WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=ruHwSCAo7Q0

Part: 1

1
00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:40.000
momentarily. >> Okay. >> Okay. Good evening everybody and welcome to the training session of the Montlair Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Um, a training session is necessary for all of our commission

2
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:57.120
members because we are recipients of a of the CLG. A CLG is certified uh certified public certified >> certified local government >> certified local government and we've received a number of grants through that program and one of the requirements is

3
00:00:57.120 --> 00:01:15.040
that we have um commissioner training. So I'm very happy to see we have a full complement of all the commissioners tonight. We also have Mr. Steven Smullen who's going to be presenting. He's our HP consultant and we have Miss Janine Bower who is uh our attorney. So in

4
00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:31.439
tandem they're going to present our um training session which will be on the review of applications for demolition of historic structures. And I just wanted to mention also especially for the people that are viewing this at home. I was at the um annual conference today

5
00:01:31.439 --> 00:01:48.960
for preservation and governor uh the LA our last governor just signed a uh a uh law into effect that all the commissioners of the HPC are going to be required to have training similar to what the planning board does and the

6
00:01:48.960 --> 00:02:05.680
zoning board which I think is a is a great thing. That was the last thing on his desk I heard in December. So we also welcome members of um the planning board. We invited the planning board. We have uh councilman Damato here. And we'll leave uh I'm sure a few minutes at

7
00:02:05.680 --> 00:02:21.920
the end for questions. So I'm going to introduce Mr. Steven Small now and he will take over the floor. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. And Janine will be um handling a couple of the slides as well and interjecting throughout because the Monontlair

8
00:02:21.920 --> 00:02:37.440
demolition ordinance is a little complex as we all know. So tonight we'll be talking about review of applications for demolition uh in Montlair. The agenda for the presentation that we're going to try and get through in

9
00:02:37.440 --> 00:02:55.360
just the next hour is um talking about why this ordinance exists, what its foundation was, where it came from, what the jurisdiction is of the HPC in these types of applications, uh your scope, things that trigger this type of review.

10
00:02:55.360 --> 00:03:10.560
We'll talk about um the contents of an application uh for demolition as part of this as well and there's there's numerous requirements for that. Uh I think an important section tonight will be the review criteria that the HPC is

11
00:03:10.560 --> 00:03:25.200
applying and the findings and report that you should generate. And if we have time, uh there are a couple um we call them landmark landmark uh cases from all across the state uh related to

12
00:03:25.200 --> 00:03:41.519
demolition in historic districts. So the objectives um of the training are to explain the goals um and purpose behind the demolition ordinance. Understand the role of not only the HPC

13
00:03:41.519 --> 00:03:57.120
but also the planning board or the zoning board and your administrative officer. Talk about the different types of demolition applications that the ordinance has. uh the criteria and then also how the HPC can build a clear

14
00:03:57.120 --> 00:04:13.200
record which is really important um and confirm any type of conditions before you vote. So first we will start with the policy foundation. Your ordinance uh for demolition like I

15
00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:30.400
said is quite complex. It runs for about a dozen pages. Um, and that's in addition to the 25 or 30 page historic preservation ordinance. Um, it's very specific and it was written, I think, um, quite a bit of effort was put into

16
00:04:30.400 --> 00:04:45.360
developing this ordinance a couple years ago. So, we're going to distill this. Um, but first starting with why this section um, even exists. the the town council when they adopted this ordinance I think understood that the historic

17
00:04:45.360 --> 00:05:01.520
structures in Montlair play a really big part in the identity of Monontlair why people moved here um its character not only historically but just you know currently and where it's heading and the stability um of the town and again what makes it a really desirable place to

18
00:05:01.520 --> 00:05:16.880
live demolition is a very significant um action in a town like Montlair it's an absolute and permanent loss uh to the community when it occurs. Um the ordinance here establishes that

19
00:05:16.880 --> 00:05:36.160
demolition may be restricted or denied where criteria support the preservation of the existing building. So the jurisdiction of the HPC and Janine feel free to step in if I start saying anything uh wrong here because a

20
00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:53.120
lot of this is legal based. Um, HPC's in New Jersey, I think, can trace their formation back to the historic the National Historic Preservation Act in the 60s. That's where we got the National Register of Historic Places. New Jersey followed that up a few years

21
00:05:53.120 --> 00:06:10.479
later with their own New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act. That's where we get the New Jersey Register of Historic Places. And then the municipal land use law um in the 80s was amended to include a carveout um or an enabling ordinance

22
00:06:10.479 --> 00:06:28.479
for local historic preservation ordinances. So the historic preservation commission I think sits at the nexus of a lot of different um governmental bodies. some volunteers. Some of these are um you

23
00:06:28.479 --> 00:06:45.280
know full-time positions. Um the HPC interacts with the governing body who designates historic sites and districts by ordinance. They are the ones that ultimately can adopt design criteria or

24
00:06:45.280 --> 00:07:02.000
guidelines that the HPC can implement. And in doing so, they're supposed to be stating um reasons. This is when they're designating a historic site or district. They're supposed to be stating reasons if that wasn't something that had been previously identified in your master

25
00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:17.520
plan. The HPC also um interfaces with the planning board and the board of adjustment. Uh the planning board, as we all know, is ultimately the one who prepares the historic preservation

26
00:07:17.520 --> 00:07:34.960
element of the master plan with input from the HPC. They um review development subdivision site plan applications and are there to apply uh zoning bulk subdivision and site development standards. Uh the board of adjustment on

27
00:07:34.960 --> 00:07:52.880
the other hand is the first um stop in an appeal to the HPC's decision um or the administrative officer as recommended by the HPC and they typically are reviewing um zoning variances for bulk subdivision and site

28
00:07:52.880 --> 00:08:08.000
plan standards as well specific types of variances. Um lastly, the HPC interacts with your administrative officer, who I think in the case of Monontlair is the zoning officer. Um and that's the person

29
00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:22.960
ultimately it's referring um permit or demolition applications to the HPC for review and um the administrative officer is the one actually implementing what the HPC recommends as part of your

30
00:08:22.960 --> 00:08:38.479
review process. The construction code official on the other hand is primarily concerned with building and property maintenance codes and is the one that is being um essentially held up from issuing a demolition permit until the

31
00:08:38.479 --> 00:08:55.080
HPC's review is complete. So there's sort of a distinction there. I think maybe Janine if you want to talk about that between what the administrative officer does versus the construction official in the types of applications the HPC reviews.

32
00:08:57.200 --> 00:09:14.160
Can everybody hear me? Okay. Um, it's exactly as Stephen said. He's doing a great job so far. Uh, but, uh, the administrative officer is really the key person, whether it's a zoning officer or could be a lot of different people depending on how small your village is or how big your city is or townships in

33
00:09:14.160 --> 00:09:31.839
between. Um, uh, because that is the legal uh, sort of execution person and the gobetween between uh the applicant and the HPC. I'm not sure why the legislature um arranged it that way uh to have an extra step. Maybe it's

34
00:09:31.839 --> 00:09:47.920
because HPC's were essentially new, but it would be like if the planning board had to issue its report to the administrative officer or the zoning board had to issue its report to the um zoning officer, then the zoning officer implements it. So that's the procedure

35
00:09:47.920 --> 00:10:05.360
we have to go through go through. um but he or she or they do have to implement um the decision on demo permits for that the HPC comes to. So it's just sort of a extra step there but it's a very important step and a one that that

36
00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:19.360
person needs to understand as well as all of us need to understand and and you and just like Stephen said then there's an internal appeals process which also doesn't happen with the other two boards. Um the applicant can take an appeal of a denial or an appeal of

37
00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:35.680
conditions to an approval. Um and that goes to the zoning board and the transfer of that appeal happens again through the zoning officer. Um so maybe it was intended to be back in ' 85 some kind of check on you know so we didn't

38
00:10:35.680 --> 00:10:54.640
go crazy or something like that trying to preserve everything but we do anyway. Um so formally in many cases the HPC is providing um a recommendation to that administrative officer and it's really their decision that's being appealed to

39
00:10:54.640 --> 00:11:11.160
the board of adjustment in that scenario. Um if the board of adjustments's decision is to be appealed which happened a couple times while I was on the board of adjustment Hoboken you're going to the superior court um for that and that's where that gets handled.

40
00:11:12.399 --> 00:11:28.959
So, next we'll talk about um uh >> Stephen, just to be clear, >> yes, >> it says that the HBC's role is to advise uh the administrative officer, but the um vote that we take though is binding. Correct. >> It Okay. It depends on how the um the

41
00:11:28.959 --> 00:11:45.120
ordinance is written. Ours is binding. Um but I I just want to read because it's kind of interesting. Section 111 of the municipal land usees law is the section on permits. It's all permits, but demo permits are generally the permits that would come to us, but it

42
00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:59.680
could be other kinds of permits. It doesn't specify just demo permits. Reports on certain applications. If the zoning ordinance designates and regulates historic sites and districts pursuant to section blah blah blah, the governing, which of course ours does,

43
00:11:59.680 --> 00:12:16.959
the governing body shall by ordinance provide for referral of applications for issuance of permits pertaining to historic sites or property and historic districts to the HPC for a written report on the application of the zoning ordinance provisions concerning historic

44
00:12:16.959 --> 00:12:32.320
preservation to any of those aspects of the change proposed, meaning change to the site or or property within the district which as aspects were not already determined by an application for development by municipal agency meaning the zoning board or planning board. So

45
00:12:32.320 --> 00:12:49.600
if it was already determined then that essentially deprivives us of jurisdiction but because applications are supposed to come here first that shouldn't really ever happen. Uh but nevertheless, the legislature provided for it if it if it were to happen. The Historic Preservation Commission shall submit its report either to the

46
00:12:49.600 --> 00:13:06.480
administrative officer or the planning board as specified by the ordinance. Um if the ordinance specifies the submission of the Historic Preservation Commission's report to the planning board, the planning board shall report to the administrative officer. So it depends on the exact wording of the

47
00:13:06.480 --> 00:13:22.920
ordinance, but generally speaking, it's binding. It's not advisory like our advice to the planning board or zoning board on applications for development or whatever other kind of applications come before you all.

48
00:13:23.519 --> 00:13:39.680
>> So next I'm going to talk about what properties are covered um or subject to this demolition ordinance. Um so primarily it's any property located in a locally designated historic district um

49
00:13:39.680 --> 00:13:56.160
town center upper Montlair etc. those types of districts anything within that someone wants to demolish it it's coming to HPC for a demolition review. Uh in addition to that are locally designated historic sites which

50
00:13:56.160 --> 00:14:12.240
are identified on the zoning map and there's numerous of those in Monontlair. And then lastly in the ordinance it says um properties which have been identified in the master plan with a documented historic survey filed filed with the

51
00:14:12.240 --> 00:14:28.160
state historic preservation office. Um, I think the Monontlair website has the interactive map that we all use and it's I think pretty simple to to figure out whether or not you're subject any particular property is subject to the demolition ordinance or anything else to

52
00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:48.639
do with the HPC from that website. your historic preservation plan element um which I have a excerpt from on the right there identifies um many potential historic districts. This is the first step in formally designating um a

53
00:14:48.639 --> 00:15:09.600
district of course. So the way that the ordinance is written here is some of these uh districts or sites identified in the master plan are also looped into the demolition review. So there's a couple terms uh that are

54
00:15:09.600 --> 00:15:25.600
important to understand in the demolition ordinance. The first is total demolition. I think that's traditionally what people associate with this type of review. That's when you're dismantling more than 50% of the exterior walls um

55
00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:42.160
or facade that are visible from the public uh right ofway. That would be um there's an interesting quirk that that's also cumulative to work done within a 5-year period. So you cannot just take it down take down 49% of your house over

56
00:15:42.160 --> 00:15:57.600
a period of time and expect it to not be uh considered a total demolition. The total demolition permit uh Stephen can I actually ask another question? >> Sure. >> So for the at least 50% of the exterior walls are publicly visible facade wall

57
00:15:57.600 --> 00:16:12.720
uh can we we had an interesting case recently as you know can we include roof line uh in that calculation? It's unique. I'd have to look at how that's defined, but there are definitely certain styles

58
00:16:12.720 --> 00:16:27.839
of house where roof may very well be more than half of what you're seeing from the street in the house. I'm not sure. >> And it could be a unique roof design. Could can we get clarification if that can be included >> in the calculation? >> Sure. >> Thank you.

59
00:16:27.839 --> 00:16:43.920
>> Yeah. Uh the total demolition permit, which is ultimately what one would be receiving if the HPC approves a demolition, is a separate and distinct permit um from any other type of permit one would need to

60
00:16:43.920 --> 00:17:00.800
seek as part of a project. And the ordinance is pretty specific on that to give the HBC really maximum authority to review the application. Um there is an exception to all this demol the demolition review and that's if the um fire or construction official thinks

61
00:17:00.800 --> 00:17:18.160
something is unsafe. So the different types of scenarios that trigger an application review. Um the most common is an application for a total demolition more than 50% of the facade is submitted to the construction

62
00:17:18.160 --> 00:17:34.799
official. Someone comes in to get a permit to take a building down. It's uh secondly would be any other type of permit application that the administrative officer um in their review believes involves a total demolition. And then lastly would be

63
00:17:34.799 --> 00:17:50.840
development applications submitted to the planning or zoning board um that would require total demolition or removal. Most recent example of that I think would be 580 Valley Road for example is in that type of category.

64
00:17:52.559 --> 00:18:09.919
So the contents um of an application for total demolition in Montlair I think are based on the federal section 106 review process. So I've done my best to kind of chart out um on the left there what a

65
00:18:09.919 --> 00:18:26.559
federal undertaking or say the the federal government is uh putting a highway in or something and they're taking down a historic house. there's a certain type of review they need to go through and it has different um parts to that review. On the right is Montlair's

66
00:18:26.559 --> 00:18:44.000
demolition um application requirements. So in Montlair um there needs to be a photographic record of the existing property. There needs to be a statement of the need and purpose for that demolition. Um sometimes we receive

67
00:18:44.000 --> 00:19:01.200
applications where that's a paragraph. Sometimes we see applications where it runs on for five pages. Um, an important facet of Monontlair's ordinance is it's looking like they do with the section 106 process for alternatives. Uh, the

68
00:19:01.200 --> 00:19:15.919
feasibility of alternatives to a demolition is something that Monontlair would like to get the applicant on record. um talking about uh historic documentation which involves a bit of leg work on the part of the applicant to

69
00:19:15.919 --> 00:19:32.000
do correctly an archaeological study. I don't think I've seen a situation in Monontlair where that went too far in terms of justifying the need or uh not need to demolish something. There needs to be a preservation plan um with a

70
00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:46.960
potential for I think local nonprofits to be able to salvage parts of the building. There's cost estimates required uh not only for potential rehabilitation but also the demolition itself and then um ultimately the HPC

71
00:19:46.960 --> 00:20:06.960
gets to look at what is being proposed um as a replacement structure and that should really be the last thing considered during the during the course of a review. So the supplementary application in Montlair um includes all those things I

72
00:20:06.960 --> 00:20:23.640
just went through. Anything to add on these Janine? Because there is an ability for explicitly that for the HPC to wave uh several of the these items and I think also potentially more than that.

73
00:20:23.919 --> 00:20:39.679
>> Um so uh you're all familiar with waivers. Um, waivers are a little more of an unusual thing for the HPC, but uh, waivers function the same way for applications for development that come before the zoning board or uh, planning

74
00:20:39.679 --> 00:20:56.559
board as they do at the HPC. And that is the applicant is essentially saying that um, there's a condition that's required for a complete application that doesn't make sense. I mean, the the excuses are numerous. They could be anything really.

