Good evening everyone and welcome to the November 13, 2025 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the HPC. Notice has been given in the Monontlair Times, the Star Ledger, and the Herald News. A notice has also been
posted in the hallway on in city hall. We are being broadcast on channel 34, the Montlair public television channel, and we are also being livereamed on Montlair's own YouTube channel. Uh, Miss Kasm, roll call, please.
>> All right. Chair Bennett >> present. >> Vice Chair Graham >> here. >> Mr. Ramy >> here. >> Mr. Rooney >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Giuliano >> here. >> Mr. Mixer >> here. >> Miss Floyd >> here. Miss Bower
>> here >> and Miss and Mr. Tashler >> here. >> And then I'll let um our planning intern introduce herself. >> Hi, my name is Bayis. I'm a planning intern. >> Thank you. Are you here to Well, thank
you and welcome. Are you here to observe today or? >> Yes, observe. >> Okay, great. Um, next on board are the approval of minutes of the minutes of October 16th, 2025.
And uh, before I go into that, we have some people that uh, were were not here last, so they're excused. So, which would be uh, they have to recuse themselves. Might Mr. Graham, Mr. Mixer, and Miss Floyd. So, uh, the minutes of October 16th,
2025, um, I have a correction page five, uh, set uh, line 154, could you please, uh, remove uncommon and put in Congress for that?
And then on page four uh line 115 uh I would suggest to remove that sentence the last sentence of that paragraph because it it uh it's confusing and actually the uh that uh
lot is in is on the uh state it has a state form associated with it. So it's on the demolition map in Montlair. So I think that that's confusing. So I would just eliminate the whole the whole sentence. >> Understood. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Does anyone else have any other corrections or >> No. So uh the people that are able to vote on the minutes for approval. Uh I move uh the minutes be approved as amended. >> Second.
>> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Oh great. Okay. Thank you. Resolutions. We have two resolutions. Uh first one is application 2025-24 629 Valley Road SS Chang facade
improvements. Has everyone had a chance to look at this? >> Yes, I have a comment. >> Uh would you like to comment? >> Sure. Um, under paragraph eight, uh, number four,
final details for brick work patterning and then I would add window configuration, comma, entry door, comma, and lighting shall be submitted to the commission for review prior to construction. >> Okay, thank you. Anyone else have any
suggestions for this? No. And I believe that the same people that are able to vote on the minutes will vote on this now. Um >> I move to approve with corrections noted. >> Second.
>> I. >> All in favor? >> I. Uh, next up is application 2025-26 510-516 Bloomfield Avenue facade appro imp
improvements. I just have a minor uh on number seven the last paragraph the signage design and configuration for the three and four tenant configurations. It should be were rather than was also. So just eliminate
was also put were. Any other corrections? All right. Then I move that this uh resolution be approved as amended. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Oh, great. >> I abstain from because I recuse myself
during the discussion. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Moving on to committee reports. Um October 20 on minor applications committee October 23rd application 2025-28
608 Bloomfield Avenue drip bar signage was approved with conditions November 13th minor applications meet uh committee met application 2025-30 147 Bloomfield Avenue signage uh for
playful pediatrics was approved with uh conditions and also 2025-31 416 Bloomfield Avenue um awning was approved with conditions
uh education out outreach the uh library the uh history center and the HPC did a collaborative workshop on researcher in your home October 29th and November 1st at the library. We had a
full house. Uh it's a small group because the the local history room is very small, but um it was at the library. I represented the HPC was a lot of goodwill get people very much interested in in learning about their
history. I was also contacted by the friends of the bond house which I believe we met two years ago and I I uh introduced what they're interested in and we are now they now want to restart
their uh whole uh involvement with trying to get that house the bond house which is a significant local history local designated landmark back up and and uh looking you know looking good
what what it did about 25 years ago. Um design review we design review uh committee has been meeting with the Belle view Theater concerning the murals and we're getting very close to uh uh
you know approving something. We're meeting again on November third 17th on on uh on Monday. um grants. We I announced last week last month that uh Monontlair was this recipient of a New
Jersey historic trust grant in the in the uh for $48,000 to create a preservation plan for the police building first municipal building at the corner of Bloomfield and um
Valley Road. And we did receive a letter from the state finally um that the it it tells us that the legislature and governor must approve the appropriation before the grant funds can be dispersed. The process is typically completed at the beginning of the year. We will keep
you informed of the legislative progress via email alerts. Um and at that time they will uh schedule a mandatory grantor workshop and um we'll be notified by email
and uh Zenab is a big part in helping us get that grant. So I thank you again. Um I would like to uh create a new committee. We talked about this once before, which is the
demol demolition ordinance that when it was passed in 2023, there was some work that needed to be done on the facade um uh renovations or or facade demolition. And I think at
that time we had talked about forming a committee but didn't. Um so I would like to see if we have some volunteers. I'm looking at you Mike. I'm happy having happy volunteer chair. >> Okay, great. So, we are forming a new committee. Uh, Zanab and one of the
architects on the committee perhaps. Oh, good. All right. Steve and and uh John. That's great. And with that, our last thing on the agenda, which is great, is um design review met with a Monontlair resident,
an Eagle Scout by the name of Wyatt Foster. And I invite him up to the podium and the uh computer now because as his Eagle Scout project he created put together and did all the planning
for the information board which now stands at Wong Plaza Park um which is has turned out great. It during the summer um Mr. uh Ashley had contacted me to see if we would work, meaning the
design review committee with Wyatt on putting together and doing the the historic re research for his project. So, I'm going to turn it over to Wyatt now. And if you could just explain maybe the genesis of the project and then the final outcome.
>> Why? There's a microphone there if uh you don't mind. Thanks. A little button on it. All right, wonderful. Um, thank you all. Um, hi, my name is Wyatt Foster. Uh, I am an Eagle Scout in Troop 13, uh, in Montlair. And so, yeah, this is, uh, my
Eagle Scout project that was installed in October. Uh, so I started working on the research in the spring with help from the, uh, Monlar History Center and from the library and put together this with some, uh, the help of some other scouts as well. Uh it's a board that
covers the history of Wang Plaza from Native Americans all the way through present day. Uh with a big focus on early 20th century, the development and the first buildings and the planning of the park there. So um worked with Miss
Bennett and um others from the historic preservation commission to uh fact check it and get all the information and get the photos together. It covers Yeah. So there's the Native American part at the start and then the arrival of the Eerie rail line. Uh it goes through Clifford
Wendack who designed the um the plaza, the Nolan plan that served as the inspiration and then you know the bank and different parts of the development as well as the memorials and then the recent things that are happening like the Judy Weston garden. So that's the
picture of um the content and then I also have some pictures here of it installed. Um but yeah, so that that was the project and that's kind of where that grew from. It was personal to me. I live near Wong Plaza and so the there's
always been pretty hard to find information about it even online and on the internet. I mean there's the you know the 60page report but not a lot of people read the 60-page report unfortunately. So, I wanted to make it more accessible to um people who are just walking through the plaza and don't know about the history of that space. Um
but so, thank you all for for your support in the project. I know there was a lot of back and forth and trying to figure it out on a time pressure. So, I really appreciate that. >> Thank you. I think you did a great job and we really appreciate your effort. And you also investigated the uh stand that it's on. Uh correct. Maybe you
could speak a little bit about that. Yeah. So, the stand is a National Park Service approved um low impact um frame. So, that was also one of the the cool parts about it was
professionally made in Pennsylvania by a company that does a lot of signage for the National Park Service. Um so, then we assembled it, dug the holes, poured the concrete, and um that's where it stands today. And could you just speak a minute about the placement?
>> Yeah, so we did think about the placement quite a bit. Um, the reason that we chose this spot in particular was that you can see out towards the bank. You can see sort of towards the left and see all of the uh tutor revival buildings. You can see sort of towards
the right and see the park and the train tracks right that way. Um, and we had like a few different spots in case there were utilities running. And so um we checked that with the state uh the one call and that and then um this was our first choice spot anyway. So that worked
out and yeah that was the the thought behind the the placement. >> All right. Again thank you for your efforts and I encourage everybody to double click it. >> Thank you very much. >> That concludes our committee reports unless somebody anybody else wants to
mention anything. No. Okay. Uh public comment. This is the uh time public comment. If you have any comments about a particular application or any questions, I ask you to hold that until
the application is discussed. Um which you know may be a little in a little while. But if you have anything about the you know function of the HPC or any any comments any uh uh suggestions
criticisms please come up to the podium. Yes, please come up to the podium. Identify yourself. Thank you. >> Hello, I'm Holly Felbur. I own Barbara Eclectic in Upper Montlair. We're located at 594 Valley Road and I'm here
on behalf of the Upper Montlair Business Association this year or this time. And I just have some very general questions because it's been a long time since I've attended one of these meetings. Um, one I wonder, do all of you
patronize businesses in Upper Monontlair on a regular basis? Are you up there weekly? Have you, any of you sitting here, talked to any business owners who have been there consistently for years? I've been there every day for the past
20 and a half years. And I'm not the only business owner who spends that amount of time in Upper Monontlair. and we are a wealth of information and I just wondered if your commission
ever talks to business owners. >> Um uh I will say that about three when I first became chairperson twice I went and spoke to the upper Montlair Business Association. >> And what year was that please?
>> I don't know eight years a maybe seven years ago five years ago. >> Right. We have a very different uptown now postco than we did then >> and I just would like to let you all know that we would love to talk to you.
>> Great. >> Okay. And we are here for you. Upper the business associ association is very vibrant and we're here to help and we don't want to have any empty storefronts. >> Great. >> They're looking forward to new businesses.
>> Okay. Um, can you please um uh Zanna take uh Miss Felbur's uh contact information? >> Oh, and then I have one other question just about >> wait and then and then we'll make arrangements for somebody to to come and speak because of course Upper Monontlair
is a historic district, local historic district. So that would be great. I live I'm sorry chair >> go and I as a resident the first word I'm there every day almost I know we have a few a few people on this commission that go all >> likewise yeah my family and I visit
constantly we talk to business owners and I would love to hear feedback um it's usually typically been just complimenting everyone on the fine job they're doing with uh their various businesses but we're always open to hearing suggestions and how we can help out >> that's great and then this is just a procedural thing so if we come up and
talk and ask questions Do we get answers tonight? And if we don't get them tonight, do we get them in the future via email or a phone call or something >> from applicants >> or from the commission if a question comes up?
>> Well, this is a time for public comment. Um, usually we we don't have a back and forth usually for public comment, but when there's an application, there is a question period that you ask the the applicants. Okay. Uh, and
>> and then we will get an answer. >> Yes. Well, that's that's how what the we hope. >> Okay. >> Would anyone else like to address the commission? No. Okay. Uh, public comment is closed.
Uh, we have no old business. Uh, moving on to new business. We have a board of adjustment referral application 2952 629 Valley Road Tiger Pacific Realy LLC.
So, as I mentioned, this is a board of adjustment referral, uh, which means that we make recommendations to the zoning board. Um, and I'll introduce the application and then we'll ask, um, uh, the witness to,
uh, will be sworn in and he will testify. So, the site description, this property is located on Valley Road between Belleview Avenue and Lraine Avenue. It used to be Athletica. The property was has frontage on Valley Road and Lraine Avenue. It's an L-shaped
property. Last month, we heard plans for the uh storefront that will the newly constructed storefront on Lraine Avenue. This application does not does not concern that. Um, this is in a uh zoning
neighborhood commercial. We do not have an a report from our consultant. We had >> we determined that it did not right one. Yeah, >> I thought maybe we had it the way you
were shaking your head. Okay. So the subject property is identified as a harmonizing building in the 2006 nomination report for the upper Montlair Historic District. The property was constructed in 1935 and then altered in
1955 and 1992. Uh as I said before, the subject property is located in the NC neighborhood commercial zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot two in block 2602.
and we will be discussing um uh there are two variances that are they're seeking. One is the variance to permit a medical office use on the ground floor in a commercial NC zone where uh uh historically there are no medical
offices on the ground floor and the other variance is a uh to permit a sign that exceeds 24 in in height. So, uh, we see our witnesses here. If you would identify yourself in the relation to the
project and then I'll ask our >> Please press the push button on here >> to swear you in. >> Uh, good evening, madam chairwoman, uh, members of the commission. My name is Andrew Kohut, Ko Hu T. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Wells, Jorski, and
Leeman in Pramis, New Jersey. I'm the um, the attorney for the applicant. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. And Miss Bower, if you would swear Mr. Coad in. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. All right. >> I'll tell the truth. I promise.
>> All right. >> Okay. So, can you just walk us through your uh your application then? >> Sure. So, the application is to occupy about 2,800 square feet of what formerly was the Athleta uh pro uh property. Uh
Ivy Rehab is a physical therapy um uh studio. Uh it's very you're probably familiar with it. They're they're throughout New Jersey. I just brought my son to one uh this weekend in Hoboken uh where they perform various physical
therapy for for various ailments. Um there are going to be no changes to the facade. The facade is going to remain as is. The only change is the sign. We're replacing the athletic sign with an IV rehab physical therapy sign. Obviously, there's going to be an interior fit up
um to allow for the physical therap physical therapy. Um given while this was determined to be medical office um and we'll we'll have a planner at the zoning board hearing to discuss this further. One thing we did try to do was
uh the right side of the the right side that window uh currently looks into the actual activity that's going on in the in the studio. So we want to keep that active storefront um
uh streetscape visible that because customarily you in in other towns I've been in when they don't want office on the first floor they don't want the stagnate stagnant use being on the first floor which we to which my client totally understands. So what they're
trying to do is trying to um give it some uh visual impact for the uh for the down for your uh district. Uh they believe that this is a uh great uh synergy with the the district itself. Um
they foresee there will be about three to four employees there at peak times. Um things everything is scheduled. Uh, so we feel like it's a it's a good use for given the the how popular the upper
Montlair district is. Um, the signs I'll touch on. Uh, yes, the sign height is 36.9 in. That's both signs, the both portions of the sign. Um, the IV portion is only 21 12 in. The physical therapy
is 7 in. So, both of those are within the 24 in height lettering height. Uh the total square footage of the sign is 23.575 square ft. The building elevation is 40 40T. So that means we would be allowed to have a 40 square foot sign. So it's
not as if this sign is the the the facade is over sign signage compared uh to your ordinances. Um, it's reverse channel uh halo illumination signs that will comply obviously with all co all all of the uh Montlair's code
requirements as it relates to sign lighting. Um, unless the board has or the commission has any other questions. That's that's really the application. >> And did you speak about the >> the awnings? >> The awnings are stay remaining as is. The awnings aren't changing. The
building isn't changing except for the signage. >> Are you recovering the >> I do not believe. No, I I asked I met with my client. I was told it's remaining as is. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. So, uh we'll open it up to questions from the commission. Then I'll see if anybody from the audience wants to uh ask
questions. So, Mr. Mixer, do you want to start? Any questions? >> No questions for me. Thank you. >> Miss Floyd, >> Mr. Juliana. >> Um just one on the signage. Did the client consider maybe just putting physical therapy on the awnings? This
way you can eliminate one of your variances. Just have IV rehab as the main sign and then maybe a smaller physical therapy on the vertical face of the awning. >> They did not consider that. I could bring that back to them as something that was discussed here and Okay.
>> Yeah. I mean that's >> I just because it's there's two awnings there. I don't know >> if it would visually look as as not as complimentary as it just being right in the middle of the building, but we could play around with it and see if anything works. >> Okay. And both glass storefronts are
going to remain fully visible. That's the idea. >> Well, no, the the right now that the one on the left is where there's a little bit of a waiting room. It'll be visible, but there's a little there's a waiting room and some chairs. There was a comment in the planner report about that. So that's something I'm also
discussing with my client. Uh we we received the report a few days ago. So >> but the glass itself >> everything's going to be Yeah. There's not going to be anything blocked. >> Okay. Those my only questions. >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. The only uh Could you explain again why the sign has to be that big? Is it a
visual effect? Is it something that they >> uh >> That's the only issue you're asking us basically. >> Yeah. I I don't think it's necessarily a big sign. I think it's just I think it fits aesthetically it works well with on the facade. Um again based on what
you're allowed the square footage you're allowed we're under we're under the the permitted amount. Um you we're allowed to have up to 40 square feet. I think it fits well within that portion of the building. Uh and the channel the each le
the individual lettering are all under 24 in. So the physical signage portions of the signage are all under are 24 in or less. Um but when you when you measure from top to bottom which is customarily how you measure signage we're we're a little we exceed that 24
in. >> So that's why you need the variance. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But it's it's strictly a a visual perception. >> Sure. I think I think it's it's it you know you want to have a presence and people see your sign. And I don't think it's I don't think it's too
uh doesn't you know it does it's not over overbearing. I don't I in my opinion. >> Okay. Second question related to that. Are there any other signs with letters that size in the immediate area?
>> I'm going to have to have my planner testify to that. I I don't have that information at this point in time. >> Okay. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you, >> Mr. Rooney. >> No questions. >> Mr. R. I guess I I guess I have a question for Zenob. I don't know if you can answer
it, but this is really two lines of lettering. There's no like back plate to it. So you still consider that one sign. >> So when there's no sign band that defines the area of the sign, the
letters are limited to 24 inches in height. So here there wouldn't be a defined sign band. So the entire sign height has to be 24 in or less. >> And the fact that their next I mean the
lower to sort of feed off Nicholas's question, the physical therapy could be on the awnings and you wouldn't add that to the total sign height though. So >> yeah, when if they're on the awnings then they're considered their own sign
and they would comply. >> Okay. I don't have any other questions. And they wouldn't need a variance. >> They wouldn't need a variance. Yes. >> Um I have a the existing gooseeneck lamp lighting is to remain correct, >> I believe. So yes. >> Okay, that's my question.
>> So how are you attaching it? >> It's pin mounted. >> It's pin mounted. Is that what it is? How many penetrations is that or is that not an issue? >> Are you concerned about the number of penetrations in the >> I don't believe it was specified in the plan. I'm not sure if you know how many
pins would be required per letter. >> I could barely insert a light bulb at home. I don't know. We could we could we could get that. I could get that we can get that answer and present it to the to the to the zoning board to get that. So, we get that. >> Yeah. Typically, we just want to minimize how many penetration in the
building as much as possible >> and that old penetrations are filled. >> And that they're all filled. Yeah. >> Right. Not a problem. Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions from our the commission? Are there any questions
from the the uh audience? >> Yes. Come uh come on up. >> Well, then you might want to hold it until we have comments. >> Yeah. >> Ma'am, you may want to frame the comment as a question. This is the the question
period and the comments will come at the end of the application. >> My question is is that I may be wrong. You're considering anything at all with regard to the opening of the glass the windows in or is that for the zoning board? >> Glass there. >> Is that any consideration that impacts
the historic decision or is that strictly for the zoning board? >> No, that the glass it's it's existing. It's existing and it will stay. >> All right. My comment, I'll hold it or you want me to come back. My comment is it's it's prescription physical therapy
and waiting room. I'm not so certain that that's legal that people should be seen in physical therapy from the street. That's my concern. >> From there's a privacy right medically. It's a prescription function.
>> That's not our perview. We're really about the visual impact and then uh the zoning and or planning board would have to record saying it for somebody's attention. >> But you didn't identify yourself. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Carol Trenton
plays an in upper Monair in the legal field. I know Mr. Tul for how many years? >> Okay. Yeah, I'm really sorry because it it just that just jumped up and concerned me about the privacy of the medical treatment. So, >> okay. Well, I'm want I'm sure the
applicant is has considered that or >> I'm sure my clients consider >> more than anything, >> but you know, you should attend the zoning. Um >> I don't really want to go out at night anymore. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But that would be the right place to
bring that up. All right. All right. >> So, just information >> starting medically. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. Um, just identify yourself again, please. >> Hi, Holly Felbur, Barbara Eclectic on behalf of the Upper Monontlair Business
Association. >> And I'm Arlene. I own One Sappy Design on the corner next to the facade. And I am part of the Upper Monontlair Business Association and I run the YMA events. And Jerry knows who I am because I used to be on the bid board when I was downtown.
