> but we have we have the drawings. We have Yes. And we have the planning department, the photographs, >> right? Perfect. Um, so I think I'm just going to refer to those. Um,
>> great. Um, so yes, we're here for variance to maintain a driveway in the front of the house. Um, because they want to the homerowners want to convert the garage to an office. Um, just a note on A1 is the existing garage which shows
the interior size of it is quite small, 16 ft long by 9 and 1/2 ft wide, which is not um, large enough to fit either of the cars that they own, including a typical fourdoor sedan. and I would argue not really large enough for even a
compact car to function um if easily. Um so they want to convert that to a home office um which is shown on A2 um that's the floor plan showing access to the interior.
A3 is the existing garage door elevation and A4 is the the new windows which are an identical match for the living room windows on the left side of the page. So it would be same picture window with two identical double hungs at the same
height. Um so um I would just say that uh with regard to the streetscape um on this block there are 12 houses and uh five of them have garages um and only four of
the are of this identical footprint. So, we're not proposing a change to the footprint of the roof eve um just changing the garage door to a um window assembly that matches the living room window.
>> Um could you just clarify? Did did you just say that out of the 12 houses, four have converted garages? >> No, no, they they are of the same type cottage style type with the same footprint. the other um eight have a
different footprint or don't have a garage or a different type of colonial. >> Okay. >> So, >> okay. >> Um so, I guess my my question would be uh for the commission is um is that
garage door a uh sort of important and desirable feature to keep or would it be an upgrade to have a consistent window with a landscaping below it and converting the asphalt to
landscape patio pavers. >> Okay. >> Um and ju just one other note um the other three houses of this type have a deeper lot where you can fit two cars um in tandem. Um this this lot is too
shallow and so the cars currently you can see on the photographs they're parked side by side, one on the asphalt, one on the pavers. Um so we're hoping to we're proposing to upgrade that landscaping by having planters in front
of the wall and then converting it all to pavers >> by making what all pavers? >> The parking area >> in the front. If you can see on the um >> T1 the title page shows the existing
condition where you have about 2/3 of the driveway is asphalt and one/3 is pavers. Right. >> On T2 is what we're proposing to do, which is make the entire driveway area pa patio
pavers and they would park the two cars would park on pavers, no asphalt. >> Okay. So then I'll I'll ask the first question that the the uh thought is to continue to park two cars. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you need it. So, the variance
is whether or not um parking can be uh uh allowed. >> The code says you need to be able to put one car behind the front of your house. >> So, in this case, it's the garage. Sometimes people take care of that by
parking on the side of the house, right? >> But to restrict in the front yard, >> right? So the side of the house, is there any is there any way that you can rather than is there any how wide is the front
is the sideyard that you could fit? >> So we so we looked at putting a driveway um to the south where you see a 10 foot setback. Um, one issue with that is that it adds a variance
um, which which is having the cars within the 4 foot setback on the side. Um, secondly, there's a >> so, excuse me, you would be requesting two variances. If we proposed the driveway to be on the south lot line,
>> right, >> we would need a second variance because one one variance is just parking in front of a >> in the front yard without a garage, >> right? >> Um and that's what we're here for. If we were to move the driveway to the south property line, we would have a second
variance, which is be parking in the four within 4t of the side air setback. >> So, a different variance. It's a different >> Well, I think it's a second because I think we still need >> we're still not allowed to park in front in the front yard without a garage.
That that was my understanding of >> So, the ordinance specifies that uh between the main the front facade of your house and the curb, parking should not occur in that area. So, essentially, don't park in the front yard. So if like you're off to the side and it's beyond
that, you know, front pane of your house, then it would comply. >> Okay. Then in that case, then you would require 10 10 foot wide uh driveway. >> We would need a variance because the driveway is one foot away from the >> So we would one way or another, we had two variances, >> right,
>> for that that that's a >> that's sort of a zoning issue by doing that. But then the other two issues are we would also be wiping out all the trees along that south property line that shade the house from the south. And
then the more pragmatic uh issue is you can see that there's a telephone power pole shared by Verizon and PSNG that has a guide wire that currently would block the access to such a driveway. And the
owners have reached out to PSNG and and Verizon. They've said that because that pole is the last of the line, that guide wire is holding up, it's the it's the last thing holding that group of U wires together and they
were not uh so it was be to be quite a challenge to get that moved. Um because the the physics of it is very difficult to move it north. Um, and then it's of course would be another whole another issue to have them move it to the south in front
of their neighbors property. So, we did pursue that and that's why we're back here because that did not seem practical. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. >> So, we'll open up to questions now from the commissioners.
>> Um, I have a question on your plan A2. Uh, I see this. This is a home office. Is that it? >> Yes. >> I see four desks in this home office. >> They have three children.
>> Okay. So, these are Okay. So, these are these aren't >> um current currently the the sun room is is the uh homeowner's home office. She's um works from home. >> So, she has three kids in the dining room sharing a >> a dining table. We just don't want more
parking to have to happen because they're having people work in their home office. So, >> right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's my only question. >> Um, >> Stephen have any report on this?
>> Well, I want to do questions for Anybody else have questions? >> No question. >> I have a couple questions. Just uh How long have you been in the house? >> Uh, I'm the architect. Um >> Oh, yeah. How long has the owner been in the house? >> About 5 years now.
>> Excuse me? >> About five years now. >> Five years now. Okay. Uh, and is there is there parking on the street overnight? >> Gina, do you want to just come up and use the mic? Thanks.
>> You have to We have to She have to be sworn in. >> Oh, hello. raise your right hand. Uh, do is your testimony going to be truthful tonight on this application? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Third question. >> We would have to get a permit for overnight parking, but I don't love the idea of doing overnight parking because they're right across from Bradford Elementary School. So drop off happens and it becomes a one-way street and it
would just congest the drop off situation further if we were parking in the street. >> Okay. Uh the the reason for this uh conversion is uh we understand they use it for home office and um is that
something that cannot be done currently? No, we have a sun room as um our architect have mentioned that is part playroom, part home office at the moment. And beginning in 2026, I'm going to have a career shift which was going
to require me to work further at home. Right now, I only work two days and the biggest reason is I have three children and there's no place for them to study. When they were younger, that's fine, but my children are getting older. My oldest daughter has dyslexia. She has tutors
who come and right now we have a tutor on the kitchen table and my two younger ones in and out right around there. So, it's just not a great situation and as you can tell we don't have a large footprint. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> No problem. >> Nick questions.
>> Okay. So, then we'll uh turn it over to Mr. Swallen and his report. Did we were we did you read his report? >> Yes. >> To Yeah. Mr. Schultz mood. Okay. I couldn't definitively figure out when the house was built. My guess was 1945.
Do you know if that's accurate, by the way? I was between 1943 and 1947. >> Um I don't know. I But um >> Okay. Well, we'll go ahead. >> Roughly 1950, I would say.
>> Okay. So, post World War II. Um the home is located in the Monontlair Heights potential historic district uh which was largely built out by World War II. This is one of um I think the rare examples
this kind of block of postwar infill. A big component of post-war infill was the attached uh garage. In this case, it's the little street facing one. Um, it's present in pictures going back to the
1960s that I was able to find. It's definitely original. Um, and it is a character-defining feature of um, post World War II Cape Cod style houses. And um I believe its
removal would create a very atypical and uncommon uh condition where everybody's expecting there to be a garage at the end of a driveway and there would no longer be one. And to add on to that, there's now a certainty of of cars being
parked in the front yard, which would obscure visibility to the house itself. Um, of the handful of other houses on the block that have the same footprint or typology, have any of them removed their their
front facing garages? >> So, not on College Avenue, but two of them on Carile, the >> adjacent street adjacent to it have >> five and 23 Carile. >> Okay. And just on the point around it being
congested when there's drop off, the garage today, as Eric had mentioned, is not functional. So either way, whether we keep it or not, it's not a place that can functionally house a car. So to me, like I understand your point, but it's not actually something that will help
with the congestion. >> Okay. Thank you. So we'll open up for comment now. Uh, Mr. Juliana, >> um, I, you know, I'm supporting >> on the two points. So, we're discussing the variance with the parking in the front. Yeah. And then also the the
facade change. I just want to mention that to everybody. >> I just want to clarify that the what variance can be discussed like it's not an approval or denial. It's just >> Yeah. >> But we're recommending whether it should be approved or not.
>> So, sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. >> Yeah. I mean, on the topic of the variance, I mean, I know we're not deciding it, but it's pretty much a technical variance to me. Your garage is not functioning as a real parking space. You would have two cars in the front all the time anyway. You see, that's the
case with all of these houses that have the double wide driveway. There's two cars parked in the front all the time, and nobody uses their garage to park the car in it. So, if I were weighing in on the variance, I would be supportive of it. Um, I didn't at first have an issue with the
lack of the garage door on the front facade. Um, I think it looks fine without it, but to Mr. Smallen's point, I mean, you could just as easily put windows in and trim it out to make it look like a garage door and it's just windows so that it keeps the fabric
looking the same, but the interior could still just be a finished space. And at the front wall, maybe you just have higher windows, you know, because they look like they're part of a garage door on the outside and it could just be done with trim, you know, and the space could be repurposed as a garage if somebody
ever wanted to. So overall, I mean, I think it's a >> that would be my only recommendation. >> And I think that's a good point because that would have been something that I was going to ask. So I'd like to ask your opinion, Mr. Smalling, on that. >> Yeah, I was going to get to that. It's a very common design solution on this
bizarre road we have in Hoboken called Court Street that has a bunch of garages that absolutely no one can get into and people have very very confined living space and they keep the carriage house door. They insulate behind it. They don't use it as a garage and they
get to occupy the space behind. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. >> I'm comfortable with that uh last comment because I think there's a functional need. I don't think it changes the overall dimension, size or
shape or anything, but if you can and uh the only thing that appears to be historical is that it's a garage door. So uh and the garage door is only significant because of the types of windows at the higher level. So I I
would be uh comfortable as N would recommend that it be u at least for historical purposes it's acceptable to me at least as a commissioner and
provided the windows a little higher. That's all. >> Mr. Rooney >> I don't have any questions. No comments. >> Uh I think the garage as the outside wall is appropriate and I think it is
historic in the sense that there are other infill housing in the neighborhood that are of this type. So it represents a type. That's all. Um, so, uh, I would support it if it kept the garage door.