75
00:20:56.559 --> 00:21:13.520
He he may say uh it costs too much. It's burdensome. All kind. It doesn't make sense for this particular lot. All kinds of things. You know, there's no potential for, you know, anything significant archaeologically and so on and so forth. Um and the

76
00:21:13.520 --> 00:21:29.280
standard by which you all decide waivers and we decide waivers is reasonleness under the municipal land use law. In other words, if the request for a waiver is reasonable in the majority's opinion, um then you'll grant it. And if you don't think it's reasonable, you won't

77
00:21:29.280 --> 00:21:47.919
grant it. And that can be the subject of quite a bit of debate. As for instance, it was uh at the Valley Street um uh application and opinions differed about that, but a vote was taken and um I think the waiver was granted. Uh but um

78
00:21:47.919 --> 00:22:04.559
that's the standard. So, you know, it's committed to your discretion as a a professional commissioner um to decide whether you are going to demand that from the applicant or you're going to say, "Yeah, I I don't really need that

79
00:22:04.559 --> 00:22:20.559
in order to make a decision on this application." And that's why it's important to read the whole application, understand the completeness from the applicant's uh point of view versus the completeness from your point of view. uh because if you think you know even if

80
00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:36.320
you think it's sort of reasonable but it's a it's a block that you need to advance your decision you know to sort of the end point you may not think it's reasonable for that reason. So I'm going to go back to

81
00:22:36.320 --> 00:22:53.600
the third component of the application which is written documentation by a qualified historic preservation architect as defined in yato um estimated cost and timing of restoration. So there's multiple components to this one application item.

82
00:22:53.600 --> 00:23:09.120
This is the third application item again. Uh the first component is the estimated cost and timing to restore or rehabilitate the existing building for a reasonable use. The applicant is being asked to demonstrate

83
00:23:09.120 --> 00:23:25.600
um what it would take essentially for them to continue to use whatever the structure is if it's a shed, a garage, or their their primary house um for a reasonable use. The second component of this requirement is evidence of good

84
00:23:25.600 --> 00:23:41.679
faith offers. Uh not to sell it to someone else to demolish but to either remove that structure and relocate it somewhere else or to preserve, rehabilitate and restore, keep the existing building there and um

85
00:23:41.679 --> 00:23:59.440
reasonably use it. And then the third component of this um requirement is the applicant needs to provide a time frame. There might be a scenario where it could take five years for someone to um restore a a property for reasonable use

86
00:23:59.440 --> 00:24:15.600
and that could become a consideration of the HPC whereas sometimes it may just be 5 months. Um there's a lot of detail in the ordinance cuz this can get kind of squirly as to what reasonable and comparable uh prices would be and

87
00:24:15.600 --> 00:24:35.600
there's different bases for that the applicant can submit uh to substantiate those those numbers. So next we're going to talk about uh the review criteria. So the applicant has submitted a complete de total demolition

88
00:24:35.600 --> 00:24:52.960
application. They're before the HPC and this is the type of stuff uh that you should be applying during a hearing. Uh first and foremost is the historic significance criteria. This comes out of the National Register of Historic Places

89
00:24:52.960 --> 00:25:09.360
criteria A through D. Um, is the property associated with an event of historic significance? Um, is the property associated with a person of historic significance like maybe the Crane family here in Monontlair? Is the

90
00:25:09.360 --> 00:25:25.200
property of a very particular unique design and construction? And lastly, and probably least frequently, is there some sort of information potential um that the property might have uh archaeologically typically is where that

91
00:25:25.200 --> 00:25:41.520
would come into play. Once that's established, um you need to assess the existing building's historic integrity. There's the seven criteria from the National Register uh to do that. They're listed there. I'm just

92
00:25:41.520 --> 00:25:57.360
going to move through that so we can get to the end here. And then the applicant in preparing and submitting their application really um needs to choose a a lane. They can go down both lanes, but they need to make sure they at least substantiate one

93
00:25:57.360 --> 00:26:13.600
of these uh pathways. The first uh relates to preservation of the existing building not being warranted and this is based on it not being um of historical architectural significance.

94
00:26:13.600 --> 00:26:30.000
um its existing uh use is no longer feasible. Its importance to the township is dimminimous. Um it's not of a rare age or design or construction. It's just not a structure that warrants um it's

95
00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:45.279
you know continuing its perpetuating its existence within Monontlair's built environment. That's one pathway someone can choose. The second one and more maybe more interestingly is that the preservation of that building imposes a

96
00:26:45.279 --> 00:27:02.159
undue burden or hardship on the applicant. It's such a pain in the neck to continue to maintain this house. Um I have a hardship. I can no longer do this and I need to tear the building down and maybe not build anything new or I'm

97
00:27:02.159 --> 00:27:18.320
building this and and this is why. Um this is more maybe technical quantitative in nature how this would be proved. This is where the um structural soundness like an engineers report would come into play. Economic feasibility is

98
00:27:18.320 --> 00:27:34.320
a big factor here for restoring it. Um and then people can also make an argument that um the rehabilitation of the building is just not feasible under that pathway. >> Oh great. Now I have them listed in the next

99
00:27:34.320 --> 00:27:51.520
>> ask a question about the previous slide. >> If they go down one pathway or the other >> for instance if they go down the hardship pathway we can assume that you know they believe it's a historic they can't use the historic historic

100
00:27:51.520 --> 00:28:08.559
structure is not warranted argument if they take path number two. I'll let >> from a historic uh >> I I'll go to Janine on that in a sec, but I'll say that a strong application could go down both pathways. >> Okay. Okay.

101
00:28:08.559 --> 00:28:25.120
>> Um because you have potential districts, I could see making sort of a inconsistent um argument. You know, in other words, we don't think this is historic uh based on the you know, wording in the survey or I I don't know, something like that.

102
00:28:25.120 --> 00:28:40.880
Uh otherwise I would tend to say you know applicants should probably be consistent if they want to persuade you but there's nothing technically or legally preventing them from going down >> going >> yeah all pathways but but we I mean we've had applications including

103
00:28:40.880 --> 00:28:56.399
recently where people say well you know your language is not exactly uh perfect and therefore I'm going to assert that the property is not historic whereas clearly uh for properties that are not historic, but they're just in the

104
00:28:56.399 --> 00:29:12.559
district. Um, pathway two would be the preferred pathway for them. They wouldn't bother with one. When I write my reports, um, after we receive these demolition applications, the first thing I typically need to figure out if it's not explicit in what

105
00:29:12.559 --> 00:29:27.200
they've submitted is which pathway they're attempting to go down because then I'm looking at different parts of your ordinance to see whether or not that was substantiated. Um, before I get to the findings section next, I'll just mention that in the scenario where

106
00:29:27.200 --> 00:29:42.559
someone is picking up a building and putting it somewhere else in town or somewhere else in Essex County, there's a sort of distinct set of criteria for that situation, but I'm not going to go too far into that because it's somewhat rare. Now,

107
00:29:42.559 --> 00:29:58.720
so the findings and report that the HPC is ultimately producing um as a result of a hearing on a total demolition application um have a couple purposes. Uh first is to establish a record of what was

108
00:29:58.720 --> 00:30:16.480
presented, what the deliberation was of the HPC. This is all in an effort to support the administrative officer's uh decision especially in the event of appeal on a demolition um denial is what I'd say most likely to

109
00:30:16.480 --> 00:30:32.159
be appealed. I don't think people approve appeal approvals of demolition. um the HPC during the hearing, depending on which of the two pathways the applicant is going down, needs to analyze

110
00:30:32.159 --> 00:30:49.039
um and and essentially make findings um on a couple different things. If someone is presenting an application where they've stated that the preservation of the existing building is not warranted, in order for the HPC to approve that, to endorse that that thought, you need to

111
00:30:49.039 --> 00:31:06.000
make um findings like that the existing building just isn't historically significant or it's been renovated so many times over that it no longer possesses historic integrity. it's something that's not contributing meaning meaningfully uh to the historic

112
00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:22.399
district or its streetscape and um the demolition is not going to result in an unacceptable loss um of historic character to that immediate environment. In the other scenario where someone is claiming that the preservation would

113
00:31:22.399 --> 00:31:38.320
impose an undue burden or hardship, that's where that quantitative evidence comes into play. um that rehabilitation, relocation has been explored and for whatever reason just isn't feasible. And

114
00:31:38.320 --> 00:31:59.840
importantly, they there should not be a case being made that of some sort of hardship that the applicant created for themselves. Self-created hardship is not is not a reason to approve that type of demolition. And ultimately um your decision to on on

115
00:31:59.840 --> 00:32:15.919
a application for total demolition can be to approve it outright to deny it or of course approve it with conditions and to state those clearly on the record. Um the conditions should should be very specific in those types of applications.

116
00:32:15.919 --> 00:32:30.480
Um before I get to the couple case studies where I'll turn most of that over to Janine. Um, I'll just mention as well that your ordinance has a carve out for low impact um, applications and those qualify for

117
00:32:30.480 --> 00:32:46.799
expedited review where in the opinion of the administrative officer, there's not going to be a significant adverse impact on the historic uh, district. I think maybe like a shed far off in the back corner of the rear yard could be an

118
00:32:46.799 --> 00:33:01.840
example of that. and that has significantly smaller application requirements and um I believe it's something that the uh administrative officer can kind of do just within the office maybe in consultation with the

119
00:33:01.840 --> 00:33:23.679
chair. Okay. So, these are a couple of the uh landmark historic landmark uh cases that we've selected from across New Jersey over the past uh two or three decades. They all relate to demolition and some

120
00:33:23.679 --> 00:33:39.679
of them I think paint a good picture of an HPC functioning correctly and some of them uh have since been used to better inform HPCs in the future to not make the same mistakes again. Do you want to talk about the Jersey

121
00:33:39.679 --> 00:33:55.279
City case? Um, J. >> Sure. Um, the the um the Bardo case uh Bardo versus Jersey City 476 New Jersey Super 341 is um uh was decided by the lower court and

122
00:33:55.279 --> 00:34:10.720
then the appellet division it was appealed. is actually a case about uh the way Jersey City structured its ordinance, the function of essentially their sort of quasi administrative officer and what they did wrong. And

123
00:34:10.720 --> 00:34:27.760
first I'm going to talk about a case uh uh called Newberger versus Middletown. And that was uh what caused the New Jersey legislature to amend the municipal land use law in 1985 and create historic preservation commissions, give them authority to do

124
00:34:27.760 --> 00:34:43.679
all the things that they do in sections 107 to 112 of the municipal land use law. Um and that's because Middletown uh created and HPC a lot of times back in those days after New York City's example, they were called landmarks commissions and sometimes they were

125
00:34:43.679 --> 00:34:58.560
called historic preservation commissions. And by the way, those are completely interchangeable uh terms. And um and they gave the H meaning the governing body of Middletown gave the HPC certain uh authority to do certain

126
00:34:58.560 --> 00:35:14.480
things and not do certain things. And when the developer of this uh you know big farmland that was considered historic along with the the farmhouse and outuildings um thought that the HPC had exceeded its authority under the H

127
00:35:14.480 --> 00:35:30.480
uh under the MLUL which there was no authority at the time went directly to superior court. Spirit court said and appel division said yes you're right only the legislature can give b land use bodies and HPC is a land use body just like the planning board and zoning board

128
00:35:30.480 --> 00:35:48.160
um can give uh HPC's authority to do whatever they do and not authority in other words it all has to be uh set forth in an ordinance and the ordinance can't overstep uh the province that would otherwise be allowed by the legislature so the legislature then took

129
00:35:48.160 --> 00:36:04.560
its cue and had to um amend the municipal land use law to set forth what the HPC's could do and could not do. So everything stems from that. But the ruling in that case is HPCs have to stick to the municipal land use law. What the municipal land use law says we

130
00:36:04.560 --> 00:36:21.040
can do. If it if it's not in there, we can't do it. Um so what Bardo what Jersey City did is they designated essentially a a mini a state historic preservation officer. You've all heard shipo when you know somebody has uh you know any kind of public undertaking or

131
00:36:21.040 --> 00:36:36.320
something like that goes down to D goes to the state historic preservation officer we we call that shipo or shipo um and this administrative person and the employee of Jersey City was making initial designations as to whether a property was historic or not

132
00:36:36.320 --> 00:36:51.440
historically significant or not. Nope. That's not how it works. the uh designation is done by the governing body under section 65.1 of the municipal land use law or by the planning board in the historic preservation element with

133
00:36:51.440 --> 00:37:07.920
advice from you know and sometimes just big technical reports from the HPC that we hope that the planning board adopts. Those are the two ways that a site is determined to be. So, you know, this was a very qualified person and, you know, it was intended to be sort of a a

134
00:37:07.920 --> 00:37:23.760
shortcut and a way of, you know, moving applications along, but the court said, uh, it's not in the municipal land use law, therefore you can't do it that way. And that's really the, um, the purpose of this. Although I love Stevens, I have never seen this house before, so I'm

135
00:37:23.760 --> 00:37:39.040
glad you put this in here. This is the property. >> May I just ask, could you just explain what we're looking at because people here might not know. >> Yeah. Well, the house is I mean the bullet points, you know, say everything. The house is was not landmarked and and not

136
00:37:39.040 --> 00:37:55.040
within an or within a district. So, it wouldn't have been covered. It wouldn't have been protected and this administrative person in the employee of Jersey City was designating it um as historically significant. And that is not allowed. It has nothing to do with

137
00:37:55.040 --> 00:38:10.079
whether the house really was or wasn't or you know, sort of any of the underlying facts. It's it's procedural and most of the things that arise really are procedural. Um so keeps everybody in the proper sort of check and balance place.

138
00:38:10.079 --> 00:38:27.520
>> So after the determination of significance which is what the um unelected bureaucrat was doing in Jersey City that gets invalidated couple years later recently this property shows up at the Jersey City HPC

139
00:38:27.520 --> 00:38:44.280
gets denied again. They go to the zoning board on appeal and gets denied again. So, this property is still standing. It was all a bit of a mess procedurally. A a big mess. This this property all vinyls sided.

140
00:38:44.720 --> 00:39:02.880
The second case is down the shore. >> This was also a great case. Um, you've all been down the shore and seen a lot of these life- saving stations, these very old, sometimes more than a hundred years old or even way older than that of life-saving stations. And this was one

141
00:39:02.880 --> 00:39:17.920
of those. Um, and again, this th this is more, you know, factual uh than just procedural, but what essentially happened that the ordinance had a um one of these um uh uh conditions that you

142
00:39:17.920 --> 00:39:33.839
had to show that you'd made, you know, that you'd sought offers for, you know, selling the property or moving the property or so on and so forth before it was going to be developed. Um the the uh the developer was uh

143
00:39:33.839 --> 00:39:50.400
>> Pancini Custom Homes or something. >> Yeah, Pancini Custom Design Associates. Uh so it sounds like they're going to be uh building and they sued City of Ocean and the construction code official who was the administrator uh administrative official uh in that uh town's ordinance.

144
00:39:50.400 --> 00:40:07.359
And what it actually came down to is that um in determining fair market value of the of the comparable properties um the trial judge essentially averaged the comparable properties and took testimony and made the decision himself

145
00:40:07.359 --> 00:40:25.280
and the appellet division said that the procedure he followed for determining comparable fair market value was incorrect. Um, so like I said, it's not entirely procedural. It's it's a substantive uh uh ruling, but again, it

146
00:40:25.280 --> 00:40:40.480
relates to exactly how you how you go about and that's why it's very important to follow exactly what the ordinance says and what the municipal land use law says. Um, so that went up on appeal and uh the appellet division like I said

147
00:40:40.480 --> 00:41:09.520
struck down uh the judges uh the trial judges procedure for how he went about uh looking at that. >> Uh New Jersey has a very liberal standing rule. what you're really asking about is st what's called standing in law and um yes the public can the public

148
00:41:09.520 --> 00:41:24.880
would have to show the court why it has standing of a public citizen so to speak you know John Doe or whoever it is but um if the court decides that that person or group has standing and a preservation group would have standing because like I said New Jersey very liberal on that

149
00:41:24.880 --> 00:41:41.119
point um yeah they can intervene in the case they can appeal the decision if they have standing New Jerseys quite friendly to outsiders, you know, take asking for a second look kind of thing.