Do you have a question then of the of the of the >> So I have a bunch of questions for you sir. My first one is is this the rendering? I I from my understanding you're going to remove the um that facade back the stucco and put it back
to the brick because that's what the first thing that was passed was the change to the facade or you're not doing that. You're leaving the >> I don't understand what you're referring to. The facade is covered in >> stucco. >> I did I I know the landlord I believe
came to this for some >> Did someone else come to this? >> Yeah, but only speaking to the Belleview side, not to >> the Line Avenue, not just the first time we're looking at this. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
>> No problem. So is this the proper time to ask things like is there a retail element? What are the number of parking spots needed? No, >> our purview is really just the visual impact. Uh those questions are for the other land use boards.
>> So board of ad authority over those decisions. We we can make a recommendation because they are requiring uh requesting a variance and we can make a recommendation as >> for permitted use >> right to change the permitted to change the use
>> because upper Montlair is a historic area right >> as we all know and I couldn't paint my walls white because I had to color it cement color. So now Keller Williams was not able to have a storefront because they were real estate and they had to be
pushed back. So now we're allowing for a physical therapy to be in a historic area that needs a lot of parking and person. But that's not I don't want to be interrupted while I'm going to object to saying that there's going to be a lot of that we're going to need a lot of parking when there's been absolutely no
testimony about parking. >> So >> people go to physical therapy, they need parking. Where are they going to park? How is somebody who's injured going to walk over to the physical therapy place? >> This is an area that should be zoned for, >> right? So I think >> but is this the correct meeting to
discuss these things? >> No, that's it's at the the zoning board. Yeah. But do you have any other questions as to what the facade will is will will look like which is being presented here. Right. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. That's all we had to ask. We just
wanted to make sure we're on the right. >> All right. Well, go to the zoning board. Is it And when is it scheduled for? >> December 17th. >> December 17th. Thank you. >> That's exciting. Okay. Um, so now we will open it up for discussion
from the uh from the commission and we'll start with you again if you don't mind, Mr. Mixer. And just remember this is uh uh we're commenting on the facade as it's presented with the the they're requesting two variances which is the
change uh um which is assigned which is nor larger than uh uh normally requested and whether or not I think that we can make a comment on whether or not the uh
use it would change the character of the of the uh neighborhood of the local historic district. So if you have two >> the the use of the property. >> Yes, they're requesting two variances. One is the sign the sign the the
>> uh size of the sign and then also the use of of of it. So there's been no testimony about parking. Uh our witness is correct. And um there the windows will remain open. There will be a uh
waiting room on the left side with a desk and chairs and then on the right side it will be open to see what what's happening in the uh >> my only discussion point and I think it it just goes back to to simply the sign
and the and the size. Um something that um Zenab said that struck me was the you know the the lettering can't be over 24 in. Um again I know this isn't banded and it's connected but essentially for our discussion could be is are we you
know are we in a position to consider that the primary IV rehab is less than 24 in as well as the physical therapy piece is less than 24 in and it's sub the total what could be ultimate square footage size for the size of the facade
>> I think so yes >> um that we could say and this is more of a discussion point for us that this is an acceptable sign. I think it it's certainly worth um understanding what it looks like to buildings that directly adjacent, right? Signage compared to the
size. >> I have a feeling that actually this is probably larger than both of those on either side that I can't see from this picture. Um but I wanted to just understand from this group if really we're looking at, you know, by by it not being banded together,
does it does it make a huge difference if it's separate and physical therapy goes somewhere else? Technically, you could put it side by side and make it really visually unappealing. Um, but from a logo standpoint, my my thought is that they probably have the same logo elsewhere. Is that probably right?
>> And that same exact sort of ratio from a size standpoint. So, either it's a reduction in the entire size so that the logo stays in the same ratio or we have a discussion on whether or not those two could stay together. >> But what about the composition? the way that it's presented on on the facade. Do
you see two two lines two s they're not two signs they're two lines of script or are you with the uh more of the opinion that the uh it uh whatever it says the uh therapeut therapy should be on the awnings
>> I think that would that would change it right obviously from the perspective that the if you put it on the awning it's going to be a screen print or something done that way right >> um I My thought is if if I was the logo designer of that, I'd want those two
things together instead of separate. >> Um but uh but I think that's that's partially for our discussion here is, you know, what makes the most sense. >> Okay. >> Um frankly, I I do think it's large um when you consider the size stacked together, but I think that's what we we
can discuss. >> Okay. So you you're in agreement with the way it's presented? I think we should talk about whether or not those two lines should be stacked on top of each other. >> Okay. >> Chair, that kind of uh relates to the comment I wanted to make of if I can go
out of order. Um because I I think uh you know it the design and the layout I think is fine. I don't have an issue with it. But I'm just trying to grapple with why, you know, the one sign, the large sign on top can't be slightly smaller and maybe physical therapy is
much smaller to fit within that 24 in band. And then we're not even, you know, really concerned about a variance or violating our sign ordinance. >> Okay. So, are you too >> I'm saying no, I think the visual I think what if I'm not mistaken, Mr.
Mixer, you want to keep this, right? and just maybe >> reduce that >> maybe reduce the size that just >> scale >> scale just just scale it down like and even if physical therapy is you know much smaller I don't think I think really the
>> your brand is the most important element right in physical >> I think can I comment >> which is I don't think you can see this sign except at this angle because those awnings cut off the sign so bigger sign isn't necessarily
>> needed I mean, you're going to see this as you right here, not not from down the street. You can't see that sign from down the street. So, making it larger is uh goes to scaling it down. >> But we're not making it larger than what it's presented here,
>> right? No, I'm saying >> no, we're thinking scale it down, right? Yeah. Without impacting the business uh function. >> Those aren't questions. >> Okay. >> Uh Miss Floyd. >> Yeah. So, you know, I'm in a kind of an agreeance in terms I feel it looks a little
clustered, right? So, if you could take the phys and also if you look at the awnings just from a branding perspective, you know, it's kind of like something's missing, you know? So, even if you put physical therapy on one awning and then maybe the telephone number on the other because the IV rehab
looks it it just looks like it's just squeezed in there for some reason from from my perspective. You know, it just doesn't seem like it fits properly. Can >> Can I ask a question? I don't know if I'm allowed to. >> Sure. >> Is there a limitation on the number of signs you're allowed
>> on a facade for a single business? >> We'll ask our planner. Yeah, it's a one wall-mounted sign per facade per business and then one projecting sign per facade per business. >> What's projecting? You mean like a sign? >> Yeah.
>> Well, what about on on the awnings then? Are those considered if you put signs on the awnings, does that create another variance >> in the front panel? Like if they put the physical therapy in the front of it and then the >> wouldn't be that wouldn't get be considered a different sign. if they were on the if the if if it was on the
awning, it wouldn't create a variance. >> Okay. I'm just trying to gather I can talk to my client intelligently. >> Right. So, you could you could uh put the I I be rehab in the center and then even on the uh blade sign, put physical
therapy. if you don't like the the the busy look of it being on the >> we're just given some we really shouldn't be uh designing but those are just some suggestions >> and from also from my perspective I think if you raised the Ivy rehab a little bit and then didn't it just
branding wise if I'm driving by it just seems like it's very clustered together you may not get what it is as far as a business is concerned so raising the sign up just a little bit and putting the physical therapy somewhere else I think would be beneficial to your client as well. >> Okay,
>> Mr. Juliana. >> Um, I actually don't mind the sign as presented at all. Um, I think it looks fine because it's in the same band as the awnings. Um, there's like a nice consistent datim to it across the facade. Um, I mean, you could relocate
physical therapy and eliminate your signage variance, but I think your use variance is the bigger bear that you're going to have to wrestle with at the planning board meeting or zoning board. Um, so I'm okay with the signis presented and you know in terms of the use variance for our comment on it. I
don't think a physical therapy office detracts too much from a commercial zone. It's not like you're it's not an urgent care. It's not an emergency drop off business. It's kind of traffic the same way a normal business is in a commercial zone for the most part. It's appointmentbased. Um, so I don't I don't
see any negative about it being a physical therapy use in the in the commercial zone. I mean, I work in a downtown myself and there's a physical therapy downstairs and around the corner between a coffee shop and a clothing store. So, >> I and there's not a lot of parking by it
either. So, other than, you know, similar to what >> this district has. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Sween Sweeney. >> I don't think the use change has any impact on historical character or otherwise. There are other there dance
studios in the first floor places and I recognize that physical therapy is not dance but on the other hand it's the same kind of thing and sometimes physical therapy requires it be on the first floor so I don't see that has any
impact on on the historic character as to the sign I think uh the sign is pretty much constrained by the awnings >> if we force the issue the awnings could come down if we think the awnings are
consistent and proper. I think the sign is okay as is. It's not uh it's not going to change historic character. We didn't get an answer to that question whether there are other signs of that size. But as far as historic uh I think
the way it is sort of constrained between the two awnings it's in my view acceptable doesn't cause adverse historical uh effect. >> Mr. Rooney >> um the size of the sign doesn't bother
me. It actually kind of fits in there with the two pileisters on either side. And um yeah, that that's about it. >> Okay. How about the use?
>> Use I don't I don't really think that's our purview, so I don't really care. >> Oh, okay. >> Mr. Roots. Well, >> I I think use is our purview to some degree because it's a historic district that's acted in a certain way. I don't
have a problem with the use, but I think it's still our purview to discuss it. Um, >> in terms of the use, the only I I I think more important is that there's activity, >> that there's activity on the street, there's action, there's people coming
and going, they're going to other business, whatever. I think that's good. The other part of that is the windows and you see beyond the street. You see in you're drawn in and you see activity. I'm not a big fan of the seats against
the window >> on the reception side. That means as you're walking by, you're looking at people's backs sitting against the window. I would change that in order to allow the view more into that space. So that's the use part. the
sign. The way I look at it is if you're looking for this variance and it's our purview to advise, I would advise that this should be made smaller and fit within the 24 in. >> That's it.
>> Thank you. And Mr. Grant, >> yeah, I would just reiterate I think uh scaling down would be advisable for the size of the sign. I think from a use perspective, I agree with uh my colleagues. I don't see the use itself uh changing the historic nature of or the character of the district. I think
the bigger issues you're going to have are going to be the the land use questions of parking and things like that. But uh for our purposes, I don't see the use as um having an impact on the historic nature historic character of the of the district.
>> Um and I tend to agree with that as well. I don't think I think it uh you're keeping the the windows open and uh uh there is I think President has another place exercise place on Belleview Avenue which has the same type of setup. Um and
they have a desk on the left side. Uh the way that they've uh you know I realize that that's a gym and this is physical therapy. So you might have people waiting so those chairs might be in use. And to John's point, the backs
will be to people. So changing the configuration of of the seating I think would behoove you. But I also don't have a a problem with uh with the as long as the windows they have to remain open. That's the that's the one of the the uh
uh with things that were in the uh the district. So all right. So uh anyone else have any other comments then? Where do we stand then? >> Oh wait, just One comment is just if in fact for privacy reasons you have to
block off the entire windows that I think there would be an objection. Yeah, >> they can't they can't in fact uh >> if something I if something changes to that effect I will come back to this I will come back I will you can put a I will come back to this commission and
dis discuss whatever you know change had to be made but okay you know >> okay >> as a condition of of your review that >> if >> any changes made to the >> to the testimony I've given obviously I'll come back and discuss those with you I have no problem with that >> okay so so what um recommend Based on my
count, I heard that more commissioners were in favor of scaling down >> the sign. Um though there were some who agreed that it was okay as is. Um regarding the use, the configuration of the
the seating should be changed so that they're not facing the window. Windows should remain open. Um I think that's it. >> And the lighting to remain the same. The lighting will remain the same. and minimize the number of penetrations into the stucco. So,
>> um those are our recommendations to the zoning board. Okay. >> All right. >> I will I receive like a report before the the end just will send one to you. >> I'd like to thank the board for their time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next up is our demolition of
application 2025-25 580 Valley Road. Uh total demolition of a drive-thru bank building share the same mic here. >> Okay. So before we swear you in um I know I don't have to swear in Mr.
Tremulac, I did learn my lesson earlier. Thank you. >> Um, I will uh uh introduce the application. So, this is application 25 2025-25 580 Valley Road. It this is an
application. It's a CFA which has been filed with the our commission to demolish um uh the uh bank building on uh on uh at 580
uh Valley Road. The property is located on the west side of Valley Road. Property contains a 15 almost 1,600 square foot building which uh was a drive-thru bank building. property is surrounded by a circular driveway,
access from Valley Road with parking on the north side of the lot and access to three teller windows on the south side. The property is bordered uh on the north by the upper Montlair Fire Station and a municipal parking lot to the to the west, a retail building to the south,
and a church to the east. A sidewalk and stairs connecting the Valley Road sidewalk to municipal parking lot is located on the north side of the property. The property slopes down from Valley Road into the municipal parking
lot with a driveway. Um, this this uh I just I just have to get my uh this property is in the upper Montlair Historic District
and um it the subject property was classified in the 2006 survey as an intrusion primarily due to its post 1930s construction date and uh of course that was almost 30 years ago. So with
the potential uh with a potential expanded district uh recognizing 1945 to 1975 suburban development the subject property could be considered significant under the
national register criteria. Uh, as I said, we are looking at this as total demolition, and I would like the commissioners to refer to the planning uh the planning board memo on page five,
which lists the uh submission requirements for total demolition and have those in front of you while uh the witness witnesses present their case. So, um could you please uh raise your right hand and um our lawyer will will
swear you in and just say state your name and your relationship to the project. >> Sure. David Goenova uh Greenwood Development, I'm sorry, BG Valley LLC. Uh I'm a member of the entity and one of the owners of the property. >> Thank you. >> Apologies, chair. I have to um I have to
recuse myself. Um I have a business relationship with uh the applicant's uh father. >> Okay. Apologies. >> Okay. So, Ned, be noted that Mike Graham is recusing himself from our uh discussion. >> Sorry, they didn't recognize. >> And Mr. Tremulac does not have to be
sworn in, but identify yourself, please. >> Sure. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of the applicant BG Valley LLC. >> U Mr. Janova, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you'll provide on the application tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you. So, um Mr. Tremulac, do you want to walk us through the um uh the application? >> Um sure. Just uh briefly introduce the
application, although you've already provided a uh concise, you know, synopsis of uh the property and what we're here for. I mean, we're here for applying for a total demoli de demolition permit to demolish the uh drive-thru bank building located at 580
Valley Road. Property is in the historic district. However, it's a non-contributing property. It's non-harmonizing, and as you've already noted, chair, it's characterized in the uh uh nomination report for the district
as an intrusion uh into the historic district. I mean the building was built in 1960. The period of significance in the uh for the historic district is from 1980 to 1930. This building was built 30 years
later. Um it's a very unique narrow kind of tiny building, not a lot of space and most importantly was built for a very limited specific purpose as a drive-thru bank facility. um that
property can never be utilized uh for that use going forward for for two reasons. Number one, when it was sold to my client, uh the deed uh which is very typical from my experience in being involved with transactions involving
large banks, the deed included a restriction preventing any future uh use of the property as a bank, financial services, or anything similar to that. Uh, also it's important to note that under current zoning regulations,
drive-thru uh, operations or businesses of any kind are not only prohibited or they're not permitted in in this zoning district, but anywhere in the town. So, um, you know, my client uh, bought the property and is seeking uh, approval to
demolish it. Uh, I'm not going to go through the criteria for demolition at this time. I will at the conclusion of the hearing and I think when you hear the brief testimony and also you know considering the reports you've received from your consultants which I think are
uh favorable to our application uh you know we I think overwhelmingly meet the uh criteria set forth in the ordinance to permit this property to uh the building to be demolished and replaced with uh another structure in the future.
Um, so, um, having said that, I I would like to call, you know, to have Mr. Gova just provide some fairly brief, um, uh, background testimony for the board's consideration. So, David, you've Why don't you Why don't we mark the exhibit
that you have you brought with you and just tell the board what that is and um, >> I'm going to pass this around. >> I think it's helpful to have that. >> Do we Is this in addition to the packet we received? Uh it is I don't think we included it. This is an aerial view that
was provided by uh one of our experts uh for the uh >> board application. Market A1 packet. >> No, no, we don't. >> So
I have this. >> Huh? I mean it doesn't matter the same picture but I >> do you want to start by just discussing u the aerial aerial photo? >> Sure. >> David um
>> um the building from as you approach the building from nearly any of the public right ofways. It's kind of hard to understand it holistically. I found this image to be pretty informative when we threw up a drone to show what could and couldn't be done with this building. It
is essentially a long hallway with three kiosks of of of seats for people to sit at what was not really a drive-thru bank, but a drive up banking location. So, >> you drove up to each of these three kind
of protrusions into the driveway. Each of those have a teller window and you would drive up to it to to conduct a financial transaction. Um, in the front of the building where you see a little bit more square footage, a little bit
more squared off space was an external ATM in a and I say external meaning it was it was facing Valley Road in a glass vestibule. And then there was a small walkup counter inside that also had an internal ATM uh at one point um prior to
the bank closing. Um but the building itself is a building in name only. It's a it's really a long hallway with three individual uh uh teller stations for drive up banking activity.
>> Okay. Um David, it might be helpful just just provide a little bit of background regarding your uh experience in with regard to real estate development and construction. >> Sure. Um, my company, Greenwood Development, has been in front of this
board many times, been in front of the planning board and zoning board on a number of occasions. Um, I've been involved in the adaptive reuse and new construction of approximately 30 projects in the township. Um, we've uh I
think I've batted a thousand at this board on the adaptive reuse side and and we've uh we've I think gracefully restored a number of historic buildings. uh not one in this particular district but in the Walnut Street area, the Bloomfield A corridor and and the C1
zone. Uh certainly um Greenwood's been around since 2013. Prior to that, I was with Willow Street Partners uh for 10 years and um uh we purchased this building, Greenwood Development in BG Valley purchased this building in April
of this year. Um the banking operation had been uh had the the drive up banking operation had ceased in 2017 or 2018 pre- pandemic. Um the building did have a functioning ATM when we purchased it
uh on the outside, but as part of the deed restriction uh they removed it because it would conflict with the deed restriction even though we said why don't you leave it open while we go get our approvals. U but the building has been vacant for somewhere between seven and eight years. Okay. You referred to
the uh your acquisition of the property um earlier this year, I guess, right? >> April of this year. >> And acquired it from JP Morgan Chase Bank, correct? >> Correct. >> And you is this a copy of the deed uh by which you acquired the property? >> It is.
>> Which includes the deed restriction that you referred to? I would like to just introduce this as our second and last exhibit. I believe copies for Steve, >> was it a requirement of the bank that
any conveyance of this property would have to be made subject to the deed restriction? >> It was. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that's a common practice. You've had other transactions with Chase Bank of >> other properties and that's correct. In
2018, uh, we acquired 475 and 483 Bloomfield Avenue from directly from Chase Bank. Those two buildings also had the same language in the deed restriction around future financial users and financial services uses within the buildings.
>> Okay. So when you acquired the the time you acquired the property earlier this this year, did you have any um idea at that time as to what you were going to do with the property? >> At the time of acquisition, we didn't have a plan developed. Um we were
approached both incoming and outgoing soliciting to some businesses that might want to utilize the existing building. Um one of which was a drive up restaurant. The other one was a drive-through cannabis dispensary. Um,
after reviewing the zoning and understanding what the prohibited uses were there, we approached those tenants and said, "Do you want to go along for this ride? I can't guarantee you success, but do you want to go along for this ride?" and both tenants were were uninterested in in going through the
zoning process um to to to get approval for a nonconforming and and uh and prohibited use for use varants. >> Okay. Uh other than those uses, did you consider the possibility or the feasibility I guess of maintaining the
building in its current condition going forward? It's a it's a very difficult building to figure out what you would do with if uh if it weren't a drive up use. Um spending some time inside the building looking at what it
was outside. There were some ideas about changing the building, but we figured that anything we would do would render the the building unrecognizable and probably not create a very functional outcome. In your opinion, is the building suitable for any use that you
current condition that other than a drive-thru or a drive up operation of some kind? >> Not in my opinion. No. >> Okay. Are there any is there any space in the building for offices or retail facilities? >> No. >> Okay.
