Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all.
Sunshine notice, madam clerk. Thank you, mayor. Board of Commissioners public meeting Tuesday, July 1st, 2025. The time is 7:04. Pursuant to the requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act, chapter 231, public law 1975, notice of this meeting was published in
the November 21st, 2024 issues of the Nutley Sun, the Herald News, and the Star Ledger. A copy of this notice has been posted on the Nutley Town Hall bulletin board, and a copy is on file in the municipal clerk's office. Commissioner Evans here. Commissioner Tucci, here.
Commissioner Scarpelli here. Commissioner Petraco here. Mayor Kelly present. All present. Mayor, thank you. M minutes, please. Yes, we have board of commissioner meeting minutes for June 3rd, 2025. I need a motion. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. I.
Commissioner Scarpelli. I. Commissioner Petraco. I. Mayor Kelly. I. And that's it for minutes. Mayor, thank you. Communications, please. The John H. Quarter Middle School has submitted a Sunday letter for uh permission to hold an off- premise 50/50 cash raffle on
Sunday, December 7, 2025 from 5:30 p.m. Uh at I'm sorry, at 5:30 p.m. at Frank uh 3:25 Franklin Avenue. I need a motion, please. Move it. Second. Commissioner Evans. I Commissioner Tucci. I Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi.
Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. Hi. That's it for communications. Thank you. Uh bills, please. Bill is for July 1st, 2025. Public affairs, $146,46342. Revenue and finance, $3,629,552.97.
Public safety, $331,6751. Public works, $226,620.36. Parks and public property 1,34,11481. Water and sewer utility $46,1971. Payroll as of June 20th, 2025. Regular payroll total 1,192,622.85. Overtime payroll total $87,5322.
Total payroll 1,280,126.7 for a grand total total of $6,694,682.15. Move the bills. Second. Commissioner Evans. I. Commissioner Tucci. I. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. I. Mayor Kelly. Hi. And that's it for
bills. Mayor, thank you. Uh, at this time we're going to take the agenda a little bit out of order and I'll turn it over to Commissioner Tui for resolution number 17625. Thank you, Mayor. Before I offer this resolution, we we've just learned that
uh Kevin Smite's mom has passed away. So, if we could have a moment of silence for her. Thank you. Um, I offer this resolution. I'm reading it, but this is on behalf of the entire board of commissioners. Uh, because we are all equally proud of, uh,
the accomplishments of our crew team. Uh, and it's just another another day to celebrate Nutley. So having said that, whereas the Nutley High School rowing program was founded in 1942 under coach Bill Bennett has a long-standing tradition of excellence. And whereas the
current boat house shared with Belleville and Carney supports both boys and girls rowing programs. And whereas the 2025 Nutley crew team guided by coaches Kevin Smite, Anthony Scarpelli, Jill Dilio, Gianna Marie Padilla, and
Megan Callahan included 51 student athletes and 12 graduating seniors, and achieved the most successful season of the program's history. Whereas at the New Jersey state championships, Nutley earned five medals, three of them gold, marking the program's first ever state
champion titles in the girls junior double, girls novice 4, and boys novice 4, with additional medals in the girls freshman 8, and boys lightweight double. And whereas at the Philadelphia Scholarship Rowing Association champions and cities, Nutley claimed four grand
finals finalist finishes, including gold in the boys lightweight double and bronze in the girls novice four. Whereas at Stotzberry Cup Riata, the largest high school rowing event in the world, the boys lightweight double earned bronze, the girls freshman eight placed sixth in the grand final and two
additional boats finished in the national top 20. And whereas three boats qualified for the Scholastic Rowing Association of America National Championships with the boys lightweight double earning bronze and becoming the first nutly crew to medal at all four major championship regatas, states,
cities, Stokesberries, and National. And whereas Nutley crew also captured the Battle of the Boat House Championship, a competition among Nutley, Belville, and Carney for the fourth consecutive year, winning eight out of nine girls races. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the board of commissioners of Township of
Nutly in the county of Essex and State of New Jersey proudly recognizes and congratulates the Nutley High School crew team and their coaches for an extraordinary 2025 season. I proudly move this resolution. I need a motion. Move it. I moved it.
Second. Oh, second. Mr. Evans. I But before I do, I'll offer a couple comments. I'm a former ORSman. So if you go back and you look back in history uh to 196973 time frame, you'll see pictures of my
brother and I uh we rode on on the crew team. What I listening to this and I was reflecting on the the it's really hard to appreciate what this achievement is all about having actually rode in those riatas. I know how hard they are and the
schools that you're up against. So I think it's a wonderful achievement, but what's even more wonderful about it is not only did you do it once, you did it multiple times. So I offer my congratulations to all of you, especially the girls. Go girls. Commissioner Tui. Yes. I I am also a
crew parent. Two of my four children participated for four years each under coach Smite and the uh Coach Scarpelli and all of the people that were there at the time. They did an outstanding job. It builds camaraderie. It builds commitment in youngsters. And the work
that they do there, as Commissioner Evans has already stated, is very grueling. All right. You would think crew, what's crew? rowing just to get on the water and just row a little bit. No, it takes a lot a lot of training, uh, a lot of competition, and you really need
to be ready. So, I'm so very proud to bode. Commissioner Scarpelli, it's it's not true that Commissioner Evans also rode across the Delaware with General Washington, just so you know. Uh
it's a it's a proud moment. Uh I too was a am former crew parent getting up early in the morning and cooking breakfast and really uh it does as Commissioner Tuji said a sense of camaraderie that uh
doesn't happen in all sports. And so congratulations to you, congratulations to your coaches, congratulations to your parents who put in a lot of time and effort on your behalf. So give them a hand. Commissioner Petraco. Yes. I would like
to say way to go to everybody or way to row. And um it's really a team sport. I know back in the day, Petra's Deli did a lot of um supporting and um catering for the road team. And I know that you guys were up at 3:00 in the morning because I
had to be at the store after 4:00 a.m. So, my hats off to the parents. Great job. I always say the people that you're sitting next to today, you guys will be friends for the rest of your life. So, remember that and you made Nutly proud again. Thank you, Mayor Kelly.