150
00:41:41.119 --> 00:41:57.119
>> So, this case is likely where the waiting period, the mechanism, if the HPC denies um a request for a total demolition, where that one-year waiting period would come from. I think >> you um there's a very important part of

151
00:41:57.119 --> 00:42:13.839
the um municipal land use law that's very rarely used. It's section 44. Um and it can be used by the planning board or the zoning board too um to impose a waiting period. Uh now during that period the planning board or zoning board or HPC has to make the developer

152
00:42:13.839 --> 00:42:29.920
whole. But generally that just means um paying the taxes and you know whatever the carrying cost for the property. So it's, you know, not a very expensive thing while uh while that entity or some other entity like a friend's entity or something tries to move the property,

153
00:42:29.920 --> 00:42:46.240
uh, you know, get a new owner that'll, you know, repair the property or whatever the fix seems to be in that particular situation. And and you can do that for up to a year under section 44. And it's start you can do it for open spaces, parks, ju just a a specified

154
00:42:46.240 --> 00:43:03.920
list of very few uh conditions in the uh municipal land use law, but one of them is historic sites. Um so that section 44 waiting period applies to um historic sites. And even though it's a technically a taking, it's not been struck down, it's been held to be uh

155
00:43:03.920 --> 00:43:20.160
lawful and it's been used successfully. So keep that in your, you know, back pocket. >> So if the HBC hears an application for demolition and you vote to deny it, the ordinance has a specific set of things

156
00:43:20.160 --> 00:43:37.359
for that person to do during a period of time. If they do them, they can come back to the administrative officer after a period of time and ultimately demolish their building. So unfortunately, when you deny a demolition application, it's not for eternity. And what about the

157
00:43:37.359 --> 00:44:00.000
reverse or adverse if the commission approves the demolition? Can is does section 44 come into play when um I guess it's possible if it if it I mean that would be hard but if the demo

158
00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:16.640
permit were uh the report was sent to the administrative officer and the administrative officer sent it to the zoning board uh if somebody were to get it in front of the zoning board. Um, I guess the zoning board could take an adverse position and say, "Let's uh

159
00:44:16.640 --> 00:44:34.240
invoke section 44 and wait." But they'd have to get it before the zoning board. And I'm not sure that would be a situation where an outsider would be allowed to advance that. I I

160
00:44:34.240 --> 00:44:53.599
I'd have to think about that more. Thanks. The last one is from quite a while ago in Short Hills. Um, and this I will let Janine talk more about. Um, but I will tell you that this um property is still

161
00:44:53.599 --> 00:45:09.440
standing uh today. >> Uh, this this is a great case and this is this is really truly one of the the precedents that matters in New Jersey. Uh the owner sought to demolish uh a re rear garage and wing to one of those big

162
00:45:09.440 --> 00:45:25.839
properties in uh Short Hills and construct a large new addition. The Milbour HPC didn't think much of the addition and how it was knit together with the uh property. This was in the Short Hills um historic park district. >> Short Hills Park.

163
00:45:25.839 --> 00:45:42.079
>> Yeah. And um and so uh Natal the Nadlesson's uh took the Milbourne HPC to court and the HPC1 only at the law division level but uh this has been recited by many many

164
00:45:42.079 --> 00:45:59.280
courts including uh uh superior courts the appellet division I'm not sure about the supreme court um and what the case basically holds is that aesthetics are important aesthetics are what historic preservation is all out aside from obviously um significance and you know

165
00:45:59.280 --> 00:46:14.720
all the criteria A B C and D and so forth under the National Historic Preservation Act and the repository of discretion for the aesthetics of a project is the HPC uh when it comes to an historic site or a property within an

166
00:46:14.720 --> 00:46:30.880
historic district. So you can't be arbitrary about that. You know, it can't be your personal preference or something like that. It and that's one of the reasons why um we have criteria for, you know, there needs to be a knowledgeable local historic person. There needs to be

167
00:46:30.880 --> 00:46:45.359
an architect. There needs to be, you know, so on and so forth. Uh you know, and other citizens that can't just be like anybody the mayor likes. But um uh that uh uh that case you know just comes straight down you know no fooling around

168
00:46:45.359 --> 00:47:00.720
and says uh that what they did is they went to court on the on the grounds of vagueness and they said it's a a federal and state constitutional right that we get to change our property uh you know you can't let this HPC you know decide

169
00:47:00.720 --> 00:47:17.720
based on aesthetics uh you know our property rights and the court said nope that's not true in New Jersey. in New Jersey, we're going to let this board, as long as it acts reasonably and not arbitrarily, decide the aesthetics of your historic property.

170
00:47:19.920 --> 00:47:36.560
>> Can you can you relate that back to at the start about 50% of the facade and that was in the rear? So, how does that relate to what you know we heard about demolition? Is it because it's a different town?

171
00:47:36.560 --> 00:47:52.880
>> No, that's actually a very good question. So, generally the uh the municipal land use law doesn't address that specifically, but generally, and if you think about it, it's only reasonable. Most ordinances say it has to be publicly visible from a street or something like that.

172
00:47:52.880 --> 00:48:08.720
Uh what's the exact wording of the >> you know visible from the public rightway >> public right ofway okay in this town but generally that's you know a couple words might be different but generally almost all towns adopt or cities adopt that wording. Um now you can get creative

173
00:48:08.720 --> 00:48:23.760
about that but not too creative because the right of way is the right away. >> So they have a different in the back. >> Well no it's really not in the back. It's It was visible. The The wing was uh

174
00:48:23.760 --> 00:48:39.839
visible. The whole addition was visible. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> I thought it was >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um where where the rub usually comes in is it's not visible because of all the landscaping, that doesn't count. >> Yeah. >> If it's really not visible because

175
00:48:39.839 --> 00:48:57.839
there's just so much so many trees and underbrush, doesn't count. Just going back to Mike's question from uh earlier, total demolition in Montlair talks about more than 50% of the exterior walls of

176
00:48:57.839 --> 00:49:14.880
publicly visible facades. Partial demolition however talks about visible facades, exterior wall and architectural element. So roof may come more into play in that

177
00:49:14.880 --> 00:49:33.680
>> espec especially if it's a roof associated with a specific type of house. Right. >> For some reason partial demolition seems broader than >> the definition of total demolition right now. >> Um okay. So we have a few minutes left and I think at this time we just want to

178
00:49:33.680 --> 00:49:49.359
open it up to general questions. As you can see Montlair's demo ordinance is pretty complex. That was really just a a nutshell or a quick take um version of it, but I hope uh that if you didn't have time already to take a look at the

179
00:49:49.359 --> 00:50:06.559
um homework or or recommended readings that that we sent around before, if there wasn't enough text in this presentation for you already. Um and just understand all the, you know, complexities that come with such a significant thing for both historic preservationists and homeowners when it

180
00:50:06.559 --> 00:50:24.160
comes to demolition. Okay, so let's open it up to questions. Did anyone on the commission have questions? Scott? >> Yeah, I had I had one question back to the excuse me, the last case we were just talking about before you got to the slide. You had mentioned um that the HBC

181
00:50:24.160 --> 00:50:40.400
didn't like the aesthetic of the planned um renovation or whatever was going to happen. Is that did that play into a role? like they looked at what was going to be built after the that wing was to be demolished and that garage was to be demolished and they didn't like what that was going to look like and that

182
00:50:40.400 --> 00:50:57.440
played in the role of their decision to deny that >> that wasn't the only thing they didn't want the uh the the wing demolished either because of the structure of the house but I think in a much earlier slide I think it the important and it's

183
00:50:57.440 --> 00:51:13.839
a subtle but important difference uh between for instance the national historic preservation act and local ordinances. Uh, and a lot of developers in my opinion are confused about this or development council are confused about this. They think that HPC's shouldn't be

184
00:51:13.839 --> 00:51:30.480
and can't be uh, some of them say looking at the replacement and having that influence your decision. To a certain extent, that's true. But the the way the feds handle it, and it's much better way of wording it, is what is the effect of the undertaking? and the

185
00:51:30.480 --> 00:51:47.680
effect is technically different than um the replacement uh I forget what our uh the word is in our ordinance but sort of the the replacement itself. So um so if you can think about the idea of you're

186
00:51:47.680 --> 00:52:04.400
you're thinking about the um the effect of the demolition on you know sort of the whole streetscape or the whole scheme of the neighborhood or the zone plan or or whatever it is. And that's more important than just looking at the

187
00:52:04.400 --> 00:52:21.200
um uh the uh specific you know building that's going up or or even the the tooth gap we call it. you know, the fact that nothing is going up or something like that. But it does, it is part of the effect and therefore in my view, although it shouldn't be a major

188
00:52:21.200 --> 00:52:37.440
portion, you you shouldn't be denying something because you don't like the new replacement building, but it seems to me that it's part of the equation. And I feel confident that if for instance, you decided something, you know, along those lines and I had to go to superior court and defend it, which is always my job.

189
00:52:37.440 --> 00:52:53.280
it's just to keep you out of trouble and if you get in trouble to try to win. Um that it's part of the equation >> but it can't be the factor so to speak. >> Um and that's why I like the way the feds use the word effect as opposed to

190
00:52:53.280 --> 00:53:10.000
what New Jersey does or most towns do you know here under our local ordinances which is >> a little more focused on the actual replacement. >> It could potentially positively affect it too, right? If if what's being built is going to try to >> Sure. >> match or be historically

191
00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:25.599
>> absolutely >> in the aesthetic. >> Absolutely. >> And under our ordinance, can we require that we see the replacement? >> I wouldn't advise that. >> Okay. >> Um I think the way it's, you know, we had a lot of back and forth about um making some minor amendments to the demo

192
00:53:25.599 --> 00:53:41.280
ordinance. I don't think that happened. Right. >> We're going to revisit that. We have Yes. I I I I think a tweak, you know, a word or something might be uh like I said, I like the word effect a lot. And plus, there's all the federal law on effect. So then you have those precedents for spirit court judges to

193
00:53:41.280 --> 00:53:57.040
look to because it's not like every day they're getting historic preservation cases, you know, they're getting like divorce and crime and, you know, stuff that they're used to. So, just to keep you up to date, um, and it, uh, we have worked on the, uh,

194
00:53:57.040 --> 00:54:14.319
amendments to the demolition ordinance. So, there's a, uh, draft copy that just came out this week, and it's on, I just handed it to Stephen a couple of days ago. So, Janine, you'll be getting it soon, and, uh, Janice Tally will be getting it, and then I think the second

195
00:54:14.319 --> 00:54:30.240
draft we'll all look at it. So, this is something that we should look at. Sure. Um, and I do know that Glen Ridge, and maybe you can illuminate this more, uh, they have a in their design guidelines or in their ordinance that they the HBC actually looks at what is going to be

196
00:54:30.240 --> 00:54:47.359
the they call it replacement uh, of if something is demolished. So, um, I just heard from Janine that that's not a good word to use and I think effect is probably a lot would be much stronger. So, but we can that's certainly not within what something that we have

197
00:54:47.359 --> 00:55:03.760
talked about, but maybe we need to do that. >> The perfect example is when an addition is going on in historic building, and we all know that's perfectly appropriate and the question is how well it's knit together. Um, there's guidelines uh, you know, put out by the Secretary of

198
00:55:03.760 --> 00:55:19.040
Interior. It's not supposed to, you know, mimic what the it's supposed to be. It's have its own, you know, sort of independent utility and so forth. not not sort of be a fake mimic of that period of the historic uh structure. So that's a perfect example of where an HPC

199
00:55:19.040 --> 00:55:36.400
might uh reject it based on aesthetics or something like that, but it's really it really falls under the effect. They're not saying, "Oh, we don't like that. Let's say the wing was coming down because it's structurally unsafe and it has to come down and everybody agrees, you know." So, you know, that that's the

200
00:55:36.400 --> 00:55:52.480
difference. Like I said, it's subtle, but it's very important and it's and it's a real difference. It's not, you know, kind of like made up to get around, you know, the law or something like that. And I think we could better explain that. >> I think the the Monontlair ordinance is good, the demolition ordinance, because

201
00:55:52.480 --> 00:56:09.440
it's a framework that the HPC has to implement, a set of um deliverables that the applicant needs to give you. Whereas in other towns when they're looking at um a demolition in a historic district, this is an HPC for example that doesn't have an ordinance that's detailed

202
00:56:09.440 --> 00:56:25.760
related to demolition. Um unfortunately sometimes they just get dazzled by what's being proposed. That's sometimes is presented first and it's not until the end of the hearing someone mentions, by the way, we're demolishing uh a building that happens to be there, but don't worry about that because you like

203
00:56:25.760 --> 00:56:48.640
this other thing so much now. Are there any other questions? >> Totally unrelated. >> The library is getting a lot of money. Are you guys involved? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes, we are. Yeah. >> They got

204
00:56:48.640 --> 00:57:02.720
>> Was it announced? Was it public know? It's public knowledge. >> Yes, it was in the Montlair local. >> 30 37 million or something like that. Yeah. >> Yes. So there's a um the beginning >> yes it's uh it's tax credits. So uh

205
00:57:02.720 --> 00:57:18.720
>> the um the um we're part of the uh a few people on on this board are part of the architectural selection committee but um I know there was a quote from the my local for me to say that how important it was for the HBC to be involved to

206
00:57:18.720 --> 00:57:35.520
make sure especially the uh Belleview Avenue branch. So, it's uh uh uh innovation versus restoration. So, innovation down at the main branch and renovation up at at Belleview. >> Yeah. Restoration. Yeah.

207
00:57:35.520 --> 00:57:58.799
>> I actually do have a question which is have there been a few vice chair if so >> I not Uh not >> I'm not aware that house where

208
00:57:58.799 --> 00:58:15.520
>> oh on Union Street Union Street. Yeah. They appealed. That's right. >> And um that was a demolition and um they weren't allowed to take it down. So the subsequent the owner that was the one where the they took out the entire interior. They said it was uh asbestos

209
00:58:15.520 --> 00:58:32.359
and um the exter the shell stood but that owner then sold it and it still stands. It's they're standing today. >> Someone found a way to deal with it. Yeah. You know, >> with all the other excuses, someone did find a way to to deal with it.

210
00:58:33.599 --> 00:58:50.160
>> Any other qu could anybody else have any questions? No. All right. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. I think it was a great presentation. And so now, will this be on the um website? Can we put this on the website

211
00:58:50.160 --> 01:05:28.000
>> specifically on the Montlair Historic Preservation website? It'll also be available on the township YouTube channel. >> Okay, great. Okay, thank you. So why don't we just take a five I know Mr. But that's another one that might be

212
01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:44.160
simpler just because it was not court supervisor. >> Yeah, exactly. >> All right, commissioners, we're back. Thank you. Um, good evening everyone and thank you to the uh for coming to the June 18th,

213
01:05:44.160 --> 01:06:00.960
2026 Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Uh, 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 in city hall. We are being broadcast on

214
01:06:00.960 --> 01:06:17.920
channel 34 uh the Montlair public television channel and we are also being livereamed on Monontlair's own YouTube channel. Thank you. Roll call please. >> Yes. Uh Chair Bennett >> present. >> Vice Chair Graham is excused. Mr. Rooney >> here. >> Mr. Reyn

215
01:06:17.920 --> 01:06:32.559
>> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mr. Giuliano >> here. >> Miss Kane Levy >> here. Mr. Mixer >> here. >> Miss Floyd >> here. Miss Bower >> here >> and Mr. Smaller >> here. >> Thank you.