Um, and you're from and from your testimony, I think it's already evident you're familiar with the zoning regulations uh applicable in the NC zoning district. Correct. >> I am. >> And um you reviewed those and determined
that you know there could not be any permitted permitted drive-thru operation at this location. >> That's correct. It's not just not a permitted use, it's a specifically prohibited use. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, if the building were to
be adaptively reused for another use uh of some kind, you know, can you describe the amount of work, the type of work that would be required in order to convert the the building to again some other um use that
would be permitted in the zoning district. From a planning perspective, it would probably require the same amount of relief that we're seeking on this application, meaning we would need to come in front of this board for modifications to the facade. We would have to go in front of either the planning or zoning board for site plan
approval, depending on what the eventual use was, and then we would have to do a sizable amount of construction to this building to make it more usable. We didn't have a an idea of how to make it more usable in any way that would
preserve the facade or preserve the character of the building. So, it would likely have been an addition, a second floor, something on the back, something on the north. Um, specifically there is a carveout on the north that that we looked at where these four parkings or
five parking spots are, but also after consultation with the Montlair Fire Department, it became clear that they actually kind of need a buffer between the two buildings. So, building closer to them uh was a challenge for them.
They manipulate vehicles behind the fire station by going over the curb and going over the sidewalk onto this site because they only have a oneway into their site. So pushing the building this way or expanding it this way, which would be to
me the only logical way to do it, uh, if you wanted to preserve the the drive up tellers for not having drive up activity, I'm not sure what you would do with them. pushing it this way uh seemed challenging to do uh with the way the fire department operates and uh and we
didn't think yielded a good product. >> Okay. You've seen the um report prepared by the the commission's uh consultant Mr. Smallen. >> I have. >> Okay. There's a comment on page six of
the report which reads as follows. Uh in short, in an in an adapt in an adaptive reuse scenario, the existing subject property would not be remotely recognizableizable as a 1960 bank branch. Would you agree
with that comment that there's no way to preserve keep this building looking the way it is and and at the same time adapt it or convert it to to another use? >> I would agree with that. Okay. And you obviously have another use in
mind for this property. >> We do. >> Um and there's an application for that uh proposed new use that's pending before the planning board. Is that correct? >> There is. >> Right. Okay. And that assuming this application is approved, I think that
would be the next item on your agenda to review and comment upon you what's proposed uh for a replacement building at this location. Mhm. >> So, um I don't have any further questions for Mr. Gova.
>> Okay. So, before we start questions from the commission, uh what Mr. Tremble just said is that we we're only concerned now with demolishing the building. We are not going to discuss what is to be built
if if the demolition is approved, what will be built in its place. that is follows uh this hearing here and and our vote. Okay. So, why don't we start with questions and I'll start with you Mr.
Ryman. >> You're not the enduser. You're the developer of this property. >> I'm the developer on this property. >> Developer. You're developing it for someone else. >> Correct. >> As the end user. Okay. >> Not for Not for someone else, but for a partner in the in the project
>> for I'm sorry. The ten the tenant owns the property with us. We are joint venture partners on the project. >> Got it. Okay. Um, I don't have uh any questions
other than I thought some of the requirements related to the fact that the building was structurally uh in bad shape and and things like that. Is that are those not requirements that there's some sort of structural engineers report for demolition and
>> Well, that was going to be my question. Is there any type of uh engineers report for for this structural engineer >> report that the building is in bad shape? >> There is not. >> Okay. >> That's not part it's not in I don't think it's in bad shape. It's a small
building one story. So, >> but is it is it a requirement? >> So, it would only be a requirement or something that we would investigate further if that was one of the reasons that they were proposing. >> But it's not a requirement that they submit something. Okay, skip that. Um, I
don't have any other questions. >> Um, do you have any questions, Mr. Rooney? >> No, >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes, I have two questions. The first procedurally approval of a demolition is not tantamount to approval of the new building. So, that would be is that a
separate application that we Okay, fine. So, that makes it easier. Second, uh the property the best of based on what I read here has been vacant for about seven years. That's right. >> During that period, has the uh owner tried to sell it >> or adapt it?
>> I I bought it when they put it for sale. So, the building they decided to dispose of the building in December of 2024 and we closed on the building in April of 2025. Up until that point, Chase had not made a a decision as to whether or not
to reopen the branch. I I think I mean they closed pre- pandemic. I imagined that the pandemic changed their thought process about what they were going to do because in 2018 and I saw it closed. I reached out and asked if it was going to be for sale and they they said no at the time. So I think the pandemic changed
their mind and it just took them as a large institution a long time to come to the conclusion that it was time to sell. >> Okay. So it's not the the seven years can't be uh viewed as in indisha that it's not useful but it cannot be used
for what it's designed for and the building uh it can't be adapted without substantial change. >> Correct. >> Okay. So I those are my questions and and thank you >> Mr. Juliana.
>> I have no questions at this time >> Miss Floyd. I have no questions at this time and Mr. Mixer. >> I do not have any questions. Thank you. >> Okay. So, before we go over um our consultants report
um I would like to ask a question um on the submission requirements for total demolition C. It's um uh I think when we hear uh Mr. Smallen's report, we see how um it it yes, it's
outside of the it it's list it's listed as a intrusion. It is outside of the dates of the uh historic district. But as I noted in my uh introduction that if
that was to be rewritten now, I think that that would change because I what people are now recognizing is this idea of the automobile drive-throughs and how important it was to to suburbia and um
and important to the uh uh the idea of the automobile. And I know that there was one of these down on Midland Avenue, I believe, or North Fullerton that was demolished. Um I also So what I would like to ask number C, it is evidence of
good faith offers of the historic building site or structure for sale at a price that does not exceed. So, I was wondering because we have looked at demolitions before and the owners have put them the building for sale that that they would have to move the building.
Have you done anything to to that? >> I think we're were the and we're the recipient of that rece like like they put the building for sale, you know, Chase put the building for sale. We only closed five months ago. >> No, but you're requesting demolition.
So, one of our one of our because I would argue that the building has significance and I think you could see it in Mr. Smallman's report. Have you can have you done anything to offer you you own the building now, correct? >> I do.
>> Yeah. To offer this building for sale to somebody who'd want, you know, a 1950s mid-century modern drive-thru to do whatever. I I have not considered that and I haven't offered it to anybody mostly because I'm so aware of the
zoning that I don't I don't see any reason that they would have more success than than we would uh adapting. >> No, no, no. I mean moving the building moving the building. That's what that that's what we've we've uh >> having the building
having the building moved. No, you wouldn't live in >> be moved to a different community. That's the point. >> I we have not considered that. >> Okay. because that's on C that's one of our and I noticed that I didn't understand the question you have waiver requesttor requested so you understand that that's what
>> well first you know we we we requested a waiver of that requirement chair and you know I mean you've stated that in your opinion there some significance to this building I haven't seen that stated anywhere including in your consultants
report other than the possibility Well, it could be diff it could be significant if we changed the district or we provided for an expanded district, you know, to include uh 1945 to 1975. Well, that's that's not currently the case
here. And you have have a building that does nothing for the for the district. It's a use that's basically prohibited in the district. Um, you know, I I don't think there's an an obligation. and it might be in your submission
requirements, but I don't think there's any requirement in your ordinance um that we have to try to market this building to see if anybody wants >> I'm asking I mean that's one that's yes C is one of our our our submission uh uh
requirements for total demolition. So it be you know I should ask that question and then the next question is on D where it says written and pictorial record of the building sites or structures. So it says satisfied but um where where is
where is that >> the pictorial >> is that is that what you've is what you >> this or >> we submitted every facade elevation I mean I I I think we understood that to
mean a visual representation of the current building from all facads and we submitted that with our application to the planning board. So that would have been referred to you. >> And the reason I asked is because our consultant came up with the uh fact that
it was designed by a quite significant local architect uh Ramhurst. So I'm just wondering if like obviously you didn't unear that information. So >> we didn't. >> Okay. So I'm stating that that this was
a significant building designed by a significant local architect to done totally out of the style of what he's what he is known for. So went from you know tutor revival but uh Bradner's
pharmacy in Wung Plaza the whole field crest uh development. So and then died like shortly thereafter. So, I just wanted to that to be on the record because our uh consultant came up with that information as well. So, um and I
hope that everybody here on the commission has had a chance to read Steven's uh report. So, before we open it up, so thank you. Do you have any any other uh testimony? >> We don't have any other testimony. >> Okay. So, before we open up uh to
questions from the audience, I'm going to ask uh Alexi, who is here in place of Mr. Swollen just to go over the report to summarize so that everybody can hear. Uh >> certainly >> chair just before he does that um the
board has to make a decision on the waiver being requested. So you can do that when you get to voting uh but since the waiver is requested um and the standard for a request for waiver is reasonleness. >> Okay. So ask you what
what supporting evidence do we need for >> I meaning that they came with a a opinion of a contractor or others confident development that it couldn't economically be moved without
destruction. Does that satisfy the uh the failure to make the make it an offer of availability for say corbs free? >> It would except that the standard
I mean that's not really the right word but I'll just use it. The standard would be different depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual application because each individual application is different. So generally when you ask what evidence, it's
documents or testimony. That's the only evidence that's ever going to come before this board. And I think that Mr. Tramulac thinks that um the testimony that's been provided um as to the lack of use and finally
Chase you know made a decision um and the sort of lack of functionality of the building in terms of adaptive reuse which Stephen Smallen also addressed in his report is satisfactory to um have
you grant the waiver. Now that's your decision but you know I'm just characterizing um but uh since the waiver is requested you do you will have to make a decision on I just wanted to remind it that >> um well there's actually two waivers so
>> okay so is >> the other's the archaeologist >> okay the cost of moving this would be ridiculous it all fall apart. It's all concrete cantaliever whatever you'd be, you know.
So that doesn't it just doesn't make any sense. So I I know it's a but it's in this case doesn't apply. I don't think >> it it appears to be a standard in the ordinance. That's why I think you either
have to indicate you've offered off. It doesn't mean you have to promote it. uh you can just say it's available. You can free come take it away. Uh that that that's sufficient. Um all the other criteria seems to be met. But that one
it seems if you want a waiver you have to provide some substance to indicate that the cost of of doing anything or moving will be disproportionate to any value. So respectfully, there was there was one
more point that that we used to to come up with what waiverss we were requesting and it was somewhat relying on the nomination report to say even the historic preservation commission doesn't think this building's worth saving.
Right? So if it were, we would be approaching this very differently if it were a contributing building. Uh uh or if it were a uh what's the other there's another >> harmonizing >> harmonizing building. If it were listed as something other than an intrusion, I
wouldn't come in here cavalerely to say no. We didn't even think about it. Um but listed as an intrusion. The felt was that was part of our due diligence. The first thing I did when we got under contract for this was pull up the nomination report to see what this board, what this commission uh views
this building as. And as an intrusion, I've never spent a lot of time trying to save an intrusion. >> Right. I think I think the threshold question before you get to that, Mr. Sweeney, and and board in general, is is this is this a building that has
historic or architectural significance? I think it clearly doesn't. So, I mean, if it if it was, as David said, if this was a contributing building, you know, something that was historic or had other, you know, significance
contributing to the district, well, then, yeah, we should try to see if we can save that building, you know, but the requirement that we have to try to sell a building that's not contributing, that's not historic, that has no significance, that adds
nothing to the district, In fact, it's detrimental to the district. It's detrimental to the business district up there. I don't think what what is the purpose of it? It's not an historic building. >> I actually agree with what you say. Uh I
think >> we have to measure the standard based on the area in which it currently exists. If it doesn't have any value historically there, u we we can uh I think uh grant the waiver because it
doesn't have any >> that was our position. We're not asking to move the fire to demolish the firehouse next door. Yeah. >> Or something that has obvious value >> and and and we intrusion means bad. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We know that. C. So, can I just
remind you that this was written in 2006 and that the Secretary of Interior standards has changed dramatically and this is a problem that we have with all of our historic districts. They need to be revisited. They need and they need to
be um uh you know the structures need to be really researched um because we're finding now architects were find that are significant that many who were local architects and I so I think that um yes
it it in 2006 it says it's an intrusion. I there's no denying it. I mean, it's it's written in black and white, but I think in my mind, and quite frankly, I I used to have arguments with Steve Rooney over here all the time about a
mid-century modern, but I think that that is now and might be the time now for you to speak up, Steve, that um there is some um uh validity to to to that. So, no, I don't agree with you saying it's not historic because it's it
it is in a in in even though it's in a district that is uh Yes. And again, in black and white, it says what the the years of significance are. So, um, my question was really whether or not you,
uh, I know you've just sort of, you know, not considered this to be historic in any way, shape, or form and haven't made any any overtures to to to sell it. Um, but anyway, that was my question. >> So, um, do you have another question?
>> Comment. I think anytime we uh a waiver is requested, it has to be substantiated by the argument and facts and and I you may have done that, but I'm just not aware of it. It just says waiver requested.
>> I mean that's we that's the explanation. No, we our uh application I think had more detailed information I think it I think as to why w the summary that was provided but our
uh uh our application had specific I think detailed responses to each of the submission requirements and and statements as to why we thought waivers were appropriate for the items we sought for which we sought waivers And where
would that be >> in the actual application >> which is >> is that on our packet? >> Is that in our packet? Where is that? >> Yeah, that would be in the packet. It is >> an application. >> Submission checklist requirements and it
is the one that has the revisions highlighted in blue ink. Should be like page two or three. Looks like this. Do you have it? Is it this? >> I have.
>> This is It's in the planning. It's in >> That's the planning report. Their submission included exhibits with the like tab markers. >> Oh, >> and by the way, we submitted an original application which we subsequently
revised. >> Yeah. And the revision was sent out. I don't know. Do you do you f did you find it, Mr. Sweeney? I found that I haven't found the issue on why the why the waver
I mean I'm looking at the revised application you know and attached to that is a addendum with each of the submission requirements listed and then with the response as to what we were providing
um in response to those requirements or explanations as to why we were seeking waivers for the two or maybe three items we sought waivers for. Um, okay. I I don't have that. I don't
know if you have that or or you have that, Steve. >> You mean this portion of the application? Is that what we're talking about? >> All right. Well, before we uh we we uh >> question whether we're right this waiver,
>> right? Any we need any questions about the W? We're on the waiver now. >> You don't have to deal with it now, but if you want to deal with it now, >> well, what I think it I think it it would be better to listen to uh what our
our our uh uh consultant had to say and his report and then we have to have questions from the from the audience as well. So um if you would >> so I think most of the report has been pretty well described and and cited both
by the applicant and by you chair. I will say that this is a building designed by Arthur Edward Ramhurst. He was a Montlair based architect. He worked extensively in Montlair and lived here for I believe at least 40 years of his life. And probably the most notable
thing about this particular building was it was his last project that he saw to fruition before passing away. It's also one of his few mid-century modern buildings. I believe the issue at hand of course is the intrusion and that's because mid-century modern for this district is
a bit out of place. The district is mostly uh tutor revival queen an neocclassical things from the 1880s to the 1930s. And then you have this very I hate to say singlepurposebuilt building uh which is mid-century style built in
the '60s. Having visited myself in person uh the sad truth is that the building is actually in pretty fair condition. The brick is still in excellent condition. The mortar joints, the marble, which has been painted a little bit on the street uh is still in fair condition. The
paint's peeling and you can still see the marble behind it. for when I going inside the building, I didn't notice anything. So, this is a collapsed roof or anything detrimental to the actual structure. Uh, but I would say that the issue of course at hand is what do you
do with it? And if you do any type of reuse, you're going to have to add significant square footage to the uh building and the plot, kind of rendering it unrecognizable for anything other than a drive-through bank. The inside is very small. It's very
cramped. Um, and I'm I'm kind of running out of ideas uh myself on what to do with it. Uh, you know, maybe a coffee shop for five people, but that's that, you know, that's issue at hand. Unfortunately, you have a very unique building that is in very still in
excellent shape some six years later. But the it's it's not the condition of the building that's the question. It's it's the use. So, pretty much I think summarizes most of uh the comments at least about the demolition. And I know there's more comments about the proposal. >> Okay. >> As well.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, so now do do you you've I did find the uh the checklist here, the application for total demolition, which so everybody should have that in in your packet.
>> Um, so why don't we now that we've >> Yes. Uh but I thought maybe we do the the uh discussion about the waiver first whether or not. So now I think what we should do is apply ourselves to the waiver and then we'll open up for discussions from from the public. Okay.
So um Mr. Ryman, >> uh I have no problem with the waiver. >> Okay. Mr. Rooney, >> I don't have any problem with >> and and uh what to Mr. Sweeny's point the um submission requirement is what is
in the uh planning report. Okay. There is in other words there's no additional material. >> Right. I I I still would prefer a written statement submitted as an an amendment but I but I would I would be prepared to accept the waiver based on
the oral statement. Now >> there Mr. tremul isn't this your isn't this your re there is a written that's what I said apparently nobody nobody reviewed that which is a little concerning what >> let me read it into the record
>> yes please >> no I have this >> it's the revised >> which page is on the waver >> and it goes through the checklist requirements which are letters and when you get to see um it says written documentation by qualified historic
preservation arch or other design professional. Applicant requests a waiver of this submission requirement for the following reasons. The building has no unique historical or that's already been discussed. Let me move on to the next paragraph. C response to section C above. The building is
unusable currently and there are no adaptive as of right uses for the building without extensive exterior modifications rendering the building unrecognizable. The property cannot be marketed or sold as a drive-thru operation because such uses are not permitted in the zone and the property
is deeed restricted. The applicant purchased the property to redevelop it with permitted use which would be more appropriate in the NC zone. The property cannot be redeveloped without demolishing the existing nonconforming and non-contributing intrusive structure. The ordinance provides that
the commission may wave this requirement for quote good cause end quote which is not limited to the examples of good cause mentioned in the ordinance. The applicant submits that the foregoing facts are sufficient to establish good cause and under the um municipalities
law reasonleness which is a lower standard than good cause is generally considered the standard for a weight. So the In requesting the waiver, he doesn't have to do the thing which is which he's
asking to be waved. That is go get other offers or put it up for sale. That's exactly what he's requesting be waved. And this standard is merely reasonable now. >> Thank you, counselor.
>> Thank you. >> I have to say I didn't have that in my packet. So, um, so Mr. Juliano, do you have >> I have no issue with the waiver request. >> Okay, Miss Floyd. >> No issue whatsoever. >> No, in favor of the waiver.
>> Okay. So, if we grant the waiver, then um the owner does not have to seek another uh buyer. >> Okay. >> Same is true for the archaeological study. >> Yes. I Yeah. And the same we say for
that. Do we have to will we vote on that? >> You're supposed to vote on all of this. >> Okay. and everyone everyone votes. >> I'm sure somebody can make a motion and by acclamation if there's any. >> So who would who would like to make a
motion? >> This is just for the waiver. But how can you vote on the waiver without getting >> Oh, on the waiver. Is that uh >> sufficient for >> Yeah, it's a submission requirement.
>> It's a submission requirement, right? >> Okay. So, if somebody would make a uh a motion or so, why don't we why don't we do it by by uh uh call the role. This is to uh uh
>> this is to grant the waiver waiver on >> requirement C the documentation by qualified historic preservation architect or other design professional and then also for requirement E for an archaeological study of the land that is
um the subject of the building site or structure. >> Okay. So everybody understands what this waiver means. So uh yes means that you are granting both waivers, >> right? Okay. So >> Chair Bennett, >> no. >> Vice Mr. Rhyets, >> yes.
>> Mr. Rooney, >> yes. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> yes. >> Mr. Julian, >> yes. >> Mr. Mixer, >> yes. >> Miss Floyd, >> yes. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, >> so that is um six affirmative votes, >> right? For CN. >> Yes.
>> Okay, great. So at this time now we will have uh invite the public to come up for to ask questions of the witnesses. So come up and state your name and
>> I just borrow your mic. >> I don't know if I can. >> She has a microphone right there. >> There's a microphone there. Oh. >> Um, hi. My name is MJ Weldon. Since 2002, I'm the owner and resident of Two
Chester Road. Um, that's Arthur Ramhurst uh, first residence here in Montlair. And I've been researching all of his work in town. And uh I think that it's a mistake to
demolish this building for the reasons that Madame Chairman chairwoman has stated and I don't understand how you can go forward with this not recognizing its historical significance.
Um we started with the Eagle Scouts project which was on Wong Plaza. Bradner Pharmacy is a historic national historical place. That was Arthur's first work and the building that's being
considered for demolishing is his last work. And he's made many contributions to the town in between. And I think this is a mistake because there is historical
significance to this building. And that's a key piece that's being overlooked in this decision to demolish this building. I would like to see it slow down, recognize its historical significance in
the town, work harder to look at opportunities to repurpose it or at least to move it, give somebody else a chance to buy it. But demolishing it, I think, would be criminal given what Arthur has
contributed to this town. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just a a point of order, Madam Chair. Was this just supposed to be for questions now or are we taking questions and comments? >> Oh, sorry.
