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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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
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
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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?
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
publicly visible facades. Partial demolition however talks about visible facades, exterior wall and architectural element. So roof may come more into play in that
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
>> 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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
>> 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
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.
>> 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
>> 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
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.
>> 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
>> 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
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,
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
>> 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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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?
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
>> 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
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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
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,
>> 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?
>> 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
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
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
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
>> 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
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
>> 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
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
>> 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
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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?
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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?
>> 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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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.
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
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
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
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,
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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.
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
>> 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?
>> 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.
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,
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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,
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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
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
>> 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
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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,
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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?
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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
>> 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
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
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,
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
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
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
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
of removed the um causal nexus between uh payments that developers in redevelopment zones make and um improvements in their in the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
>> 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
>> 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.