>> And, and how about as a design solution to make it look as though it was a a garage door? Is that what you're saying? >> Oh, you can build a wall inside, right, that garage door, right? >> Okay. Or you can, you know, you'll work
out some details on how to weatherproof it or how to seal it or whatever. Um um I unless the garage door is in terrible shape, I would tend to do that. But you know, that's >> just so the consensus is to
>> Oh, wait. I have an I have a comment. The um the the and it concerns the variance of parking in the front yard is is >> on this photograph that you've you've given us. I don't know if it's
backwards or what, but it looks as though the pole for the PS&G is to the left of the house as you're looking at the house, >> right? So, it's on this it's to the left. So, uh if we were to put a the
driveway there, I'm saying it would not be practical because we would have to move the guide wire, >> right? Okay. So, how so my question would my suggestion recommendation where the garage is now to the as you're
looking at the house on the right to to rather than park in front of your door, which I I think is I I I don't Anyway, how about widening the driveway to the right? Would you have enough >> property line? But but you'd be on again
you'd have to go for a variance but we would support that variance if you went to the >> to the right to the north >> to the right. Right. >> Yeah. U we considered that but again it creates a second variance of sideyard side. >> We going for one variance anyway. Right.
>> You have to you have to ask >> um yeah I mean that's another option. Um, I don't know if the neighbor would necessarily be happy about that, but >> I don't know if I have enough space. >> Um, well, I think what you're suggesting
is shifting the double wide parking area four feet to the right >> to the right as you look at the house so that your car isn't right in front of your front door. >> Sure. >> I think that that that is uh uh lessens the burden of of parking in
the front in the front yard. I don't What does everyone else think? >> I I don't think there's enough room to shift it all the way over. So, you're >> Exactly. >> It would be partially It would be an improvement, but it's a variance to partially move the car out of the way of
the >> How wide the paved area, the new PA area, how wide is that alto together? Um, that's essentially 18 feet.
>> 18 feet. >> It's I mean it's existing 18 feet. It just would be 18 ft of all pa instead of >> Okay, got it. >> Partially asphalt. >> And the the garage is 9 ft wide. >> Interior 9 and a half.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So you can park a car there. You can park a car two. You divide that 18 foot into two cars. You got nine and nine. You can park in that garage. >> You can't door. >> You can't open the door. >> Um >> outro. Yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Okay. So, um I think we're uh the idea of of the design solution with having the as a recommendation again has as as keeping the the garage door it there
intact, not not making it look uh uh like the window to the to the left of the door. I have a Can I make a comment on that? If that happens, then we would have to throw up a drywall, right? So that from the inside, it doesn't look like a garage door. It looks like a functional office. If I do that, it
limits sunlight significantly into this space. >> No, you'd still have windows, >> but that's where we were going to put a window. It would be And the side window is very close to our other house. It would be very limited sunlight that comes into that space. And it's a place
where I was hoping my children would be able to read and study and it would just be unfortunate if we would have to limit sunlight that comes into this space and make it darker for this purpose. So that's the trade-off that I'm hoping
that the commission can consider. >> Okay. So what do you think? >> Well, the top of this garage door has all windows, >> right? I would think that is >> so you're not cutting out all the light, >> but wouldn't we be putting up a drywall from the inside? >> I think they're they're just
recommending replacing the garage door, I'm assuming, with an insulated version of the same thing >> that it's permanently nonfunctional. >> Just the from the inside, you're looking at it would look like a garage door from the inside.
>> That's not ideal, >> which is I guess her objection is that >> right. So that's our first recommendation. The second one would be to the uh uh about uh uh eliminating the
need to park in front at the front door to keep the make going for second variance to increase the width of the driveway to the to the right of the >> here.
shifting both spaces over by about five feet is what you're recommending. Understood. >> Right. And if you and if that's all paved, if the car >> kind of drifts over in front of the door, then >> you know when you when you park. But I
think shifting that to the increasing that to the right as a recommendation would the driveway to the right would would lessen the burden on the the front parking front yard parking variance.
H >> what's the what's the spa? How much space is to the right? about five and a half feet. Um, 5.5, but create a second variance. >> So, you're going to be able to move it over four feet maybe. >> Exactly. >> You're not going to get a whole car there. So,
>> yeah, but you're not going to have to put it in front of the door. >> What's that? >> It's >> Yeah, but it's half in front of the house. >> I I think it's >> Well, we have to we have to make a recommendation on front yard parking. Are we trying to
lessen the the the the the uh you know the the view or of of front yard parking or just leave it the way it is now and then the cars in front it again this is a recommendation. >> Sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I guess this goes to whether it's changing the nature of the not that it's part they're parking there, but is if everyone >> parked two cars, >> right, >> and we started paving everything in front of every house, >> right?
>> I don't think we would want that. So again, the only reason we're proposing side by side is because we don't have the depth for tandem like the other neighbors. Our her neighbors all have the depth to park tandem. >> Two cars in tandem,
>> right? So they only need 10 ft, >> right? >> We need almost 20 because we don't have the depth. >> Otherwise, the back of the car is on the sidewalk. >> Okay. So we have two re recommendations, correct? to uh first about the the uh
the the uh garage door a design solution for the garage door and then the second one to create the driveway which necessitates putting in your application for a second var >> right >> a v second variance
but I don't I think that that's a more um amanable I mean it's a more visually acceptable uh than what what you're seeing now if you scoot the cars over in front of the the you know what's going to be the garage
or what was the garage. >> Sure. Understood. And and so the first recommendation is the garage door would it would be a replica but it would be 6 in above grade above a curve concrete foundation walls assuming that's
acceptable. Right. >> Good. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Understood. You have you have that set. So now >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Good luck. Yeah. >> Um
okay. Our next application is application 2944 24 William Street. >> This is also a board of adjustment referral. Um, is anyone here to speak to this
application? >> I don't see the property owner. >> Oh, >> this is which one? This is G. Yeah, >> I tried to call them and sent them an email. So,
>> oh, this is a pretty uh >> extensive >> ex extensive discussion. So, >> well, yeah, 24 William. >> So,
>> do we push it to next to >> Can we Yes. Let's ask our attorney if if the uh >> it's just an advisory review, so it doesn't have any legal proceeding around it. >> Should we just go forward with discussing it? >> No, >> I don't think so. >> Okay.
>> The applicant should be here to speak to it, right? I don't think that makes any sense to make comments when to an empty room. >> Right. Right. >> I think it's up to you. I think the I mean the property owner had noticed,
right? >> I I would just >> So the property All right. So the property owner had notice from uh 24 William Street. The property owner is not here. Um when does this have a a
date to go to the board of adjustment? >> Uh it was tentatively scheduled for November 5th. I don't think we've ever done it though that we would give an advisory review and make recommendations without the person being here. >> Okay. Well, I think this is a pretty in
uh intense uh discussion. So, I would I would say that we should >> what our recommendation would be to I guess to who the planning >> Yeah. that uh the historic preservation commission can you know cannot you
>> approve any of this until they come before us. >> Yeah. You'd have to be requesting to the zoning board that they move it back and they would have to gain his consent because they're on a clock just like you're on a clock. Right. That's >> advis
I think you can share them but obviously there wouldn't be a back and forth. >> Yeah. What you can do and the alternative is what the latest for land use law says and that is you can discuss it here present your report either orally or in writing to the zoning board go to the zoning board
>> meeting I guess if you wanted to have sorry for being too strong like if you wanted to have a discussion with them that wouldn't obviously be possible then comment forward those on to the November 5th >> okay 5th
>> um well Okay. Well, why don't we ask I asked the my fellow commissioners. >> Okay. Uh whether we're going to discuss it or not, >> without the owner or architect or anybody. >> Well, it gives us the ability to make all sorts of comments, right?
>> So, you know, if they're not here. So, um I can jump in. >> Okay. >> No, there's no questions, right? Right. Yeah. >> So, Steve, you feel we should make our recommendations? Yes or no? >> Recommendations.
>> Mr. Okay. Mr. Rooney, >> I mean, uh, Mr. Sweeney, >> I I don't have any comments and stuff that I like to have people here you can ask questions to, >> right? I think we all do. So, you know, if we could defer it, that would be my
>> But according to our But according to our attorney, >> can you can you repeat that, please? >> Sure. Sure. So, you can defer it if you want to, but that's meaningless if the zoning board doesn't adjourn it with his
consent. They're not entitled, if they're up against the clock, to just adjourn it because we would like them to do that because he didn't come here. um you know whenever there's an adjournment you have to actually ask for the consent to adjurnn from the applicant.
>> Okay. Do we require that the applicants be present? >> No. No, >> we don't. It could be simply submitted and we could uh make a comments. We don't need anyone here for questions. >> No, but it it very rarely happens. I
think >> yeah, it rarely happens and you could be commenting on something that he could he could, you know, clarify or say why he objects to it or, you know, I mean, obviously it's a it's a disability, but if you want to make a recommendation to the zoning board, my advice would be to
go otherwise we're not going to be able to come to a recommendation, >> right? Which I would agree with. >> It's one of seems of necessity, but normally we're speaking to the applicant, >> right? And so, uh, somewhat of a waste of our time.
Not >> we're speaking to the plan. We're speaking to the planning board. >> Zoning board. I'm sorry. >> We're also speaking to the applicant that they usually listening. >> Will they get a copy of our >> Yeah. Immediately after this meeting,
I'll share a copy of the report with the applicant as well. So, if you wanted, you can request a response from them. If you have a specific question, I can help facilitate that. >> Okay. All right. >> When will the planning board hear it? >> The zoning board is >> November 5th.