>> No, it's questions and comments. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank All right, I'll ask >> how how can you >> make a decision to give variances and potentially demolish this building when
there has been discussion that >> we haven't we haven't done we haven't >> no but there was uh >> we're talking about waivers >> the waiver sorry >> that's >> just the waiver we're talking about >> that's >> is it just paperwork or is there a
decision with that vote There's no decision on the overall application. >> There's no decision on demolishing it yet. >> This is Do you have any question? Do you have any questions for the >> What did the waiver that was just voted
on? What is the consequence of that? >> They don't have to provide that information. >> Just to make sure it was appropriately >> It's paperwork. >> It's paperwork. Okay. I'm I'm way out of my depth here. I don't know. That's my >> Do you have any questions for the
witness now? >> Uh I I guess I would just No, it's not in a form of a question. So if I come up later >> Oh, you could come back. Okay. Are there any questions for the witness that from the audience?
Hi, just please identify yourself and uh and questions for the witness. >> Hi, Don Felbur. Um born at Mountainside Hospital, went through the Montlair school systems. Um have spent the majority of my life living in Upper Montlair and owning a
business in Montlair. And I have a question um for you sir that in your testimony you said that um you were looking to repurpose a building I believe ways in which you might be able to repurpose a building and one of the concerns was from the fire department
>> um that they sometimes use a driveway for their trucks and their equipment. >> That's right. >> Okay. Um, so should everything um go as planned and you decide to and you put up a building, um, will you not be encroaching on that space that you said
that you couldn't because or you wouldn't because of the fire department? I don't know how to affirmatively answer that because I I missed the last part of how you asked the question, but the short answer is I socialized the plans for a future building with the fire department, met with deputy chief Liza and went through what their real needs
are in terms of either access over the site or clearance from the site to theirs and incorporated those into our future plans for the new building which we're not proposing under this effort. Understood that. Yes. >> So, I just wanted to make sure because it seemed that you said that you
couldn't expand the site of the drive-thru because of the fire department's needs. >> That's right. We're we're not proposing to bring the building closer a new building closer to the fire station. >> Okay. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to do that if you were to try to repurpose the drive-thru?
>> Wouldn't I? >> When Okay. When you say repurpose the drive-thru, you mean without an addition? Well, to find it another use for the drive-thru. >> There is no other permitted use for the drive-thru. The the use is prohibited >> because of the zone, >> right? >> Um,
>> so anything would be a non-drive use. And that's what we examined and that's when we said, >> right? Well, that's what I meant like to re repurpose the building as a non-drive. Um, you would not be extending further beyond the existing footprint of the
building. Yeah, >> in your new building. >> In the new building. That's right. It doesn't go this drive aisle. >> So, essentially bringing in the fire department was really not that important to the argument, I guess. >> No, it was it was crucial to the argument,
>> but if you're going to build like the same footprint of the drive-in drive-thru with your new building, you're still going to be left. I mean, the new building goes here. It's it's it's this way.
So, we're adding the square feet on the >> Well, maybe that's just why I couldn't see anything over there because of >> No, no. So, so the idea was that if you were to adapt this building to try to make it recognizable in its architectural form, you would preserve the mid-century modern cantal levers and
such. So, you wouldn't add here, you would add here, which was problematic >> because you're continuing the use of this existing driveway with the new building. >> Correct. >> Which is what the fire department really uses it for anyway. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, they would be able to use that as well. I have a building four doors down. That's is my business. >> Yeah.
>> U Mr. Tremulac. Thank you. >> Sure. >> You um were figuratively banging your hand on the table saying that the um the existing building doesn't really conform to the um neighborhood um
historic society and there's no reason to keep it. >> Probably made that statement, but you know, I'm not testifying. I mean, if you want to I'm happy to answer questions. So, >> yeah, I was just going to point out that the new building um proposed building doesn't really conform to the um
>> Well, that I understand respect your opinion there. We're not talking about the new building right now. >> I just want to point that out. >> I appreciate that. >> Any other questions then from from the audience? >> Thank you. >> Okay. So why don't we start with uh
discussion from our on our end. Yes, Mr. Tremula. >> Might I just make some concluding remarks before the board discusses the application? >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the board's time. Um,
so first of all, I would refer as I said in my opening comments, we received what I believe to be very favorable reports from your historic consultant as well as from the assistant
town planner uh, uh, Zanib. And Zanib's report concludes uh with two very relevant statements which really summarize our applicant's position very
clearly. She has two comments on page eight of her report. One, the drive-thru bank building is cate categorized as an intrusion in the upper Montlair Historic District. Demolition of the structure would remove a non-contributing incompatible structure from the district
and would not adversely impact its historic character or integrity. Her second comment, paragraph two, drive-thru uses are no longer permitted in the township and adaptive re reuse of the existing structure would be limited
by both its original automobile oriented design and its configuration which does not readily lend itself to conversion to a pedestrianoriented layout. We couldn't agree more. This is from your planner, your consultant, the secretary to the
board. Um, turning from there, I just want to refer to the criteria in your ordinance um, in order to demonstrate entitlement to totally demolish a building. And I'm
referring to um section it's the ordinance 347-142.1 section subsection C subsection E of that section which has the criteria for total demolition. And the ordinance
says that an applicant seeking to totally demolish a building has to demonstrate either that the preservation of the historic building, site or structure is not warranted or the preservation of the historic site
or building site or structure would impose an undue burden or hardship on the applicant. Either or. Okay, we and I'm going to focus on I think we satisfy both of those, but I'm just going to focus on on subsection one um which
talks about the pres preservation of the of the building not being warranted. And then your ordinance lists seven factors for the board's cons consideration to determine whether this bu you know there's
the building you know um deserves to be preserved. Okay. And I I'm first first of those seven uh criteria the building's historical architectural cultural and aesthetic significance.
I believe I think it's clear from the record. I understand your opinion, Madame Chair. Um um but you know, you have a report that was done by the nomination committee characterizing this building as non-contributing as an
intrusion into the district that adds nothing to the district. Um it has no historical, architectural, or aesthetic significance that warrants that to be should be preserved. It was built in the 1960s, built for a specific use which is
no longer viable. Which leads to the second criteria. You're supposed to look at the use, its intended use, and the use for which the building was originally designed and the feasibility of the continuation of the design use.
Clearly, it was built for a use that's no longer viable. No, it cannot be operated at this location due to the deed restriction and due to the fact that the zoning doesn't permit uh any drive-through operations. So, um it's
clearly, you know, not feasible to continue the use of the building, the use for which this building was designed. Number three, supposed to consider the importance to the township and the extent to which this historical or architectural value is such that its
removal will or will not be detrimental to the district. Clearly, this is not an important structure in the historic district as confirmed again by the nomination report. There's no historical architectural value. It's non-contributing.
um its removal will not have any detriment to the streetscape or the uh other buildings in the district. The fourth criteria to the the extent to which the building is of such age, unusual or common design that it could
not be reproduced or could only be reproduced with great difficulty and cost. I don't think there's any issue that the building, it's a small one-story building with brick and some marble, you know, um it could easily be reproduced. I don't know why anyone
would. Um certainly at this location where it couldn't be used uh as a drive-through operation, but clearly the building could be uh could be reproduced if someone thought it had some value. Um, the next criteria you're supposed to consider is the extent to which the
retention of this building would promote building, uh, I'm sorry, promote business, create new positions, attract tourists, etc., or make the township a more attractive and desirable place to live. Um
it's a non um retaining the building would actually have the opposite result. It would not promote business. It wouldn't be utilized. It would not generate business. It wouldn't generate new
employment positions. Um it would not be good for the business district. Um and it certainly you know retaining the building is not going to make this town more attractive or desirable for people to live in. Um
the sixth criteria is supposed to uh consider the probable impact of its removal from the upon the character and ambiance of the district. It's a non-contributing building. It's already been established.
um it's it's intrusive into the district. We're asking to remove an intrusion. We're not asking you to remove a contributing uh structure. So any any there'd be no um um negative
impact certainly from removing this building and I think if there was any impact it would be positive. Um this the last criteria is the extent to which the replacement building proposed would preserve or not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Um I mean
I don't think the the focus here should be on the replacement building because that's the subject of a separate application and the board this commission is going to comment on that. the public can comment on it, you know, but notwithstanding that, we think that the replacement building, it's, you know, we believe it's a permitted use, although we have a little bit
disagreement with the planning department, which, you know, will be resolved uh before this board gets heard by either the planning board or the zoning board. But we believe the replacement would certainly have more value, would contribute more in not only to the historic district but even more
importantly to the business district by providing a very uh active viable use that would generate activity, you know, to quote Mr. Ryman's comment from the last application generate activity and people coming and going from the business district which would be
supportive and and and a value and a and a benefit uh to the community. So again, those are the seven criteria that you're supposed to consider. And I think in my view, all seven of those criteria are in
favor of what we're seeking to do here, which is to demolish a non-contributing building. Um, that's an intrusion into the district that can't be, you know, it's not feasible to be utilized. You know, could it be adaptively used? Yeah, but now it's not going to look anything
like the building that is there now. So, you know, for all those reasons, I think we've I think in my opinion overwhelmingly established um that this is an appropriate uh building um for which the commission should issue a
total demolition permit. So, thank you for your time. I didn't mean to go as long as I did. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Ramnitz, >> I have just a couple questions. Is demolition our purview? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's a C.
>> And once say we say this uh the applicant comes back now with uh a proposal that needs approval from the zoning board and so on. We are then only advisory at that point in time.
>> And that's what we will hear after this after this vote. >> What's that? That's what we will be making recommendations on the proposed building if this is >> but they don't necessarily need to follow our recommendations >> when they come back. This is it. We
don't have really much control here other than the demolition, right? Unless the applicant says they're going to work in their best faith to with the HPC to make a building that's contributing. And I'll just comment on because it was
given to us what was being proposed. That's not contributing. That's I would find I say it was given to us though. So I'm responding to >> But John, we just have to talk about the demolition now. >> I'm setting I'm setting it out where
this is going and where we have control and don't have I got that. And that's the problem. We keep demolition then we lose control. But I think you can't mix the two together, Mr. Ryman, and say you might not like what might you might not
like the fact that you have control by if you've denied this. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just I'm just laying the land out so everyone understands. >> Two separate issues and I >> um how much does the firehouse intrude into
onto the site? The firehouse as a property doesn't encroach >> the the access they using they're going it's mostly for shift changes. >> Uh is it feet 10 ft? >> It's the drive it's the driveway. They
need to get a car out to create space to pull a new car in. >> So they're using that >> they use their driveway. Okay. >> Um uh we're having discuss I can make some other comment. Okay. So I think there's
also two different issues. one as a piece of architecture or does it have any sort of significance? I have to disagree. I think it does. Is it a great piece of its architecture of its type? No. Uh but and then that's separate from
whether it's intrusive in does it support sort of the character of the neighborhood or reinforce that. Those are two different things. It definitely is intrusive in the case of it doesn't really in my mind uh add to
the neighborhood. It's too bad that it you my opinion. So that's just a comment. Um any more than that, you know, it's unfortunate. >> Can I add to that? First,
uh, will our consultant say that it's still intrusive the current building and that it detracts from the historic character? Currently detracts from the historic character of the area.
That's a current day. This was intrusion measured in 2006. Now I'm saying 2025. Well, nothing about the building has changed since 2006 other than perhaps they painted the marble and the building has been closed.
So if you frame it in that context and the fact that it is not cohesive with the rest of the architectural styles in the immediate vicinity, if you're asking my opinion, I think intrusive is too strong of a word, but I do not believe it fits with
the overarch architectural landscape and elements of its of the commercial units that are in the immediate vicinity of >> that's why currently you're saying that too. You reaffirm that currently it would be deemed inconsistent with their school character.
>> Inconsistent is a better word than intrusion. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Juliano. I mean, if we're just looking at the demolition on its own without the proposed building that we'll discuss
next, um, I mean, it's an interesting building in Montlair's history. It's not a great example of what the architect that designed it is known for and contributed to Monontlair. Um I think the big point with this building is how
limited of use it is and how specific of the use it is. Um it is a mid-century building in a neighborhood that's not populated with mid-century buildings. And if it was a simple rectangular floor plate, you know, maybe we could push more for an adaptive reuse or relocating
it or doing something with it. Um, but I agree with our consultants report that it's such a specific floor plate, it's so limited in its space. Um, it it can't be used for much and adding to it would render it unrecognizable
um, as an adaptive reuse or addition. So, um, generally I'm in favor of approving the demolition of it. >> I didn't finish off my comments. I just question, but I will say I agree. I
favor it being uh demolished. I do not u as it's currently also uh uh I'm certainly concerned about the new building. If you eliminate an intrusion and add an intrusion, you really have
net beneficial effects on the historic character. But I think all of the criteria was satisfied. I was only concerned mostly in the documentation >> and and confirming some of these, but I think you made a compelling case that
it's not worth saving at least here uh in in the area it is for the use that it has in Montlair and undo burden that should keep it inside. However, we're all a little uncomfortable that no effort is made to
say can't someone if someone really values the historic character of this building, would they just take it away for free, you know, some other way? In other words, we we're still trying to preserve the building, but we recognize that
demolition is warranty. Well, you just voted on the on the uh that it it doesn't have to be >> put up for sale. >> Does have to be what? >> Put up for sale and move given away. It can be donated. People can take it. Uh,
you know, if someone if someone really values the historic character of the building and they want to take it away and bear the cost of it, >> fine. Let them do it. >> We certainly wouldn't have talked to anybody taking this build, right? We have we have no objection to >> you don't want the building.
>> I don't want the building. So we don't have any objection. >> So that's why I'm saying if you you did something at least that gives us some sense that you know they we recognize that concern the people is that the building itself can't be used for what it's it can't be adapted. It has no
economic value. It's a burden right now and it's an unfair burden to the current owner who's going to develop it. >> Okay. Thank you Jerry. Um Mr. Juliana, are you have you any other comments? >> I have no other comments. You can auction it off when you demolish it if
you get approved tonight and any takers can come. >> So, Miss Floyd and then John has another comment before we get to Mr. >> It's important for us to recognize the architectural historical aspects of the building. But for me, this building has
always been a safety concern. you know, with the fire department being there and the driveway going through, people going on and off of it, and the layout of it is just, you know, there's not much you can do with it, you know. Um, so I would definitely have to be in support of the demolition. Unfortunately, the building
is in pretty good shape. Maybe you could just post it in between. If anybody wants to take it, it'll save you on your demolition cost. But yeah, that's my thing. What >> Mr. Mixer?
um in in general um most of what Mr. Juliano said is what I would want to reiterate, but I think there's an important piece that we can can recognize and again everyone's opinion on the historic value or the value to yourself by way of the architect. He
lived in town. Um he produced a fair amount of architectural pieces that still exist. um this being the last one certainly has some level of significance to him and his family and anyone who's you know following this particular
um story. But what we're considering here today is is you know objectively reviewing you know whether or not the total demolition is warranted by the case presented in front of us. And though I tend to think that mid-century modern may be something that
it has some historic value, I think and agree with the fact that it's really subjectively not useful as a property and if it does get, you know, if it gets re if there is adaptive reuse or some way of changing it, it's going to be so
significantly different that it wouldn't retain its mid-century modern allure that it that it has today. That being said, if you've ever visited this property after sundown, it has no historical significance whatsoever. It
is, frankly, it's dangerous. And and I think I'm saying it in a way of saying to your point that it's it's a bit of a safety concern. >> It's completely vacant. It hasn't had any sort of like activity. Cars are, if they're there, they're obviously not
parked there for business purposes. um there the lights, you know, in in the parking lot and and everything else around that area. Subjectively, don't I don't think that this retains its historic value in a way that we have to like preserve this this particular building. Um but I did want to just
point out because the question came up and the comments have been made. I totally agree and understand that there is a view that this building has significance. It's not saying that it doesn't. I'm saying that we have to look at these and not every not every decision is is easy as you know this is
completely black and white. We have to weigh those particular facts and look at what we can um ultimately control here at this particular um position. So that's all I wanted to say. >> Thank you Mr. R. >> I just had one more comment. One of the things that
um the applicant said they satisfied was a complete photographic record. um of all exterior elevations, interior spaces and details. Got the elevations, but none of the interior uh details or
details and I don't know what where this photographic record goes, but goes into some historic archives nevertheless of what was there. So I would in say that part of any
>> a condition if it >> condition that we get a better >> a better >> a more extensive photographic record of what's there >> are there existing floor plans of the of the building. >> There are not none were turned over to
us from from uh from Chase. Um, so my comment would be that the reason I I uh we've already voted on the waiver and it was it was approved, but um I do think that there is some benefit
in in having the the the the building moved. Um and I think the significance again we spoke about the automobile, the drive-in um and also the architect. So I'm disappointed that that waiver really
was uh you know was uh requested and approved. But having said that um you know we are the historic preservation commission. Um we should be looking at other things other than uh we should
expand our our knowledge a little bit more to appreciate uh other styles of of architecture. I mean, granted, this was in 2006 an intrusion. Uh I would argue
that if if this was I've already said this, but if this was rewritten that it would be um I think fairly uh uh important building. Um it's too bad it's not on the edge of the historic district. And I think that would be an
argument. the location is uh uh it doesn't have the the uh street view of of what uh and the appreciation of of looking at that with the but then again they built it 1960 next to an 1890
firehouse. So you know I mean I think that's one of the beauties I mean we are in Montlair isn't diversity the word that you know everybody sprouts all the time. So I I think to consider this not important I think is a mistake. Um and I
I I do regret that. Um that's my my opinion. Um is there did we get everybody's opinion from the the audience? Uh comments from the audience any other >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Um, >> I just didn't know if >> No, no. Is there any any other comments from the audience? From the a from Yeah. from the audience that would before we take our vote? None. Do you want to take Please, you have to come up to the
podium, please. >> If I can, I can just address the comment that there is uh articles from the Monontlair Times, December 1st, 1960 showing the building being built. So, my apologies for
making comments when during the question time. Um, and I just want to say I mean obviously I'm passionate. >> Tell tell us your name again. >> MJ Weldon. Um, uh, I just think it's a real shame that this building was
mclassified as an intrusion. you had stated if it had been properly classified and it wasn't an intrusion, you would not have purchased it. You would not have taken on the project. And I just think it's a real shame. And I hope that the
commission will do whatever you have to do um to update the classifications of buildings around town. so that another perfectly fine piece of architecture that does have historical significance
in this town doesn't end up getting demolished. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um so having said that I think there's a few things uh before we uh take our vote
and one of that is the pictorial uh as Mr. Reinman's uh spoke. I think that's very very important. Um, so is anybody any other other commissioners want to voice an opinion or before we take our vote? >> No, I would just react to that last
statement. Again, I don't think we disagree with maybe the value of some of the the architecture or the, you know, what was created there. It's just it's too long of a way to get to use it. It's
it's not the it's not what it is. It's how do you use it? How do you how do you turn it into something else? And if you turn it into something else, do you destroy what it is? So, it's in a way it's in the wrong place. Um, and
that we're not saying it doesn't have value. So, >> but I'm not saying speak for >> but if it had the possibility to be moved somewhere, it would that would be I think that would have been beneficial.
Anyway, are we ready now to take a vote? >> All right. Um, >> so this is for approving the demolition for 580 Valley Road. And a yes means that you approve the demolition
>> with the condition >> with the condition that an additional pictorial record will pre be provided of the interior and exterior. >> All right. Um, Chair Bennett, >> I I have to vote no.
>> Mr. Rhymn, >> yes. >> Mr. Rooney, >> yes. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> yes. >> Mr. Giuliani, >> yes. >> Mr. Mixer, >> yes. >> Miss Floyd, >> yes. >> All right, that is six votes in the
affirmative. >> Thank you very much. Yes. Now, were you looking at the proposal for the building that you're proposed to put on this property? Um this is uh application 25 uh application
sorry application 2954 580 Valley Road. This is construction of a one-story swimming school with parking. And this is what is proposed to be built on the site that we just uh approved the
demolition of the uh bank drive-thru bank. And now we are going to be looking at a proposal for a swim club. And these are
recommendations that will go before the planning board. So, um, is any is anybody else going to or >> Yeah, we have a project architect um here. I'm going to kind of step aside. Um,
too far aside, but um I mean I think you well Mr. Danova will provide testimony, you know. Um, and then Caroline, you can sit here. Carolina. >> Yes.