Thank you. I I too will be voting high. But I do want to add my own comments. Uh couple years ago, probably like 10 years ago, I was working out with a friend and I I consider myself to be a guy in pretty decent shape. Uh and he said, "Well, let's go do the URG." I was like,
"What's an URG?" I soon found out it was the rowing machine. And I was quickly humbled. Uh that is one of the most difficult workouts I've ever had to do. Uh so you guys are probably the in the best shape
of anyone in town uh to achieve the accomplishments that you achieved. I want to extend my congratulations to you, to your coaches, uh to your families who who sacrificed along with you to get to you to where you are. Uh and to the uh the kids on the team
today, I want to challenge you. I want to see you guys back here next year. I want to see some more medals, some more trophies, and uh I want to see us congratulating you again next year. So, the the hard work begins now for you guys. Uh I I know it's a celebratory moment, but uh I'm sure you guys can
meet that challenge and come back here next year. To you graduating seniors, uh this is an experience. Uh the camaraderie that you've developed, the friends that you developed, you're going to take this with you the rest of your life, and it's going to set you up on a a path uh a trajectory that's uh the
sky's is the limit. And uh we're excited to see where you can go and we're grateful to be a part of of your life and your story. Uh, and thank you for for shining the spotlight on Nutley. Uh, it's a it's a destination for for crew certainly. So, congratulations and I
probably vote I Would the group team please come up for a photo? We don't have a resist. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Oh. All right.
Back. Hold on. Hold on. Girl, girl, no. All right. Thank you. to stay for the rest of the meeting. Uh but uh this is your opportunity to leave if you if you want to leave. Holy
interl. The wrestling wrestling. You know what he's eating? It's Italian bread. Do they rent us with claims and nonsense? They never want to stand. We do all this for no gratitude.
So, uh, at at this time we'll have public comment on agenda items only. This is public comment on agenda items only. If you wish to be heard on agenda items only, please approach the microphone and state your name for the record. Seeing none, uh,
uh, Mr. Orth, I do believe we have a need for a closed executive session. Is that correct? Uh well, what's the uh Thank you. Uh I'll entertain a motion for uh close executive session, mayor.
Oh, sorry. This that was for agenda item that wasn't for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Uh so if you want to talk about the proposed ordinance, you can. Uh there will be hearings for the ordinances on
second reading. Uh if if that's the ordinance you're talking about. Okay. A motion or second. Thank you. Whereas section 8 of the open public meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975 permits the exclusion of the public from meeting in
certain circumstances and whereas the public body is of the opinion that such circumstances exist. And whereas the board of commissioners of the township of Nutley in the county of Essex state, New Jersey desires to proceed to closed executive session. And now therefore be a resolved by the board of commissioners of the township of Nutley moving to
close executive session to discuss contract negotiations and pending litigation. be a further resolved at the time when such disclosures may be made to the public shall be when and such disclosures may be made without adversely affecting the township of not pending and or anticipated legal
personnel contractual matters and other matters within the exceptions provided for by statutes. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Commissioner Evans, Commissioner Tuji. Hi, Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi, Commissioner Petraco. Hi, Mayor Kelly. Hi. Okay. And the time is
7:20. There you go. one, there may Okay, we're we're back on the uh record. It's 7 54 54. Uh we'll go over to board commissioner announcements. Uh,
Commissioner Evans. Uh, nothing this evening, Commissioner Tucci. Uh, no announcement. Just a thank you, uh, Mayor to you and to all the commissioners for supporting, uh, our summer festival that Commissioner Petro and I sponsor every year. Once again, it
was a rousing success. I've heard nothing but rave reviews. Everyone had a great time, and we continue to build a strong community that Nelley is. So, thank you all for all your help. Yes, it was a great night, and the weather mostly cooperated. Uh, Commissioner Scarpelli. Yeah, thank
you, Mayor. Uh, we will have a electronic recycling day on July 12th from 9 to 1 uh in lots 7 and 9. And Commissioner Petra, I would just like to um ask mayor if we could have a
moment of silence. We lost um Mr. Holy last week. Talk about a nutly giant. Big guy from the big tree section of town. He loved all of us up here. He really did. And um he really had a big end but
not on his shirt at all times. He looked out for all of us. So if we could have a moment of silence, I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. And I I have just one announcement this evening. As everyone knows, this Friday is the uh 4th of July. The town will be having its
uh annual Fourth of July celebration this Friday. Uh fireworks will go off once it starts getting dark out, which is usually around 9:00, but we'll have our pre-firework festivities uh with the Franklin Avenue closed down. Uh I want
to thank my fellow commissioners for uh supporting this event. Uh, and it's uh, it'll hopefully be a fun weather permitting night. Uh, so we'll move into ordinance introductions.
Uh, starting with ordinance number 3591. And this this is an ordinance on behalf of the entire board of commissioners of the town of Nali County vacating a portion of Windsor Place. Uh, I move that this ordinance be passed to
a second reading and advertising that we signed together with notice required by law that further consideration of set or orange for final passage by the board of commissioners shall be held at its second reading on July 15th. 15. Uh, I I move the uh the ordinance to its second
reading. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tuji. Hi. Commissioner Scarpel. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. Hi, Mayor Kelly. Hi. The second one uh is Commissioner Evans.