>> November 5th. Yes. >> Right. And Mr. Juliano, what do you how do you feel? >> I wish. >> Okay, then let's go ahead. Um, and we have this great report but from Mr. Smallen, which I think gives us uh very good uh guidance. So, um, why don't we
start? John, you're ready to go. Um, >> these are comments. No, >> it's comments. Uh, and it's mostly directed to the front facade. >> Um, and two different things. Uh, there there's some peaked I don't know what it
is. There's some sort of peak and a fake roof in front of it. I don't know what it is. It changes the slope and the feeling for the existing I don't I don't know if that's applied, >> but
um I think the front facade should uh remain as much as possible. Now, I realize the interior rooms get laid out differently. Uh I'm not a fan of, you know, in the historic building, all the windows are pulled apart. They're
symmetrical to the facade. In this case, he's ganging or whoever's ganging three windows together on the ground floor with two doors and ganging two windows upstairs. Uh, I would say
I that he should look at separating out all those windows. I would also look at potentially um if if he's turning this into a two family is what I I see happening here.
Uh why he needs two doors and why he can't arrange this. So he has one door like it exists now. That's that's what happens on the house next door. >> Yes, it's an existing two family. >> It's an existing two family. >> The property is currently a two family
property. Um, >> where's the exhibit? >> So, the first apartment is on the ground floor and the second apartment comprises the second and attic floors. >> Before we before we continue, I should maybe I should just give a little
introduction to mean that we're describing this uh or discussing it. He he's the applicant proposed to expand the dwelling by extending the building footprint to the rear and adding a third story. The existing twostory rear bumpout will be widened to match the
full width of the house and the addition will extend approximately 2.58 ft further into the rear yard beyond the current bumpout. The rear additions will be incorporated into the vertical expansion of the home. A portion of the front elevation of the existing first
and second floors will be demolished to integrate the new third floor which will be stepped back five feet from the front plane of the first and second floor. The overall height of the building will increase from 28.3 feet to 33 feet. The
the uh structure will be considered a three-story building due to the width of the shed dormers. And one of the variances they're looking for four variances, but the uh most important well I which I just uh described is to
permit a dwelling with three stories where 2.5 stories is the maximum permitted. So that's with that added height on the on the building. Um they're also asking for a front yard set back. Well, it's already non-conforming. Um and the third floor addition would be
set back 5T from the front plane of the lower floor. That's why it's stepped back so that they can take the that's you know for the variance. And then the other uh variance is the east side setback of 3.27 ft is in alignment with
the existing dwelling. This variance is required for both a rear rearwood expansion and the third floor edition. And then um and again it's to permit off- streetet parking for two vehicles where four spaces are required uh
because I guess it's two family or okay. So, we're looking at a b uh variances and most of them or the majority of them uh are dealing with the um third floor putting making a three uh threetory
building as opposed to a two and a half story which is really what the neighborhood is is like. So, John, you were starting. >> Okay. So my comment was not necessarily about the two f I guess it's already two family but it doesn't have two doors facing the street.
>> The the house next door has one door facing the street and I see two mailboxes. So obviously you go into the door you're in a hallway. You go upstairs or you go into the apartment. So I'm I would suggest a layout where
there's only one door on the facade. again you know all these things is whatever we can do to reduce the scale of people's wanting to expand you know not change their need you know I see the need but to reduce the scale of
what they're doing >> um I don't know what the alp this looks like some sort of alpine roof >> shape okay which >> for you know I would say forget that. >> Well, that would go with uh granting the
variance for three of three building. >> Well, I'm just saying this shape. >> Yeah. This >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Or this. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, where is that? I I can't even tell where that is. >> What What's the adding
>> And what is this? >> That's a good question. >> Okay. I'm just saying get rid of the alpine roof shape and take the dormers and slope them in the same angle as the
front uh roof. They have another two feet they can go up to help do that before they exceed 35 ft, which is the max. It's 35 ft or two and a half stories. They're trying to get three stories, but they're not. They could add
two feet and achieve that pitch. >> Um, as far as adding, you know, there's a lot of detail that there's I would say they should replicate the spindles on this on the
railing. You know, they should replicate the the the uh the pilot the columns in the front. Um, I see a note about adding veneer stone to the steps.
>> I would say no to that. Um, and I I saw some letter of response somewhere what they just came today. There was a response I think to some of Steven's comments. >> I was going to say the other thing is
final sighting. we don't normally approve, but it sounds like he's willing to install Hardy, you know, board to replicate, you know, wood sighting, which I think we in general find acceptable.
>> Um, can you see the front elevation here? It's hard to tell from this photograph. Are these windows one over one or they are they >> they look like they're one over one.
>> Okay. Well, I would say new windows should follow along, you know, and and do that as well. >> Those are my those are my comments. >> Okay. And window administration.
>> Uh Mr. Rooney. >> Mhm. Um, >> can I just jump in quickly while you're thinking? >> You know, they don't necessarily need to do that entry at the front. They could create an entry for the downstairs unit
in the back as well. There's other ways to do it, right? >> So, >> so the recommendation is a second entry, but not at the front. >> Not at the front. Okay. >> Keep the location of the existing front door.
>> Okay. >> How does that work? >> It's not our problem. >> That's not our problem. >> I'm going to suggest that they're rebuilding this entire house if you look carefully. Right. >> So, they have the ability to uh work
with the design a little bit and solve some of these things. Yeah. >> But they're keeping the footprint so they don't have to go through a demo. >> What's that? >> They're keeping the original footprint because I maybe the back >> I'm talking about the interior how they make the exterior work. That's not you
know. >> Um does it Mr. Sweeney, do you have a comment? >> No, I had a first question. Who are you? Who are you going to ask? >> Who are you going to ask? >> Who are you going to ask? >> Whoever they
>> This is a commission within the >> Why did the overall height change from 280? >> Because they're adding they're adding another story. This is becoming three story. Three stories as opposed to >> two and a half stories right now. This house. >> Yeah. >> They're going to add they're going to
make the top story a full third story with proper elevation for seal. So it's going up. So is it being the height being added? So it's not not just adding dormers to uh >> well they're requesting a variance to go
up to to create a three stories as opposed to two and a half. >> It's not dormer. I think >> somebody making the distinction of the a lot of two and a half story houses by adding dormas become three stories
without getting higher. This is not the case. Are the rules of the road apply to dormers and how big the dormer can be on a facade and so on. So this is a third floor >> my uh question my comment it seems like
there's such a material change in the overall structure and size >> right and this is in a proposed historic district frog hollowa >> which are which are working working uh housing working housing uh Mr. Juliano
and then we'll listen to Mr. SP's report >> and we'll try to incorporate all this. Okay, S. >> Yeah, I mean I think John covered most of it. I think the back form looks better than the front. Frankly, I like that they just started a a new roof
gable steep from the top of the second floor and just did two dormers coming out of it. Whereas the front is like these two gables, one on top of it just looks like kind of a mess on the front. >> Yeah, I >> I would suggest they just bring the dormer
>> um or keep the dormer on the front, you know, at the depth that it's at, but take the front gable and raise it up, >> but also eliminate the the two gables, just have one. >> We keep calling these dormers. >> Yeah, >> they're not dormers dormers. They're really they have a little strip of the
roof running in front of it that makes it look like a dormer, but they're not. It's a floor. >> It's a floor, and that's what one of the variances is. So, our recommendation would be that they not be able to >> uh uh gain this variance to create a three-story house on what street are we
on? On uh William Street. >> Yeah. I mean, I think three stories is a big ask there, right? Three stories. It's already >> It overwhelms the It overwhelms the neighborhood. Okay. So, that's the number one. And anything else? >> No, that's all. >> Okay. >> I mean, if they were to get approved, I
have a ton of design recommendations, but I think three stories is kind of a tall order, right? >> Anyway, I wouldn't really be supportive of that. >> Okay, I think we're all in agreement with that. >> Mr. Small, >> um, I'll be brief because I know it's
getting late and I don't want to be redundant. I think the easiest way to understand that what's proposed here is like putting a dictionary book on top of the house and then unfolding >> the the covers and leaving a few of the pages. It it's a compound
uh gable that's being created. I think the only um admirable part of the project on the front there is keeping that lancet window on the third floor, which if they do choose to simplify
um the form of the roofs, I think would be great to preserve in some way as that is definitely original to the house from 1887. It's a folk Victorian structure. Um it's part of a a um a series of of
similar scale uh dwellings on William Street. Um the pitch gable roof is definitely a character definfining feature. Um its architectural integrity comes from it being a simple narrow uh form worker housing um cottage and uh
the kind of modest proportions of the existing building are really being dramatically altered by this addition and I think it harms uh the streetscape. So the context um would suffer from this addition. >> Um it's definitely not reversible. there's like interlocking ridges and
there'd be no way to restore the form of the original house should this happen. Um the applicant did reply to my report with a September 5th letter and it's it's great to hear that they are open to
using um fiber cement instead of vinyl that they would frame the lattice work. And it sounds like maybe work with the commission on some other questions related to architectural details. Um but I think big picture there's there's a problem with adding a third floor
edition. >> Oh abs. Yeah I I I would agree. Absolutely. So if you hear from them if they wanted to have a discussion maybe design review we could we could do that. Okay. >> All right. But in the meantime, we have uh ny the three the variance for the
three stories u uh the facade uh needs to the front facade needs to be worked the window fenestration and placement it needs to be redone only one door facing the street um no veneer on the steps um
uh a hardy board I didn't see the letter from the applicant that the response to Mr. small, but the the idea that they're acce that they're willing to accept Hardy board is great. Um, and the fact that they're keeping the L, let's be a little positive, the Lancet window remains.
>> Okay. >> Anything they rebuild on the front porch like the spindles, the railing, you know, I don't know if they're pl what's drawn doesn't make any sense, >> right? >> Um, so there's no detail there,
>> right? And as far as the one variance that they're requesting for four car parking, four cars, um, it looks like, um, they're going to stack them up. I I I can't really tell, but in the back of the in the back and then the, uh, and in
the driveway. So, I I don't think that the four cars as opposed to two cars is a is a is a hindrance. >> Okay. >> That was a variance. Yes. Okay. Any other comments then from us? No. Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much.