>> Good evening. >> Okay. Miss Connley. >> Hi. >> Hello. Um, could you please identify yourself and your relationship to the project and then our attorney will swear you in? >> My name is Karolina Potkanovich. I'm the
project architect uh for for the new proposed building on the site. >> How do you spell your last name? >> P O D K A N O W I C Z. >> Okay, this uh raise your hand.
>> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide on the application tonight is the I do. >> Okay. Do you want to start with your testimony maybe? Sure. Would you like me just walk you through? >> Do you want to introduce in, you know, give some background?
>> Sure. Um, so we talked a lot about how we ended up with this building and and what the uh what the the initial look at this building was. we can talk about how we ended up at this second phase. Um after kind of reviewing the zoning,
after reviewing um some of the interest from tenants to reuse the building and after reviewing the nomination report, the next question became what do we do with this building uh with this site uh in the absence of those things? And we
did look at a couple different options both retail, residential um uh kind of there was a there was a moment of almost mirroring the um the layout of the Talbitz and uh an office building connection there. We looked at
bringing in uh from Monontlair upper Monontlair Plaza and having a building that was kind of double-ended similar to that structure. Um that structure uh if built today would have a substantial parking variance associated with it. Uh
we still have a parking variance although not as not as substantial as that building would be. Um and then we were approached by Swim Quest and Swim Quest is an established uh children's swim school. Um it is a they have three
locations Milbour uh Livingston and Whippony. I'm sorry. West Westfield. >> Westfield is under construction. >> Westfield's under construction. Um the uh the the business itself to me uh rang as something that would be great for the
upper Montlair business district. At the time there had been no announcement of the revitalization or the reopening of the Belleview Theater. So I looked at the use and said, "This is a great use for traffic. This is a great use for when I say traffic, I mean retail
traffic, retail presence. Parents come, they drop their kids off, it's a 45 minute to 60 minute swim class. They have to go shop at the local boutiques. They might go eat, they might go dine. Um, and they and they hopefully will patronize other businesses in the upper
Montlair business district. It also gave us the opportunity to relieve some of the massing on this site that I think would have otherwise been as of right. Um, in the NC zone, it's a 36 foot height. Uh, there are no sideyard
setbacks. Um, and the proposed building that we had looked at that would have been a spec building, whether retail or retail and residential combo, would have certainly been larger uh than this building would have been, likely with parking on a podium and and construction
above it. Um, so this building, uh, this use felt like, uh, a nice fit in the upper Montlair district. Um, I've lived here, I don't have children, but I've lived here for a long time, and my peers have children. And one of the most
common questions uh that people ask is how where where do you teach your kids how to swim? The why when I was growing up is where I learned how to swim. and uh and now they're down to, from what I understand, one hour a week for ch for children's uh children's lessons. They
they've changed the way it's programmed. Um some swim schools have started to open up in other places. I've not been overly impressed with their finish levels and and what they're doing in some of those places. This was to me the
the uh a great use for safety. It's important to teach kids how to swim. um for pedestrian uh uh mobility around the town and and for activity when we're seeing more retail storefronts turn into restaurant uses and theoretically and
and anecdotally nighttime restaurant uses and nighttime operations. Um I felt like uh this swim school provided a relief to that. It also provided, as I stated earlier, a relief to what I thought the proposed massing on the site might need to be if we went in a
different direction. And uh and so we arrived at a at a deal to to to bring Swim Quest to Montlair uh as their fourth fourth fifth. It's fifth. We're missing one, but as their fourth location in uh
in New Jersey. Um and uh and the building proposed uh is is slated to go in front of either the planning or zoning board. Next step is DRC. So next step we're in front of the development review committee on December 4th. Right. on December 4th. Um and then it will go
to one of the land use bodies for for final approval. There are some variances noted in our application. The most significant one is a parking variance. Um we are proposing parking consistent with their other locations. The other
good news about this was not a lot has to be uh hypothetical in this because they have three other locations. So we're able to review how those locations operate. uh what the flow is of people in and out, what the choke points are, and make decisions as to how to design
this building with my knowledge and and the kind of intimate knowledge of Monontlair and Upper Monontlair. And I think we arrived at something that works really well in the upper Montlair business district. So, that's kind of how we arrived at this place. Um we tried to be expeditious. As I said, we
closed in April. We submitted our application uh in August. it was deemed comp or it's I guess it wasn't deemed complete until the total demolition was approved because that's a prerequisite for it to go to the land use body. So, uh after your resolution, it'll be
deemed complete and will be scheduled for uh uh either the planning board or the zoning board depending on on the outcome of uh of some of our internal conversations. Um and that's how we got where we are today. >> And um Mr. Trumlike, you noted before
about permitted uses in the NC and you said something about you didn't know if this is this are you considering this educational? I'd like to know what it is that you're considering this. >> We've applied if you don't mind me answering the question. >> Well, Mr. Tremol voiced that before.
>> Well, we we felt that it was a permitted use based is the education >> educational play center. Um, if you look at our website, and I say our collectively, but the applicants website, the the Swim Quest website, you look at the Kidville website, for instance, they are identical other than
instead of a jungle gym, it's a pool. Um, there's really no difference in operations. It's the same kind of product. It's the same kind of interaction with the community. It's the same kind of interaction with parents. But I guess what I'm questioning is whether or not educational that they
said that there's some consu uh concern with the planning department as to whether or not this considered. I'm just >> Janice's initial initial response was that she wasn't sure it was an educa it met the criteria for an educational. >> I think that's important because you're presenting this as educational. So we
need to know if if >> we're presenting that to the to the board, right? We're presenting that to the planning. filed it with the planning board some time ago >> and were under the impression that it was a permitted use until I think it was last Friday, late Friday, got an email
from Richard Shiruan that basically said, you know, upon further review, the planning department believes that the use is not permitted and that the application will have to go to the zoning board. Um, we've been assembling information and plan to challenge that
determination or for reconsideration of that. So the issue is right now there's been a decision that we have to go to design board. We're hoping to change that decision but if we can't we're not successful then the application you know
>> well your other and to be clear Mr. Chiron's memo did not identify what he believed the use to be. He just said I'm not entirely sure this is a this is an approved use in the zone. So we're responding to that by noting the similarities between
>> other swimming pool or what is not approved the swimming >> he said the the permitted use is it swimming pooler I mean you're presenting to us we we have to comment now on a swimming pool >> so educational if you're taking lessons that's
considered educational >> so I'm what >> this is all lessons so so we we proposed it the use we put in our application was for an educational play center. >> Right. I'll just I'll just add um the
planning department. Yeah. As Mr. Tramlak mentioned, as of recently changed the determination on on the use on whe whether it was permitted or not. I would say from the historic preservation commission's perspective, the exterior is not being changed at
all. So um it I don't think would have any bearing on the determination for the advisory review. >> Okay. >> I just want >> Could you explain >> we comment on the exterior like >> the the design of the exterior?
>> Well, oh for us because that's okay. >> I didn't get to chance to discuss it with the planner and the zoning officer so I can't um offer any more insight. Just a quick question though on that. Did Westfield approve it as a did your other did the other locations approve it
as educational? >> So in each t each town obviously has different definitions and different defined terms as they do it. In Livingston it was service retail was the determination that they made based on their definition. >> In Milbour educational play centers are
not an approved use in the zone that the building was in and they made them get a variance to be an educational play center. So, we used that as part of the determination on what we were going to apply for. And Milbour since that application has actually added
educational play centers with a nearly identical definition to Monontlair's definition into the approved uses in the zone that that Swim Quest exists in. So, we took their historical applications to try to arrive at what definitions marry with Monontlair's definitions. And the
closest one was the Milbour application which was determined to be an educational >> educational. Okay. All right. Thank you. So now are we ready to look go through the application? >> I'm ready whenever you are ready. >> Thanks. >> Yes. Um I would like to start with the
floor plans. So that will kind of dictate uh the exterior look of the building in in in a way. Um you have it on the on the screen as well. Um the north uh Valley Road is on the right. On the left we have the public
parking parking lot. Um the building is located um along the sidewalk and along the south um property line. As discussed before, the north side of of the lot uh the
driveway remains as it is. It is utilized by the fire department. Uh that's right past the property line on the north. The driveway um moves people uh along the building to the back where the parking parking lot was located is
located. The looking at the the entrances into the building. Uh the main entry is on the back uh on the on the lot on the parking lot side.
it it moves the people from the outside into the main lobby. The the entry that you see on the sidewalk side is for egress only from the pool. Um within if you notice the the program
is very standard for swim schools. Uh you have a main feature the pool uh it is centrally located in within the building and the surrounding perimeter program supports the pool. You have the changing rooms, the storage, the
showers, the staff break room along the north wall on the right. Uh along the sidewalk, there is a light coming into the pool, large storefronts. And then to the closer along the south exterior wall,
you have the large lobby with some um um there's a pond, there's additional changing rooms, and there is a rest dry restrooms. So this this whole um location is the program is very specific
of how the swim schools operate. Uh you enter, you have the wet changing rooms, you swim, you get out through the lobby, you have the dry changing rooms, um you have the dry bar where you dry your hair, and then you leave. So >> directly for one second. >> Sure.
>> Um and I'm sorry to interrupt. Just one one point to note which I think our aerial doesn't show is there there's a change in in egress in circulation uh between this building and and the the bank which had a U around it and exited
entered and exited on Valley Road. Uh the proposed exit onto the upper Montlair Plaza side exists. It's it's got Ballards blocking that exit, but that drive out into Mon upper Monontlair
Plaza is an existing third uh egress currently. And so we're proposing to uh to um to to utilize it when the drive-through bank had not utilized it. There is no parking spot in front of it in our aerial. There is someone
illegally parked in front of it. probably >> probably probably because there are ballards there, but we have vehicular access over that over that property. I'm sorry, over that that that lot line to get into the upper Montlair Plaza. >> Sorry,
>> no worries. So, um the building that you see here, it's about 8,000 square ft. Uh the footprint of the building uh couldn't fit all the program. Uh at the bottom of the sheet, you will see there is a basement plan. The basement portion
of the building is very small. It would be located at the top right corner of the building. It there's a dash line indicating line of basement below. And the basement would mainly serve mechanical purpose uh for the pool
equipment and any building equipment um that would be stored inside. The one feature that I would also like to point out uh on the site is that there is a significant grade change running through the the from Valley Road towards the back of the building. There's about um 4 and 1/2 foot grade
change. Um the next sheet is uh the roof level and just indicates this the the roof structure. We would like to propose it to be sloped towards the drains and the pool equipment and the HVC equipment for the building will be housed on the roof
level. If you go to the elevation sheets, um the the front sheet the the the front elevation which is the top elevation uh has a portion of the firehouse on the right and the retail building on the left.
If you if you notice, even though the the building is right against the left property line, the south property line, um there's still plenty of space between the two buildings. There is actually a driveway and parking uh along along this
property line on the adjacent lot. The I would like to talk about the the facade design of the building. Um as as mentioned um there are existing two facilities um one in Melbourne that was
the first location uh the second location just opened in September in Livingston and then where's Westfield location that it's currently under construction um the Livingston location uh design components uh some of them were brought
here what the client is looking for to kind of standardize and make the the building. Um just the look of the building say, "Oh, it's a it's the swim school." So the front top street elevation uh we try to incorporate the
same elements uh such as the wave on top, the wooden woodlook wave. >> Can I can I interrupt you? Do you have do you have a picture of that that we can see that people can see? You >> mind if I if I operate it? That was the facade that faces the
plaza. And do you have a do you have a picture of the facade that would face Valley Road? >> Yes. >> Is this okay? Would I zoom in or is this okay? >> No, if you could zoom in, I think that would be beneficial. Uh the color do you do you have a color
rendering of the of the valley road? Okay. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. >> That that's the back, right? >> Valley Road. >> Oh, that's the front. That's Valley Road. Okay.
>> I'll leave it here. Um so the rendering is more taken at dawn. It looks a little dark but what we try to emphasize the the lighting features on the building. Um the the top of the the along the parapet you have a wave uh woodlelike material which
actually would be metal panel. Um it mimics the logo of swim quest. It's a it's a swimmer. And then along the bottom there, uh, we were limited to the amount of storefront we can place along the street. Um, and that was due to the
program which I just described. The storefront that you see here would um, you would see you would look into the pool. Um, the one thing I want to mention here is that the the floor finish of the pool and the lobby aligns
with the main entry which is store in the back. It's about a 4ft gray change. So in the on the elevation sheet you will see the dash line that the actual storefront is about four feet higher um than the finished floor within the
building. Um that was one of the reason why we we proposed about a 20 foot high building even though it's one story. Um we wanted to have as much light coming in and 12 storefronts and the uh the signature
wave along the top. Um the way what you see on the rendering carries through along the side. Um the program within the interiors uh has changing rooms. Uh the break room, the
um the mechanical rooms and the changing rooms and the shower. It didn't allow for much room for windows. We were trying to aesthetically add some feature to the to the plain uh solid wall with with a wave and some lighting. Um, and
then moving towards the the back uh the facade that faces the parking lot. I'm going to uh flip over. Oh, thank you, David. >> Yeah, it's tricky. >> Could you go one back?
>> Um, the aesthetic is a little bit different. Um here uh we were trying to maximize the area of the building and the actual entry is on an angle while the main uh mass of the building is square. Um and this is similar features
we used at Westfield. Um we have these vertical uh woodlike material uh and the round windows uh are also common in all the locations. uh they mimic a a swimming bubble. We have some sconces
along that entry and a large glass uh vestibule uh after the wood uh vertical wood panels. The main material used on all the elevations is a fiber cement panel um
light wood tone um and then the the accents was uh metal panels with woodlike uh color. Um in regards to the lighting um that the all the trims along the front uh valley side are will be LED trims. They
will be very low in in terms of lumian uh warm lighting and then along the back there's just few sconces and I believe there will be some additional just security lights um for security. there. Um, one thing I also want to
mention, um, both the front and the rear facads, I think they'll be very visible um, by the people who are going into the building and people who, uh, drive and walk along the street. There's two signs proposed for the building. One along the street,
um, there's a swim quest uh, swimmer with swim quest text at the bottom. Uh the the size of the sign is two foot high by 7 foot uh wide and in the rear uh it's only text noting swim quest
that's 1 ft high by 11'8 in uh long. Um the one thing I also wanted to talk about is uh as you seen on the roof level there's some equipment. We try to keep the roof equipment away from the parapits. The parapits are about 3'6
high and when looking at the the building from the street. The intent for the parapits was to disguise and hide the rooftop um rooftop equipment. So no screens at the ms were proposed um as
you see from the 3D views. Is it is it safe to say, Carolina, that we also paid attention to the placement of that equipment so that from various angles, you aren't able to see it over that parapit wall? >> Uh, yes, we definitely want to keep it away from the parapits.
>> And from the from the renderings we have, you you're not omitting that equipment. You simply couldn't see it if you were standing where you are in this rendering, >> right? That's correct. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh I want to ask the first
question. How wide on the on the uh the front facade? That's the rear. How wide is this building? >> Um it's about 100 by 80 >> along the front. >> Yes. >> 108. >> No, about 80. 80 ft.
>> 80. Okay. Thank you. Uh so we'll start with questions from the commissioners and then we'll have questions from the uh the public. Um Mr. Mixer, do you want to begin please? >> Um come back to me on questions.
>> Pardon me. >> So if you could come back to me on questions, that'd be great. >> Oh, sure. Miss Floyd. >> Uh none at this time. >> Mr. Giuliano. Um, forgive me if this is in the paperwork somewhere, but do you have any bulk variances that you're going for
with the building in terms of size, height, width, footprint, coverage? >> Uh, I don't it will be on our civil sets. I don't have them with me. >> Um, but in terms of height, I know we're way under. >> Yeah. The only no setback variances.
Um, is it impervious coverage? >> I think there might be a coverage variance. I think we have a coverage variance where right now it's nonconforming. It remains to be nonconforming uh but we needed to do uh on-site
detention to to solve for storm water. >> Okay, I see it here. Lot coverage and parking requirement. And you're doing on-site storage retention to offset the per >> We haven't gotten the engineering memo back, but we we designed the stormwater
system uh to align with Neglia's typical requirements when there is that condition. >> Okay. Um and then on the building design itself, I mean, how how unique is this design compared to what the company itself is trying to do
as a standardized property design? I know there's only a few right now, but are they trying to build up kind of a design standard that all of the buildings need to incorporate? Yes, that that that is the first one,
the Milbour one differs in um in some ways. I think it's I think it's consistent in its uh approach, but it it does have differences. Um and they didn't love the final product that emerged from Milbour. So the other two
have been designed consistent with this design. Uh and my understanding is future designs are based on on this design. >> So is it the incorporation of this wave geometry or is it the material? What is the what are I guess what are they
trying to make standardized in the in the exterior design? So, one of the first I mean, when we started talking about a swim school, I I had to honestly say to my partners, I' I've never built a swim school. I need to I know what I know and I know what I don't know. Um,
and one of the first comments that was made to me was it can't disappear. It it has it is a unique building. You know, I don't remember the example he used, but I'll use like a like a supermarket or a gas station that kind of needs to reflect that it is a unique building.
And then he brought up it also has unique site characteristics like there's a lot of privacy on the changing sides. It's hard to put glass in certain places. If he had it his way from a programming perspective, there wouldn't even be a storefront right >> on the front side of the building. But I knew that that was going to be something
we needed to do. And we tried to design the building to incorporate it. Um and and finally it was it was you know identificate the a lot of these are in strip centers. A lot of them are in strip malls and and and kind of retail
sites where there are other big box users. Certainly no sign limitations big neon signs and they can accomplish similar things by using tools that I didn't feel was appropriate in in the historic district or in the upper Montlair district. So, we we we leaned
in on on it's certainly a contemporary design. I I'm not going to pretend it's not a modern design, but it actually uh uh incorporates many of the things that are in the the the guide book, like the the approved materials list and other
things. Um we're not wed to the the um to every single detail that's on here. The spirit of it, we are. Um but it's uh uh the idea is for the building to be identifiable um you know when passing as to what it
is and and and what brand it is in a C no pun intended of other things kind of emerging. >> Okay. So, there's a goal, but I'm just trying to gauge before we get to comments what parts of the design are more non-negotiable for this brand on
their end versus >> what's been >> I mean, I don't know that the design is that unique other than the wave structure, which does seem to be pretty important to the end user. Um, the LED lighting that was in the wave
structure felt like it served two purposes. it it it accented what was an architectural feature. It also provided some sight lighting and some kind of wash lighting to the building at night, which doesn't exist now. Um, but if you were to remove that, you kind of just
have a rectangular building with >> awkwardly placed windows on both sides. Um, and so the building itself is not, you know, it's certainly less specific than than this building in terms of its design, but that wave feature uh is is
important to the to the to us, to the applicant, and to the end user. >> Okay, that clarifies things. I don't have any other questions at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Mr. Sweeneying. >> Yes. I want to uh I want to know if you consider whether the facade of that
building in the area would be considered an intrusion to the area because it's inconsistent with the historic character of all the surrounding buildings. And second related to that I know your functionality inside
has that's we're not we don't we're not trying to interfere with that but we are trying to preserve historic character. So have you considered different facades in different communities?