216
01:06:32.559 --> 01:06:47.599
>> All right. And Zenab, our secretary, is here. >> Yeah, I'm here as well. >> And then I have one uh change or one announcement for tonight. Application number 2024-12 for 16 Pleasant Avenue has been uh

217
01:06:47.599 --> 01:07:07.599
dismissed without prejudice. Okay. Thank you. So, next order of business is the approval of minutes from May 21st last month. Does anyone have any changes the redendum to the minutes? Okay. I have a few. All right. On page

218
01:07:07.599 --> 01:07:27.119
three, line uh 80 that the award was given to the Rotary Club and not the HO house. So, you if you would just strike that. And on the following page four uh line 124 can we stop? He stated that

219
01:07:27.119 --> 01:07:43.119
the commission is viewed as an effective body. I would like to strike everything after that. It's redundant for what his remark was in the beginning. And then on on line 131, uh if you could add

220
01:07:43.119 --> 01:08:02.720
uh after newsletters and local media outlets, if you would add please, the commission formed a communications subcommittee consisting of Kathleen Bennett, Cena Floyd, Scott Mixer, and M. Mike Graham. >> Okay. And um

221
01:08:02.720 --> 01:08:19.040
I in line 144 where it says the commission discussed whether it should formally issue a resolution or written opinion to the township council. I think it's it should say that the commission discussed that it should issue

222
01:08:19.040 --> 01:08:37.759
which we haven't done yet. We'll do that for next month. Okay. Um, does anyone have any um any other changes to that or would someone like to make a uh a motion to approve the minutes as amended?

223
01:08:37.759 --> 01:08:54.319
>> Motion to approve the minutes and second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I understand. >> And Mr. Rooney is abstaining. >> I'm abaining. >> Oh, and Mr. >> Okay. So, Miss Kane Levy, Mr. Rooney,

224
01:08:54.319 --> 01:09:10.799
and Mr. Sweeney are abstaining. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Great. Um, committee reports, the U communications subcommittee, which I just announced who uh was newly formed last month. We had a virtual meeting.

225
01:09:10.799 --> 01:09:27.600
Mike Graham, uh, Miss Floyd and and Mr. Mixer were on uh virtually with the uh communications director Matthew Arml and we discussed a number of possible uh media outlets and I think what we need

226
01:09:27.600 --> 01:09:43.279
to do for next month coming up is to go forward with the Instagram account. Uh we did get coverage of the awards in the Monontlair local and tap which was great but we still haven't it still hasn't been updated on the website the

227
01:09:43.279 --> 01:09:58.719
Monontlair website. Yeah. And it it wasn't updated or nothing was seen nothing was covered about the um public input into the historic preservation element for on the website. And I think for next month that'll be the third

228
01:09:58.719 --> 01:10:14.800
meeting uh in July. We need to have something some coverage for public input for HP element because then the month of August we're going to have to really work on it to get it uh together for the planning board. Okay. Thanks. Um the

229
01:10:14.800 --> 01:10:30.320
design review committee uh also met virtually on June 3rd to discuss revisions for the Belleview Theater carport. And I think uh Zenob, you just sent out a notice and we we'll be we'll

230
01:10:30.320 --> 01:10:47.600
be meeting again. A new design was was uh uh given to you and we'll discuss that. And the demo ordinance review that finally has been um put together and uh we'll be discussing that in more

231
01:10:47.600 --> 01:11:03.760
depth next month. Uh so uh what much of what Stephen spoke about today and Miss Bower spoke about today is something that's been going on uh percolating for what's going on with the demolition review. So uh you'll be informed of

232
01:11:03.760 --> 01:11:19.920
that. I would think probably by August we'll we'll be able to share a draft with the commissioners. All right. Do you have a question? the Instagram page. I think the the communication director in house has to create that for us. I

233
01:11:19.920 --> 01:11:35.280
think I can't remember. >> He said he would. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. The content we have to give him the content and then he would do it. >> Okay. >> So, do you but you I think you're absolutely right. I'm just wondering how how we go

234
01:11:35.280 --> 01:11:50.320
forward with that. Yeah. >> And maybe Zenab you can contact him to see how we can do that. >> Yeah. I'll follow up on we has to create the credentials on his end so there's continuity in the account just so it's not anyone's personal email >> um

235
01:11:50.320 --> 01:12:06.400
>> those are the credentials from the municipality and then the content is what content has but do we are we able to upload do you give us an email for us to be able to do that or we need to send it to him and he >> I believe it should go through me so any content you have um you can send it to me and then I'll forward it to the

236
01:12:06.400 --> 01:12:21.440
communications director >> okay >> that that makes sense that what what do Do you think Scott? >> Yeah, we should we should talk about a schedule of that content so we know like in preparation what we're you know what we're planning to show. >> Great. >> That would be great. Maybe that like the first week of the month so that it gets

237
01:12:21.440 --> 01:12:37.360
on before our meetings and then we could see uh publicize what's good what's happening. >> Okay, that's great. So you'll follow up on that? >> Yes, I will. And um I believe the uh uh minor applications we haven't had any

238
01:12:37.360 --> 01:12:53.440
since last. >> No, I don't think we have approved anything yet. >> We haven't moved anything. Okay. Um next up is public comment and um this is not public comment for people that want to give comments about the uh master plan

239
01:12:53.440 --> 01:13:11.199
re-examination. That's the public input session. That'll be held that will we'll listen to those after we look at our applications. So is there anybody that would like to speak uh have some opinion public comment? No. Okay. Public comment is closed. Old

240
01:13:11.199 --> 01:13:27.360
business. Any I don't think we have any old business. So um we move forward now to application 2026-5 627 Valley Road. Excellent. It's uh

241
01:13:27.360 --> 01:13:43.199
excellent printing. It is a wall mounted wall-mounted signage for Clementina which is up on the stage. Is there anyone here for Oh, could you please come forward? >> Would you prefer to sit at the table or

242
01:13:43.199 --> 01:14:05.760
at the stand at the podium? >> Yes. >> Submitted on this PDF. Right. Right. >> Okay. Sir, before you begin, could you please state your name, what's your connection with the project, and then

243
01:14:05.760 --> 01:14:22.640
our attorney will swear you in. >> Uh, my name is Ahmad. I was the one who did the permits and installed the sign. And yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Ahmad, raise your right hand. Uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony

244
01:14:22.640 --> 01:14:38.800
you'll pre present on this application to the commission tonight will be the truth, the all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry. Do you just mind saying your last name as well? >> Ahmad Abdulani. >> Okay. >> Sorry.

245
01:14:38.800 --> 01:14:57.520
>> Need it for the minute. So just for some um history about this application, this application became before the uh minor applications committee uh I guess the date was in

246
01:14:57.520 --> 01:15:15.199
February, February 26, 2026 and a resolution was created for that for that. So, the resolution included a condition of approval stating that the sign shall be centered across the overall building facade rather than above the storefront entrance. Once the

247
01:15:15.199 --> 01:15:31.280
signage was installed, the commission realized that the signage was not in compliance with the resolution as the sign is centered above the restaurant entrance rather than the entire facade. So, the applicant has requested a review

248
01:15:31.280 --> 01:15:48.560
from the full Historic Preservation Commission for a revised signage plan. And um in the meantime, you've added other things. This isn't what currently is up there, is it? Is it? >> This is what is up there. Yeah. >> Oh, where is the 289?

249
01:15:48.560 --> 01:16:02.640
>> The the the address. So, whatever the address is, >> they're on here. >> That was a proposal for what would be >> Okay. All right. So, I just want to be clear that this is what is up there now >> and in re and right now you're in

250
01:16:02.640 --> 01:16:18.960
violation of of uh this our signage uh uh ordinance and our resolution which >> that's fine. But my whole point is that I >> Wait just a second. Oh, >> so in the meantime, you've uh you're proposing a new design which includes

251
01:16:18.960 --> 01:16:35.360
numbers over the doorway and then I realized the other day that there's also a plaque that you've put up under the um on the pier between where under if you look between ENM, there's a pier there. There's also a brass plaque that's been

252
01:16:35.360 --> 01:16:50.880
put up there with a C on it and that would be considered a sign as well. So, >> um not that I know. Maybe the owner himself did that, but that's the only thing I put up was that. >> Okay. So, >> I'll double check that out for you though if he did put it up.

253
01:16:50.880 --> 01:17:11.040
>> Okay. So, that should be part of the revised signage plan. >> I didn't know that he did that. Yeah. >> Yeah, it would. I would I'll tell him to remove that if anything. I didn't put that one up. >> Okay. So the reason that when we when we

254
01:17:11.040 --> 01:17:28.719
um gave you a condition that meaning the minor applications uh condition minor applications committee the condition to center cle the sign Clementina was over the entire facade because and that would

255
01:17:28.719 --> 01:17:43.840
make it more compatible with the historic district and what we recommend and approve in historic districts. So could you please I mean are you your revised plan is now this.

256
01:17:43.840 --> 01:18:00.000
>> No my revised plan is first off the reason why I wouldn't recommend putting the sign towards the whole start uh front of the store is because there's apartment buildings on the left. The owner or whoever it is wouldn't want people to think this is included with the apartment. It's not a good thing for

257
01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:16.560
the city if you have random customers walking up the apartment building. So now for my revised one, I was looking to put an address right on top of the door of the left door and put 627. It could be the same size as the E or the M, but right on top of it saying 627

258
01:18:16.560 --> 01:18:33.120
so people know that this is the apartment plaza and this is the restaurant if you have that please. >> Okay. So may I ask why >> like this? So, you're indicating that 627 indicates the apartment. But how does somebody

259
01:18:33.120 --> 01:18:49.679
like me who lives in, I don't know, Bloomfield, and comes and thinks that that's the what what indicates that's an apartment? >> But also, what indicates that that people are not going to just walk randomly upstairs to >> But if I come to a restaurant and I see 627 advertised, um, I might think as a

260
01:18:49.679 --> 01:19:05.760
general public that's the the restaurant entrance. Uh, I'm just trying to understand what your what your >> I could put the name of, you know, say I could write apartment or whatever it is. So people know that this is separate than the actual storefront. That's all it is. It's just that when you put it when you center it towards the whole

261
01:19:05.760 --> 01:19:21.679
building, they're going to think that's an entrance and that's an entrance. >> But in reality, >> you're going upstairs to apartment building where people live as well, which is not good for the public as well. For the people who live there. >> Can I I'd like to ask a few questions.

262
01:19:21.679 --> 01:19:37.040
You said you got a permit to do this this way. >> Permit from >> to install it the way it is. >> The orange or the black? >> The orange. >> Yeah. >> And you got the signed permit from where? >> The only thing that I didn't do correct,

263
01:19:37.040 --> 01:19:52.800
which is now why I'm here to revise, is not center it to the whole building. But the sizing and everything was approved >> by the building zoning and historic. >> You just put it in the wrong location. >> What do you mean? I'm sorry. You're saying you didn't center it on the building the way

264
01:19:52.800 --> 01:20:08.320
>> that's Yeah, that's what I'm here to say. Instead of me taking it down, I'll add I'll do a new permit for the 627 number and make a permit for that and put up a sign there cuz now the owner of the apartment buildings would like people to know that this is an existing. I

265
01:20:08.320 --> 01:20:24.400
>> I just so I understand, did you not understand what our decision was when we asked that it be centered on the building or who who decided to put it where it is? I guess I went so more I should have never listed him more so with the business owner when I got there to install it. He was being picky and

266
01:20:24.400 --> 01:20:41.120
telling me please put it towards my building because this is not for me the apartment building. >> Okay. So I ended up so no one really looked at what we approved. >> We did look all it is honestly all it is is not even a foot or two to the left if you guys want it to be moved to the left

267
01:20:41.120 --> 01:20:55.199
or right. That's all it is from my mockup that I got approved. It would only be a probably a landed even a foot moving to the left. >> I'm gonna say it's going to go from the keystone to the keystone on the arch pretty much. So, it's going to move over

268
01:20:55.199 --> 01:21:12.320
that much. But, um, that's okay. I'm I just making the statement no one really followed our suggestion. >> Thank you. Any other statements? Mhm. >> You know, respectfully, your landlord is

269
01:21:12.320 --> 01:21:28.719
costing you a lot of money by having to shift it over knowing that we had made certain requirements. >> True. >> And having you disregard it for his needs. >> So, that's something you might want to take into consideration, but it's not balanced. >> But my thing is, again, we understand.

270
01:21:28.719 --> 01:21:44.640
>> So, let me let me let me finish what I was saying. So, there's a lot of buildings in town where there's apartments upstairs, >> okay? >> And there's retail downstairs. The address can go in the center. It could go on the column, but when we're looking at this sign, it's very offbalanced.

271
01:21:44.640 --> 01:22:00.719
Very offbalanced. >> And putting the 627 to me just makes it even worse next to it. That's in my opinion. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But how is if you're looking at it, his storefront is only from that window to that window. It's not the whole building.

272
01:22:00.719 --> 01:22:16.639
>> So you're looking at it from a symmetrical standpoint. We're looking at from a historical. So, it's not aligned with the architectural dynamics of the building, >> but it still doesn't follow to people to go upstairs to a different plaza that's not theirs to go into. And so, right

273
01:22:16.639 --> 01:22:31.840
now, if you if I center the sign right in the middle, I would think that door might be an entrance and that door might be an exit. >> Or you could you might >> you might majority of the architects I asked >> agreed with me the same exact thing. >> Um,

274
01:22:31.840 --> 01:22:47.840
>> yeah. Well, it's got to be moved over. Does anyone >> What if I he wants to put a sign next to the 627? >> Well, we haven't we're not we haven't gotten there yet, but we're Let's just deal with the placement of this for the time being. >> Any other questions of the applicant?

275
01:22:47.840 --> 01:23:05.360
>> Yeah, I have a question. Just does the restaurant occupy both of the windows area? So in fact the sign is centered over the whole the restaurant as an indishure of the entrance and something on the left the number is an indisher of

276
01:23:05.360 --> 01:23:21.520
the building number. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's all it is just so people could know this is an apartment and this is >> a a restaurant because the whole thing is not the restaurant. His restaurant is only on the right side. Well, you've explained your rationale and why and why

277
01:23:21.520 --> 01:23:37.679
um you didn't follow our re our our uh resolution and where the placement was should be. >> It's also if it's about the historic look and all like how you're saying how you care about the city looking. If I remove the letters, every place that there was a letter, there's going to be holes into the building

278
01:23:37.679 --> 01:23:54.639
>> which you'll have to repair. >> I'm going to patch it up. It's still not going to look like the exact look of how it used to be. >> Well, what is that material? Is that wood? Is it mounted on wood? That's like aluminum. >> It's not wood. >> Okay. Um

279
01:23:54.639 --> 01:24:13.199
>> Okay. Um we saw this at the minor design >> minor applications applications >> and and it was in February >> and it came to us and no one from the I don't remember anyone from the owner's side making any kind of >> we were just it was just sent to us to approve or disapprove. Right.

280
01:24:13.199 --> 01:24:30.239
>> Okay. No one no one on your side bothered to come before us and explain what you're trying to explain right now. Okay. So, you're right about that one. That's why >> this is I'm sorry for you. So, you know that was we never get people coming

281
01:24:30.239 --> 01:24:46.000
before us to explain what they're doing or we rarely get people you know. So, and now you're and then you didn't listen to what we said and now you're saying oh whatever. So, it's that's all I got to say about that.