>> And our next application is application 2025. >> Our next application is 2025-25 629 Valley Road. Um, this is SS Chang
and this is a uh this is a C of A application. Yes, this is a CFA application and um hello. >> Hi, good evening. Uh I'm just going to
I'm going to introduce the application and then we'll swear you in and uh Okay. So the proposal the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for changes to the Lraine Avenue frontage. The proposal
includes demolishing the existing stucco facade and installing a brick facade with glass windows and doors. A fabric on awning is proposed uh above the storefront windows as well as a wall-mounted business sign. The eastern facade will be recovered with brick to
match the rain avenue storefront. The proposal also separates the property into two resale into two reail places spaces. No changes are proposed to the valley road. Uh, this is, as I
mentioned, a certificate of appropriateness because the subject property is identified as a harming building in the 2006 nomination report for the upper Montlair Historic District. The property was constructed in 1934 and then altered in 1955 and
1992. and we would will remember it as the athletica athletic formerly the gap building on uh on valley on valley road. So could you introduce yourself and your uh
association with the building? >> Sure. My name is Gregory Schwitzer. I am the architect uh representing uh the client on this project and uh >> yeah I'm ready to go. >> Thank you Mr. Spitzer. >> Uh raise your right hand, please.
>> Yeah. Uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony provided on the application of the commission tonight will be the true apology of nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So, can you just walk
us through what is proposed for uh no changes to Valley Road, correct? >> That is correct. >> And it's just the Lorraine Avenue and then the uh the east side of Lraine. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. Um, unfortunately the uh presentation I sent is not on the
screen. So if you I can kind of walk you through. I did uh preempt by bringing copies. You should have them at your desk at least on what I had hoped to present uh with this visual aid. So I'll walk you through it as we go through it. Unfortunately,
>> may I just ask is this a new a new uh plan that was on our desk this evening? That is just a presentation tonight. None of the drawings that was submitted to HPC has been altered in any way. >> Oh, okay. >> It's additional information to help tell the story.
>> Okay. Does she have your presentation? >> She does. And she just went to get it. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. For some reason, >> we can follow along. We could follow you until until she comes back. Okay. This will this marked A1 uh because it's not been previously distributed. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> Okay. So, that's A1. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Uh >> uh the uh description you gave of the building is quite accurate. Uh the building uh was built in 1935. Um I do
not know who the architect was. Uh Mr. Smallman's uh office prepared a wonderful uh synopsis. >> Wait, microphone. >> Just hit the button so that the green light is on. >> How's that? >> Much better. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, as I was saying, uh, we are in receipt of the comments that we, uh, from, uh, actually acknowledging the, uh, receipt of our application from October 8th, giving us, um, comments about the description and the
appropriateness of the application. And we also received uh, comments uh, prepared by Architectural Heritage Consultants LLC, which was presented to us. And um I thought that the reports that was passed along to us was
information that really oh perfect um encapsulated uh our understanding of the project. Uh we agree that the property was constructed somewhere in around 1935 and uh the building itself is uh a pretty unique uhly shaped and situated
building. It's front-facing on uh Valley Road where it gets the address 629 Valley Road. However, the building has is an L-shaped configuration. So, it kind of wraps around the building that is on the corner. This is the corner of Lraine and Valley. Currently, the
building uh facade on Lraine Avenue is uh pretty much non-existent. It's just a brick wall. It is covered with stucco. There are no penetrations. There are no openings. There isn't anything except uh perhaps one or two uh electric boxes, a
sprinkler stand pipe connection, and some light fixtures. So, the ultimate goal of this project is to reestablish that facade. Um, we wanted to do something we thought that was tasteful in bringing
back uh the um what we believe would have been um what the building would have looked closer to than what it is currently. Um just thumbming through the uh the slides and maybe I should just get this just so
I can cue you up to where I am in my presentation. This is the report. Uh there was a picture that Mr. Smallman shared with us as well that indicated the uh building on the corner and it was really nice to see all of these penetrations and
openings which if you were to walk by that building, you'll see that they actually exist. They're just blocked in right now. So, um our project would really be reactivating a corner that has been pretty much left to nothing but masonry walls without any penetrations.
There's no activity along that that uh side of the elevation. Okay, this is the Valley Street facade. I'm going to talk a little bit about this because uh the the primary scope is really here.
So the images that you see here are um the sides of the building. This is the east elevation of the building. Uh it is fronted by a 12-oot easement that is there. Um just for your purposes and
just to make sure that you understand uh the relationship of the building that is adjacent to it. Uh this is the site here where there is a development currently going in the old Saunders uh the old Saunders uh hardware store
location. That's the rear of that building. This is the rear of our building. The easement is here and it services both this building and that building just for reference. The side of that building is also covered with stucco uh painted over
cement blocking in some areas. Some of the windows that were previously there and doors were uh closed in. Our objective is to reactivate some of those doors. Um, if you see the arrow that's pointed in your drawing, there is
evidence that there was a door there. We're planning on re uh establishing the door that that's there. And then the door that you see up front at the very corner, which is the second slide, uh we're our our goal is to close that door. There's no need for
it, and it wasn't really original to the building. It's there now, but it really makes no sense to the property itself. Um, I'll slide to the next. Okay, that's the front elevation. The building width is about 34 feet wide and
it stands approximately 14 ft tall. Um, at least this elevation. Um, again, as you can see, there aren't any windows. It's all stucco. Uh, it has a terracotta uh coping along the top and uh that would remain. Our goal is to reestablish
the storefront, remove all of the stucco, all of the uh spalled or broken masonry units, and either install a uh new masonry units or um if the masonry wall that is there is stable enough
after we make the penetrations, we also may consider putting a thin brick uh and laminating the exterior of the building. The same treatment would be applied to the east elevation of the building. Um, which is again the elevation that you
see on the side. Um, the key is to really just make it tie in a little bit more. Right now it's just a white vanilla box. soon as you make that corner turn from Valley Road onto Lraine and it is
really kind of nondescript. I'll go to our drawings which have a greater detail. Okay, I'm sorry about rushing through this a little bit but uh I understand it's late and everyone's trying to get out of here as well. I'm trying to be as uh detailed as possible or as necessary
to convey the ideas here. Um the elevation that you see here in the top uh drawing, it simply illustrates the uh the reestablishment of the masonry. shows the new door location and then you start to see some articulation of brick work pattern which we are wrapping
around from the front elevation which is the elevation that you see just to the right upper right corner next to the title block. Uh there you'll see uh we have two uh
masonry uh walls with a caststone base. Um, we have materials selected for those which we'll see in the next slide. And again, we're just placing in very large storefront windows with uh butt joint
glass and uh doors with glass insets and uh some very non-escript lighting on the facade. And then instead of using what we see a lot around town being used as gooseeneck light fixtures, we're placing something that's a little bit cleaner and simpler. And you'll also see an
image of that on the next sheet. Uh because we really didn't want to emphasize the lighting fixture. We wanted to make sure that we illuminated the facade in a way to where it stands out and it really looks nice. U along Lorraine Avenue there.
I'll go to the next slide. This is crazy. Okay. So, here you'll see where we've shown some of the materials in your presentation just to give you an idea of some of the colors. Um, we do intend on
putting a uh fabric awning in front. It would replicate what is currently uh on the facade facing Valley Avenue. Same style, same design, nothing extra. Um, and uh in essence, that's pretty much
it. It's it's a pretty simple um beautifification of the Lorraine uh corner there. Um I know that there were some comments that came to us with respect to potentially recessing the storefront and trying to uh reestablish
what one may have seen there when the building was originally constructed. However, because of the size of the space and the the the size of the facade and the fact that it's actually a side street and not on the main street of Valley Road where you see a lot of that happening, um we thought that it would
be too much and the owner of the property uh is very much um not um willing to do that at this point in time, but I did wanted to address that just so you're aware of where we are. Um there's a lot of nuanced brick work and
patterning that's going to occur on the front which would have been uh typical or common to buildings of this type uh particularly along the main street. We believe that this building would u be a really nice um terminus of the brick
type buildings uh along that quarter, that retail quarter which wraps around and it pretty much stops at this building. >> Even though there are two buildings that are beyond this on Lorraine Avenue, um none of them are of this sort of construction. It appears to have been
old residential houses that may have been converted into uh commercial uses. though they also fall into the same uh zoning um as uh the entire Valley Street uh road there which is the uh NC
designation the neighborhood uh commercial zone. So um that's pretty much our presentation. Um we'd be more than happy to take any questions and clarify anything that may not be uh >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Traser. Um,
can I ask are you requesting uh approval for the lighting and the signage tonight or just the lighting? >> Good question. Um, we are not providing the landlord at least in this particular scope of work is not providing signage whatsoever for the space. Uh, the space
is currently unoccupied and um he didn't want to put signage on the building and not understanding who the tenants would be. >> Understood. You don't have a a tenant yet. >> Yeah. So that would be and the tenants once he gets them would be informed that they need to come to this board to get
approval for that. The the owner of the property is aware of that. We are however um seeking approval for the lighting. >> Okay. >> And the lighting is inside the package of what you received. Um it would have been also if you these drawings in this presentation I presented are too small
to see. I believe we supplied you with uh full scale drawings and you should be able to uh go back to that if you'd need something with a larger uh image there but I think these should give should suffice in giving you some clear indication of what the live pictures look like. >> All right. Thank you very much. So we'll
open up to the commissioners for questions. Uh Mr. Juliano, do you want to would you like to begin? >> Uh I don't have any questions at this time. >> I have no questions. >> Mr. Rooney? Do I know that any questions at this time? >> Um,
yes. There's a lot of subtle little changes in brick and so on. Have you been hired to follow this through construction? >> Yes, we have been. >> Okay. Uh uh my question is the exterior uh materials
for the uh the brick that's sort of um I don't know dappled with the different color it I I that's an obvious uh design choice. So I'm just but it's different than what is next door to it. Is was that the consideration?
>> It's not much different than what's next door. next door has a variation of uh different tones of a deeper red brick. Um, this one has a little bit more reddish tone. The building adjacent to it has a little bit more brownish tone, but there are some red highlights in
that coloring as well. >> Well, I guess what I'm seeing is the blue. Is that >> Oh, with the awning. That's the on That's the awning fabric that you're looking at. The blue or you're looking at the brick patterns? >> I'm looking at the brick pattern.