Um, I have I haven't been involved in these other projects in other communities, so I can't speak firsthand about about the planning process in the other applications. Uh, you asked the question of whether or not I would consider this an intrusion in the zone. When Mr. Trembulac read the seven
criteria that you guys have in front of you to establish whether or not a building could be demolished. I said to myself, and I'm happy to pull out that list and go through it again, although it was lengthy and verbose, I said to myself, it's funny, the new building would be harder to tear down under this
criteria than the older building. um the older building met the criteria to be removed and this brand new structure would have been harder with a straight face to say we meet all seven criteria to remove it. Um I can go through that with you if you'd like and
why what brought me to that conclusion. But I've also >> I think that's necessary. >> Yeah. But I've also noticed uh many applications in the And I say many, it's not a giant district, but many applications in the upper Montlair business district that have come in front of you lately. um have been on the
more contemporary side. Uh the Manuru storefront that was in front of you not long ago, the new uh I think it's called Northeast Architectural uh where the appliance store was on Belleview Avenue is a more contemporary boxy notmasonry,
not tutor, not condolonial, not mid-century uh application in that in that district. And so I think it's less intrusive and less it's less unique today than it would be than it would have been 15 years ago when things were a little bit
more traditional. Um but that's that's that that informed some of our some of our decisions. >> Okay. Just an observation. Some of the national franchise hamburgers and other change McDonald's, they have a standard that they want to
have, but they tend to conform to the local community's standards. >> But Mr. Sweeney, questions. Yeah, that was a question that well, it's it's an elaboration on the question I asked whether they're considered
uh having a facade that differs depending on the community and location in the community where it is. >> We'd certainly hear recommendations from this board. Uh I'm I'm never upset about coming in front of this board because I
find that by the time we hit the planning board or the zoning board, our buildings always get better. So, we appreciate constructive criticism here and uh and we'll do our best to incorporate comments that that we feel we can into our eventual um into our
eventual application. >> Okay. So, does that mean you would be willing to consider adjusting the facade so that it is more consistent with the character of the historic building surrounding it? Again, I I don't I don't know that I
would agree that it's completely inconsistent with things in the district that the district itself is not uniform, right? If you were to simply remove the wave structure from the front of this building, it's almost identical to the Talbitz building, right? Which is just a
a rectangular building with a an an unremarkable aluminum storefront in the front. Um, I don't know that that um that I necessarily agree with the premise, but yeah, we're open we're open to to feedback on how the building
design can be better. That's that's part of the reason why we're here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rooney. Questions >> on the um you've done nothing on the south elevation. There is no design there and that's going to be rather prominent as you
drive down valley. We didn't render it, but there is an elevation in our proposed plan of the sensor, >> but it's not part of the the wave. >> It doesn't it doesn't have the wave. >> Is there any reason why not? >> Part of the reason was that at the time, and I don't know this to be I've not
seen an application, so I can't say that one is coming. Uh uh the owner of the building to the south was discussing planning a building a new building there that may uh come to the property line.
>> Okay. It's may >> again that that application has never has not emerged. So I don't know if that's to be if if that's true but that was that was the reason there. We would certainly be open to keeping it consistent and having it on that side but that was the reason not that we didn't propose it. >> Okay.
>> Mr. around it. >> Um, I guess this is a question for the architect. Are you familiar with our historic preservation guidelines? Have you reviewed >> our historic >> at the time of the design of the of the building? We thoroughly went through the document. Yes.
>> I'm sorry. I I didn't hear. >> The answer is yes. >> You did. Okay. Okay. That was a question. I have a comment on that, but I have a question. I >> I have a question. If the facade on the front along Valley Road is 80 ft,
how wide is this pool? >> I think it's 35. >> Uh I believe it's 30 feet by 70. >> So 35 ft. >> It's it's it's just over 3,000 square ft. So it's like 35 by 70.
>> So you would it it's pretty small pool. No, it's pretty big pool. >> It's the length is standard length for uh the swim school. >> However, um there are steps there. However, uh the whiff we couldn't fully accommodate the additional lane and we
and this pool has one lane less than the other locations. It's nar it's narrower. >> Okay. And so the traffic flow comes off of you're you're going to be using valley turning in coming around and then
exiting through the plaza, >> right? >> Okay. Um and the height you said was 20 20 ft >> 20 ft from Valley Road sidewalk to top of Parapet. >> And how how high is the equipment on the
top? the the height of the equipment itself. Uh the tallest >> would that add to the height of the 20 feet? >> Um the tallest I believe is approximately 8 feet which is the pool unit and it would add however recently
the client has been changing that unit to a much smaller unit and that would at the time currently what's on the plans that would add uh 8 feet to the height. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions from the commissioners before I open up to
questions from the public? Anybody have questions from the public? Okay, please come up and Mr. Tremlac, if you I'm sorry to just dislocate you. >> Move again. >> Okay, just state your name and remember
it's questions. >> Okay. Holly Felber. Hello. Yeah, >> Holly Felber from Barbara Eclectic in the Upper Montlair Business Association. My first question is this. The exit for the driveway where there are currently
ballards. When did you last look at what's on the other side? >> Two days ago. >> Okay. Because it's a permit parking spot. >> The sign is at the very far right edge as you're looking at the property line. So the far right edge, the sign says
permit parking because I park there all the time. >> It's not listed on the parking utilities list of permit spots either. So it it may be mislined. I didn't see a line to the to the south. I only saw the northern line that starts the next spot.
But we we do have egress rights over that over that site. >> Okay. So we would have to lose at least one permit spot from the parking lot in order to open up the ballards. It's not counted as a permit spot now under the parking utility. >> Okay. Interesting. Okay. Next. Um, how
many kids are in each class? >> I don't that that's going to be testified to at the at the planning board. >> Okay. And the last is that I shouldn't ask those questions now. >> You can ask what you ask. >> Okay. Um, what are the hours of operation of the swim school? >> That will also be testified to at the
planning board meeting. >> Okay. And is the pool big enough to swim laps? It is. >> It's big enough to swim laps. Will the pool be open for adults to swim laps during the day when kids are in school? >> Uh, I would we will testify to the
operation of the school more in the planning board. >> Okay. And when the kids are in the class, are the parents allowed to watch the class inside? >> Yes. Yes, they >> they are allowed to. >> Yep. There's a coffee bar. There's going to be chairs along the pool and outside
the pool with for security um from the reception desk also. All the attendants have a full view of the pool. >> Okay. >> And to answer your previous question, uh it's not only kids that go to school, but also younger kids like in preschool.
So not it's it's operating full day. >> It is >> for teaching class. Yes. >> So it might be open from 8:00 in the morning till 8 at night. >> I think it's I I think it's about 7 to 7. >> Okay. That's that's about the timing, but I don't I don't want to put that in testimony now because we haven't we
haven't started that part of the >> um in our historic district, which is primarily Tutor, all of the businesses along Valley Road and Belleview Avenue have their entrances on the street. Why is your entrance not on the street and
it's just windows? Part of it is is learning from the other uses and I'm sorry, the other the other sites and being directly next to parking spots when kids are coming out in the winter wet and cold was an important uh component to the application or
component to the to the to the tenant. Um so that drove some of that. Um also uh uh remind me if there was a functionality issue with with this or was that the primary? >> That's yeah that's one of the reasons
but also the the layout itself on the inside. If you move the pool to the left you have uh much more circulation needed which we couldn't accommodate within the small footprint of the building. Okay, my next question. The windows that
face Valley Road, will everybody be able to see into the pool through those windows? They'll be clear. Uh the the glass itself will be clear. Um they would be um if you see on the elevation
uh there is like a a wave and it will be a a privacy film. So, >> and what would be the height of the privacy film? >> Uh, it would vary just because it's also in in the wave, but it would be between
4t to 7 ft >> so people could watch. >> Well, part part of the reason that there is the film applied to the outside, if you remember, Carolina mentioned that the pool is actually 4 feet lower. So,
you'd have to be right next to the window in order to actually see the pool. We wanted to maintain transparent glass. We understand that that's an important thing in the upper Montlair Historic District. So, it worked out nicely that we were able to do that. And
you still could see in, but you don't just inherently see in. You're not driving by looking in and seeing seeing the operation because it's sunken down. And that means that unless you stand o like overlooking that that film uh you
know there is some privacy to the pool. >> Okay. And will there be lessons for people with disabilities? >> It's it's still primarily a children's swim school. Um >> but there are children disabilities.
>> I know that there will be lessons for um they donate hours for underprivileged kids to come in and learn how to swim. They bust people in from other communities to learn how to swim um during the summer and I do believe there do you know of off >> Yes. Uh the the pool has full ADA access
provided. >> Okay. And then another question occurred to me. If you're busing kids in, is there enough clearance in your proposal in the driveway for a bus to make the turns to get to the back to drop the kids off? It >> it would never be an actual school bus.
It would be like a van. We don't have enough. There's not seven. you're not putting 70 kids in this. >> Okay. >> Um, and then the lighting on the building, which it does have a very cool look to it. I don't think there's any
other building in the historic dis business district that has any lights on it. >> Is there I mean lights like that rather than spotlights on the sidewalk. There are there is LED strip lighting and band
lighting in historic districts in Montlair. I don't I can't know if it's in upper Monlair. >> I can't tell you if it's in upper Monontlair. I believe it's on the Monuro application on their facade, but I I don't I don't know if that's there yet. >> Okay. My experience with these
children's things, we have Kuman um right the which is the tutor center. It's next door to me and kids go in and I think they're in for an hour. My experience has been no parents come to any businesses not for a coffee, not to
shop. They sit in the parking spots with their cars running with all the fumes and exhaust and they never partake in anything. So, I sincerely hope that that doesn't happen. Well, the good news I can tell you is we we we have evidence
of that happening in other locations of this particular swim school and it's been, you know, we're going to testify at the planning board to the benefits and the detriments of this application with the intent of proving that the benefits outweigh the detriments. There will be testimony to how the other
locations operate and experiences of other business owners uh in those in those locations and how it impacts them. >> Okay. And um how many parking spots are you so are do you need for this kind of usage in this square footage?
>> So there is no there is no well we're we're still figuring out the use right now and the use is obviously what dictates what the parking requirement is per square foot. Um if it's educational play center that doesn't have a defined parking requirement.
>> Yeah. It doesn't have a defined parking requirement. Um, Milbour is a larger site than this and uh they have uh 11 spots like we do. >> Um, I think the the Livingston one is part of a larger corporate campus like
not corporate but a larger campus of of of uses >> of what? >> Of retail >> of retail. So, it doesn't have its own designated parking. We're proposing 11 and that is consistent with what the applicants experience is on these on these. And is this going to be the same
size square footage as some of the other locations? >> This is the smallest. >> Okay. Smallest. And is this a franchise? >> It's not a franchise. >> Okay. Corporate owned. Okay. And um now I forget my next question. Um
maybe that's all I have for now. >> I'll come in and say hi and you can ask me any questions you want. >> All right. I know I'll have a million more. >> I'll I'll be in upper I'm in upper Montlair every day. >> Okay. Come in and see me. I will. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? >> Hi, Arlene Corini. I own Newville and
One Savvy Design. I've seen you walk around now. I know who you are. Um, so I'm not opposed to what you want to do. Um, I am opposed to you criticizing a business, I mean a building that was existing by an architect and then
creating something that is just as an eyesore. It's It's very straight. Okay. So, whatever. Bygons be my concern is the Monontlair Plaza is a very tricky parking lot. Okay. You you have to be
very very careful. Kids coming out of there, crossing the street from coming out of the, you know, the school and so forth. And it's it's a very tight parking lot. There's not enough parking in Montlair as we all know. By having an exit going into that
parking lot is going to be causing a lot of confusion. It's going to cause probably some accidents. If you have 30 kids in your class, in your swim class, like how many does Melbourne have in a class? 20 30 >> I I don't know that I don't have that
data. >> Okay. But you would guess 20 kids. Let's just say 20 kids. It's 20 parents, 20 parking spots. Where are they really going to park is just something to really think about and that your exit really should not be into a really
congested small parking lot. And I would urge you that if that you would reverse it or not even have that open so that number one, we don't lose a permit spot or any spots. we don't cause any congestion in that area because they
have to go out through Belleview Avenue, which you already know that's going to be a complete mess once those other three buildings, those three storefronts go in, which is the the the grooming center >> and the other two that are going there, which I'm surprised that even got
approved because that's not a really safe parking lot for people to be walking on. So, >> but questions can you can you >> My question is or my proposal to you is would you consider not having that open in the back so that it would create a
safer environment and would you consider if you only have 11 spots, would you consider maybe reconfiguring your space where you can have more spots because parents don't tend to leave their children and go walk for 45 minutes? one
out of 20 might, but not all of them will. >> To to answer your question, um the egress and traffic around h the circulation on the site from vehicular access was looked at. There will be testimony at our planning board
application from uh our traffic and parking uh consultant engineer. Um the the study that we did has it takes a lot of note that this exit is actually a much more problematic exit than this
exit um in terms of the times that he studied it. Having two driveways right next to each other on Valley Road was more problematic to him from a data perspective than this exit. this exit here. Um I I I obviously haven't
physically done it in my car because there are ballards there, but nobody needs any approval to do that. We could remove the ballards tomorrow. We could sell the building. The bank could have had access there. That's not part of the approval. >> Um the reason for this exit was that we
could not figure out how to orient the building to be far enough away from the fire station and maintain a second egress on Valley Road. And if we push it this way there, we dead end back here and need to do this whole Kturn
operation to get out of there. That concerned the traffic engineer as much as the second eress here because the idea was that parents and children and like you said, small children are more likely to be localized in our parking lot immediately than they are in the upper Montlair station. And so if you're
doing K turns and you're turning around and you're trying to leave, uh that that was more problematic. So, this kind of streamlined out was part of a study by people smarter than me, uh, who figured out that that was a a an appropriate
circulation plan. Um, >> but they're not people that really work the area and that drive up and down. >> They have a different skill set. When I say smarter than me, it's a different skill set. >> They have a study, but they're not living. >> May I just interrupt it just a second? We're really looking at the the
appropriateness within the historic district. So, your concerns are absolutely valid. I agree with what you're saying, but this is something that really know needs to go to the next board >> and there will be there will be a planning or zoning board meeting in the coming months. >> Okay. >> Um, >> just food for thought. That's all I
would just like for you >> and and this is good for for you to >> gather all this for your next for your next uh close to it. So, is there is there anyone else from the community >> because I I already I have another
question as well and then uh we'll have >> Hi, Don Felbur um of 594 Valley Road. Um I forgot your last name. I'm sorry. >> David. Yeah, sure. >> David Don um question. Um
I looked at some of um your sites um other sites on your website on not your website but the Swim Quest website and um Livingston is JFK Parkway. Whippony is Route 10. They're both two-lane highways highways I call them. Milbour is Taylor Street in a um industrial
district. I believe >> it's in the it's in the retail district. >> Well, okay. So the map did point out retail, but it looked more industrial than it did retail because I didn't see any two shops. Um, Westfield, North A, East A. Um, train stations in there. There's a couple schools, professional
buildings. Um, didn't appear to be too much retail. You were coming into a heart of a retail district in Upper Monlair. Did you ever consider moving it to some place that was out of a business district, historic business district? the historic nature of it was not I
don't want to I don't want to say that the the use in was informed by the historic district but it happens to be and and we're going through this with the planning department right now. It happens to be the only zone that it's approved in. Educational play centers and these kinds of uses aren't approved
in the C1 zone. They're not approved in the C2 zone. They're not approved in the C3 zone. The only zone that they're approved in is the NC zone. So the township itself thinks that this is an appropriate use and this is the kind of location that this use should be in. My
guess I don't want to speak for the town is part of the reason is some of the things that I hope will testify to at the planning board meeting in terms of how the site functions and how parents come in and out. They wanted the upper Montlair business district or watch plaza or Grove Street to to benefit from
that in the NC zone. But it is the only zone I believe Allan, right? It's the only zone that educational play centers are approved. >> And you um Thank you. You keep going back to educational. Um on the website for swim quest um it also says that you will have three main functions of the um
children coming in. It will be for um swim lessons which you've mentioned, birthday parties, >> and swim teams. >> That's right. So, in other words, you will field a team, a swim quest team in Montlair, and they will compete against other >> like
>> again, I can't speak to the oper I'm not the operator, but that is the intent and that is very similar to like Kidville has birthday parties and other things at at their location as well. They have camp. This is swim team. It's a very similar application. >> So, it might stretch the limits of of
that. Um, >> Mr. Chillock You used to have an office on Belleview Avenue. Um, you know, no, >> you weren't with Java at all or >> I I was not part of the firm when they were there. I was at the office many times. >> I'm sure doing business with my colleagues.
>> Did you ever walk into the basement that that building? >> I've been in the basement. >> Uh, I don't think so. I don't >> Okay. Because Tony's Brook runs through the train station, but it also runs right through that basement. And there might be some water issues um with digging down to put a swimming pool in
um because it's known to sprawl back there. >> So the site is is is topog topographically it has a steep slope from valley to the back only a very small percentage of the site needs to be excavated. And speaking of that um topographical um layout in
the back where you're prop proposing the parking lots or the parking spaces and going to that ballard area, it does shift down and slope down like that. Will you >> regrading? You're going to regra it. So you'll have to bring it up um towards the
>> I don't remember bring it up or if we're leaving it at that height of flattening it. >> This is the the rear ramp towards the end parking lot. It becomes more flat. There was a it was very steep. We found we found it unsafe correctly. And then the the parking level all of the back
was here was regraded along with the driveway here. So there was a settled slope now along the the entire circulation for the car. >> Okay. So you'll likely be bringing the back area where those spots are facing the back parking lot. You'll be lifting that up a little bit. >> The idea was to shift soil. Okay.
>> So it was to move from where we need to excavate to where we need to to level. That was the idea. And I I believe it's down a little bit down. >> It is down. Yes. Um and there is also a retaining wall um down that separates the property from the parking lot. And
that to me is historic brownstone fieldstone wall that goes from where the ballards end and it runs down to the stairs that come down between you and the firehouse and it goes to the firehouse and property. So do you intend to keep that wall intact or do you
intend to replace re or repair that wall? uh the civil engineer will testify to the the um the structure, any retaining walls, any storm water, anything like that will be the civil engineer testimony at the planning. >> And because if you are standing inside
the parking lot looking up at your property, th those stones are are nice brown field zones. Um and somewhat historic to me, mimicking the stones on the uh firehouse. So, so yes, the civil engineer will testify to it, but from my
discussions with him, it would the the retaining wall is to remain. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Stop short of it, right? >> Okay. And any because it's getting quite late, I know. Um I suppose we can wrap it up. Um Mr. Trembleac, I will um be
going back and pulling up the um video of this meeting and re um listening to your seven points that you were making to encourage the demolition of the bank um and then just opposing that with the um this new building
because to me it doesn't doesn't really fit right and I may not. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um I have a question. Um what need educational? You you've settled on education.
Why is swim center? What is the need in Montlair for a swim center when we have the Y that has three pools and countless classes? >> I my understanding is they don't have countless classes. I mean from talking to to parents who are raising uh raising
children, there's a huge need. Anecdotally, >> we didn't it's not it's not my place to do a feasibility study for the tenant, but the tenant strongly believes that there is demand for this in Montlair. I
my my experience here reinforces that demand. Um it would be the only private swim school in town and from what I hear it is very hard to get your kid into a Y class and the only other options you have are outdoor pools. >> Okay.
So, um, was any other questions then from the commissioners? >> I just want to know because I have three kids who try to swim when they can, too. And that is true. The Y has significantly reduced its hours for what I'll call like open swim classes.
>> Um, my daughter can only go there, it's like for a certain period of time for a very small, I'll call it like six week session. Um, and it's like it's reduced even it's not an hour, it's like 22 minutes or something. It's pretty pretty ridiculous. But yeah, it's difficult to find swimming indoors and you know there
there isn't a lot of um opportunity outside the four months of summer to to uh to use outdoor pools. >> Okay. Thank you. So finally we get to the consultants report and discuss the uh the uh building itself.
>> Thank you chair. So, I'll just read the comments about the new construction. Uh, concerning the site plan, rear parking is appropriate per the guidelines. It improves the streetscape by removing the surface lot drive-thru presence at Valley Road for the massing one-story height with a
modest parapit is compatible with the district's prevailing low commercial scale while remaining differentiated differentiated from historic fabric. The facade, a base pier lintal logic, masonry peers or express millions referencing historic storefront
proportions would be more compatible with the context versus the undulating wood design. The inappropriate LED accent lighting further emphasizes this non-compatible facade design. Moving to the materials, the pallet
which is fiber cement is a nichia wood series rustic white. says a tongue and groove southern yellow pine thin 8 in pre-cast base is very contemporary and is not compatible with historic district's masonry character brick is recommended over fiber cement
in this context you touched on it but the rooftop mechanical equipment noted up to 98 in tall should be fully screened within an architectural enclosure and located further west to reduce potential visibility from valley road
uh I'm going to skip over number seven because that was already covered on the facade concerning the lighting and lastly the signage individually pinned stainless steel letters of modest height are appropriate. >> Okay, thank you. Um so why don't we start discussion John? What are your
comments? These are these are recommendations that I'm going to go to >> my comments are similar to uh the report from the consultant which is and it goes back to whether >> the historic guidelines were reviewed. It's not so much this is contemporary or
tutor or whatever. The guidelines go to proportions and scale and materials. Not contemporary, not contemporary or whatever. Um, I look at this building, I go, >> it could be dropped into a strip mall
anywhere. >> Uh, why is it been dropped into Upper Monontlair? I I have I have heard no logic for why the facades do any relate in any way other than Talbot is similar but if you really put Talbot next to
this we could talk about that but we don't see that. though. Uh I have a uh I don't have a problem with the use. I think uh I would make some s I don't like the idea that the only access really is from the back door when this
is a retail street where there's access from Valley Road. Now you have the windows there and but it wasn't clear to me that you could really see through the windows or this wave started at 4t and went up to seven feet. No, no. The the grade change the pool is 4 feet down.