282
01:24:46.000 --> 01:25:01.520
>> Um, who who else has the comment? >> I'll make a comment. Uh, it's it's clearly unacceptable without a number because it looks unbalanced. But adding something to the left above

283
01:25:01.520 --> 01:25:19.120
the doorway, I think, is informative. I think it actually is uh beneficial and I think it overcomes the the uh lack of balance whether the 625 should be in black and this those size letters but

284
01:25:19.120 --> 01:25:34.000
you know I I haven't I don't have an opinion on that but I think putting something up there does add uh information that's useful and as adds balance to make it look uh more approp

285
01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:51.280
appropriate. So those are my comments. >> Okay. So before we why don't explain to us the backing board of where you've already mounted the letters. What is that? You're saying it's aluminum

286
01:25:51.280 --> 01:26:07.360
>> and it cannot be re repaired. >> Aluminum. >> You could like fill it up with you could fill it up and then repaint on top, but you're still not >> Is that new? Is that part of the original facade? Yeah, but the whole up the whole second third floor was all

287
01:26:07.360 --> 01:26:22.639
rebuilt recently. >> Is that sign board? Could it be banned wood? Is could it is it >> it's more so aluminum? It's not a wood. >> Would it have held up the letter? >> Well, I'm going to uh

288
01:26:22.639 --> 01:26:39.440
>> I'm I'm going to guess it's not original that it got installed along the way and it's some sort of bent metal around something. >> Yeah. So, >> and I think it's just painted brown. That's all it is. >> Okay. So, the fact when you get to dam

289
01:26:39.440 --> 01:26:54.960
it's matter of cladding it again with some aluminum. Painted aluminum. That's all that's all that needs to happen. If it's really that bad in terms of the holes you made um to to cover it, >> right? So, cladding can be that can be

290
01:26:54.960 --> 01:27:13.120
>> replay. Okay. Caroline. Well, I think it's a little bit of a tricky condition because the symmetry of those two arches is not reflected in the storefronts that the restaurant is within. So, it's it's a tricky situation and

291
01:27:13.120 --> 01:27:29.360
>> I actually do think that the addition of the letter of the numbers adds balance as uh Kerry said. So, I I could approve it as proposed. What is the the address of the restaurant?

292
01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:45.440
>> 627. >> What's the address of the >> Oh, that >> apartment. >> We'll double check. But that was just a rendering of exactly just showing the idea of me putting the numbers for the apartment. >> You're putting 627 above the apartments. That's telling the apartments.

293
01:27:45.440 --> 01:28:00.960
>> My my understanding is that the address for the whole building is 627 to 629 and the restaurant is 629. And the restaurant's 629. >> Yeah. And so the apartment building is 627. >> Oh, that's confusing.

294
01:28:00.960 --> 01:28:18.480
>> So you can't put the 627 somewhere above the pain over the door. >> It wouldn't show. >> Could it go? >> Okay. Well, actually, if you're at street level or walking down the sidewalk, you you don't really look up to see the the

295
01:28:18.480 --> 01:28:35.120
number of the uh >> apartments. she'd see it more clearly on on the door if it was on the door as opposed to being on on that sign band. But I think what we need to uh address is the placement. It's a it's a new

296
01:28:35.120 --> 01:28:51.520
application. It's in place whether or not we >> we're looking at a new application here, right? >> Okay. So, we're voting on >> Right. Correct. Am I correct, Miss Bower? Yes. So, it's a new application.

297
01:28:51.520 --> 01:29:07.199
Um, so we're not s I mean it it's public knowledge that it's in violation of what we approved and you understand that you know we could have instances of this all over the in the historic district.

298
01:29:07.199 --> 01:29:24.239
So, it's not to our benefit to approve it as as it was changed. I mean because we looked at this to look to see that it should be centered over the you know on the entire building. So this is the application that's being presented now.

299
01:29:24.239 --> 01:29:40.719
Um whether it's uh we accept it or not I think that's in consideration with the number over the door. We've heard the rationale. There is also another sign that you see that pier um in the center there's also a circular

300
01:29:40.719 --> 01:30:03.760
>> bronze plate. Do you have that picture up? Did you put it up on the uh That's up there now. Which would constitute a sign. So I don't know how this >> in terms of the sign ordinance um if

301
01:30:03.760 --> 01:30:30.520
that's how how much percentage of you know the sign >> that might be against >> I think we looked at what >> I don't Yeah, >> I think they should move it to here. Should be this much.

302
01:30:35.120 --> 01:30:51.360
>> While she's looking, I I have a question for you. Might as well keep it. The Since we're voting on this as a new application, what is this the number six? What is it made out of? The 627? >> Same thing the sign is made out of. It will be aluminum on the front, aluminum on the side. It's basically a 3D channel

303
01:30:51.360 --> 01:31:07.040
letter >> for the the number 627. Okay. >> And the color is not precise. It could be any color. Could be white, orange, black, whatever it is. >> But that size, >> that size could be only on top of that. >> Is it illuminated?

304
01:31:07.040 --> 01:31:28.480
>> No. None of these are. >> Okay. There's no other lights on that facade, are there? Yeah. The the Clementia will be lit up, though. >> No, it won't. >> No, no, nothing is lighted. >> Yeah. It just he wanted it as a 3D look.

305
01:31:28.480 --> 01:31:44.400
So, I made it as if it's a channel letter, but there's no lights inside it. >> Mhm. >> So, it just gives it a 3D look off of the wall, not like a sticker if you did it flat. >> It's got conditions. So at night it's hard to see the sign, right? >> Yeah.

306
01:31:44.400 --> 01:32:05.440
>> I'm just wondering the logic here. There's a lot of I've done mashed, I've done OB, I've done a lot of historical ones. They either some of them allow halo lit, which is light from the back, >> or no lights at all. >> Yes.

307
01:32:05.440 --> 01:32:22.560
>> These uh retroactive approvals are always uh tricky. Are there other open violations related to what was approved uh versus what's been built? >> No, it's the placement of the um the placement of the lettering.

308
01:32:22.560 --> 01:32:36.880
>> Um >> you may want to look at the doors that were installed and the storefront, specifically the profile of the mullion between the transom and the display window. At least what I'm seeing from a picture that says it's from a week ago

309
01:32:36.880 --> 01:32:56.560
does not look like at all what had been approved. >> Oh, >> there there might be more here. >> When is your photograph date from? >> It's uh it's a it's a week ago and it was posted

310
01:32:56.560 --> 01:33:13.040
I believe by this tenant um on Google. I'm just using that. And I'm seeing also that the existing residential door on the north side there has a 627 mounted above the windows that don't the lights

311
01:33:13.040 --> 01:33:28.239
>> already has one. It already has a number. >> Oh that up for temporary >> but the door does not look like what was depicted in the drawings approved. >> I didn't do the doors. >> Pardon me. >> I didn't do the doors. If this were

312
01:33:28.239 --> 01:33:43.040
promotional, we have a name over here and you have a name over here. >> Is this the actual sign? >> No. >> So maybe we should have a gun. >> No, I I think what it is this is the sign. It's probably the

313
01:33:43.040 --> 01:34:12.719
same. >> It's not bad looking, but it's weird. >> I think this is >> Okay. Do we open this? We have >> Except we don't know. Is this actually centered >> over the storefront? It looks like it's

314
01:34:12.719 --> 01:34:34.960
like probably it's probably the shape of the last letter. >> I think some something's wrong. >> I think Well, the E looks like it's right in the middle, right? pretty much >> kind of. >> Yeah. But >> I look at this as a symmetrical

315
01:34:34.960 --> 01:34:54.639
building, I guess. >> Maybe this is I'd be interested what Steven says about this. >> I don't think he cares. >> Steen, I'd like to get your from

316
01:34:54.639 --> 01:35:11.360
on the sign. Yeah. Do you have do you from a you know >> from your experience or from your your your judgment from a historical point we're looking at it in terms of trying to keep things symmetrical and trying to make it you know

317
01:35:11.360 --> 01:35:26.719
>> I mean my the streetscape is >> my gut instinct is the center the sign on the overall building which is what illustratively was included with this application last November and there there were no concerns raised at that time because it looked Where are you?

318
01:35:26.719 --> 01:35:42.880
>> Okay. So, this is what um Thank you, Mr. Knob. This is the um additional plaque uh that's been added, which is also constitutes a sign. >> I never knew he put that up. I could tell him to take that down. >> Okay. But that need So,

319
01:35:42.880 --> 01:36:00.400
what I would ask you to do is um I feel very strong. It's a new application. I think 627 over the the doorway um I is something that some of my fellow

320
01:36:00.400 --> 01:36:17.840
commissioners have think you know say that it balances out this the Clementina but this the placement of it is not what we originally approved and I'm trying to look at this as a new application but with the different moving parts of this

321
01:36:17.840 --> 01:36:33.440
I think you really need to get it you need to come back uh to to us and you need to put the addition that there put that in and with that is that constitute a percentage of the uh signage that's

322
01:36:33.440 --> 01:36:49.040
allowed on >> my initial guess would be that that complies with zoning but I will have the zoning officer double >> but we need to check it out that's why we that's why we can't we can't >> there should be uh like a full sign plan

323
01:36:49.040 --> 01:37:04.880
that includes your proposed revision and then if you want to include this just have the dimensions of it. >> If anything, I'll tell them to put that inside because I didn't make that either. I can't just make a per something. >> You could get approval for it in this new application. So, it's up to you. Um, but if you do include it on the sign,

324
01:37:04.880 --> 01:37:21.280
just give us some dimensions. And I would ask that you look at what that sign band is made of and it because it I that can be if it's cladding it just has to be rec reclad >> or is it wood or is it is it limestone

325
01:37:21.280 --> 01:37:40.560
wood? I I don't >> or is it clad? Is it aluminum clad >> seam right there? So I think you I think this signage is not um uh distinct or it's not uh the the

326
01:37:40.560 --> 01:37:57.360
placement I don't think it's been thought out well for for us to make a uh determination. Okay. So, please um you know have conversation with the owner or whoever the restaurant people and um

327
01:37:57.360 --> 01:38:14.320
consider what we said during our minor applications meeting and put together a signage plan that actually uh you know a proposed signage plan that actually looks more uh intentional of what you want to

328
01:38:14.320 --> 01:38:29.520
really put on this storefront. Okay. basically make a new plan with Clementina on it and the 627. >> No, the plan contains the whole thing. >> So, you need to >> the whole >> the whole package. So, we want to be able to look at it and see what's there

329
01:38:29.520 --> 01:38:45.679
and whether or not we approve it or not. So, at that point, the the the randle that's there, the C should be included in the plan so that we're able to to look at it and and uh and we have to check with the zoning officer to make

330
01:38:45.679 --> 01:39:03.440
sure that that is is uh compliant with our signage ordinance. Um, but I think you really need to go back and think about the reason we said to center it over the entire facade is because this is very important in the upper Montlair

331
01:39:03.440 --> 01:39:19.760
historic district. And I know that this has gotten great press. I have a reservation for next week. So, um, you know, I'm really hoping that, um, we could come to some kind of a, uh, conclusion that will be satisfactory to everybody. Okay. And the other thing is

332
01:39:19.760 --> 01:39:37.600
for 627 you need to proportionately in terms of the size of the letters you need to indicate that on this sign bed because I looked at this and I think it's totally out of proportion to Clementina the letters are very fine and delicate and that's just to

333
01:39:37.600 --> 01:39:52.400
>> it's the wrong >> I could do that I can make it similar to that same >> f maybe you know reduce it and then make sure that there's no number on this door now. Okay? Cuz if there is, you can't you you really can't have two numbers.

334
01:39:52.400 --> 01:40:09.520
And also, I mean, I would think about it from the business point of view that having 627 on the top, as I said in my opening statement, is confusing to a customer that comes. I mean, they know it's 62 something, but how would I know that that's the entrance? I mean, you

335
01:40:09.520 --> 01:40:25.600
could put flower pots on either side, and that would be the entrance to the to the restaurant. You know, there's other things to indicate that it's the main entrance, not what not centering Clementina over the door, >> but still it's not his area for him to

336
01:40:25.600 --> 01:40:41.840
put a sign to center towards the whole building. If his this whole side is not his, it's an apartment going upstairs. If it was >> No, but the whole the restaurant is the two is here. >> The two windows, but the whole window is not his. >> The whole >> This is not his. No, you're I'm

337
01:40:41.840 --> 01:40:57.920
basically more so centered. >> Well, Clementina is not going to be over that >> for where but it's not going to be centered symmetrically or however you're saying to the building to the storefront. It's going to be more so towards the building which he doesn't have the whole building. That's >> right. So,

338
01:40:57.920 --> 01:41:13.360
>> Panam has their what is this called? Panam building anymore? >> No, there were different there were different offices in there. There's one big sign on the building. So, >> that's people's preference. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for and

339
01:41:13.360 --> 01:41:29.760
we look forward if uh put put the package all together either come before us next month or we could look at it minor applications again. Okay. Which would be >> application. >> Yeah. So, resubmit um the signed plan. We can you can talk to me next week and we'll we'll work on that. Our next

340
01:41:29.760 --> 01:41:47.880
meeting will be July 16th at 7:30 if you prefer to have a full co uh conversation with the commission or we could review it on our virtual meeting as well. part of the committee. It's up to you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We look forward >> take care >> to All right. Good night.

341
01:41:48.480 --> 01:42:34.800
>> Okay. >> I'm not crazy about it. Doesn't seem to cle This is all about >> Okay, our next order of business is not see. >> Here we are.

342
01:42:34.800 --> 01:42:54.719
this way here. Thank you. Our next order of business is application 2026-1334 uh Godfrey Road. This is total demolition of a detached garage. Is somebody here to speak to this

343
01:42:54.719 --> 01:43:12.239
application? Great. If you would come forward and kindly sit have a seat. Yes, then you could. >> Okay. So, before I give an introduction to the project, if you would just identify

344
01:43:12.239 --> 01:43:30.000
yourselves and your relationship to the project, please. >> Yeah. I'm Ryan Hill. I'm the um owner along with my wife Joan. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> If the green buttons on.

345
01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:47.119
>> There it is. Do we have to hold it down? No. Okay. Uh, my name is Christy Darollo, Mindful Architecture, Architect of Record. >> Okay, thank you. And Miss Bower will swear you in. >> Yes, correct. It's D is in dog. I B as

346
01:43:47.119 --> 01:44:17.119
in boy, A R T O L O. >> Will provide Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, the subject property is a 7500 square f foot lot located on the south side of Godfrey Road. The lot is

347
01:44:17.119 --> 01:44:32.159
slightly trapezoidal in shape. The property is developed with a single family dwelling and a detached garage located at the rear of the lot. Vehic vehicular access to the detached garage is provided via a shared driveway

348
01:44:32.159 --> 01:44:48.880
located along Edgemont Road serving as both the subject property and the adjoining property at 32 Godfrey Road. Um the proposal is the applicant proposes a total demolition of the detached garage on the subject property.