>> Yes. Yeah. the blue and the brick. >> Yeah, I I really think that that's a a a reprographic coloration. I think that that's a reporic coloration variation there that may come across as being blue, but I assure you that there isn't any blue brick in the in this building
facade whatsoever. >> We'd be open to reviewing that when you get around to to >> be delighted to submit a sample to you once that has been >> determined to meet on site. Yeah, that would be wonderful. >> Okay, that was my question. >> Okay, >> so uh Mr. Mr. Smalland, were you uh can
you go are you ready to give your report? >> Sure. So 629 Valley Road, as Mr. Schwitzer said, is within the upper Montlair Historic District. It is a harmonizing uh structure built around 1935
and um in a nutshell will be a harmonizing structure after this proposed work is done. Um, the proposed alteration removes a blank stucco wall from Lraine Avenue. Um, which I think is actually probably an intrusion to the
historic district. So, I think that's very positive. Um, there's a glazed storefront centered symmetrical entry door. Um that's all appropriate per the commercial um design guidelines and it's
returning that Lraine frontage to being an active transparent storefront consistent with the development pattern of the rest of the historic district. I think the awning and uh lighting are um
tasteful, subtle, compatible, and um overall I think it's a very positive project for the upper Montlair Historic District. >> Thank you. So now we'll do have discussion. John. >> Okay. I have two two comments. One is
are the picture windows on either side of the double doors. It's sort of the butt joint of the marcato presentation and I I'm not sure it's appropriate with the the mo the rest of the motif that and I would tend to put dividers so
those picture windows are broken up into smaller pieces. The other is the actual door flush to the facade. I don't think you're going to be allowed to do that because the doors I don't believe can open out into the public
right away without being set back a little bit. So, I would encourage you like uh to set the doors the door entries back and create a little recess. I think you're going to have to do that. Well, if anyone catches it. So,
>> okay. Uh I will take this information back to our client and and inform him. Unfortunately, he's not here to make finite decisions. So, >> um or final decisions, so I'll have to converse with him with that. But certainly, >> well, that would have to be one of our um
>> Yeah, it's going to be one of our >> not a it's a requirement, >> right? >> Well, the building department make that decision. >> Well, all right. Do you have a do you have any comments? one,
>> I think. Yeah, cuz it makes >> um I agree with fellow commissioner about splitting up the the uh picture windows into two on each side.
Um that's about it, right, >> Mr. Sweeney? >> I support it. It it takes a unattractive stucco wall and converts it back to
something of more historic character. So it meets uh I think it's consistent with historically and I think it's a vast improvement. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Juliana, >> I just have a few. Um John, question to
you. When for the windows, were you just thinking to have an actual mutton vertically or two separate windows with brick in between? >> Not brick. Although I heard him say he might try to salvage the brick facade. So he's going to have to carry it
somehow at some point. And I could imagine he's going to need some break that facade. So I think something a little bit, you know, not muddying, but something a little bit more >> substantial. I would agree with my fellow commissioner there. I think the butt joints not consistent with the rest
of the facade, which has so much nice detailing on it with from your design. I think a little bit of extra metal work in the window would help make it look a little more consistent with the look that you're kind of hearkening back to. Um, I think the brick work is is really well done. Um, there's a lot of interest
on it. Um, I'd love to see a mockup, you know, of the actual materials and just to make sure that you're on board during construction to see it all through, you know, to make sure that they don't just value engineer it down to just running bond for the whole facade. Um, my only
comment um for possibly maybe a substitution is I think the light fixture that's up top closer to the parapet um it's a little kind of too utilitarian looking in my opinion for this kind of facade. I would like to see more of like a a goose neck or or
fixture that looks like it would be something more of that kind of time period, you know, of an early, you know, looks it's just kind of that aluminum fixture. It just doesn't really look very consistent with the rest of the facade. Yeah, goose necks in general
are very common and um I can understand the desire to put something that one is very familiar with on a building. Um I think that this fixture is very uh refined.
It's very thin and it will somewhat um disappear and not be as prominent as a gooseeneck would be on the face of the building. And and it's and the reason why we chose the fixture primarily is because of the odd dimensions of the facade itself.
>> It's very long and it's kind of squat. >> Yeah. >> So, you know, goose necks goose necks tend to be a little bit more obvious and very in yourrface. >> Yeah. Even when they're off. >> Um, so we wanted to get something that kind of sets back. And >> is the finish of it like an aluminum or
is it going to be a darker? >> It's going to be like an anodized metal aluminum. and the coloring. Um, you know, we could certainly provide you a cut sheet, uh, showing you the final choice and sample color. Um, my guess would be that, you know, it probably
only comes in a couple standard colors, the typical bronze, the matte black, and >> whatever other pol, you know, a brushed uh, anodized aluminum type color or something like that. And I think that we would tend to revert to the more um
traditional maybe bronze or black finish. It really depends on what the manufacturer is offering. We could certainly >> if it's a darker finish and if it is kind of as low profile in in reality as you say, I think it it could work. Yeah. >> I I would just not want to see like an
aluminum brushed >> square fixture on the front there. >> Understood. >> So, but other than that, the design work is all lovely. My question is about the the lighting fixtures on either side. What are those illuminated from the back or or
>> it it has a uh almost like a milk glass face. >> Oh. >> And um it is an LED light and it just produces a kind of radiant soft glow. Um, you know, we wanted to put something out that allowed the light to emanate
from it and not necessarily um have uh any indication of the lamp that's concealed behind it. Something that just gives you a very even general light. Um, for lack of a better expression, a chicklet. >> It looks a little like a chicklet.
>> Yes. >> Well, it sounds interesting. And so that metal that that is indicated on this sheet would match the metal of the lighting fixture. >> We will do our very best to make sure that both both fixtures are definitely finish wise in the same
>> same the same finish family. >> So how bright is that light in terms of uh you know we're looking at we see everything with the uh what is that called synop with the lighting that goes behind that >> halo illumination. Yeah. see everything.
It's not anything to do with halo lighting. Correct. It's just Okay. >> No. No. Um and to answer your question, um >> is that on here? I can't. >> Yeah. Um you're talking about um 42
watts. Um that's pretty basic, you know, moderate lighting. It's equivalent to a 40 watt light bulb. um you know the the amount of light
that's emanating from it. So it's not you know something that's really bright >> and you know like you said create that fog effect when you're looking at it directly. >> It's not that sort of light. It's just something to really you know um establish the facade as its own. Um the
the lighting above obviously with the next where you were referring to the gooseenecks is just for future. So when signage is placed up there, it is something that's going to illuminate that band as well. The owner wanted it controlled and what that looks like. So that's why that's chosen now.
>> Right. No, I think that I think they complement each other. I think I think it's a very nice choice with uh you know, a little bit of a modern twist on on on what's essentially a traditional >> right >> facade. and the I agree with my uh
fellow commissioners about the uh brick work and about how uh you know having a mockup to see I think did you say that John about uh making sure that because I'm reading things that come out right like >> there's a lot of little details >> right the details that would it's not
just a flat plane ex >> Oh yeah it's it's somewhat uh three-dimensional um particularly on the ends and the corners and where it turns the building there'll be some sort of difference uh dimensionally between the
actual brick face and the detail that's being highlighted in the uh detailing. >> Um the door well this long facade um that runs off of Lorraine Avenue.
I'm going to guess you're going to need more lighting there because I think it's >> there's lighting already on the building and we're there's lighting already on the building and we're keeping that. >> We're not removing it. >> Is it shown in >> Yeah, that is you're talking about in the easement that is closest to the new door that we're putting there.
>> Yes, there's lighting that's already there. >> Oh, you you have lighting at either end. I'm saying yes, you might find that that just from a safety point of view. I don't know how that door is being used in the back. People coming and going out of that door.
>> It is an egress door. Um it's not a primary entrance or anything like that. They may receive deliveries there. >> The path of it just suggesting you do what you want with it. So, >> but didn't you just say that you were eliminating that door? >> We're eliminating the one that is closest to Lorraine Avenue on the
corner. >> Oh, okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. I Okay. Is there any pattern work I I on that on that facade that John's talking about or is that >> when the at the the stone detail there's
a little bit as it turns the corner >> yeah just at the corner and above the door >> yeah very nice I think it it'll be it'll be a great improvement >> thank you >> okay so uh thank you very much so we're approving um the application with some
uh >> some conditions Yeah. Conditions, >> right? Uh so the first one is to break up the picture windows on either side of the door with a divider. Um >> so it's not a butt joint. >> So it's not a butt joint. Um
>> a recessed door. >> Is that a recommendation? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So the uh main entryway door should be recessed um to comply with code and also for
aesthetics. The light fixture um did Nicholas did you want or Mr. Juliana did you want to uh make that a condition the light fixture? >> Yeah, I think we would just want something in a darker color. >> Okay. So the >> but I think we'll approve the lighting
as pres the light we'll approve the lighting but we've asked if the applicant if we could see both the lighting the brick and details right and the finishes and details of the >> okay so the um finished details for the
brick work um pattern and the lighting will be presented in more detail um but are approved as presented um let's see what else do I I think that was it. >> I think that was it. >> I think that's it. Yeah, I think that's
it. No, I think it'll be a great improvement. And >> then when when will work begin? >> This owner has been very antsy about getting this job activated, right? >> So, I would suspect that we will be moving very quickly uh to get this done.
As you know, there's construction next door as well, >> and they may need a little bit more time to get their trucks and things in and out of that alleyway or that easement that is there, >> but uh I would suspect that he would move on this very quickly. He's been
very antsy about this. >> Okay, great. All right. Yeah. >> So, I think it's great. So, we'll we'll look forward to seeing you again on site. That whole Lraine Street quarter there is going to really clean up nicely in the next. >> I think so. >> Just one other building there that really needs a work over.