So, you're looking over the you're you're you're missing the activity, >> which is also part of the reason why we couldn't put a door on the front is it's 4 feet below and we would need a >> that I I understand the four feet, but the >> you're blocking the view. You're
blocking the view essentially with the wave, right? >> Partially. Yes, >> partially. >> Okay. Well, why? for security and privacy. >> Security. >> It makes it so that the only way you can see in the pool is by going up to the
window and looking like this. It It eliminates the pass by, the passer by, the casual passer by from seeing into the pool. >> Okay. So, the net effect is you get the lights of
the ceiling on the street, right? I mean, that's what you see, you know? That's what the net effect of what you're telling me. I I get this. I get that. I understand that now. But um I don't know. That's
it's also just a box on the street. Okay. Now, even Talbats has awnings over the there's a little there's a little scale or dimension at the street frontage more than just it's flat with
the with the uh >> I would like to respond to that if I may. Um if you look at the front uh facade um the the wave is three-dimensional not just in shape but in depth. uh that
there's three pieces to the wave along the front and each one projects out onto the sidewalk uh of different depths. The left side uh which is the most significant the most significant uh depth and the right is about uh ends up
being about 6 in the full wave is built out off the wall. Um, in addition to that, I which I didn't mention uh in my description of the project, and I apologize, there is a a thin black canopy along the entire storefront there
with some down lights. Um, which we felt when we were putting this together, it added the dimensionality to the front. We didn't see it as just a box. >> You have a walkway. You put the walkway on the site between the drive of the
fire firehouse and this building. >> We >> which which keeps you from being able to put any window penetrations along that facade because the car is right up against that you're driving. >> Um the this is existing sidewalk. We are
uh res restoring it, renovating it. There's also steps at the end of the sidewalk that lead you to the rear parking lot. Uh the driveway is also existing. I see renewed. And the reason why we couldn't really accommodate any windows on that facade is because of the
interior program and the sec and the operation of the of the of the building. >> Yeah. I I guess I you know it's a little bit like CVS across the street. you know, there's a wall down one side and a wall down the other and you enter in the
corner and I don't think it does a whole lot to activate the retail activity on on that street. I don't have the answer. I'm not trying to design it for you right now, but um there's
something about that not being able to, you know, access somehow from Valley Road. Um, and to go back to the consultants report, I
think a brick veneer, pilasters, something that takes materials out of uh the upper Montlair district or some logic to it. I'm not I don't get I get the image. I get the McDonald's arches
effect, you know, whatever that there's the image that you have here, but I don't think it comes out of the district itself. So, I would have our I I would encourage that this the facade be totally revisited in terms of design.
>> Okay. Thank you, Steve. I have the same sort of uh ideas in that it's it's a box and that has nothing to do with this historic district. Um
and even Talbot has a little bit more detail to it with it as a gabled roof and stuff like that. Um the use I have no problems with it. I my grandson goes to one of these schools
and uh every one of them is in a shopping mall. >> So >> they're probably bigger >> bigger. >> That's it. >> Mr. Sweden >> use is okay. It doesn't affect the
historic character, but the appearance of it is, in my view, inconsistent with the historical character of the area, and it doesn't even pick up any of the history that the building that you're
going to tear down even had. So I think you really have to reconsider and consider in all the factors the community and location which is placed. I don't think it satisfies our historic standards.
>> Thank you. >> And I agree with the two for me but I was just in my words. >> Thank you Mr. Giuliani. >> Yeah I would just echo my preceding commissioner's opinions here. Um, you know, and this is why I was so curious
before about the brand standards. Um, you know, if the facade, we can't design it for you, but can it be reworked to have some of the major materials and and window design pick up on the district around it and maybe the wave is something just a little more subtler
somehow. I mean, you could still have that geometry on the facade somewhere, but maybe it's a little smaller or it's just done in a different material. Um, I think the building itself is is fairly harmonizing with the district. It's a, you know, one one and a half story
lowrise commercial space with mostly glass on the front facade. But I think just the the skin of the building could use some work. Um, and just maybe some some slight ins and outs on the facade and just a little more detail and maybe pick up some more primary materials from
some of the better buildings in the district. Thank you, Miss Floyd. >> Um, I do agree that I believe that the wave aspect of it is a little ostentatious.
It's it's it's it's a lot. So, maybe toning that down a little. But my biggest thing here is the fact that it's facing the street and there is no entrance to it. You know, I always come from a from a marketing business standpoint, you know, like so if I'm
going by, I don't know if this is an emergency exit or not, but it looks like it would potentially be a door, you know, and then you have all the beautiful lighting and the black around it. It just kind of looks like it's an entrance, you know. So, from this from the street,
it's kind of like this space that you think is able to be used from this direction and then you've got to go around the front. I actually like the front of the building a little bit more than I do the back of the building or main entrance than I do the way this looks in the front. And it
would be nice if there was some resemblance of some historical material used within the building if possible, you know. I mean, the good thing is that the bank was mid-century, you know, so if the company had have been able to do
some adaptations in some of the other towns, potentially maybe you can consider creating a little bit more of a mid-sentry mid-century style with using your I like the wave and I understand the importance of it, but you know,
that's just my comment. I think it could be toned down and a little bit more character to it. Can I ask a question of of an opinion question of the commission? >> Yes. >> Would the and and and I don't know that
there will be a universal answer to this, but if the the wave material was toned down, would it be preferable to the commission that it be eliminated from one of the facades and left on the front? >> Yes. >> Or scaled on both? And I'm looking at
Mr. rhyme because I feel like he had an idea or he was thinking something. Is is it better to be consistent around at a lower scale or is it better to be removed and be applied? >> My quick my quick answer to that is if you did this in a brick veneer and you
did some sort of wave pattern in that brick >> such a contrast between this white neat >> chicha whatever material. I was looking at it trying to figure out what it was. It's a >> it's a fiber cement pad >> fiber cement board. Yeah. So there
wasn't so much contrast. >> That's all I >> Okay, >> that's me. >> Sorry to interrupt. >> Okay. Um Mr. Mixer, >> and I I don't have anything else to add other than echoing, you know, what we've said here. I think the the facade truly
does um need some attention from a toning down perspective. Mhm. >> Um and and of course the the humor isn't lost that you know we we we said get rid of a building because of its its its ability to not be conforming
and then you know show this but the the the facade obviously is is a is a fixable scenario right um and and really going back to what m Mr. Julian was saying was the the design standard. If there is an opportunity to adjust from a
design standard perspective and still bring in the the aspects of that particular design, I think there's, you know, there there's room for improvement. And and again, just echoing what everybody else said, pulling parts of that district in pieces, not just
materials, but perhaps some of the design styles, um, even in a small, uh, capacity would help make this look like it fits a little bit better. Thank you. So, as for me, I think the uh purpose educational fits within the
district. I understand it's uh something that you could have had a crocheting school there for for anything. But, um the building itself would have been fine if it was in Boca Ratan, let's say. I think it's totally out of character with
the with uh what we have. And I agree with my colleagues. um it's not beneficial to the retail activity. It's the materials. Um we don't approve fibers boards on things and this is what
the majority of the building is as I understand it. But we're not here to design. So we c we can't tell you what to design. Um, I think the idea of of uh redesigning it in a in a material that is more sympathetic to the is, you know,
historic district and picking up on the design, the massing, the scale would be really beneficial and I hope that you would consider that and I hope that you would bring it back to the commission so we could look at it. >> Thank you. >> So, >> thank you.
>> One last question. So the the the entrance you put in the back for safety purposes only. >> No, there were there were three real reasons. Safety purposes was one. Comfort of being wet and coming out of the pool and getting to your car quickly was two. And the grade change between
where the pool actually sits and where the valley road sidewalk is was three. Um in that it's about, as Carolina said, it's about four feet down. So, it would require a major ramp or steps or something that felt incompatible with the use.
>> So, let's go over the recommendations then that we're going to be sending to the >> whichever board gets us. >> 48 foot long. >> We've done with the with comments. >> You said questions before. >> Yeah. You didn't have a public hearing.
>> Oh, okay. Come on. I will be very quick. All right. I I know I annoy you, but >> No, that's not true. >> You were annoyed with me over the last >> Carol parents. I'm going to be brief. I think I know
that. No, >> I'm sorry. This is not my field. Okay. Carol Ferren, I live uptown. Uh I am professionally loathed to rely on what I observe is going to happen because you never know people juries go out and they
come back with the exact opposite answer. Uh but I I think that you you've caught on to everything. I really respect all of the effort that has to go into this job. It's difficult with this town. I've been here 5 53 years. But I just say to you and it make yourself
easy. This is an easy decision. you deny it and it's denied based upon council's own presentation to you. He said to you in the beginning, the building goes down, it's nonconforming, it's not historic. And then he flips it around and he says the same type of way out of
whack building is conforming. Can't possibly be. It's illogical. His own argument is that both buildings are non-conforming and non-historic. And that's what I have. >> Well, that would be all well and good if we were able to do that. But we we don't have that authority. ability. We can only advise the zoning.
>> But I'm saying I'm just saying that I think based upon the argument that you're all in your rights to deny the application because they agree with you. It's non-conforming. >> No, we can't deny the we don't deny it. The next board does. We do the recommendations which I was just going
to go over now and go back. Go. So, uh, do we know we don't know where this is going, right, Sen? The zoning or planning? >> Yes, it's going to zoning board as of now. And on when? >> I don't know. >> It's going to the DRC first. >> Oh, as of now. I thought she said December 10. All right. Thank you.
>> I'm too old to learn the new skills. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Let's go over the recommendations now. Uh Sen, >> um just say the facade needs update, more details, it's out of character with
the district. um refer to the historic guide design guidelines for proportion, scale, and material uh >> and remove the LED lighting. >> Thanks. Uh
and that the uh new design or we hope the new design really is adjusted to the uh the uh or references the historic design guidelines of the of the township. Anything
else >> in terms of uh scale material and >> we encourage you >> and we encourage you to come back to to the before the board before you go on to your next before this board for before you go on to the zoning board.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Have a great night. >> Yeah. We're going to take a two-minut break and then we're gonna we have two more applications that hopefully we will be able to get
through. probably didn't start after 11. Oh, that is 10:30. 30. We We're going to try to get through this as quickly as we can. Um, application 2025-27
is uh 612 Valley Road Grilllet uh sandwich bar. Uh, is anyone here for And I'd like the record to reflect that Mr. Graham has left for the evening and
Mr. Mixer has left for the evening and our attorney, Miss Bower, has left for the evening. Um, hi. >> Hi. >> So, can you uh state your name and your the relationship to the project, please? >> Sure. Uh, first name is Wasim, last name
is Arshed. Uh, I'm one of the owners at our business, Place of Business, which trades as Jackie Scrurlet, uh, 614 Valley Road, and we are here to, um, get something accepted, right, for our
project right next door. >> Expanding. >> You're expanding. And somehow I've managed to lose uh the information. Uh, >> you need to to swear him in. Yes, I need
to swear you in. Um, just raise your hand, your right hand, and say, uh, here we go. That you, uh, are to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Uh, concerning this application. >> I do. >> Okay. So, just as a description, this is
a CFA. It is the subject properties two-story tutor revival. It is located on Valley Road. Um, the property currently contains Jackie's Glette and the upper Montlair Barers with an empty storefront to the south where the
Monontlair stationary uh used to be. And your plan is to expand to the south and take over the uh stationary store. >> That is correct. Um uh the proposal is uh as I stated is a certificate of appropriateness to renovate the front
and rear facade to facilitate the expansion of the of Jackie's Glette. Uh the existing entrance will remain the same. The glass panels for the southern storefront will be removed and replaced with glass panels to match the existing Jackie storefront. The recessing entry
of the southern facing storefront will be made flush with the rest of the existing storefront and no changes are proposed to the second floor uh facade. The rear facade is the entrance on the southern side of the near property will remain at the Jackie's property. The
entrance in the rear of the proposed plan will be moved to the left of the original position. All other existing doors will remain in the existing paint will be extended across the openings. Additional mechanical equipment will be added on on top of the rear first floor.
One trash enclos enclosure will remain in the center of the rear facade. And no changes are proposed to the second floor rear facade rear facade. So I've just gone over all that. You don't have to go over it, but if you have you could show
us on the uh on the uh visuals. Um and then we'll open it up for questions. Okay. >> Sure. >> Um so pertaining to the front. >> Oh, take the microphone. >> Yeah. >> Out of the way here.
>> Um so this is our existing location right now. This is the barber shop and this is the space that we are taking over. Um, the only thing that we're really changing the front is the glass. Uh, just kind of to match this here. Uh,
it's gonna I guess this is the proposed. Yes. So, this would just be slightly bigger glass. And the door we're planning on keeping the same. I feel like I might have to come back here later if we're going to do the flush uh enclosure. We're hoping maybe in the
winter months maybe applying later on in a future date for one of those vestibules or whatever they call it just for a second door. Um so making this door flush is not a major concern or uh a must um cuz we're planning on really just keeping the door uh recessed as is
uh in our plans. >> Oh, good. >> So it would just be changing the door. It has one of these old school garage kind of enclosures to protect from breakins. I don't think we need that in, you know, that part of town. Uh, we've been there 19 years
almost and luckily never had a problem. Um, so the front, we're not we're not really changing the look of the tutor style. We're just going to refresh the front, which has been neglected for I don't know how many years, and it's not it's not it's not a good look. I think
whether it was the last owner of the building kind of just threw some paint on there to uh revive it a little bit, but we're going to just make it conform and look good and kind of match the rest of the building. Um, in terms of the rear, um, we're
we're proposing to uh relocate this one door probably like four or five feet to the left as it's showing here. um and closing the rest up. I mean, this structure here is I don't I wouldn't even call it a
structure. It's a couple pieces of plywood that's falling apart and uh doesn't really it looks terrible back here as is. So, we're hoping to just, you know, refresh it. Not really changing anything structurally back here. Um
and that's it. I hope. >> Okay. Uh and the the window the fenistration the openings for the windows will remain the same and the uh yeah there's some changes to the the rear where Jackie's
goulette is uh the sign is Oh no no no no okay sorry we'll open up to for questions okay um Mr. Yeah, I have some questions only because the existing photographs, the proposed
rendering and the drawn elevations are all different. >> Okay. So, uh just want to try to understand what you're really doing. Um the rendering makes it look like you're We're talking about the front
>> door >> here or the left. So, there's one door. There's one door there that's staying. I mean, we're just going to physically replace a a broken door. Yeah. I mean, we're just we're just replacing a door there.
>> And and these glass >> Yes, that's going to be replaced. >> Yes, that's correct. rendering. So this rendering of the front This one here. Um, >> this one
>> this is for an apartment uh entrance. So what is what are we doing? >> So what we're doing is just changing this one door and the window panes to conform with this. You know I I totally forgot that there was a door going up to
the apartments there. Um but I mean we're not that's not our responsibility but you know we do want to match what's there. Um >> changing this door. >> No change. But, you know, it's not my building. I'm
just changing the the storefront of the space that we're renting. >> This one here. >> Yeah. That's that's a that's a landlord's uh >> Yes. rendering. >> This is for the rear.
>> Um, no. I mean whatever is existing is existing. Um I'm sorry you said the >> Okay. >> Okay. AC unit. >> Yes. So, yeah, I don't know why they're
not being shown in, you know, uh the designers. >> No, no, no. That's it's not my building. There's three apartments on top. So, we're just trying to kind of clean it up a little bit as best as we could and just kind of match what what's
already existing. Sure. >> Yeah. So, like more like a aluminum door, I guess, to kind of match the this aluminum door. >> And from the front. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Remove the two doors that have the the wooden mullions in them. >> No, he's saying you can't touch that one. >> That's the landlord. This he's taking over this facade that he and he's changing these windows, >> right,
>> from that >> that make this also match. >> Okay. To match that. >> All right. So, the three So, there aren't three doors that are going to match. There's two doors. the two new doors will match will be that aluminum
uh because this is a C of A. So we need to write it down. >> The one new door in the old stationary uh entry is going to be replaced with door to match >> the existing door >> the existing jacket for entry.
>> Okay. >> The center door which is the door that goes up to the apartments is not being touched. You haven't uh provided any signage though. >> Uh it it was sent in in a separate application. >> Did we was that uh
have we approved that? >> I think uh you just recently submitted, right? >> Yeah. >> I just didn't want to I was trying to do this separately to not delay. >> No, if if we haven't approved it, then you we we can we would you would come back to us. So,
>> so have we have we looked at it? >> We haven't received it. >> Okay. So, we haven't re not we haven't received uh signage and lighting. Is there any change on lighting? >> No. >> Okay. So, we'll put that together. Lighting in case you change your mind.
>> But we have to approve that. >> Yeah. >> Um and then the um >> there might be like an existing fluorescent lighting out there now. Um, but I'm not sure it's active or >> on the front of the building. >> Yes. >> Oh,
>> it's there's like a I wouldn't call an awning, but like a overhang from the building. >> Yes. A pen roof. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And but there's a sign band. So you have a sign band over your existing store and there's a sign band over the B
over the stationary store. So you're going to have to match. You're going to have to do something to tie that together. >> Okay. Okay. So, that'll be in signage which will come back to us. >> Okay. Are there any other questions then? >> Um Steve
Cherry. >> Yeah, just two things on the reassessed uh entry. Um why are you uh changing it? And once you change it, is it something that will be a structural change or one
that can readily be restored? I think from when the designer and the architect kind of maybe misinterpreted what we were doing, we're not changing the recess >> component of it. We're just going to change the door. >> Um but not the location of the door, just the actual physical door.
>> Okay. >> Oh, so so it's going to stay recessed? Yes. >> Oh, okay. I misunderstood. >> Yeah, it's it's confusing on our end. So, sorry. >> That was my only question. >> Thank you, Mr. Juliana. No, I have mostly the same questions as
John about the elevation and differences. Um, is there any additional signage plan for the added bay that you're getting the restaurant? >> Um, >> that's what I just asked and it has to come back to us. >> The signing the signage is going to be in the front.
>> We know we know it's going to come back to us. We're assuming that there is additional signage. >> Yeah. >> All right. We're just gonna have a very simple sign maybe which you know a blade small like whatever >> but that needs to come back to us including if you want to include a blade
sign um miss >> I think it's it should from my understanding we we gave the deposit and hopefully it was uh sent in so maybe it's just a matter of time >> okay Miss Floyd >> no further questions is there any any questions from the public?
No. Okay. So we will then let's hear from our consultant. >> Certainly um I would advise the applicant next time to bring your architect or designer to this meeting. I think a lot of the confusion on behalf of the commission was due to the fact
that you're the drawing is just incorrect um all over the place to be honest. Um so the first thing was clarifying scope which they all asked all the questions about. Uh the recess entry which was touched on is a uh should be preserved. It's a character defining feature of the historic ground
floor storefronts throughout a district. The mechanical in the back on the west elevation uh is a secondary elevation without character defining features. And we also touched on uh any more information about lighting and signage to be provided at a later time.