349
01:44:48.880 --> 01:45:05.280
The existing garage is not presently functional for vehicle parking. If the demolition is approved, the applicant proposes to replace the garage and located in the same area as the existing structure. The new garage will have one bay for car parking and a I believe

350
01:45:05.280 --> 01:45:21.440
that's a typo. It should be main door. It's not mandor, is it? >> It it very well could be mandor. Yeah. >> Oh, it could be mandor. Oh, okay. Um and will be used for parking and storage. The garage will match the finishings and design of the dwelling. And we we just

351
01:45:21.440 --> 01:45:38.320
heard a whole presentation about demolition and you've have a very um complete demolition package here. So the submission res requirements for total demolition. I'm going to let Mr. Smolen go over those. But if you could just explain the project with the um pictures

352
01:45:38.320 --> 01:45:54.800
that are up now on on the uh screen, that would be great. >> Sure thing. Do do you do you want to go first? >> Yeah. Is it okay if I give a little background? Yeah. So, um, so my wife and I have and our two kids have lived at, um, this address, 34 Godfrey for, um,

353
01:45:54.800 --> 01:46:12.800
since 2017. Um, love it here in Monontlair. Um, and when we bought the house, uh, we obviously knew the garage was in rough shape. Um, but it it like the walls are kind of bowed. Anytime it rains, water comes in like freely into

354
01:46:12.800 --> 01:46:29.119
the garage. like it's it's in really really bad shape as you've seen in the pictures. Um and so now our kids are getting older and we also want to uh we we they're taking up more space and and we could use more space for them and so we want to make it into a uh like

355
01:46:29.119 --> 01:46:46.000
recreational space for them as well. Um and so um we've we don't even park in the garage. We park on the um there's two spots right in front of it as you can sort of see here. Those are our cars right there. And um and the main reason

356
01:46:46.000 --> 01:47:00.560
for that is it's it's in really bad shape and it like we can't even there's a man door there right now that we can't even close because the I think the bowing of the walls has just made it impossible. So um so um we considered

357
01:47:00.560 --> 01:47:18.560
doing a a full renovation at first, but then we as we sort of looked at that it it seemed that that would be more expensive um or at least as expensive. and um as as completely replacing it. And so um with this proposal, what we

358
01:47:18.560 --> 01:47:34.719
would do is bring it into compliance for one because it's a little too close to the it's it I think it's a six six foot setback that's required. This would be a this would actually meet that the existing structure is not quite six feet off the line and um and it could really

359
01:47:34.719 --> 01:47:50.000
benefit from a new foundation and that's part of the plan as well. And so, um, so we want to rebuild it to remedy those issues and create a better space for our, uh, kids. So, um, I think that's all I had. Yeah. So, anyways, thank you for considering this request. We

360
01:47:50.000 --> 01:48:06.159
appreciate it. >> Uh, do I need to be sworn in? I'm sorry, not sworn in. Qualified. Qualified >> as an expert. >> I am. Yes. >> It is good in good standing and current. >> I have. I'm actually

361
01:48:06.159 --> 01:48:22.719
>> an expert in architecture. >> I have been accepted. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Um so if I could go through my testimony really quick. Um and then I'll certainly get to get to the photographs here. Uh so my clients contacted me to rebuild their garage.

362
01:48:22.719 --> 01:48:38.480
They do need more interior living space and intend to use this garage as such with the ability to park a car there if need be. Uh it is heavily structurally damaged and poses a threat of collapse. Some of the walls have actually been moved completely off of the foundation

363
01:48:38.480 --> 01:48:54.400
and there has been a temporary post provided at the center of the garage to shore it up until a better fix can be found. Uh there's major evidence of water damage and deterioration at the foundation. New building codes require garages to be anchored into the

364
01:48:54.400 --> 01:49:10.960
foundation. Because the condition of the existing curb, it would be extremely challenging to properly anchor it into the wood framing into this curb as is required by the cur the um the code. Uh I have reviewed both the Montlair Historic Preservation Commission's

365
01:49:10.960 --> 01:49:28.000
letter dated June 12th, 2026 and the Architectural Heritage Consultants letter dated May 27th, 2026. Based on the architectural heritage consultants letter comment number three, preservation of the subject structure is not warranted. It is a utilitarian

366
01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:44.320
structure and is secondary in its contributions to the character of the district. The removal and reconstruction of this building would not adversely affect the district or public good. Comment number four is related to hardships. The retention of the structure would cause an undue hardship

367
01:49:44.320 --> 01:49:59.760
in not only the cost of the project as as it would be challenging to fix all of the deficiencies of this existing structure but more importantly it would not guarantee the safety of structures which usually result in new building code compliance.

368
01:49:59.760 --> 01:50:15.840
Uh furthermore the plan the plans proposed that or that the building is moved slightly on the site which would bring it into zoning uh setback requirements. So, if we want to take a look at the photographs here, uh you can see on the right side, you know, this is a a right

369
01:50:15.840 --> 01:50:38.760
of way that goes through the neighbor's property. That's their fence on the right, and the garage is offset in the background there. Um, okay. This is the this is just looking to the left side of the garage. The garage is on the right side of the screen there.

370
01:50:38.800 --> 01:50:55.760
It's just another view from Edgemont Road. As we go to the interior of the space, you can see that the curb is significantly deteriorated. Um, this is again all water damage. The, uh, the the sill itself, which is this wood horizontal piece right here, uh, in some

371
01:50:55.760 --> 01:51:10.800
places is not attached to the concrete curb at all. Uh, this is the, uh, if you want to call it a post that is temporarily holding up the whole thing right now. Uh again, significant structural damage here.

372
01:51:10.800 --> 01:51:28.199
So before um you know before anything further happens, we want to address it before somebody gets hurt. All right. And there's just more more evidence of uh the water damage. You can see obviously this is in in very rough shape.

373
01:51:29.199 --> 01:51:46.719
Okay. So, with all of these things considered, we ask that the board grant us the demo permit. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, before Mrs. Smallen tells us about the uh requirements and what you've uh uh included in your

374
01:51:46.719 --> 01:52:05.080
application, I'm going to ask the uh commissioners if they have any questions of these witnesses. >> I have one one question at the moment. This is a garage, but it looks like you're proposing a different use for it. >> That's correct.

375
01:52:05.599 --> 01:52:21.679
>> So, what was the testimony about the cars again? >> So, it will be designed in such a way that if we if in the future they ever do want to uh convert it back to a complete garage, then we could, you know, take down the wall that's delineated where the storage is. Okay.

376
01:52:21.679 --> 01:52:37.360
>> Uh and we're keeping that garage door on that side. >> Okay. Thank you. And you're not requesting a waiver from setback. You're going to come into compliance. >> That's that's correct. >> And is the the footprint going to be larger or smaller or

377
01:52:37.360 --> 01:52:53.440
>> it actually gets reduced a little bit? So my anticipation is that the net impervious coverage will actually be decreased on the site. >> Any other questions? Anybody in the audience have uh questions? No. Okay. So Mr. Mr. Smalling, could you

378
01:52:53.440 --> 01:53:08.800
go over the requirements and the application that they submitted and uh >> Sure. Um, so the existing house at 3 34 Godfrey Road was built around 1912.

379
01:53:08.800 --> 01:53:25.760
It is located um in the Oakcraftoft potential historic district um which was originally developed beginning in 1906 by Aaron Godfrey. Uh much of the development in that area wrapped up by 1946.

380
01:53:25.760 --> 01:53:41.679
So this subject property um was built right in the middle of that period of significance. I think uh the garage was likely built at the same time or shortly after the um primary house.

381
01:53:41.679 --> 01:53:59.119
And I think this is an this is an example of um an application that is really I think pursuing both pathways that we discussed um earlier. Preservation not being warranted and then preservation also potentially

382
01:53:59.119 --> 01:54:15.280
imposing an undue burden or hardship on the applicant. Um before we get to that though, I just want to flag um I believe three waivers um that the applicant is is either requesting or or not providing

383
01:54:15.280 --> 01:54:32.000
um information on. Overall, I I think this is fine, but I'm just flagging that the preservation feasibility and alternative documentation um was not provided. So, there was no discussion about um a sale of of the

384
01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:48.080
garage or relocating it if that which wouldn't even really be possible to do, but there was that wasn't included. Um I think that's reasonable to say that's not necessary. Um there was no archaeological investigation here. I

385
01:54:48.080 --> 01:55:04.480
think that's also reasonable to say that's not necessary given that there's an intensive level architectural survey done at this neighborhood and not once was anything about archaeological um potential mentioned. Um and then lastly, there was no salvage plan

386
01:55:04.480 --> 01:55:20.320
mentioned. Um, and I think that's also completely reasonable uh to wave as well, given that the garage um really doesn't presently have any what I would say are character-defining architectural elements uh which could be

387
01:55:20.320 --> 01:55:38.800
salvaged. So that brings me to um the evaluation of integrity. I'd say overall is medium for this garage right now. Um, it does continue to reflect its original purpose as as a garage. It was purpose-built as a as an early garage.

388
01:55:38.800 --> 01:55:53.760
Um, it is somewhat a much more simplified version of the main houses architecture. It doesn't have like the jerkin head roofs or anything like that. Um, so then getting to the two different pathways. Again, the first being that

389
01:55:53.760 --> 01:56:10.480
the preservation is not warranted. Um, I think the applicant has proved that um in in much of their testimony tonight and a survey of the neighborhood, as I mentioned, was done uh just six or seven years ago um by Margaret, who's quite

390
01:56:10.480 --> 01:56:26.960
detailed in her surveys. And I'll point out uh that there's no mention of this garage in that survey of the property. It's not visible from Godfrey Street. You have to go around the corner, but um there's no mention of of of the garage. And I think that's with reason given

391
01:56:26.960 --> 01:56:42.719
that it's not uh contributing much to the sense of historical importance of of the primary house which is definitely significant and definitely documented in great detail in that survey. Um so then the second pathway related to hardship

392
01:56:42.719 --> 01:56:57.840
criteria and imposing and the preservation of the garage imposing a burn or hardship on the um applicant. A few weeks ago I visited um the garage. I was in it for a very brief time. I honestly did not want to stay in it for

393
01:56:57.840 --> 01:57:15.440
too long. Um and it it is certainly as the applicant testified tonight um in a state of uh pretty significant deterioration. I think potentially part of it may have caught on fire um at some point and um I think the structural

394
01:57:15.440 --> 01:57:30.320
report goes into more detail on that, but it's um it's teetering right now. I think is the shortest way to say that. So overall my um my recommendation here is that the applicant has adequately

395
01:57:30.320 --> 01:57:45.760
substantiated the need to demolish the existing structure and the proposed structure if I could just touch on that is somewhat simple. Uh I think I I think few people will even know uh that this

396
01:57:45.760 --> 01:58:01.280
garage is missing and that a new structure uh is built which I think is a good thing. Um it means it's a a successful project or addition um to the historic district and I think overall that both the demolition and the new

397
01:58:01.280 --> 01:58:17.040
structure um should be approved. >> Thank you. So, um I'd like just a little bit discussion of what you're proposing to build there. Um and first of all, the new garage door is that will be functional and you're just going to not

398
01:58:17.040 --> 01:58:34.800
use it for what uh you're watching TV or something. >> Correct. It will be it will be functional. Yes. >> And what about the doors and the windows? Do you what type of doors and windows are are you planning to >> So the the current proposal is just to do an Anderson 400 series or so which

399
01:58:34.800 --> 01:58:51.520
has a a vinyl cladding on the outside that can be wood grain. Um if the board uh so deems necessary we can upgrade that to more of a standard wood. >> I'll let you discuss that. Any other questions from the about the proposed?

400
01:58:51.520 --> 01:59:06.880
>> Oh, I the one thing about the existing garage that I thought was interesting were the eaves and there's a a profile board. Is that something that you could recreate recreate in the new roof line?

401
01:59:06.880 --> 01:59:23.280
>> It's it's certainly something that um we've discussed >> to a point. >> I think cost is the qu from our standpoint anyways. cost is a question and whether that would drive up um the cost at all because we're about at the max of our budget as it goes right now.

402
01:59:23.280 --> 01:59:40.880
But we can for sure go back. >> Yeah, there's different ways of doing that. You don't have to scallop the ends. Even just the um rafter tails >> gives it the character that it has here. So, >> okay. Yeah, >> I think that's >> I think the scrolling of the existing,

403
01:59:40.880 --> 01:59:57.119
you know, the existing um >> elements there is I mean it it doesn't necessarily match the main house. So the main house just has the conventional ones to your point. So >> it has square just square rafter tails. Yeah, I guess that was one of my comments about looking at what's being

404
01:59:57.119 --> 02:00:17.920
proposed is I don't know what the house looks like. So you know And there was a I think um Steven's report you're you're proposing a hip roof uh not not a hip roof just a plain gable as opposed to a hipped roof. >> Yes, that's correct for now. Yes.

405
02:00:17.920 --> 02:00:33.360
>> Okay. But you could still put those type of uh plain uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. >> We certainly understand from a historic preservation standpoint that you know cost is not always >> the top priority, right? Um, and you know, we want to respect that.

406
02:00:33.360 --> 02:00:48.560
>> Well, I think the view from the street, even though it's behind the house, the view from the street, you would see those those eaves that come out >> on the gable end. You mean >> what what's the what's the siding on the on this? >> Uh, the gable end is this side. The the

407
02:00:48.560 --> 02:01:06.000
siding would be um wood wood plank siding. >> Wood plank siding. Yeah. To match. >> Okay. If you did a hip roof, you'd save those triangles on both sides of the gables in terms of cost of siding, right? So did you know you could I'll get into suggestions later but

408
02:01:06.000 --> 02:01:24.000
that's just a comment and then you could get the same rafter tales wrapping around the whole house but uh any other comments or questions? So these would be suggestions, right? Not it's they're not conditions to

409
02:01:24.000 --> 02:01:40.080
demolition. They're they're recommendations. We we we will vote now on the on whether or not for the demolition and then it'll be with recommendations, not conditions. >> Right. >> This this does not come back to us for

410
02:01:40.080 --> 02:01:56.400
the design of this garage. >> No. >> Um you have to vote on the waivers too. Um but you can condition the approval. >> Oh. Uh with approval of the three waivers, >> right?

411
02:01:56.400 --> 02:02:12.000
Well, the the conditions on the demo permit is a different subject than the waivers, but you need to have a separate vote on the waivers. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, we could do that first and then we'll do that first and then we'll do the demolition. Correct. >> Yeah, that's fine. I'm just saying and

412
02:02:12.000 --> 02:02:28.159
I'm responding to your comment. You can condition the permit. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Public comment. >> Yes. Any public comment? Okay, seeing none, then we'll do the

413
02:02:28.159 --> 02:02:43.840
first waiver. Uh, no, we'll do the three waivers together. And Janine, how would you phrase that? >> Someone should make a motion finding if you want to do them together. The waivers reasonable.

414
02:02:43.840 --> 02:02:59.840
>> Okay. So, who would like to >> I move that the three waivers A, B, and C under application waivers are um reasonable and should be the waivers should be approved.

415
02:02:59.840 --> 02:03:14.719
>> I believe it's um for submission requirement C, E, and F. >> Right. So, we have a vote >> or >> I'll second. >> Second and then we'll have a vote. Have

416
02:03:14.719 --> 02:03:50.920
you called the vote? So this is uh to approve waiverss for submission requirements C and F. Uh Chair Bennett, >> yes. >> Mr. Rooney, >> yes. >> Mr. Rhyme, >> yes. >> Mr. Sweeney,

417
02:03:51.280 --> 02:04:07.040
>> I'm sorry. >> Mr. Juliana, >> yes. >> Miss Kane Levy, >> yes. >> Mr. Mixer. >> Yes. >> Miss Floyd. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, the waiverss are approved. >> Okay. And then the next uh motion would

418
02:04:07.040 --> 02:04:23.599
be to uh approve the demolition of the of the garage. So, it's >> with conditions >> with recommendations. Recommendations. >> With recommendations. >> Say conditions. >> I thought those are the recommendations. >> Conditions. >> Approve demolition of the garage with

419
02:04:23.599 --> 02:04:37.920
conditions. And we just voted on the conditions. Okay. You may if you wish. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> I'm sorry. What's the condition? >> Yeah. What conditions? >> It's the uh waiverss. >> Waver. >> Oh, okay. Just some confusion.

420
02:04:37.920 --> 02:04:56.639
>> Yes. Um just you you could condition your demolition permit with um any condition that's reasonable uh uh with respect to you know the roof line uh you know the design anything

421
02:04:56.639 --> 02:05:11.920
that you've been discussing in your comments. >> Can we make the condition that they return to this body to present um a new design or to present or to get approval for what they build.