>> That big stuckle one on the corner. >> Did you? >> Maybe you couldn't talk to them. >> Did you want to make a motion to approve? >> Oh, sorry. Yes. Um I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions. Um second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> I Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Everyone get home safely. >> Yes. You too. All right, we have our last application. I just would like to take a five minute break. Um, all right. >> Okay.
rero broadcasting again. >> All right, thank you. All right, we're back on and it's 10 o'clock and now we're listening to application 2025-26
510 to 516 Bloomfield Avenue. Um, it's a CFA application and I understand that Mr. Sweeney must recuse himself. >> Yes, I'm going to step down and watch him from a distance. Does >> Does he have to Okay.
So, gentlemen, it's nice to see you again. >> Um, this property is located at 510 to 516 Bloomfield Avenue. It is a two-story retail property in the town historic district. The property is located on the south side of Bloomfield Avenue. Um, it
is a 20th century commercial building constructed in 1927 and is identified as a contributing building in the town center historic district 2002 nominating report. The proposal is the uh applicant proposes to
update the ground floor retail facade including design options for both three tenant and four tenant configurations. Proposed improvements include the removal of the wood cornice above the storefront windows along the entire facade and repair of the underlying
stucco. At 510 Bloomfield Avenue, the existing entry system, ca canvas awning, and signbox will be removed and replaced with new bronze and anodized aluminum frame glass storefront. An existing facade opening adjacent to the 510
Bloomfield Avenue entrance, currently infilled with tile, will be reopened to accommodate either a a new window panel or an additional entrance depending on the final tenant layout. New 12x4 bulkhead tiles will be installed beneath
the windows. So, um, who will be speaking to this application? Uh um my name is Howard Cooper Smith and I'm the architect. >> Okay. >> I'm with GR. >> Is it on? Can you hear me?
>> Oh, >> and hit the button so that it >> it's on. >> It's on. >> Oh, >> the green light is up. >> Okay. Howard Coopermith uh with GR Design Studio. Uh we're architects in Greenbrook, uh New Jersey. And uh we
have a set of drawings that consists of uh uh two plans, two sets of elevations and a rendering. And the reason we have two plans is because uh the landlord at this point does not know whether he's going to need uh three tenants or four
tenants. So we have proposals uh in plan for both and the same thing in elevation for both. And and basically you gave my whole presentation. So I'm just open for questions at this point. Okay. And who else will be uh joining you tonight? >> Bennett Schwarz is uh the landlord. He's
the owner of the building. >> Okay. Why don't you sit down? Just Are you going to testify? We just wanted We could uh >> Not really. I mean, any questions I can answer. >> Well, we need to come sit. >> You We just need to We just need to swear you in or Miss Bower needs to
swear you in. Then you could go back and sit in the comfy chairs. >> Bennett Schwarz Bridge. >> Okay. So just raise your hands. Your >> hands doear testimony
uh tonight on this application. The commission will be the truth of the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. >> Say yes. >> Yes. >> You can go you honestly you can go back and sit there if you want. Okay. Um, now
I my question is are you asking us to approve two different facades? >> Well, the F facades are really identical. The only difference is uh whether it's one or one tenant or two and >> the signage >> the signage two, you know, four signs
versus three signs, >> right? Uh if there is a fourth tenant, we need to create another entry point. >> And that entry point is currently a solid tiled wall. Uh you you've seen the building, so you're aware.
>> And if it if there is a fourth tenant, we need that as Yeah, I'm I believe it was a window or a doorway years and years ago and it was closed up. So the idea is to reopen it as a doorway if it's four tenants and if if it's three
tenants as a window identical to the adjacent windows. >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear so that we know where our discussions go and what we we approve at at in the end. >> Well, I think we would love approval for both versions because they just don't know at this point whether it's three or
>> but we have to we have to flush that out when we when we write write write the the uh resolution. Okay. So, um, we have the the new >> Sorry, just to add, you're also seeking approval for the signage for two of the
ex confirmed tenants tonight. Yes. >> Are we doing Are we seeking approve? >> Oh. >> Oh, the answer is yes. >> So, the um the copy that was added to your desk is uh more details on the signage. So, it's an addition. Yeah, we
submitted the same it's the same elevation only um they have two tenants already and we showed the their signage on the the new rendering as well as the new elevations. So that's the only difference.
>> So we're showing the actual tenants the the original elevations were just theoretical names. >> Right. But I So I'm I'm seeing four tenant signs and three tenant signs. >> Correct. Is that Oh, I thought you said two and four. >> No, I'm
>> It's three tenants or four tenants. >> Four tenants. Okay. Just to be clear. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. So, can you just uh then explain what uh what's going on here? Oh, I guess I should mention that the design review committee did meet at the
site and we had a very productive I think uh >> right >> meeting and I think that it it you we see it with the final what you've proposing. So, thank you. >> That's what we tried to do. Um, basically at the I guess the eastern
most end of the facade, uh, there there's there was a small tenant, few hundred square feet, a jewelry store. They had an awning. They have an awning currently. They have a box sign there. Uh, we're proposing to remove that all together and kind of restore the
building back to what it was before CVS. CVS was there for 40 years I believe. I don't know was was Carl's there >> prior to CVS >> Carl's was there prior to that and I
think it was Kresky's years and years ago and my mother worked at Kresky's in the 30s and 40s so I know that store a long time but but in new in in Newark not this one.
Um so so we're going to remove that all together. On the other end is another awning and that's to the entry point for upstairs. Um that awning would either be removed alto
together and then you know any holes left from the frame that might be there would be patched and you know to match the existing or it would uh it would get a new canvas cover over the existing frame. I I don't
know what what is a the preference here or even with the you know with the landlords. I'm not sure but either way would be acceptable. Um the uh there is an existing stucco band that basically spans about
90 ft. It's the full width of the of the storefront except for that entry point which sort of has its own detailing which is a a cast stone or a limestone front with a with some granite at the
bottom. Um that stuckco band currently you can see it in the the existing elevations has has a wood cornice on it which is kind of staggered. Uh we're proposing to remove that alto
together because it's wood and it right now it's unfinished and it's it's it's something that uh we think um would allow us to put signage there in in a much more efficient way
and keep the signage kind of lower towards the towards the bottom and not not too high. Um, of course, we would have to do some resurfacing or repair of the stucco if
we pull that off. Uh, I think there's some cracks in the stucco. So the the proposal is to is to just is is really to repair it and um and sort of create this little belt
at the bottom and at the top of it just to give it some definition because it's very wide right now. We're trying to kind of reduce the scale of it a little bit and then have the signage all uniformly done. Um,
and we're proposing uh um channel letters like reverse channel letters that have uh uh LED lighting. So, it's back lit like a halo halo letter that's pin mounted to the wall so
it gives a a shadow effect. Mhm. >> Um uh we're not doing a lot of other things other than uh kind of unifying the the the window bulkheads because currently
there are probably six or seven different types of tile on them. So, the idea is to take the existing tile off and replace it with a, you know, more uh more up-to-date looking tile, larger
scale tile. Uh I think we're we're showing a 12 in x 24 in um brick pattern in the tile. Something dark, maybe very, you know, like a dark gray
just to give it some some unity. Mhm. >> And of course, like I mentioned before, this uh this becomes either a door opening or a winding window opening
depending on the the tenant. Um other than that, the building is really going to remain the same. We're trying to, you know, refinish. I think the coping needs to be >> touched up. Those are the major things.
>> Windows, >> the windows are existing. Th this is all existing here. So the idea is to is to keep it. >> Um and anything that's new would have to
be, >> you know, code approved and in terms of its accessibility. and we're trying to get it all to blend together. >> Yes. Thank you. Um so we'll start with uh anything else. Uh no
covers most of it. >> Okay. So we'll have questions now from the commissioners. Um Mr. Randis, you would you want to begin? Um the the belt course right below the windows
you're saying that's stucco. >> Yeah. >> The gray the gray is kind of a shadow line here. Hard to see. >> Oh >> and you can see it at the bottom more clear. We got a little bit of definition to it.
>> It has joints. Not. It looks like it's concrete. You're saying it's stuck up. >> Do you mind just using the mic? Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Yes. This this is made out of stucco. It's not concrete.
>> The existing cornice here is stone. >> It's stone. >> It's stone. It's right. We're we're I'm talking about a little belt course below that just >> or here >> I creates you're going to leave that.
>> Oh yeah. No, no, we're leaving this part of the existing building. >> Below it. Okay. >> Yeah, >> I understand that. Okay. >> Because the draw because your drawing this is what threw me off. your
elevation drawing on. Oh, never mind. I read it wrong. Okay, that's consistent with Did you uh I know we went there with the as the design review committee. Is that
committee? It was the web. >> Yeah. Uh, one of our suggestions was to break up that big I know you're taking off the old wood fake whatever corners >> cornice >> to break up the band. Yeah, I remember we talked about that.
>> We That's pretty eight feet or so. >> Yeah, in practicality that may be a little difficult because to make it really nice out of just stucco may be a little hard to do because I think it it may
end up looking like, well, somebody just did it out of stuck though. Personally, I was afraid that somebody would get that effect. Oh, they're just trying to do that. And it's really stuckco. It's not stone. It's because they're going to see it adjacent to
something real, which is the the joints in the in in the existing cast stone. And you're going to see a uh a marked difference between the two and I'm afraid people might see really understand that
>> the belt course right above the lower windows. >> Yes. >> What is that? No, the lower that bought the fac the storefronts. What is that? >> Also stucco. >> That's going to be a different color stucco.
>> Yeah, but it's not going to be flush. We're going to build it out just to give it a little bit of definition so it really looks >> you could add something above and out of stuckco. You're doing it there, right? >> Well, but this is different because this is this is something that if you really wanted to make it make it look like a belt course that was a series of cast
stones stones, you put a single joint in between. If you try to do a pattern in this large area, it I'm not sure we could pull that off and make it really great. >> Okay.
>> Out of Stuckco and I should say out of a resurfacing of Stuckco because that's all we really have to work with. >> It's not like we're starting over and we can do this out of, you know, real precise fabrications. Okay, I don't have any other questions.