Thank you, Mayor. Um uh 3592 is an ordinance that provides for improvements to the um buildings for the board of education under the under one Nutley which is consistent with our expectation that the sixth graders will move to the
middle school in September of 2026. I move that this ordinance be passed to a second reading and advertised as the nully son together within the notice required by law and that first further consideration of said ordinance for the final passage by the board of commissioners be held at its second reading
on August 5th, 2025. This ordinance is in the amount of $700,000. So move second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tui. Hi. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. Uh just one clarification on the ordinance. It says 650. Is is is
that it's 700? 700. Okay. All right. Thank you. I inflation. Uh Commissioner Evans, I think you have the next two you want to Yes, I'll continue. Uh the next ordinance is our annual uh bond ordinance uh appropriating
$1,897,000 and authorizing the issuance of bonds or notes in the amount of $1,85,250 for the purpose of various improvements in uh the township. uh that we do this uh every year and it's consistent with
our capital management plan uh which maintains our debt service uh at a level such that it's less than 4% of our of our municipal budget. I move that this ordinance be passed to a second reading and advertised in Nutly Sun together with the notice required by law and that
further consideration of said ordinance for final passage by the board of commissioners be held at its second reading on August 5th, 2025. So move second. Commissioner Evans. Hi, Commissioner Tucci. Hi, Commissioner Scarpell. Hi, Commissioner Petro. Hi, Mayor Kelly. Hi. Um, my last ordinance
is 3595. Uh this specifically relates to relates to the water sewer utility and the uh purchase of a a jet uh back truck uh for uh purposes in for utility as a
specialty use vehicle in the utility in the amount of $26,000 with bonds or notes in the amount of n $196,000. I move that this ordinance will pass to a second reading and advertised in Ly Sun together with notice required by law
and that further consideration of said ordinance for final pens by the board of commissioners be held at its second reading on August 5th, 2025. So move second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. I.
Mayor Kelly. I. And I that's all the ordinances we have on their introduction this evening. We'll move on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings and the first two up uh due by commissioner Petraco. Yes, I have an ordinance to
amend an ordinance codified in the code of township and chapter 228 entitled vehicles and traffic particularly article 7 special zones and areas section 29A entitled handicap parking to add to the location set forth there on. This is for 36 Myrtle Av to open the
meeting. At this time, anyone who wishes to be heard on ordinance number 3587 uh may approach the microphone and state your name for the record. Anyone wishing to be heard on ordinance number 3587, approach the microphone and state your name for the record.
Second close. Yeah. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. I. Mayor Kelly. I move the ordinance. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. I. Commissioner Scarpelli. I. Commissioner Patraco. I.
Mayor Kelly. I. I have ordinance number 3588. Ordinance to fix the salaries of certain officers and employees in township of Nutley County State of New Jersey effective January 1st, 2024.
Move to open. Uh, we'll open the public hearing on ordinance number 3588. Anyone wishing to be heard on ordinance number 3588, please approach the microphone and state your name for the record. See you. No one move to close. Second.
Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. I move the ordinance. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tui. I. Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. I, Mayor Kelly. I Thank you,
Mayor. The next two this evening, I will read on behalf of the uh entire board of commissioners. Uh, we'll do 3590. Uh, an ordinance adopting Ro Innovation Center redevelopment plan. This ordinance creates an overlay zone for
block redevelopment property identified as block 102, lot 2, block 200, lots two, lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 24. which properties were part of a former Hoffman Lar Ro campus so that the property can be redeveloped into medical offices and practices etc as identified
in the the redevelopment plan. Uh at this time I'll turn it over to Mr. Orth who is our our redevelopment council. Thank you Mr. My uh there we go. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the board of commissioners and the public. My name is Derek Orth. I am the township of
Nutley's special redevelopment council. These are uh part of the ongoing efforts to redevelop the on3 campus formerly occupied by Hoffman Lar Ro. Tonight on second reading for the board of commissioners consideration are two redevelopment plans. Uh the first one
which the mayor just uh mentioned is the innovation center redevelopment plan which was introduced in June by the board of commissioners and considered for consistency review by your planning board earlier this um I'm sorry it's now July 1st. earlier in uh June. Uh the
second uh redevelopment plan is the Kingsland or the South of Kingsland redevelopment plan which is also on for second reading. Uh we do have for the public's uh and the board of commissioners consideration this evening a short presentation by Fran Riner who is your redevelopment planner. Following
that, we also have a short presentation by Lee Klene with regard to traffic mitigation that is proposed as part of this omnibus uh redevelopment of the ON3 campus. Uh just for the public's uh uh viewpoint for the board of commissioners, this is second reading.
This is a time for after the presentation by the board professionals uh the mayor and the board will open it up for public comment. At that point, any member any member of the public can approach the microphone and offer their public comment uh in the second reading process. So I'll with that I'll turn it
over to Fran who can uh give his presentation. Thank you. And just for clarification, we're doing one at a time, right? This isn't a presentation on both. Yes, correct. We're going to start with the innovation center redevelopment plan after which presentation we will open it up or I
would recommend you open it up for public comment and the comments can be issued and then we will then move on to the second uh redevelopment plan. So that would be ordinance number 3590. Okay.
Good evening. Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. Thank you commissioners. Thank you for having me here. Fran Reiner with F planning. I'm here to present to you this evening the Ro Innovation Center redevelopment plan which is block 102 lot 2 and block 200
lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 24. Uh the as indicated the plan was introduced uh at this body on June 17th. A brief presentation which I'm going to give to you tonight and to the public was presented to the planning board on June
18th. There are a couple of minor uh grammatical changes that happened from that initial uh which I'll note as a part of the presentation uh this evening as I go through it. So if we can go uh so as as I've indicated the the this
is a multiplestep process. The first step in this process is the investigation study. The property was designated as an area in need on March in March of 2015. The second step, which is what the uh mayor and commissioners are are considering this evening, is the
redevelopment plan. Uh this presentation was for the planning board. So uh the highlighted red indicates what the planning board's role was in the process, which is to determine whether or not the redevelopment plan is consistent with the township's master plan. Uh and uh the planning board had
determined uh that it was consistent and sent back uh that uh that letter to the to the mayor and commissioners indicating that it was their opinion that the redevelopment plan is consistent with the township's master plan. The third step in the process would be a site plan application.