422
02:05:11.920 --> 02:05:27.119
>> It's a property in the historic district. So, yes, >> it's a potential. >> Well, you treat that as an historic district potential, >> right? >> All right. Well, that makes sense. So, because it's in a historic district that

423
02:05:27.119 --> 02:05:42.719
we're asking the applicant to return with a revised uh architectural design. >> But are these recommendations or conditions? >> Conditions. >> But, okay. Okay. But I thought that the property wasn't even considered like historical in surveys and that it was

424
02:05:42.719 --> 02:06:00.480
demolitioned. I mean, do we need to have them come back with conditions if the property in itself was >> based on Mr. >> A potential historic district, >> right? So, without the demolition, they could by right build a garage without HPC's

425
02:06:00.480 --> 02:06:17.040
>> just because it's in the potential. So, the potential historic district with the survey means that it's subject to the demolition approval, but anything that they build outside of that wouldn't technically come here unless they're seeking a variance and that would be an advisory review.

426
02:06:17.040 --> 02:06:34.000
>> Okay. And there's no variance because they're coming into compliance, >> right? Yeah. >> So, >> could you explain it? You're backing the recommendation simply to demolish the garage. >> Isn't that the application? >> The application is to demolish. No, >> our approval motion should be to uh

427
02:06:34.000 --> 02:06:51.119
motion B approve the total demolition of the garage, >> but we may have an opinion about what's being built and we may have the right to approve demolition with the idea they come back and present again the

428
02:06:51.119 --> 02:07:06.320
>> I'm okay with that. But I >> Okay, >> but I think right now the structural like that I think that's a recommendation. the structural report. >> It was the same thing with the swim school like we provided then advisory recommendations that

429
02:07:06.320 --> 02:07:21.760
>> then moved on to the planning board but they weren't binding. >> Right. Right. >> We're not making any recommendations to any other board here. >> Right. It would it's just to the applicant. >> So I I'm confused. Can we make

430
02:07:21.760 --> 02:07:37.679
conditions for the >> No, because the the planners corrected me. >> Okay. only because it's a a potential district, >> they they have the right to build whatever they're building. >> Okay.

431
02:07:37.679 --> 02:07:54.239
>> So, you're making recommendations to them. >> Okay. So the motion on board will be that uh the um demolition be approved with recommendations and the recommendations would be uh that it's

432
02:07:54.239 --> 02:08:10.880
wood siding the windows uh functional garage door that can be used uh after you know for subsequent use and also the change in the roof style. Okay. So, those are four.

433
02:08:10.880 --> 02:08:27.760
>> And I would recommend, you know, I don't believe it costs that much money to do like the rafter tail. >> Oh, the raptor tail. >> Change to a hip roof. >> Uh would would um simulated divided

434
02:08:27.760 --> 02:08:46.719
light windows as opposed to Anderson vinyl clad would be a preferable suggestion. Um >> there you go. That's those are my recommendations. >> So now >> we have six recommend

435
02:08:46.719 --> 02:09:02.480
>> six recommendations. Do you have those up? >> I have four of them. Uh wood siding, changing the roof style to include the rafter tails or those >> Well, changing the roof style to a hip roof. >> Okay. To hip roof, >> including the uh rafter tails.

436
02:09:02.480 --> 02:09:17.840
>> Rafter tails is number three. And then uh installing simulated divided light windows instead of the vinyl clad Anderson. Right. >> And so then there's a fifth and a sixth that I missed. >> Oh, wait. Oh, >> a garage door that's functional.

437
02:09:17.840 --> 02:09:33.840
>> Garage door functional. >> And what was number six? >> What? Siding. >> Siding. Thank you. Okay. I thought I thought you covered that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, will someone make a motion to approve the demolition of this garage

438
02:09:33.840 --> 02:09:51.119
with the recommendations that we've just um listed? >> Moved. >> Second. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. So, Zena, would you kindly call the role? >> And this is a vote to approve the demolition. Chair Bennett,

439
02:09:51.119 --> 02:10:05.920
>> yes. >> Mr. Rooney, >> yes. >> Mr. Rhynit, >> yes. >> Mr. Sweeney, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Juliano, >> yes. >> Miss Kane Levy, >> yes. >> Mr. Mixer, >> yes. >> Miss Floyd, >> yes. >> All right, it is approved.

440
02:10:05.920 --> 02:10:41.280
>> Thank you so much. Good luck. It looks like a good project. >> Thank you. >> I'll send it to >> Oh, yeah. I give the actual district back to all they want but

441
02:10:41.280 --> 02:11:08.320
they don't have to do >> okay >> I have roof um divided like uh functional door They said they're doing it. >> All right. Next thing on our our agenda

442
02:11:08.320 --> 02:11:25.679
uh is um it will be now uh public input onto the master plan re-examination um uh that we are looking at. We will also have another session at our next meeting in July which will be July 16th. So, is there some anyone in the audience

443
02:11:25.679 --> 02:11:41.440
that would like to come up and uh present um the uh their ideas, their thoughts, their recommendations for what uh can be included or revised in our master plan revision uh which we will be

444
02:11:41.440 --> 02:11:57.520
working on this summer and hopefully get it done by early fall. So then it goes to the planning board and the planning board will um will uh have a chance to read it and and uh approve it. >> For for people say watching on online,

445
02:11:57.520 --> 02:12:13.199
where would they find this master plan in case they want to read it, look at it, comment on it. >> That's that's on our that's on our uh website on the on the municipality website under historic preservation. You can look and and and find that. Okay.

446
02:12:13.199 --> 02:12:30.159
And um you can also send a letter to a email to Zenab because we will be examining um you know other things within the master plan and we'll be discussing it uh as a commission. So yes, would you like to come forward?

447
02:12:30.159 --> 02:12:50.639
>> Just a question. >> You know what? I can't hear you. Can you just >> coming to the mic? >> When you're talking about the master and you just referred to are you talking about the the 2016 report? Yes, the 2016 report that we received a CLG grant for

448
02:12:50.639 --> 02:13:08.079
and that was written for the township of Montlair. Every 7 to 10 years um the state requires a updating of the master plan and so the planning board is working on their section of it the circulation uh whatever that's called

449
02:13:08.079 --> 02:13:22.480
but from the mass from the planning board and then we have to provide a revision that the planning board then updates. Have are you familiar with this document? >> Yeah, I read it. >> Okay. >> What what is your overall >> do you mind just coming to the mic

450
02:13:22.480 --> 02:13:39.040
please? >> Maybe introduce yourself and then prior meetings. I don't have the context. So I don't what is your overall approach for the next next plan? >> So are you you're familiar with the

451
02:13:39.040 --> 02:13:56.239
current I'm going to hold up my well >> the 2016 >> right the 2016. >> Yes I read that. I I'm just asking what's your what's the approach for the next one? >> Well, the um information that's in here, most of it is still it's current.

452
02:13:56.239 --> 02:14:13.119
>> Um it goes into a lot of detail of uh historic preservation within the township. It lists all the ordinances, all the the laws. Uh it gives um uh definitions of the different historic districts because there was three different historic dis types of historic

453
02:14:13.119 --> 02:14:30.480
districts. it it uh pulls out um uh individual local landmarks. Um there is also a a section of these of proposed historic districts. You might have heard us refer to those proposed historic

454
02:14:30.480 --> 02:14:47.040
districts. There are some people in town that um are looking to create more, you know, additional proposed historic districts. Um it's really a wealth of information. So we we're not setting out to rewrite it. We're setting out to

455
02:14:47.040 --> 02:15:01.119
revise it >> to update it >> and update it. >> Okay. No, I understand it. So what but what's the philosophy behind uh you know what you're doing here uh in terms of historic preservation? I I'm a homeowner

456
02:15:01.119 --> 02:15:19.360
and I I'm on the list for the potential um preservation list and I'm very concerned about uh new ordinances and uh other burdensome regulations that are going to affect me as a homeowner and other home owners in our town. We're

457
02:15:19.360 --> 02:15:35.760
all, you know, worried about affordability. I heard you speak to the other business owner and or business person and the homeowners uh about you know what you would like them to do in terms of design um you know etc. And um

458
02:15:35.760 --> 02:15:52.159
I I just want to know what the overall philosophy will be um if you're concerned about affordability and not imposing burdensome uh regulations on homeowners. if that's something that you'll be taking into account.

459
02:15:52.159 --> 02:16:06.800
>> Well, I think everybody that's a fair question and I think um that uh the you know the HPC was created in 1996 and we have this a number of different reasons why we that this commission was created

460
02:16:06.800 --> 02:16:24.639
and um as somebody testified uh or I think Mr. Smallen, we deal with the aesthetics of of a neighborhood or a local district. So, we're the people that really give, you know, I'm a historic preservation, historic preservationist, architects. We're the

461
02:16:24.639 --> 02:16:39.920
people that give advice. Sometimes it's bound by ordinance and sometimes it's not. So, you just heard the discussion between recommendations as opposed to condition. So, it's a recommendation as opposed to a condition. These those

462
02:16:39.920 --> 02:16:58.399
people before you came up wanted to take their garage down. You know, it's falling down. I don't think we're unreasonable in the questions we asked and I don't think we're unreasonable in the decision that was made. Um, and we gave really sound good advice to

463
02:16:58.399 --> 02:17:16.160
somebody who wants to build a new structure and wants to uh, you know, blend in with the historic character. >> I I I get it and you're all experts in your areas. I really appreciate that. But I think that um you know the

464
02:17:16.160 --> 02:17:34.479
homeowners who are taking responsibility for their homes have to ensure it, have to maintain it and care about the you know aesthetics of their property have their own views of how to keep up their properties and it um I just wonder um

465
02:17:34.479 --> 02:17:51.519
you know your role in imposing your views on homeowners um and into very particular details about maintaining homes and I am very concerned about my particular house being included on a historic list. Will

466
02:17:51.519 --> 02:18:07.840
I have a say in whether it gets included or not? Because >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Can I say something just quickly? >> Yeah. But it's all included in in this document. So, but go ahead. >> But I think this goes back to something that we've talked about on this panel a number of times is there's a there's a a

467
02:18:07.840 --> 02:18:24.240
public misconception of sort of what this body does. And I think we're we're trying to improve that from the perspective of communication, which we've newly formed a committee to talk about what historic preservation means in this town and how we can communicate what we're doing and in and around what what the the revision and and public

468
02:18:24.240 --> 02:18:41.679
input is for the master plan. Um but um you know just as a as a theory, no one here is imposing anything. Uh things that come before this commission are typically um you know referred to us for the reason of its ability. it sits within the historic district or

469
02:18:41.679 --> 02:18:58.880
something like that that says, "Hey, this this applicant is asking for this specific thing. Is it in your opinion subject to, you know, what you guys actually can oversee and ultimately decide on uh a per your private home in this town and we all well most people do

470
02:18:58.880 --> 02:19:14.800
live in this town and we all have old homes as well. We want the best thing for those homes, but of course your affordability. No one's going to make an imposing statement that you ultimately have to change your home or do something like that without your without your input. Right. And so, um, there aren't

471
02:19:14.800 --> 02:19:30.719
any private there are no private homes that are no districts in this town that are subject to the historic preservation. Correct. >> No, the for Yes, you're correct. The districts are commercial districts. >> And for for that to occur, there's a certain percentage of the homeowners in

472
02:19:30.719 --> 02:19:46.000
that district that would have to vote for that approval. >> Exactly. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, it's not going to be a whole process per home. >> It It's like per area. So, the homeowners in the area could agree to become bound by as historic.

473
02:19:46.000 --> 02:20:02.160
>> Correct. >> Yep. >> I'll just add the the re-examination report isn't actively changing the element at this point. So, the commission is thinking of recommendations for when it will be updated. The state requires every 10 years that a re-examination report be

474
02:20:02.160 --> 02:20:18.800
issued to the planning board who then can choose to make the updates. >> Okay. No, I I read the prior reports recommendations and what was high priority, low mid, medium, and low priority. And you know, some of the high

475
02:20:18.800 --> 02:20:33.520
priority items I, you know, was concerned about because they could affect how I can maintain my home or make renovations to it. And I just ask that all of you really consider the impact on homeowners on imposing your

476
02:20:33.520 --> 02:20:52.120
views on how they can change their homes >> because what your recommendations do are imposed requirements and they will cost money for homeowners to maintain or renovate their homes in a way that maybe they don't agree with you on.

477
02:20:52.399 --> 02:21:07.600
So I I I know you all are experts in your field and um but you know for somebody a homeowner to come here have an architect paid by the hour they have to explain every little thing that they did or are recommending I I mean

478
02:21:07.600 --> 02:21:22.160
>> you live in a community here it's not just you by the way it's a community it's a neighborhood it's uh how people feel about their neighborhood and so on we get indiv individual rights and your

479
02:21:22.160 --> 02:21:37.920
ownership and all that and I I think we I think no I think no it's it's all volunteer here a lot of time and effort put okay >> so the other thing too you know when you purchase a home you know depending on where you're buying it here in

480
02:21:37.920 --> 02:21:53.200
Monontlair I mean historically this has been a very wellreceived community in terms of the architectural history so the continuity is important you know I mean we make the recommendations based on your area and whether the property was surveyed to be historical. I mean,

481
02:21:53.200 --> 02:22:09.280
you could be living in a home that one of our presidents lived in, you know, and you want to knock it down and, you know, do something that's completely ultra modern and then we lose what makes Montlair so valuable in and of itself. So, our recommendations are strong, you

482
02:22:09.280 --> 02:22:26.800
know, and are advisable, but ultimately at the end of the day, we do also understand that you have to be able to afford to continue to keep your home, but we also want to make sure that it's staying within the historical concept that originated in our town. >> Can I just ask again, for um a home to

483
02:22:26.800 --> 02:22:43.520
be put on a historic list by you, does a homeowner have a consent right over that designation? >> Yes. Yes. If you were how long have you lived in town? >> 20 years. >> Okay. So, do you do you remember Oakraftoft

484
02:22:43.520 --> 02:22:59.040
>> that Oakraftoft was which is the section just south of Anderson Park? That's a very significant neighborhood as it were. And um the how many homes were in there? 120 110. And if 33% of homeowners

485
02:22:59.040 --> 02:23:15.600
disagree with it being designated a local historic district, then it it just ends. go we we it it's a propo it's >> but I you're saying it has to be voted on by the group but I'm I'm asking like if an individual homeowner doesn't want

486
02:23:15.600 --> 02:23:30.720
it to be designated as an individual >> well you're part of the you're yeah you're part of it >> but there are there are homes on the list among in that report there are different lists right one is like an area and then there's another list for

487
02:23:30.720 --> 02:23:47.439
historic places like individual addresses Well, those are landmark. Yeah, there's 35 36. So, those >> not not like not public. >> But is your house one of those? >> No, not yet. But it's on like a list of potential

488
02:23:47.439 --> 02:24:04.720
preserve, you know, historic homes and I'm wondering like can it become >> potential historic district? >> I think. >> Okay. Well, if you're not if you're in a potential historic district, we we've we've really tried

489
02:24:04.720 --> 02:24:20.080
since I've been on the on this commission to do outreach to community members to homeowners. We do a uh survey your home uh learn your home history in cooperation with the uh library and the

490
02:24:20.080 --> 02:24:36.640
Monontlair History Center. We're really here to celebrate the architectural heritage and and um integrity of the of the uh community. >> Could Could I also just get your name for the record? >> Oh, Susanna Sue Su. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.

491
02:24:36.640 --> 02:24:54.080
>> Great. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Okay. Is anyone else here that would like to Yes, please come forward. And um if you could just identify yourself.

492
02:24:54.080 --> 02:25:10.000
>> Yes. Um good evening MJ Welding. I submitted the idea of Fieldstone for a potential historic district and uh I don't I submitted a package. Well, not a package. I shouldn't call it

493
02:25:10.000 --> 02:25:27.280
that. I just submitted some ideas and I don't know if you've seen them, if you have questions for me or if you want me to tell you a little bit about the neighborhood. >> So, I've asked the knob to put them up so we can view it on on the uh screen and then um if you very briefly go into

494
02:25:27.280 --> 02:25:44.000
a little bit of detail about the area and the significance because you the architect you have is signific uh that you're researching. >> So, I'm I'm researching Arthur Ramhurst. I actually live in his home. That's kind of how I got involved in this. Uh

495
02:25:44.000 --> 02:25:59.600
Fieldstone uh is a upper northeast track. Uh it was developed in the ear the late 1920s uh early 1930s. It comprises of Lal Marquette and Elizabeth.