>> And anything else for the back? I I don't have uh nothing. Right. It's just that there's an additional exhaust pipe, but that >> there's an exhaust pipe and there's a door being swapped out. >> Okay. All right. Uh, so we'll open up for
discussion. See, Miss Floyd, >> I mean, basically, it seems like it's a pretty simple adjustment with the door and it we've made the necessary questions around it. I'm fine. >> Okay. And we have what because it's a CFA, so we've written down what needs to
be into the Okay. Uh uh Mr. Juliana. >> Yeah, I'm fine with it overall. I mean, I think raising the glass height up in your extended bay, you know, unifies the facade, makes it look a little more organized. Um I have no no objections to
any of the design. >> And Mr. Sweeney, >> I support approval. I think the changes are so minor and they do make the whole facade consistent. So, I think it's a a positive change. Uh,
Mr. >> Um, I have no objections to anything. I just want to make sure >> that the drawings that we have are going to be what they're doing. >> Um, yes. And to to uh our consultants's
point about bringing having more in-depth uh >> you can't see the >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We can't see we can't see the bulkhead. >> Uh but we would recommend that the bulkhead because you are going to be
replacing the windows to the south that that bulkhead which is underneath be the same height. >> Yeah. We're not changing. >> We're not I think it exists there. >> Okay. I think it's >> exactly exist there. You can't see it behind. >> Okay. >> So, the bulkheads be the same height.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You got to rem they're to remain. The glass starts from the top of the existing bulkhead up. >> So, I'll make my I have no additional comments. I think it looks great.
>> You know, I wish you a lot of luck. >> Thank you. >> No, we you know, we've been there many years and we want to preserve as much of the features of the building. >> Sure. you know, we we we love the location. We care we deeply care about a building that we don't even own. And that's just, you know, who we are as a business as well. So,
>> well, your food is amazing. >> Good for you that you're expanding. Um, any other comments? >> No, no, >> no. Okay. So, uh we will uh uh uh a motion to approve the CVA with
conditions and the conditions being uh replace the storefront windows to the south uh to match the existing windows. Uh the new doors would match which are the aluminum which are the two out the two doors that enter the the uh Jackie's
Glette. The no change to the recess door is to remain. Recess shape of the door is to remain and the bulkhead height is to uh remain. Um and the signage signage and lighting will come back to us. >> Yes.
>> When you say the bulkhead just kind of straight like to match the >> Oh, see it's different. >> It's there. You can see it exists. >> It exists. It's underneath the windows. >> But they're going to bring the glass all the way up to the same line all the way across board. line will be reserved for the signage.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Right. I I it if you could, but I I is that the bulkheads be the same height, but I can see here now that >> it's existing though. >> Yeah, it's existing. >> Yeah, that one's a little lower. >> Right. Right. I I just thought it was uh
uh you know, if you were going to replace the windows, it would be the same. Are there are there any other Nope. >> No. >> Okay. So, um, >> I move to approve based on the conditions listed. >> Second, second. >> All in favor? I. Okay. Good luck.
>> Thank you. >> All right. And our final application of the evening. >> Do you have your Do you have your um Why do I keep the agenda? >> Take something from you. >> No, but you did. the agenda. >> You can have
>> here. No, no, no. I have it. >> I have an agenda right here. >> Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. Um, it took us a long night. A long night. >> It's amazing that you're able to do this until this hour. >> Well, we don't know. You haven't we
haven't started to speak yet. >> You You either get the benefit of it or >> All right. So, this is applica. This is application 2025-29. It's 164 Bloomfield Avenue. Uh these are
uh facade up facade changes to Harley Street um at Harley Street facade which is on the corner I'm sorry I'm just looking for my my information. the
corner of uh Bluefield Avenue and um Harley Street. Here we go. And this is also a um a uh yeah, it's also a Caertificate of appropriateness.
This is a 2 and a half story building located on the south side of Bloomfield Avenue on the corner of Harley in Bloomfield with a twostory uh brick addition in the rear of the building. The subject property is a contributing structure in the town center historic
district. It is a um two and a halfstory vernacular Victorian built circa 1875. It is a modified rectangular plan on a stone foundation with composite siding, modern storefront and and brick rear
edition extending south. The um work proposed is um no no changes are being proposed to the existing facade on the Bloomfield Avenue side. But on the Harley Street
side, you are adding two additional entrances along the Harley Street uh frontage and two windows on the first floor side of the same side of the property. One monolithic glass window in the center of the Harley Street frontage, one window on the right side
of the front door to match the existing windows, and a small window above the proposed new entry. Additional mechanical equipment would be added on top of the rear addition roof. And having said all that, could you
please introduce yourself and you your uh relationship to the proposed or to the property? >> Sure. Uh my name is Gregory Schwitzer. I am principal of Gregory Schwitzer Architecture PC located here in Montlair, excuse me. And I am the
architect uh here representing the uh applicant this evening or the owner of the property this evening. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh just uh will you uh swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in terms of this application? >> I will. Yes. >> Thank you very much. Okay. and we've
sworn even before but I don't know if that carries over from application to application. All right. So I gave a little introduction. Do you would you like to further elaborate? >> Sure. Just in the interest of time I'll try and make this as easy and quickly as possible. >> Thank you.
>> Um the description you gave uh we completely agree with uh the property and its location situated at the corner of Bloomfield and Artley. Um this is uh block number 3101 and block number 19. As you stated, it is at the southeast
corner of Hartley Street in Bloomfield. Um the slide here indicates that location with the red dot uh square circling the property. I'll try and >> next slide is just confirmation of the
uh the tax lot uh block number of which I gave showing its situation in relationship to Hartley and Bloomfield Avenue. Second map is uh the map uh showing that it is in a C1 central
business uh community area. Um there is uh it's actually the only uh lot on um H Heartley that has that designation. Switch to the next.
This is a uh image which we captured recently from uh Google Earth and it shows the northwest corner of Bloomfield Avenue um present day conditions. Um you'll see the western elevation of the building where we propose to do the
work. That's the site where the first floor has zero windows. It's just all panled up and there is a air conditioning unit which is nestled in the corner where the brickmasonry building connects to the wood structure
or the next slide shows just more uh character uh images of the property itself. The first indicating the bluefield elevation. Um currently the space is unoccupied. It's papered
up. It was formerly a church. Prior to that, it was a uh from what I understand, a social club. And um the next slide shows uh a view looking just down the side, the westward side from
Bloomfield. Uh nothing very special there. Uh showing face on westside elevation. The area in uh that we are proposing to do work is in the first floor where there aren't any windows.
And then the next slide which is I think is very uh informative. Um this is an image of the building prior to the work that was done that brought it to its present day condition. And here you'll see where we're planning to place the door is
where a window once was. And uh we're connecting the two windows that were previously located under the two central windows and then the window that is closest to the masonry structure. Um there was never a window there and we're planning to place one there to increase
the amount of light into the space based on the elevations of which you'll find on the next slide. Actually, no. Here, sorry.
Actually, the next slide just reiterates in line drawing the areas of uh the work um as I explained two slides before. The western elevation shows the area of work um with the broad pink highlighted area in the drawings
that was provided to you. And then there the existing north elevation shows a air conditioning unit which is placed there of which we're seeking to relocate from the street level sidewalk level to the upper portion of the masonry structure
um at the rear of the building. This slide shows exactly what we're looking to do. um where the first window is. Uh we're planning to place a door with a transom window above it and uh centrally
located we'd like to place a monolithic uh glass window and the last location I'm sorry I previously stated that there was no window there. My apologies it is late. Um we're placing a window directly below the other window. All of the window
trimmings and casings and uh the sighting uh around the windows will be similar to what is existing. The door itself to the uh side will have similar casing and trim work around it. And we're adding two additional light
fixtures uh wallhung sconces on the side. There is no signage proposed for the side and I don't believe that there will be at any given time. If so, um I believe the owner may come back uh with his signage vendor. There may be a separate application and that would be
for signage primarily located on the Bloomfield uh elevation. The uh proposed west elevation also shows the location of where we're placing the air conditioning unit, which is on the roof top of the uh twotory
masonry uh structure that's attached to the rear. It's also set back greater than five feet from the uh edge of the building in all directions. So, um we don't believe that you will be able to clearly see it unless you're halfway into the lot
across the street and pure across. You may be able to see the unit based on the location that we're proposing. The next slide shows just an indication of the light fixture which we'd like to use as the wall mounted Scots. Um, very simple. Um,
nothing very fancy about it. Black color and finish. Um, it's pretty much it. >> And what about um the next first floor plan? Are you putting in new papers?
>> Yes, I'm getting there now with the uh next slide. The one which is on the screen now. Uh perhaps you it was out of order in your set perhaps. >> No, no. I'm sorry. I thought you concluded your testimony. That's why that's why I wanted to. >> Okay. So, the next slide uh currently um
if you look at the earlier larger image that I showed you of the existing uh site, which is about maybe five slides earlier, uh the area located between the sidewalk and the building is now covered with uh asphalt. And we're seeking to
remove the asphalt from that surface area and include the red brick pavers that is commonly found now in the sidewalks around town. >> His idea is hopefully to put one or two twochair
folding cafe type seating uh situations outside to where people can actually sit outside and have a cup of coffee or maybe even eat a meal. So this is becoming a cafe now with entrances on both Bloomfield and Hartley. >> That is correct. >> I see.
>> Yes. >> Yes. He wanted to provide uh the additional uh point of entry on the west side to allow service to the outside as opposed to having to walk out the front door and around the corner
>> and people receive uh their order. So >> that's the intent there. Um, with that being said, um, and I know in the interest of time, I believe that that concludes everything that I believe we needed to >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Does anyone have questions, John? >> Uh, I have a question. It looks like there's on the the recess of the brick little building in the back. It looks like in the photograph there's like some
sort of applied siding next to on that brick. Is that being peeled off? What is that? >> No, that is existing. And uh perhaps there was a window or a door there some time ago, but uh it certainly isn't anything that's in the scope of our
work. >> Okay. So you the rendering you have on the cover sheet is it's not look it doesn't look like that per se. just blank >> the br the brick this this line rendering where you have
the brick very first coverage on the cover sheet >> oh okay so that would be the last page of the slide let's see here yeah no that that's that's existing um I can show you
>> so you're leaving it it's not as drawn here Okay. The other thing is I I guess I don't have any questions. I have comments if you want to do comments right away too. >> One. Yeah. Why don't we >> time? My my comment would be the big
picture window. Um uh on that facade, I would break it up into three smaller pieces windows with mutton bars in between. I don't think the it fits that facade to have just a big picture. I realize
you had the picture windows in front, but that was really sort of the storefront edition in the front that um whereas around the side, it's really the original house, original building, and it doesn't seem
>> appropriate to me. That's that's my comment. I don't know if anyone else thinks about that. >> Thank you, Mr. Rooney. >> Yeah, I'm reiterate what Mr. the remnant said and >> about the window
>> about the window break it up into maybe three and whatever but mountains in there that is existing. >> Okay, Mr. Sweeney. Thank you. >> My comment on the windows maybe it
should be a little smaller but otherwise it seems seems fine. I think adding the windows to that side adds some character >> that improves it immensely. >> Yeah, we believe it's reactivating the Hartley Street corner there because for
a long time >> it's an improvement, >> Mr. Juliana. >> Um, yeah, I would agree with my fellow commissioners on the window um comments. Um, I was also going to ask us a question and also a comment if not um if
there was any plan to replace the lighting on the front facade to match the new sconces on the side. >> We can certainly have a conversation with the client about that. Um, our purview was strictly the western elevation of the building. >> Um,
I can certainly ask about it. Um, I could really answer for what sort of response you would get to that. >> That's fine. That would be my only other suggestion to maybe tie everything together a little bit better from the front to the side. But other than other than that, >> would you be opposed to us using the
same light fixtures that are in the front and put them on the side since they're already existing? >> I don't know. I kind of like the side ones that you proposed. So, >> you proposed something nicer than the existing. So, >> uh, Miss Floyd.
>> Yeah. So, I actually So, question with the window. Is it so is he going to have sit down dining inside the restaurant? >> Yeah, I I think that that is the intent. It's it's a very small space. In fact, it's it's about 450 square ft
just >> Okay. >> that area. >> So, this just adds light, you know, just kind of gives it a little bit more. He's trying to give it a little bit more character to where people would be drawn to coming into >> and and then that window is measured almost as I guess you were duplicating the two windows in the front as to why
you kept it as a whole that way. >> Uh no actually the larger window is the combination of the two windows the gap in between and the window on the side and the second. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I mean I I like the window that way but that was my only question. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. um to that we hear from you please. >> Sure. Uh to summarize Steven's comments, the alteration is consistent with the intent of the guidelines and the secretary of interior standards 9 and 10
as no historic fabric is uh impacted. He did question though the clarify of the need for an additional entry. I I thought I gave that. >> Oh, >> yes. You you u mentioned that it would be easier access to outside
>> in order for him to operate service to >> I apologize. Yes. >> Um and then the one thing he did want to point out is that the relocation of the existing highly visible contender unit to a less visible location is a positive improvement on the streetscape. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um I had a question now I forgot what it was. Um the um I don't have a problem with the with the open window uh the large open window because I think it really as long as it stays uncovered you you can't put anything behind that. Um I think to
John's point having it broken up don't his explanation in that it it fits the uh where the existing window was these windows were and then here >> three windows. Yeah. Right. Right.
>> Just more in scale with just that h that house when at the turn of the century when it was made did not have that picture window. So that's true. >> Okay. It's the way I look at it. >> Does Mrs. Small doesn't say anything about the large window, does he?
>> Uh he and I did talk about I know just and professionally he's doing a lot with glass and he was kind of concerned about how large the window was uh just from a structural standpoint. Um, but I think adding muttons would or millions would help cut it up. Um, we
did appreciate though that it does align with the the the floor above. >> Yes. >> So, it makes sense why it's there. >> But maybe by adding some >> some mullions or muttons, it'll to your point break it up and not make it so that a little bit over. So, maybe the
masonry opening is fine. It's just adding some architectural trim details within the window >> would help lessen the overall staringness of it. >> Just to uh let's take a quick look at the north elevation. Um and you'll see the front of the
building, the Bloomfield Avenue facing elevation has very large window openings of the entry. >> They're not as large as this one. Correct. They're they're probably about 2/3 the width each. It it's almost yeah about maybe 2/3 maybe maybe a little bit
more but they are very large windows. So um you know once you're on the insides what you're seeing are those two large windows and now we're seeing the compartmentalized windows as well. Mhm. >> And then on the outside you have the two large windows on the front and now we're
we're making the larger window segmented in a way to where it doesn't relate even to what's already on the front. So we were trying to meet them halfway with that and then making sure that the trim work and the windows on the side and the doors on the
opposite sides um carried the same harmonious uh trim work and finish work around the openings. Well, you know, if you want to go that route, then maybe the bulkheads should be detailed differently and you should try to match in more. Bring
>> I'm sorry. When you say bulkhead, >> what? >> Which bulkhead are you referring to? >> Are we are you giving a reason for why the window is as big as it is? >> I was just suggesting on the first floor, the ground floor, street level, sidewalk level of the building, the Bloomfield Street uh elevation, there
two very large window openings. >> You're right. And I suggested that moving around the building, we have another large window opening just kind of playing off of what's happening on the ground floor level of the existing building there. The brick masonry
portion of the building is very distinctly and uniquely very different than the entire structure that's attached to it. In fact, the masonry openings o above the windows are somewhat arched and the windows are much
smaller and uh they they they're very different. It's my belief that that building at one point in time was its own building, its own structure and then somehow it was incorporated into the structure that was attached to it at a point in time. So the the the the
correlation between the two structures are you're talking about two structures that were built at two very different periods of time with two different very types of materials, two different types of treatment. Um
I I think I understand what you're vectoring to, but I just wanted to make sure you understood at least our rationale for the larger window on the first floor. So >> and and what I was suggesting is if indeed you want to do the big window and
that's your argument is you're trying to tie it into the large pieces of glass in the front that you treat the bulkhead below in the same way and you bring you know to me it doesn't the big window on the side has clabbered
clabbers below it and then the front it has solid panels so it's not detailed the same way so I would still break up that big piece of class on the west elevation into three pieces. >> Look at the front. Yeah. See how below
the glass is solid panels? It's detailed differently. >> It would ground. >> Would you prefer us to do that? >> If you're going to do the big glass, yes, I would say yeah, >> it would it would ground it. I think >> we can do that. >> Yeah, I I like that idea. keep the big
window because I think I was reacting to the interior space with the large window but I think with put adding the bulkhead I think that that's >> well if we do that then we need to carry it across to >> where do you stop >> I would do where do you start and where
do you stop >> I would wrap it all the way around you know >> so I mean do you so your reasoning for the not wanting the big window is >> I think it's out it's historically Not correct. >> Okay.
>> Would be my >> What if the big window was replaced with two double hung windows >> to match the upper floor >> and then that ground floor would still have three double hung windows plus the the transom plus the door. >> Two big windows at a retail. >> I'm sorry. You're suggesting double hung
windows now where the fixed glass is. >> Two double hung windows. >> He specifically would want fixed glass. And you're incorporating operate >> maybe we're talking about the >> I understand that but but you have a double hung window to the right of the
picture window. >> Understood. But the picture windows he wanted a fixed glass panel window >> for that location but it was okay with the double hung window to the right. >> Yeah. >> Is there a reason for to have fixed and
then immediately have double hung? That's what the client suggested that he would like, >> right? >> Um, and for us, we I mean, I can clearly put in a fixed window where the double hung is the singleton if you if you think that that would make the larger picture window better.
>> But what we were trying to do is with all the the double window that's in the masonry portion of the window, they're double hung. We're just trying to make sure that we at least have some sort of transition back toward what's going on just beyond that because
that's the only place that you'll actually see these windows in the same elevation. This is all western. >> I and I understand that. But with a with a large plane of glass like that, you that faces the southwest. It's going to
get very very collect a lot of uh sun, heat. Is there an awning proposed over that? >> No. >> No awning. Okay. >> And there's a there's a garage, you know, I don't you know, maybe parking lot mechanic shop right across the
street. >> Like, you know, just being familiar with that building. I think that just trying to add some character to the personality and it's an eating space. little chairs outside and front with the brick front and there. I think that by putting
to me it just seems like it wouldn't be consistent. Like if you have the two big windows in the front and then you have the the mullets in the side, it seems like there's a lot of different style windows going on. Like I mean I you know >> Well, he's saying that the side
elevation is not the same storefront as the front. The front's an added one-story piece. The side elevation is all siding. There's another double hung window proposed. You could do three double hung windows with just a six-inch mullion between them and then it would look more historic, right? But you'd
still have, you know, a seven, eight foot wide window by however tall those are. They look pretty tall, the double hungs >> on the first floor. >> Yeah. >> The treatment underneath the window. Um just looking at it um with this street front. The reason why a lot of that is
there is because this is a pretty steep slope site >> and where the air conditioner is there is a concrete apron of which the wood structure is built upon and it is less
than maybe four or five inches in the corner. And then as you move to the front of the uh building toward Bloomfield Avenue, it it increases to almost 18 inches. So I I don't know if that's the rationale that was used in
putting that apron in in the front of the building initially. Um we could certainly put that on the side, but just keep in mind that it's not going to look square. It's going to >> have a wedge an angle. Yeah, it's going to be Yeah, >> I see that now from looking at your last
photograph. >> Um, and then the the height of the sconces are how high are those? They're they're conform to code, right? >> They will definitely conform to the code. Yes. >> Okay. Because they they >> they're going to be about 8 feet above.
>> Okay. Yeah, >> I just want to make sure that >> so um I think we have to have come to some consensus as a Ca about the the window. I think everything else is is fine. >> I'll defer to my
fellow that was my opinion, but I'll defer to my fellow commissioners. >> I have no problems with the larger window considering that the front windows are the same. That's that's how I feel. And I feel
that when you're in the interior space that this will be all one large space. I think um reacting to it being in the interior and activating uh as you know the exterior on Hartley Street.
>> Any any uh any other opinions? >> No, I mean I I like the the single window, the large window. >> Okay. So then um uh a a uh the only condition we would have is to make the
lighting on the front facade match to the side which I see you'll have six now six lighting fixtures. >> Okay. But I think that's important. I think it if >> I completely agree with you. Yes, >> it it does. So I think that would be the
um the condition u that we would approve it with. All right. So, somebody make a >> uh I move to approve with the condition about the lighting. >> Second. >> Second. >> Yeah. Second. All in favor? >> Hi. >> All right. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Looks great. Thank you. >> We should squeeze you in first. It's midnight. >> Finish the line. Motion to adjourn. >> Yes. Yes. Just a second. Everybody, >> I make it. >> Wait. All right. Motion to adjourn. Mr. Sweeney second. All in favor? >> I.
>> All right. But see you in December 18th. >> Yes. >> Okay. The last two applications in 20 minutes I think is 10:47.