That would be uh through the planning board. again uh the de a developer would come forward site plan application would have to then meet the requirements of this redevelopment plan. So in essence the redevelopment plan represents new zoning for this property and that new
zoning supersedes the underlying zoning that exists today. Uh this is part of a long uh uh history of litigation uh that both parties are in the process of attempting to settle and this is one step in in that uh overall process.
In terms of the redevelopment plan, I'm going to briefly o uh kind of go through what the permitted uses are as a part of the document. Uh we have listed all the permitted uses here on the on the screen. Uh those would be all permitted. All the underlying uh uses that are
permitted would no longer be allowed on the site. Um in terms of in terms of the bulk standards uh what we want what I wanted to do was so again accessory uses permitted uses accessory uses accessory uses are uses
that are essentially uh ancillary to the permitted use again listed here. I'm not going to go through all of them. U they're part of the the record in the document. What I did want to do is go through the bulk standards. Uh and as a part of that, I wanted to also talk about what the bulk standards are for
the for the underlying zoning so that the public is aware that the redevelopment plan that's being adopted actually places uh higher criteria on the property than the underlying zoning does. So uh within the uh in terms of the
in terms of the minimum lot size it's 1 acre. Uh the underlying zoning which is the mo zone also has an area uh requirement of 1 acre. The width um requirement for the no o zone again underlying zoning is 150 ft. It's not
really applicable here on ours. Um the front yard setback under the MO zone is 20 feet or the height of the building uh on this particular plan is 40 feet. So it's it's greater front yard setback. Uh the uh rear yard setback under the
underlying zone is 20 foot uh 50t for residential. On on our plan it's 40 ft. One side uh under the underlying zoning is 10 ft. Two sides is 20 ft. In our uh under this plan, it's 40 foot uh to
Kingsland. Uh in regards to the height of the building, the underlying zoning allows for up to a 100 foot building. Uh the innovation plan allows for a maximum of 80 foot. Again, reducing the overall uh density and and height permitted. The lot coverage under the underlying zoning
is 50% meaning the amount of impervious surface building and asphalt parking. Whereas on this plan, it's 30%. again uh indicating that there is less um uh permitted uh development on the site and the impervious uh under the underlying
zoning is not applicable meaning that you could construct 100% uh impervious area whereas on the innovation uh in this plan it's 75%. Again, less uh total impervious area is permitted on the site. As I mentioned, there was a minor
modification to the language and I just kind of want to put that on the record. Uh under general provisions on page four of the document, uh we altered uh the language of A1. Uh essentially what we've done here is
allowed for the an applicant to submit a site plan application u for the professionals uh for the of the planning board to review that site plan application prior to a redevelopment agreement or prior to a developer being designated. Uh the prior
language required that the redevelopment agreement and uh and the designation be completed prior to a site plan application review by the planning board. Uh since we're all trying to resolve the litigation, uh this allows us to for the developer to move forward
with the site plan application on the innovation site uh prior to a redevelopment uh agreement being signed and prior to um a developer being designated. So that was one uh minor change that had occurred on this particular plan.
We then went through the consistency review and I won't go through through in great details just to say that uh we presented the consistency review of this plan against the uh township's master plan and for the reasons that are listed here and within the document. Uh we believe that it was consistent with the
with the township's master plan. Uh we also believe it was consistent with the state goals and the county master plan. uh as a part of the redevelopment plan uh that we presented, this redevelopment plan also has a series of of uh architectural, neighborhood, and design
standards that go well above and beyond what conventional zoning has. And I just want to highlight a few of those since they were highlighted at the uh at the planning board. So, some of the things that are are required in this redevelopment plan that wouldn't be under the conventional zoning is some of
the required screening. U we have uh lighting requirements. Uh, and and I'll just highlight a couple of them. Uh, no blinking, strobe, uh, flashing, lighting, or they're all prohibited. Um, we have, um, we have signage
requirements in this that go well beyond what the conventional zoning is, uh, in in including, and just again, I'm pulling out a couple of the of the specifics, but the facade mounted illuminating uh, signs that might be on a building, they have to be dimmed to 50% between the hours of 10 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. And then any sign facing a residential neighborhood has to be turned off after 10:00 p.m. So what we're doing is we're going well beyond what conventional zoning uh allows for. In addition, we have noise uh standards that talk about meeting the requirements
of NJD from a decibel level standpoint. We have additional screening along uh residential uh that goes beyond what the underlying zoning would allow. So, in our opinion, we believe the the plan is consistent as the planning board had had
noted u and would ask the the commissioners to consider moving uh to adopt this. All right, Fran, thank you for that uh presentation. I next would like to turn it over to Lee Klein for our traffic presentation.
I just have another just if you could just pull up that one that says list of mitigation and then the power and then the uh PDF. Yeah, that one. And then there's a PDF. We can leave that one up for now.
Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lee. Middle initial D is in Daniel Klene. Uh I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Um my focus is on traffic engineering. I was hired by the township to review the Stonefield traffic engineering reports that were
done for the on three redevelopment. Uh I did that. I reviewed the latest report which was May 23rd, 2025. Uh and the purpose of that report was for uh Stonefield to go back out and do some check counts at the study intersections
along Kingsland uh to see how the trip generation that they had projected many years prior how that came to fruition or not. And what they found is a lot of the values were a little lower than what they originally had projected. So some of those levels of service that you
remember seeing in their original study that were going to be failing and and worse than failing, some of them now are projected now to be a lot less a lot less worse than they were before. So they went out and did their traffic counts in November uh 30th. It was a Thursday uh back in 2023. They compared
it to the other traffic volumes and and data that they had collected over the past several years. They determined that they were very consistent but again the numbers were a little lower. They looked at what had been developed and what had been occupied at the time in November of
2023. Then from that point on they projected during calculating their trip generation they projected what the full buildout of the on3 redevelopment would be and uh they came up with some mitigation improvements and that's the the uh exhibit that I have up on the uh
the screen. They came up with five intersections along Kingsland that needed to be improved and uh some of them were uh were the intersection of Kingsland, West Pacic and Darling Avenue. That was to optimize the traffic signal timing and to add some additional
phasing uh at that intersection to make the uh to make the signal work a little more efficiently. At Kingsland Metro Boulevard and Bloomfield Avenue, same thing. Optimize the traffic signal. They're going to be adding a right turn lane from Kingsland westbound into Metro
Boulevard and do some uh adjustments to the timing and the phasing of that signal. Uh at Kingsland Street and Ideation Way, at one point there was uh a roundabout that was proposed at that T intersection. And for what I gathered from uh talking to different people,
that roundabout was really there because New Jersey Transit wanted to be able to get in and out of the site a little easier rather than waiting at a stop sign and try to make a left turn. They wanted that roundabout there. So, the roundabout's not gone. It it still could
be there. However, there's some the affordable housing that's I guess to the east of the intersection. Whenever if they do decide to do a roundabout, we'll have to take into account that affordable housing building and do some re-engineering of the design of that
roundabout to make that work. Uh and then at the intersection of Kingland, Kingsland Street and Cathedral Avenue, uh they're going to reorient that triangular shaped uh intersection, bring it all to a T signalized intersection. They're going to widen Kingsland Street
so they have an eastbound left turn lane to to turn into Cathedral and some other physical improvements there as well. And then at the intersection of Kingsland Street and Payic Avenue, Main Avenue, uh just a signal optimization there, adjusting the timing by about 4 seconds
to steal some some green time from one of the phases and give it to another. So in conclusion, they they did their check counts in November of 2023. They determined that the trip generation, which in my experiences tends to be a little more
conservative and tends to be a little higher than what's actually out there. When they did their counts and recalculated the trip generation for the additional development that's going to occur from then on and then projected everything out and did their analysis, they came up with these improvements
along Kingsland that will mitigate any uh impacts of the traffic from the development and uh things will operate at acceptable levels of service. Thank you Mr. Klein for that uh presentation. That is the presentation we had uh prepared for this evening. Uh
Mr. Klein's presentation from a traffic perspective is also he's not going to repeat the same thing he just gave. It's an omnibus one for the second uh redevelopment plan which is also here on second reading. So if the commissioners if you have any questions for Fran or for Lee uh you can feel free to ask them
now. Otherwise I would recommend that we open up the meeting for public comment on ordinance number 3590. Uh, Commissioner Evans, do you have any questions? Nothing for me. Commissioner Tucci. Commissioner Scarpelli? Uh, no.
Commissioner Petraco, uh, I just have a couple questions. Uh, we'll start with, uh, you want to go up first, Fran? Uh, just want to highlight a couple things. Uh, fencing. I believe you
touched on this a little bit, but uh any fence that's facing a residential property uh will be a minimum height of 8 ft and it cannot be chain link. Is that correct? So the height of a fence would be uh
would be six feet maximum with residential minimum of 8 feet and correct the uh chain link is not a permitted fence and the the lighting uh for the parking lot there to be shielded to prevent spillage uh onto off-site properties
which would include residential. Is that correct? Yes. So there'll there'll be cutoff fixtures are required to prevent any light spillage onto off-site properties. And with respect to lighted signage, the uh the applicant will have to submit a phototric study uh with its
signage package. That's correct. Right. So they either have to uh meet the the sign the sign ordinance requirements uh that the township has or submit a separate sign package for the planning board to review. Okay. Uh that that's
all I had. uh traffic. So the the question I had is the the Kingsland Avenues uh at County Road. What happens if the county doesn't agree to make or permit some of these changes? Is there
a contingency or um I I don't think that the county would really do uh any push back. It'll be paid for by the development. they'll meet the county standards for geometry and signal timing and and phasing. So, I I I wouldn't think that the county would push back on
any of these improvements. Okay. What would the impact be if they did push back? Would it be significant? It depends on which you'd have to look at the individual intersection to see what the future build condition without mitigation is and what it is with mitigation. Uh the worst case scenario I
guess would be the uh cathedral a if they don't allow a traffic light there. Sure. Sure. I I guess the worst worst every every other intersection you you spoke about already has a a traffic signal there. So it would just be a question of really optimizing maybe adding a lane or two. Correct. But the
Cathedral A intersection that would require a traffic light to be put there. Correct. And if the county doesn't allow it to be put there, what would the impacts be to the surrounding community? Um, I believe that the the level of service for that intersection would be
level of service F, but I'm not sure. I think that I have to look it deeper into the report, but I'm um I think it would be a level of service F, and I believe that the the warrants are met for a traffic signal. So again, I don't see the county
not allowing a signal to go there. So based on the the traffic, the c the county's hands would almost be tied to have to allow a a traffic signal there to optimize the the traffic. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh I have uh no further questions at this
time. Uh at this time, we'll open up ordinance number 3590 uh for for public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on the ordinance number 3590 may approach the microphone and state your name for the record, please. Um, my name is Robert Gory U with Davis
Environmental Law PC. We're council to Nutley Lumber Co., Inc. at 263 Hillside. Um, they are formally and uh have already submitted uh objection and opposition to both ordinances. Um the
core of our of their objection really comes relative to the um Southside Kingsland uh redevelopment plan and ordinance 3589. However, there's a lot of overlap between the two. Um for that reason, we'd ask that our comments be
heard on 3589 and then wrapped in the record into both ordinances. Um and that a vote be held until we've had a chance to speak on both. So, if what I understand is you're you're
suggesting that we have we don't vote on both. We don't vote on this ordinance till you're able to be heard on the second ordinance. That is correct, mayor. Uh uh leave that to our redevelopment council on the the
procedure there. There we go. Red means go for some reason on this microphone. Uh my my recommendation is that we're we have two separate redevelopment plans. There's two separate public comments. Uh I understand what council is requesting,
but my recommendation to you is that you take a vote on each redevelopment plan standing alone after the public comment is given consecutively. That is the way it should be done. Okay. Uh I'm not going to go
against our our council's advice. Uh so right now we're just going to hear comments on 3590. If you have any comments to offer on that specific redevelopment plan, we'll be happy to hear them. Uh if not, we look forward to hearing you on 3589.