496
02:25:59.600 --> 02:26:14.800
And um what's unique about this is it was designed um the homes, the streetscape, the landscape all under the supervising architect and that was Arthur E. Ramhurst. Um there are uh five different

497
02:26:14.800 --> 02:26:34.080
kinds of home styles in this collection that were curated. Uh tutor, colonial, Georgian. Uh the paper said that the first Cape Cod in Montlair was in this neighborhood and uh English farmhouse.

498
02:26:34.080 --> 02:26:49.520
>> Could you could you advance it? >> So we could see some >> We have to get you a button knob so we don't have to keep getting up. >> The um the first time I went into this neighborhood, I was not aware of

499
02:26:49.520 --> 02:27:06.000
Ramhurst. I just went and experienced the neighborhood myself and I was struck by the charm of the neighborhood. I was also struck by the landscaping. There is a stunning mature tree canopy

500
02:27:06.000 --> 02:27:23.439
there which um >> recently there have been some taken down >> and some people in the neighborhood are very upset about. They want to preserve that beautiful historic mature canopy. So this neighborhood is special. I think

501
02:27:23.439 --> 02:27:40.399
worthy of consideration because it was designed as a whole. >> The homes, the collections, the styles of the homes, the supervising architect, it was heavily advertised. And when you read the advertisements, I' I've put all

502
02:27:40.399 --> 02:27:55.280
of them together for you. This neighborhood was promoting um these ads were promoting Mont Clair as much as Fieldstone and it was really developed um as a neighborhood for young families.

503
02:27:55.280 --> 02:28:12.160
Uh the school went up right nearby it. Transportation was rerouted to service this neighborhood. Um, I read that uh you could you could bring in your own architect, but they had to work under the supervision of the supervising

504
02:28:12.160 --> 02:28:30.080
architect, Arthur Ramhurst. >> Um, and it was publicized that uh first there were four uh exhibition homes that were widely visited. Um, and then uh it was uh noted that Ramhurst would design

505
02:28:30.080 --> 02:28:45.840
12 of the homes. Um, and actually from my research, I think he's done more like 13 or 15 of the homes. So, there's the first trunch of homes in the development from the late 1920s to the early 1930s.

506
02:28:45.840 --> 02:29:02.880
And then, um, there was a second wave, and I'm still researching this, under what was called Fieldstone Village, and I don't think it was under the original developers. >> And then there were some later fill-ins that happened in the 80s. But this this

507
02:29:02.880 --> 02:29:19.200
neighborhood has retained the original integrity of design not not only in the homes but also in the landscape and the streetscape. Have you reached out to any of the other uh homeowners about this in terms of

508
02:29:19.200 --> 02:29:35.280
their view and opinion of >> um I didn't do that. Um but I have been in touch. I started an Instagram account to get make the public record of Ramhurst work and I did a lot on Fieldstone and those res some residents

509
02:29:35.280 --> 02:29:52.399
had contacted me and I've been providing um information to them on their houses. I recently got involved with the um I guess the neighborhood planner or leader um regarding the tree situation to try

510
02:29:52.399 --> 02:30:09.439
and and help provide some historical information to help preserve the trees. So um I am in touch with them and would you know help throughout this process as well with the neighborhood.

511
02:30:09.439 --> 02:30:26.399
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> May I ask a process question while I'm up here? >> Sure. >> Um, Miss Bennett, you weren't you were very very clear about comment in the beginning, but my brain was thinking comments came at the end. So, I'm wondering is there an opportunity after

512
02:30:26.399 --> 02:30:44.000
businesses closed if we can revisit comments and if I could make a comment. >> Um, that would be to open up public comment again. Correct. >> Yeah. >> I apologize. >> No, that's that's okay. Um well I think you've done a a really good job of um

513
02:30:44.000 --> 02:31:01.600
researching this and we'll take this under consideration um for and if you've also given us a little map of the the the street the the you know the triangle I think that was at the very beginning. >> Yes. It's all deadended. It's it's a and

514
02:31:01.600 --> 02:31:14.640
there's >> plenty of documentation how um the developers uh really fought to preserve the dead end deadend condition of the neighborhood. I'd also mention that

515
02:31:14.640 --> 02:31:32.160
there was um there was a I don't want to say fight, but there was um a case with the public utility >> because the plan was for the utilities to run on the rear of all the properties

516
02:31:32.160 --> 02:31:48.800
so that you would have the beautiful tree treeline streets >> and the utility said, "No, we'll do it our way." and the developers fought and won and that's part of why it's it's really a a magical kind of neighborhood.

517
02:31:48.800 --> 02:32:04.240
>> Oh, well again, thank you for all your research. >> Thank you for the opportunity to present. >> Um is there anyone else for public comment? Uh not public comment, information on um public comment on the revision of the master plan. Okay. So, we'll close that and then

518
02:32:04.240 --> 02:32:40.880
we'll open up public comment again. So, uh would you come forward then? And sorry, he didn't have to go sit down. I have some pass out. How many to the chair? Okay. I only have one copy of the articles.

519
02:32:40.880 --> 02:33:08.319
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> How long have you been working? >> Um of the motor print. Um after that I was um I was disappointed myself that I

520
02:33:08.319 --> 02:33:22.960
hadn't done enough research on Ramhurst to be able to share with the commission um just how impactful he is in the town. Um I found that uh I found an article in

521
02:33:22.960 --> 02:33:39.840
the Glenidge paper uh that by 1935 he had been in practice for nine years. >> How many? uh nine years. >> Okay. >> And completed almost 350 commissions. So >> within Montlair or Monontlair Glenidge, the surrounding

522
02:33:39.840 --> 02:33:55.200
>> in the Montlair area. >> Okay. >> But what I found is most of his work is in Montlair. Um and then he practiced in Monontlair until his death uh in 1962. >> Right. >> And the motor branch was his last known work. Right.

523
02:33:55.200 --> 02:34:11.439
>> Yeah. So I'm just going to read I prepared a comment if I may. So some of you might know that uh following the demolition decision, I undertook a salvage effort to see

524
02:34:11.439 --> 02:34:28.000
whether significant architectural elements of the building might be preserved before demolition. Part of that effort, I contacted the Society for Commercial Archaeology, the nation's oldest organization devoted to the study and preservation of 20th century

525
02:34:28.000 --> 02:34:44.640
commercial architecture. After reviewing the building and its history, the president of the the society, Brian Gallagher, provided a letter recommending preservation of the building itself rather than salvage of individual elements.

526
02:34:44.640 --> 02:34:59.760
I wanted to share that letter with the commission because it represents the considered opinion of a nationally recognized organization that was not part of the record at the time of the demolition hearing. I also want to share two contemporary

527
02:34:59.760 --> 02:35:15.520
contemporaneous newspaper articles documenting the opening of the motor branch and the emergence of drive-in banking in Montlair. What I found particularly striking is that these articles show how the building was received at the time. The

528
02:35:15.520 --> 02:35:32.479
motor branch was presented as a welcome addition to upper Montlair and in the words of the Montlair Times, a brightening influence on the business district. The historical record suggests the building was embraced as a symbol of progress and modernization and regarded

529
02:35:32.479 --> 02:35:47.760
as an important investment in the future of Upper Montlair. I understand that the commission has already acted on the demolition application. My purpose tonight is not to revisit that decision, but rather to reinforce the historical importance of

530
02:35:47.760 --> 02:36:04.960
the building and to respectfully encourage that any documentation undertaken prior to the demolition be completed to a thorough and professional standard so that an accurate record of this resource is preserved for future researchers and residents.

531
02:36:04.960 --> 02:36:21.439
>> Thank you. And it's my understanding that that documentation hasn't been been completed yet. Correct. >> No, we have not received anything. >> And do you know when that will um occur? Well, >> you don't have a magic. >> No, I don't know. My guess would be they're waiting for the planning board

532
02:36:21.439 --> 02:36:36.000
approval before they move forward with demolition, but >> Okay, >> that's just a guess. Yeah. >> All right. Well, um yes, it's truly unfortunate that we did not have this this information. Um this was voted on for demolition I believe in December

533
02:36:36.000 --> 02:36:51.520
that we voted on that. Yeah. So um and I would just like to say Ramhurst I commend you for doing the research on him. Um, and it's amazing how we're we have these uh architects, these local

534
02:36:51.520 --> 02:37:08.479
architects like Nelson and and um a few others that uh have are now people are looking uh more close at more closely at and it's just uh an an amazing discovery. So, thank you. And I hope you

535
02:37:08.479 --> 02:37:24.880
share this with um other people, especially the history center because they're doing documentation on local architects and um and possibly the planning board uh when uh I don't know what the next step is uh is w with them.

536
02:37:24.880 --> 02:37:40.160
I know that it's ongoing. Yes. >> So, uh but thank you very much. >> Well, thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it. >> And it's on the public record now. So, thank I would also say, you know, given given what happened with the with the

537
02:37:40.160 --> 02:37:56.160
motor branch, that really did inspire me to dig in and and create this public record of Ramhurst work. Not only his work, but his life in Montlair. >> I mean, he was very very active um civically and socially. He actually

538
02:37:56.160 --> 02:38:12.720
helped write a lot of uh current day zones. He was an advocate for apartment housing and affordable housing and density. And you would probably be shocked to know how many apartment buildings he also or apartment buildings

539
02:38:12.720 --> 02:38:28.960
and garden apartments that he's designed in town as well. >> Do you have do you know of a few uh can you give us a few addresses that >> um the Midland he did uh he did uh 160 Gordonhurst uh the garden apartments there.

540
02:38:28.960 --> 02:38:45.439
>> Oh, right. Right. >> Um I'd be very happy. I haven't had a chance to put together my full list because while I've been researching, I've also been publishing um stories, properties on an Instagram account trying to like in parallel get the

541
02:38:45.439 --> 02:39:00.720
public record out. But I'd be very happy to share with you. Um when I started my research, I was given a list about 12 properties. I'm over a hundred. >> And like I said, that article said that

542
02:39:00.720 --> 02:39:17.760
just in the 9-year period, there were almost 350 commissions. And today, I was in the files and I found five 15 new properties in just a drawer and a half. >> Amazing. >> So, I think there's a lot more.

543
02:39:17.760 --> 02:39:34.720
>> He's clearly tapping on your shoulder. >> I think so. >> Let's keep going. Well, he knows where to find >> That's right. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Components. Yeah. Thanks. >> Uh so let's see if there's no other

544
02:39:34.720 --> 02:39:50.240
business. >> I don't think so. >> I actually have uh some input. >> Oh, to the master plan. Seems appropriate. Um I I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that uh a case that

545
02:39:50.240 --> 02:40:05.600
uh was decided Black Ridge versus City of Long Branch uh last year may have some uh potential uh to assist uh this board and all boards uh because it sort

546
02:40:05.600 --> 02:40:22.479
of removed the um causal nexus between uh payments that developers in redevelopment zones make and um improvements in their in the

547
02:40:22.479 --> 02:40:38.960
redevelopment zone. Uh so for instance uh the developer whose payment was approved in Long Branch um that was used for a senior center that was not actually in the redevelopment zone. um

548
02:40:38.960 --> 02:40:55.760
and this area of law. I know some of you are um experienced like I am and some of you are newer at this but uh this subject of what developers can uh do and what uh townships can exact from

549
02:40:55.760 --> 02:41:14.960
developers um has gone you know full circle uh just in the period of time that I've been practicing which is unfortunately a very long time now but nevertheless um we're back to a place where townships can exact uh money and

550
02:41:14.960 --> 02:41:30.080
other things from developers for approvals. It seems shocking uh but it's true now and this has you know been approved by the superior the superior courts not just the trial division. >> Um

551
02:41:30.080 --> 02:41:47.040
so because we have all these potential districts and because I personally find it very confusing. I don't have any other city or township that I recommend that has quote unquote potential districts. I think that one of the things that you should talk to your elected officials about your governing

552
02:41:47.040 --> 02:42:04.560
body is when they have because this will certainly I mean I'm sure that they've been uh uh addressed on this subject by by their council. um when they have redevelopment zones or redevelopment projects and they are thinking about

553
02:42:04.560 --> 02:42:21.359
requesting some kind of project or assistance or you know money outright money um from developers. uh that one of the things that they could fund is the remaining work that needs to be done to turn these potential districts into

554
02:42:21.359 --> 02:42:38.080
actual uh districts under which you could impose conditions instead of just have recommendations. So I thought of that while this conversation, you know, the whole conversation including the training was going on and I think you should think about that very carefully

555
02:42:38.080 --> 02:42:54.560
because um I don't know how long this portion of this you know circle will last but it's probably not going to last that long. Let's call it 10 years or 15 years but in the scheme of redevelopment that's not a long time.

556
02:42:54.560 --> 02:43:10.560
>> Just not a long time. And the case is Blackidge versus Long Branch. >> Black Ridge versus City of Long Branch. >> Okay. >> It's a very interesting case. I don't know, some of you may remember when, you know, um the condition would be, you

557
02:43:10.560 --> 02:43:26.560
know, gee, we need a new fire truck and so everybody got a new fire truck or we need an addition on our library, so maybe you could contribute to that or, you know, very sort of public things. And this was this was a public building, but still at least I think it was a

558
02:43:26.560 --> 02:43:41.840
public building, the senior center. But the bottom line is the Supreme Court or rather the appellet division seems to have completely removed the idea that there needs to be uh what used to be a very strict causal nexus to any

559
02:43:41.840 --> 02:44:01.279
improvement that was being made. Uh >> can you send that um to Zenob how we could find that the case the case? >> Sure. >> And I I just want to point out one other thing. This is not the case under the municipal land use law. This is only for redevelopment projects under the

560
02:44:01.279 --> 02:44:16.720
redevelopment law. Okay. under the municipal land use law section 42 controls that and there has to be a very close nexus and that uh the the braining case there and I don't remember the name of it but it was a township in Somerset

561
02:44:16.720 --> 02:44:33.600
County and they wanted to they asked the developer to um contribute to their growing road system because this was when you know back probably in the 80s or something when somerset county was still growing very rapidly. I mean, it's still growing, but you know what I'm

562
02:44:33.600 --> 02:44:49.439
saying. And um the developer went along with it, but but only to a certain extent. And so there was litigation over the scope of what the exaction would be to fund the road improvements offsite.

563
02:44:49.439 --> 02:45:06.240
And uh the uh superior court said, "Oh, no, no, no. There has to be a very close causal nexus between anything that you're going to ask a developer to fund and it can't go offsite unless it's directly related to that development.

564
02:45:06.240 --> 02:45:23.040
You know, could be like the catch basin, you know, offsite, but all the storm water is going to that catch basin. I mean, that's how closely connected it has to be. So, there's now a great divergence between um the local redevelopment law and the municipal land use law. And so if you have

565
02:45:23.040 --> 02:45:38.399
redevelopment projects, you need to be talking to your elected officials about things that um could, you know, benefit the historic preservation in Montlair and the Historic Preservation Commission and so on and so forth.

566
02:45:38.399 --> 02:45:55.439
>> Okay. Well, thank you, Janine. >> Welcome. >> Any other business? No. Would some someone like to make a motion to adjourn? >> All right. It's 9:20. We have >> second. >> Uh, all in favor? >> I

567
02:45:55.439 --> 02:46:07.000
>> I All right. So, I hope to see everybody at our next meeting, which is July 16th. >> I won't be here. >> Where are you? >> I'm going to camp.