>> Uh, Mr. Rooney. >> No, >> Mr. Juliana. >> Uh, just one. >> I mean, in the the actual sign banner, are there going to be any joints in the stucco that aren't shown on the rendering or is it all just completely smooth?
>> Um, that's a good question. I think a a stucco or mason would be able to tell us. I mean, normally in stucco you you would have control joints at a, you know, over a period of >> certain length. >> Yeah. >> Uh but because this is resurfacing
something that's already there that doesn't have joints at this point, I don't believe because I don't remember seeing any. >> I'm It may be that we won't have any. That's my only question right now.
>> I let me let me just ask my question on the on the uh plans. You have uh you have backing uh backers board on the on the uh tenant tenant signs >> on the elevation
>> on the A201. >> A201 and A200. >> You mean the shaded area? >> Yes. that's meant purely to show >> oh >> uh limitation of signage. It's not meant
to be a backer or anything. >> All right. Well, that Okay. Thank you. >> It's square footage limitation. >> Okay. So, the the the uh as you said describing that they're pinmounted letters right on the on the stucco back.
>> Yes. >> Okay. That was my question. Um, Mr. Smol, would you like then? Any other qu Oh, you have another question. >> I'm good. >> All right. >> Um, okay. So, 510 516 Bloomfield is a
100-year-old um commercial block classical revival revival detailing. Um, I did have a question. If you saw in my report on the first page, um, the furthest left
storefront with the green marble base, were you able to figure if that might be original to the 1927, 1930s or is that from a later alteration? It's a jewelry store. >> I It's hard for me to know whether
that's really original. It's possible. >> Okay. Other than that, >> I don't know for sure. >> Other than that, um the balance of the storefront being altered as part of this application is definitely not historic.
It all dates from likely the 1984 um >> rehabilitation that CVS did when they moved in after the department store in Carl's um did win a award from Monontlair's
Main Street project in 1984. I saw um I think what you're doing is restoring much of this facade to more or less how it looked. It was the sign band zone in the um in the period of like 1930 up until the 70s. So you're you're
restoring this sign band to that to that period. Um you're not doing anything with the awnings that they once had below. Um I see I think you have a confirmed tenant for the furthest right portion of the store. >> Two tenants I believe.
>> What um >> the first the first two to the right on the on the western side of the facade? >> What uh storefront treatments are associated with the tenency on the furthest right?
>> Is it going to be clear glass? I >> Yeah, I I believe so. I don't think that um they've asked for any >> The dispensary is going to have clear glass into it. Okay. >> Um >> I mean, I'm not aware that they were asking for any any changes to the
storefront other than just putting the sign up. Is um >> let me see here. I lost my point. Is it possible to do larger stone panels than 12x 24 for the bulkhead cells?
That's somewhat small. It looks like tile work kind of and not like what you would expect for a storefront with like a massive piece of stone. >> Uh yes, >> like a granite or some type of domestic stone.
>> Um I think that's all I had. >> I have a couple more questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Um, we have some more questions. >> All right. Um, >> question. No, actually it's a comment, so I'll hold off. I'm sorry. >> No question.
>> It's a comment. >> Okay. Well, why don't you start with comments then? >> Um, yeah. The a larger tile um for the bulkhead. If this is meant to be porcelain tile or or marble, I do. You know what? You don't know what it is.
>> We haven't selected anything. You can you can get a lot of stuff 24 by 24 or larger just fuel. >> Yeah. I mean, the bulkhead is only so big, you know. So, >> if you want to see joints in it, you're not going to see horizontal joints. If
you if you have a 24-in high tile, you're only going to see vertical joints, which may be I'm not sure that that's a better presentation than than trying to create a tile pattern.
>> Yeah. The trouble I have with the 12 by 24 is it looks like all this porcelain tile that's being installed into residential. it just it just is a scale that I look at it and go, you know, this wouldn't be used there. So, just take it
under advisement, I guess. Um, >> yeah, I mean, we're fine with with a larger tile, but the larger the tile, I I have a feeling the more costly it may be, and that's a a function of the of the the
landlord's budget. >> Oh, I had a question. I know what my question was. you when you say you're going to resurface the stucco above, what does that really mean? What do you mean you're going to resurface? Are you gonna put wire mesh and do a new stucco surface or you just painting over the
stucco? >> Uh, we have actually a contractor here could might answer that better. >> You have to come up and come here and identify yourself and >> and be sworn in. Sure.
>> James Dagustinino from JD Construction. >> Mr. Dagustinino, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide on the application and the conditions will be the truth of the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Thank you, John. What's your question?
>> My question is I heard you're just going to resurface the stucco. What does that really mean? How are you resurf? You can do it in a lot of different ways. You could paint over it. You can do you can do you can do a wire mesh and do a real
stucco new stucco surface. >> So the existing um substrate that's up there is a is a traditional stucco. So with removing the cornice, we would patch in those areas and resurface the entire thing so it was
a smooth finish. But we didn't anticipate removing the entire thing and putting up a new >> uh skim like a skim coat. >> Like a skim coat. Skim like a skim coat. >> Like a skim coat. >> Skim coat on top of it. >> Skim coat on top of the existing >> but patching in the holes where the old
corn is that's to be removed. >> Yeah. So, so we'll get a a uniform stucco finish that and and and they'll match the color um of the stucco to what's already there
and the adjacent uh limestone. Um if we were to just try to patch it and paint it, it it wouldn't be, you know, I don't think it would work and and they'd be it would be a maintenance nightmare. And I think all the uh if we were just
to paint it, all the uh patches would transfer through and that's not the intent. >> Any other comments question? >> Uh I just see some you know the existing I see some existing cracks. I see some
on the far left side where I'm not convinced that just um >> where the sign where that >> where the Caesar Caesar's jeweler sign is >> whether that technique will will >> well you know I guess that's it's their
you know I'm not sure how long it's going to last >> once they take down the awning and that box sign um I mean they're going to have to examine the condition >> and It it may be that, you know, removal
of that removes part of the stuckle finish to down to uh wire mesh, which means that they'd have to redo it from wire mesh on. >> So, you may open up areas in order to >> Well, they may have to. That that's kind of unknown at this point until they
start taking >> You just don't want to see this peeling off two years from now. You know, >> right? Nobody wants that. It's it becomes a headache for the landlord over time anyway to to have to you know redo anything. >> Okay. >> I'll just if I may add to the band of
the tile work on the bottom on average it's about 2 feet. There are sections of it that are less. Um so uh a 24inch tile would not have any uh horizontal joints just so you know.
But isn't that more appropriate that that the for this for this uh uh >> the bulkhead for this period that that the that the uh bulkhead is all >> the bulkhead ideally should just be one
slab of granite per bay. It's the easiest way to say it. >> It should not be individual small tiles, >> right? Is that something you would consider it that >> I'm not going to speak for the owner? I would consider it, but the owner is here. I think
>> consider it. >> Well, that might be a recommendation or a condition for for for except for the CFA. >> The existing condition is 12 by 12 tiles that are I think in the running, >> but they don't look appropriate.
>> No, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just >> Right. That's what I think I think that's a concern. >> But I'm hearing. Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. Any other comments, John? >> No. >> Steve? >> No. >> U Mr. Juliana?
>> No. >> Um the only comment that I have is that the the STECO that we're that you're talking, you know, you we've spent so much time on proportionately seems so seems out of proportion to the facade.
And I don't know if there's any way you can. >> Well, I that's why we we added that little belt on top and bottom to reduce that total surface which I think was uh more than 7 feet tall. So, we're we're
reducing it. We could maybe increase that little belt, but the more we do that, the higher up the the sign is. And I'm I think that there's a siden ordinance that doesn't allow the the signage to be more than a certain height which we're probably more than already
there because of the existing condition. >> Oh, >> so we don't want to uh you know exacerbate that issue. >> I guess this was >> okay. >> No other I mean my comment would be the bulkhead which I think I should be all
one slab. what what whatever you decide. And uh I mean it I think it's a it's a huge improvement especially with all the variations going on in the in the jeweler store to the left. It's just that proportionately I would like to see
that that stucco reduced a little bit. But if you say if you're saying that that's impossible, the height of the stucco >> that goes back to the idea of adding an intermediate belt course there, which he
doesn't think he can do out of stucco. >> Uh well, >> so >> well, but we we are we are having the belt course at the bottom and at the top trying to reduce that, >> right? >> Massive. >> Yeah, it does. That does help.
>> Yeah. And maybe we could, you know, increase that belt a little bit more and try and further reduce it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um, and then my other question is the placement of the signs. That night owl sign, why isn't that centered over the
windows? >> Oh, no. What am I looking at? >> Is this thin? Art studio. >> Is it night owl or art studio? >> Our rendering. >> Art. >> Yeah, it says art studio. >> This one. Is this the newest one?
>> The one that says night owl is newer. >> This is newer than that. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, but shouldn't the that be centered over >> the placement of the signs is not >> I I think the
um the placement was was we have a a renderer in our office >> and um and I I think he was trying to center it in what would be the tenant space. I mean, you obviously can't see the
demising walls, so you don't know exactly, but maybe that's what he was doing. But if I have we have no problem with, you know, adjusting the the placement of the signs to um you know, to whatever we think is
best. >> Well, the I I think what we what we've agreed on in the past is that it should be over the the the windows or either the windows or the entry. And you can't >> it's got to be centered on the on the windows to the right and then the one to
the left should be centered on that pilaster that >> I think the intent was that this is supposed to >> okay >> no we're looking at this which which isn't >> the
>> okay so that would be That would be a >> Is that a condition? >> Okay. >> And then the one uh that I don't know what is your tenant. Is that the Jew Ju? >> That's tenant too.
>> It's a rest. >> So that should be centered on the pil. >> It should be centered on the pile. Right. >> No, >> no, no. To the left. >> Right. That's the those two windows go with ten and two, right? So that
>> I mean then it's it's further away from the entry and I think we were trying to more related to the entry point. >> Well then it should be over the it's a shorter it's >> what we did was we centered it right over that >> the window >> particular window. Yeah. >> Okay. Because that that does that's that
I could agree with. It's not it doesn't show up on our as that being that way here. If you look at A200 on that uh smaller packet that was on your desk, you can see a little bit more detail on the >> Yeah, you see it's directly centered
window. >> Oh, okay. So, Night Owl needs to be needs to be moved. Yeah. Well, you know, the reason we >> The one is, >> right? Well, the one to the left should be centered.