I I mean the testimony I'll give on or the comment I'll give on both is relatively there are similarities. So I'll um proceed with the areas where there's overlap on both. Um, essentially the core of uh, Nutley Lumber's issue
with the proposed ordinances and the redevelopment plans is uh, what I'll say um, kind of an overlooking of storm water issues and flooding issues that have uh, are specifically impacting our client uh, Nutly Lumber, but have been
an issue for the town for some time. Um, the RO former RO campus is an 119 acre property. It's equivalent to about 5.5% of the entire um municipality, the entire township. And based on uh work by
Van Clee, the uh expert who's been supporting our efforts uh and Nutly uh Nutly Lumber's efforts, um it represents about 23% of the entire drainage into the uh Third River wershed, meaning it's the single largest contributor of storm
water um in the in the entire watershed and certainly within the township. And for since these redevelopment plans have been um moving forward and there have been many before um the township before, there's several ordinances of them that
have been passed and then based off those um site plans have been submitted with storm water management plans that do not account for the storm water um impacts being caused by the um on three
site. Um that is for a variety of reasons. Um but one of which is that the comparison has been to a 2012 standard. Um that 2012 standard uh when you're looking at storm water uh impacts of a
proposed development versus storm water impacts of um existing conditions looks back at um Ro campus when it was more or less fully developed uh back in 2012. At that time, uh there was a lot more impervious coverage than there is today.
And in each instance, um uh Prism submits redevelopment plans that say that their uh proposed redevelopment will be less impactful than um those existing conditions. The reality is that every single redevelopment that happens
on that property is causing an increase in storm water and an increase in flooding issues down downstream in the Third River um uh wershed. Um those have not been appropriately looked at. They have not been appropriately quantified.
Our client is most at risk. They are next to one of the three outfalls that drain the RO campus. uh the on three campus their um facility um has an outfall directly across from it that's discharging a um extreme amount of of
storm water. The estimates by RO for 2011 were 244 um 244 um,000 gall uh yeah 244,000 gallons a day or 89
million gallons a year. that of course and that's just through one of the the three outfalls. This one uh drains to one of the other two outfalls that are upstream, but those waters then proceed downstream and cause flooding issues and um uh flooding issues not only on our
client's property but downstream uh on St. Paul's Brook or Springerbrook and the Third River. um because of that and that the um redevelopment plans essentially relax the protections that exist already in Nutley's municipal code
uh requirements that uh flooding analysis be done for every development project that was put in to the master plan via um the uh storm water management plan that was revised in 2024 for the for the township. in each
instance um they no longer would be required to do so. It's not contained within the master plan. It's therefore inconsistent with the master plan in our view. Storm water med uh management plan from 2024 is a sub element to the master plan. Um, and then also the uh Nutley uh
site plan code requires that they prevent uh downstream 600-6 uh 9A I believe it is requires that you prevent flooding um and downstream damage to properties. The uh storm water
management uh regulations do not have any prohibition. They merely say that you reduce which is a matter of degree and by adopting this this uh redevelopment plan it'll we can expect what we've seen in the past that storm water will not be appropriately managed
that the um 90 million gallons that are being uh estimated to be um discharged into Springer brook a relatively small stream will not be accounted for that the same uh storm water management plans that have been submitted will be
submitted which merely say we have to do nothing different that we are less than RO fully developed and the reality is that in each and every instance there will be further impacts to downstream residents further impacts to our clients specifically. So for those reasons, we
object to the um passage of both ordinances in this case 3590 um because it will and if uh history has taught us anything, it's that storm water will not be accurately um or adequately um accounted for in either
the storm water management plans at the site plan process and a passage of a uh redevelopment plan that only seeks to um kind of streamline the process. give them an easier an easier ride to redevelopment will just hurt the town and hurt its residents and especially
our client Nutly Lumber. The majority of my other comments I'll I'll save for uh 3590 or 89. But great, thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Orth, do you have any comment on that? No, I I I have uh no response to
that uh statement that was made. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Joseph Fuches. That's V as in Victor, UIC. I am a licensed professional engineer, professional planner, and a certified municipal engineer in the state of New
Jersey. All certifications and licenses are in good standing. uh currently serve multiple municipalities throughout the state of New Jersey, notably Morris Township um as well as others throughout Morris County, Sussex County. Previously I had
been in representation through Negley engineering um in both Pake, Essex, Bergen counties and have been um following this redevelopment since its infancy um and participating directly
through uh Clifton originally in the infancy of the redevelopment that was contemplated. um here to supplement on behalf of our client Nutly Lumber some of the statements from our attorney. I'm sorry. Are you are you an attorney or you're you're an engineer? I'm an engineer.
Okay. Are you a resident of the town? I am not. Okay. So, this is this is Mr. Mayor, members of the board, it's up to you, but this is a time for public comment on the ordinance. Council is absolutely able to make a comment on behalf of client that they represent. is
not a hearing in the context of a of a land use application before a planning board where you know sworn testimony is provided. This is time for public comment typically would not permit an engineer who's not an attorney to provide the equivalent of testimony on
the second reading of an ordinance. So it's your call but I would not be hearing I see you brought the attorney back up. So, is he just going to Would you like me to whisper in his ear? Um, respectfully, how long are your comments
going to be? Do you have a I'll be as brief as possible so that we're truncate the duplication in the record, but I do believe there are um some substance to my professional opinion. I understand I'm not testifying, but um there were
some statements from the municipalities professionals. I'd like to make a statement or two that are all relevant. Can the is the attorney qualified to just be summarize your summarize for you? I I understand the abundance of
caution, but I the abundance of caution for not hearing. I I think it's a slippery slope, so why don't we just have the the attorney summarize the the your findings? Good evening. This is Howard Davis from Davis Environmental Law representing
Nutly Lumber Company, Inc. So question is whether you want to engage in a full understanding of what the circumstances are or try to truncate because of the the technicalities and rules that the attorney wants to impose
on this body so that they perhaps are not getting the full understanding of what the circumstances are. As my colleague Rob Gory has indicated, there has been a serious increase
Monumental increase, tremendous increase in storm water since Prism has taken the ownership of the property. Before their ownership, all storm water on the eastern side went
to PVSC. None discharged to the brook. none except when there was a circumstance where PVSC determined it
couldn't handle it which happened two times. So 97 I'm sorry 89 million gallons have been discharged since Prism took ownership. None of that is in
any of the documents that have been paired by anyone to date. So the question is, are you aware of it? Have you been aware of it? When were you aware of it? But I you should be aware of it now because we just submitted the documentation that
indicates that. So that's something you have to now consider. And I guess I'll ask the question, have you read it? Have you read our submission? I mean, I'm a ser it's a serious question because it's not peruncter. This is not just an objection. The the the magnitude of what
we're seeing here in storm water impact is I don't know of any other circumstance where I've have been involved in this where where there's a prior industrial discharge not going somewhere and then a switch is turned
to cause it to be discharged. Now the submission that we gave to you all of you includes the details the documents that supports exactly what we're saying. It's
not speculation. It's not imagination. It's there. So the question is now it was submitted. Did you get it? I mean did you get it? It's it's a serious question. I I received it and I I
believe it's right here. Okay. So now, have you assimilated what we're saying? Truly assimil assimilating it cuz it's not just sent to you for the purpose of being sent to you. It's serious.
A lot of water is being discharged, which means, you know, back in 21, you've had hearings on this. You've had questions on you've been directing. You're trying to figure out what's going on. Well, what is going on? Does anyone know what's going on? But
now we've submitted something that adds to that. Have that has that been looked at? Did you know? Well, there's nothing in the record to suggest it. So, did you know? Now you know. So, what do you do with that? You say, "Oh, okay. Continue with that." You know, a couple people, they came back in a couple days, they
had lots of injuries and worse. Let's let's just let's not worry about it. No, we're here to worry about it because that's what we do. That's our job. Our job is to worry about things. Work towards a resolution that actually does justice. Work towards
something that matters. And it's not just to push a button. We we see a lot of that. That's not why we're here. We're here to make considerations for you to consider it. It's your consideration. Five of you make the law
in this town. And the the question is whether the redevelopment ordinances will allow that to continue when all of the redevelopment plans to date have ignored it. They have truly ignored it. There's segmentation meaning
they're looking at just that. The typical I mean you've been through this the typical storm water analysis. They look at the pavement and they say well it's not more than it was. Well that's the issue that yes it is more. And in 2012, none of it was being discharged
because it was all going to PBSC. And then you have I don't, you know, I don't know causation because there's a lot that goes into your obligations and obligations of your your professionals
to really look at this question. So, did they did they know? Did you know? If you didn't, well, you got to look at it before you're doing anything to say, "Bless, go ahead. Continue with this stuff." And so, I'm
asking you, read the report in detail. It is inconsistent with the master plan. It's inconsistent. It's detailed in the submission. If you read it, I don't know how you how you
miss it. It's a major facility. Major facility. You got to look at all the parts. You can't segment it and say, "Oh, we're at the end." There was never really a major facility. We never had to look at it. So, you have to look at it as a whole. The whole
discharges 89 million gallons average. We detail it with the support in the document. That's again discharged by prism. They turned a switch. That's what they did with doesn't look like any real
analysis or consideration by anyone. There's no indication. I mean, did you guys look at that? Do you did you know that that happened? Well, there were doc there was a re uh a plan that was submitted to to build phase one. Was
that in there? No, not that I could see. Maybe you saw something I didn't see. I didn't see anything. wasn't there. So now it's before you. Okay. Now you have I don't know what the
litigation pursuit is really about. You know, you're looking at this, but that's not a reason to go, okay, go ahead. Rolling back the storm water requirements
is inconsistent with the master plan. You have statutes, ordinances. You also have D uh regulations. It is inconsistent with the master plan. It is inconsistent with D regulations
for storm water because the major facility has never been looked at. And I know there's a matter of course. There's like practice. Well, this is how they do it. They come to this idea that we don't really have to deal with stuff because most isn't this magnitude. This is a
magnitude. And you know it because you live it. You live here. You are residents. You know the people who are impacted. You know their families. You know what happened to them. And I'm not here to
just be here with passion for no reason. This is real. You have to look at this. Take the time to understand this before you take action. That's preuncterate. It
will give everyone a chance to figure out, well, yeah, this is probably real. Let's figure out how to deal with this so it's not something we're kicking the can to hurt someone else in your town down the road.