>> There's a reason that this was shown because if we're showing the limitation with a two foot high sign with the limitation of the shaded area, if you were to put this dead center over this window on the right,
>> then it may be way too the edge of the full sign >> if you want to take it to the maximum, >> right? But of course, you know, without knowing the actual spread of the tenant signage, which we didn't know when we
were drawing, we weren't sure. Oh, so 2011 the placement on 200 and 2011 is different for night owl on two on 200 it's more to the south and then you have that other dispensary is
dispensary part of the sign I don't >> oh and is that is that is that within the or ordinance Yeah, I think that um sorry I didn't catch that before. So I think that will have to be shortened a little bit because the total sign height cannot
exceed 24 in. Yeah. So the other ones the Jichi one does comply the night owl if the letters can be made shorter. >> We at the last minute we got something from their son. We really didn't have
connection. >> Okay. >> Interpreting just to show >> that makes sense. So we'll just put a condition in that. >> Right. Okay. Sounds good to reduce their whole their letter scale. >> Right. Right. Well, I think the but the
ones all the way there are different fonts on on the signage too. Are we are we uh normally what we approve are all the fonts the same size? See I as
so we're you're asking us to approve signage correct either for three or four tenants and which would have to be conform to what our ordinance is but what you're what you're showing here in 2011 is that the height is different for
the four tenants. The height is different on the sign to the left. Different from the restaurant sign and different from night owl dispensary on I'm on >> 2011. 201.
>> Well, it's not on this. I don't have it on this. >> Um, just for the record, um, the one that we have is exhibit A1, which is not the same one as over there. I There is just the first page that's different,
but it seems to be more than the first page. Five pages that are A001, A200, A201, >> A 100, and A101. Um
>> uh if you decide to approve the signage, you're going to have to make it very clear what uh page you're referring to, what uh depiction on even internally with respect to exhibit A1, they're inconsistent.
Um, >> but we're not approving >> um we're approving it in concept about where don't the individual tenants have to come back and sign each application. >> We we were showing in in in all cases uh
two foot high letters just as a as a maximum for and consistently all for all the sign. >> Okay. Well, that's not what we see. >> Maybe maybe it looks a little different because for Night Owl and the Jichi
um because their letters are a little different than the generic of what we used for store three and four. Maybe that's why it looks different. But we're show the box around the whole perimeter is really showing the twoft letter as a maximum height
alto together. But I think to Miss Bower's point that we have to we have to approve it. So we have to know what we're approving >> and and we can't what our >> what we're looking at is not what what's
what you're what's up there that we're looking at right now. That is this see this? >> Yeah. I'm I'm holding what you're holding right now. >> Oh, okay. >> I'm holding this. This was submitted slightly after when we got information
from the tenants. >> And that's that's the only reason it instead of saying store one and store two, it has the name of the tenants. >> We we just got this last week and we just submitted it to you. Just so you would have to know that those are the
two tenants that are going in there. Uh >> the intent is that the the tenants will conform to signage requirements. >> Okay? We're not trying to design their sign for them here. We're just trying to display >> where it goes, >> where it goes, and that they will
conform to the sign into ordinance. >> Okay. If somebody >> Well, the the in the inconsistency that I'm referring to though is the the placement of I'll call it the letters rather than call it the sign. Uh because I understand that this
there's no backing. So you've just created the dimensions to show what the limitation is. And putting that aside, the um letters are not in the same place. In other words, like the O in U
2011 is over the joint of the windows and the O is solidly on the left window in 200. So if they want to center it over the window, if that's part of your
condition or part of your approval, we just need to know what depiction controls. >> Can I ask what what are we >> otherwise the tenant comes back with the sign? I agree. >> Signage details and how the signs being made. >> Well, okay. Zav, are they they they're
asking for approval of signage? >> Yes, they are. Um, >> well, conceptually, not detailed because the tenant should >> I'm sure you approve you you you review shop drawings of signage. So, they're going to have to put together an actual
signage package with their with their elevations and and get it approved by you directly, but this is really more conceptual for the idea. I I I'm just referring to the fact that earlier in the conversation they wanted the sign centered over either the plaster or the
window or whatever it is. If that's going to be part of your approval, then we need to know what depiction controls. >> If it's not, you can be as conceptual as you want.
>> What What do you >> You have to tell us what you're asking. hard for me to answer only because if I say, "Well, let's center it over the window." And then I find out that they want to spread their signage out more because they're allowed to and and shorten it, you know, it wouldn't work
because then it would get too close to the side. So, I'm not really sure. >> So, can we approve it without the signage and then all the everybody comes back for signage? >> What do you think? >> Yeah. >> Um, can we Sorry, I'm the tenant. Oh, I
think you can you identify yourself, please. >> Sorry. Yes. >> Thank you. And Marcy Levventhal, um, part of Night Owl. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll provide in the application of the commission
tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hi. So, um, we have limitations from the state because we're a dispensary about the type of signage we can have. We are literally only allowed to do lettering.
So, it's pretty straightforward. Um, if you guys will approve, I don't know, if you like one of the letterings better, if you like our next door neighbors lettering better, we can match it. We're sort of agnostic. We just want to get a sign approved so we can get a We've been
at this for three years. So, >> but Okay. But do you So, what is it that's going to actually be on the sign? Night Owl. And then you want dispensary on it? >> Night Owl dispensary. Yes. >> Okay. Um,
>> but does that mean does the dispensary >> I I don't think >> the size of the >> It currently does not. So, you would have to include a condition that the signage complies with the zoning ordinance limiting the total sign height to 24 in. >> That's no problem.
>> Okay. Okay. >> So, they Yeah. Would they initially asked for the two tenants that they do have confirmed for their signage to be approved and then the other two or one uh tenant to be approved in concept? >> Okay. So, night So, the two to the right
are we're approving tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. with the condition that night owl dispensary be manipulated so it go falls within the 24 >> right and so when when there's a condition like that they would have to resubmit a rendering to the zoning
officer to ensure that it complies before they get their permits >> that's I mean that's fine >> okay >> we have no problem doing that >> one you're referring to >> yeah ba based on what I see here if they need to stay within that 24 in that sign is going to get smaller at that point it
can sit over the two window. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's that's good. I think that's Yeah, I think that's good. >> Okay. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so we're all clear with the
signage then. >> And the other two tenants when you get a tenant will come back to us. Okay. All right. So, um, anything else or discussion wise? No. No. Okay. So, I
think what we we're talking about or what Z do you want to um >> conditions? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. Um, there's a recommendation that the bell course uh above the signage be made
above and below the signage be made a little bigger if possible or more prominent. Um the signage should be uh for Nidal should be made smaller to comply with the zoning requirement of a 24-in height limit and then should be moved uh further to the right of the
facade to align with the windows um >> centered >> centered above the two windows >> and um >> the bulkhead the bulkhead should be um 24inch tiles. No, one one piece slab
slab. One piece. >> Okay. One piece granite or um >> no >> stone. The one thing though about the bell course, I think you testified that the lower one couldn't be any bigger,
right? >> No, I didn't I didn't say that. >> Okay. Okay. No, I'm saying that maybe we can increase the the both of them, bottom and top, just a little bit to to try and reduce the >> But didn't you say that if you did that then the sign signage would be too high for the ordinance?
>> He's not talking. >> No, no, I wasn't talking. >> I think no matter what you do, the sign's already higher. What What's the ordinance that 12 feet or something? >> Yeah. So, it's either 12t or whatever the signage band is. So with this building, there wouldn't be any
opportunity to put the signage lower. So that stucco course is considered the sign band, >> right? That we're holding it low on that band, right? >> But if we were to >> um it it's already more than 12 feet, I believe. Um I I scaled it and I so
that's like >> well the reason I'm bringing it up is because I don't think a condition for the lower belt co should be it should be made any >> higher because then it's you're going to cut out all you're going to uh the
negative space underneath the signs and that bell course is going to become smaller which I think you need. It's going to make the whole stucco panel look larger. So should we remove the condition about the belt course and uh >> wait no I'm not following that the stuckle this the belt the stucco course
the stucco panel if we increase the the belt on the bottom and the top the the panel will be a little bit smaller >> but the bottom of the signs then rise >> well you know that's what >> we're already holding it above a little bit
>> uh yes it might go a few inches we're only talking a few inches because I don't think you know proportionally We should make that belt course much too much bigger than it is. >> Okay. So, uh All right. So, we'll keep that. I was just trying to help but to
make it look more uh you know to not to negate the the negative space underneath the signs. I think I don't think you want the them sitting right on the belt course because you're going to have all this >> still reading the square where these are just letters in the background. It's
nice. >> Yeah. If we let's say we increased the belt on the bottom by 2 in >> then we would probably raise the sign up two inches just to allow that space in between consistent. >> Okay. All right. So then we'll keep that sign up. All right. Are there any other
>> I didn't have anything else. >> No. Okay. So now we'll vote on this. Uh someone make a motion. >> I move to approve with conditions. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. I
>> Okay. All right. Good. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It looks like a great project. >> It looks great. >> Yeah. Well, it really looks good. >> Thank you. >> And I I don't think the awning I think I know that awning that was up there was really tattered. Um but the um the metal
bar that holds holds it in that's into limestone. Correct. >> Yeah. >> So that might be you might it might look better to put put another >> to replace it. Yeah. to replace it. >> We're willing to do that. No problem. >> Yeah, I should. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Thank you very
much. >> Very good. Thank you. >> All right. Um, we're almost >> No, I think we're done. >> Do we have anything else to discuss? No. >> All right. So, it's 10:40.
>> 10:50. >> All this. >> Who would like to make a motion to adjurnn? Oh, I move to resource. >> Second. All right. See everybody in November. >> Oh, I >> see everybody in November. Okay. All right. Good night. Thank you very much.
Good night.