I'm asking you, don't roll back. Don't approve any resolution that rolls back storm water obligations. You can't. There's no rational basis. First of all, you can't do it. I'm
asking you not to. And so both of these ordinance do that, right? You got a major facility that's discharging it. You can't just say, "Let's segment. Let's allow that one." Well, the other one is discharging directly. This one's indirect. You know,
we got You got to look at this. You can't approve something that in any way rolls back the storm water obligations. Sir, your comment is starting to get repetitive. So are you close? Obvious I I will close but I will tell you
obviously repetition is what happened before where nothing happened. You didn't look at it. Okay. And I'm asking for something different. And if I have to repeat that 11 times because that's the average to get through to people
then I'm going to do it because it has to be done. I mean let's do it by the book, right? Let's get the notices in by the book. Okay, you got it. Substantive is more important. You got to do this the right way. Please, I'm begging, pleading,
don't hurt your town in with the opice of trying to help. They don't want it. We don't want it. You don't want it. And the people who have already impacted deserve not to have that happen. Thank you. Thank you for your comment.
You're you're permitted to you're you're you you are permitted to make a statement as well. It's up to the It's up to the board. So let's we should have we should if you it's a public comment period. I would
welcome you just you have a client owns property in town. You are permitted to speak at the microphone and offer a public comment. Miss Ger, if I understand you want to go last. So yeah, I don't want to interfere. I just do not want these misstatements um that were
put on the record by Mr. Davis and the other council to the fact that we're here and we're not refuting them. We do want the the town to know also that there is pending litigation which they have not bothered to let you know about. Um some of it's already been dismissed
based on some of the assertions that were made. So we're happy to defer to the residents but before you close this we certainly want the opportunity so that those misleading or misstatements are not left to stand. We can we can do that. That's you can if any other member
of the public would like to make a statement regarding this ordinance. Please come to the microphone and and then we'll just if we can reserve our right to respond to those. Yes. Hi, my name is Jessica Zapata. I live at three Terrace Avenue. It's right on the
corner of Terrace in Kingsland, which is on the curve of Cathedral. Um the last time I came to the podium about two weeks ago, I did ask for uh the chairman and mayor to consider the privacy of the residents. Um, now that we know that the buildings are going to be 70 feet tall,
possibly looking into our backyards for a single mom with a son, that is extremely disturbing for me. I I would really want to see definitely landscape um you know to prohibit any any of that. Um but also now hearing the traffic um
uh there on Cathedral, the proposal on Cathedral and the traffic light. There's already an immense amount of traffic at Franklin Avenue that would then spill over um from what I'm hearing onto Kingsland onto my property. There's going to be people sitting there in
their cars watching me in my backyard. Even with my fence, you can still see through it. That's extremely concerning for me. I would want to see where on the map will there be the traffic light and how it's going to affect us residents that are on Kingsland um if that's
possible. Uh Mr. Klein, do you have any response here? You're in the corner of Franklin and Kingsland. I am on Kingsland and Terrace Avenue just a little. Yes. Yeah.
on let's I I this is you know let me guide everybody here I I truly appreciate the concern and you're welcome to speak to Mr. line uh after commissioners to see it like maybe pulled up on Google Maps just so everybody can see where the potential traffic light would be that would affect
okay there is a so I don't know if we have the plan here for this at this moment but I would also encourage you there is going to be if this plan is approved this evening the redeveloper will have to file a site plan application where fully engineered set
of civil plans architectural plans uh lighting and landscape plans will be presented presented to the planning board and that is really the appropriate juncture to talk about things such as you know the landscaping that's going to be proposed the the buffering the the coverage um particularly that's a very
site plan specific issue that you just identified yes and we I would encourage you to come to that planning board hearing and to express your concern and also you know potentially submit it in advance to the board so at this level the governing body does not engage
engaging in a a sightspecific issue, you know, such as buffering into, you know, that area. But your comment is duly noted for the record, just for consideration, just so that you keep it at the back of your mind. Please hear it. And there's there's, you know, we have, you know, members of the governing body who do sit on the planning board.
So I I would encourage you to come back to the planning board meeting and express that I will same concern again. Okay. Thank you. My my son Zayen wanted to also he also has a comment. Yes. So
from my window looking across the land where you are going to put well are thinking and consideration of putting a data center. I would like to know if what's going to happen to the animals
that I see over that land. I see geese, turkeys, and a family of of three hawks over that land, just to name a few.
So, I would like to know what would happen to them. If you're going to be cutting down trees and like breaking and building stuff, what would that happen? What would happen to the animals? That that that's
a great question. And what's your name, son? Zayen. Zayen. You did a great job. Was this your first public meeting? Uh I've been you've been to some before. So better. You did you did a wonderful question. So uh to you should also come
to the planning board meeting. Uh but typically the the applicant uh has to file what we call an environmental impact statement uh as a part of their site plan application to the planning board and in that document they address environmental impacts from the development proposal which is submitted
to the board for consideration and that's a document you should take a look at when it is submitted if it is submitted if they if we proceed past this evening and uh I would encourage you to also come to the meeting and uh put your question on the record just as
you just did. So well right now um my question was just what would happen to the environment of the animals that call that land home. Right. The developer will have to answer that question and uh at planning board level.
Okay. Thank you. No thank you. Very good. Sorry. And then just one more thing my son just reminded me if this is going to be a data do we know that it's going to be a data center because I mean that also you know it there's been so many reports documentaries on data
centers just being very a lot of pollute pollutants we're you can ask question but right there is going to be another right after the public comment on this redevelopment plan. This is the innovation center redevelopment plan. This is not the data center one. That's
the next one. The next one. Okay. Thank you. Hello, my name is Nadia Lyle. I live at 229 Kingsland Street, Netley, New Jersey. Um, I just had a question about uh the traffic issue again and I want to make sure that this is a question for
the site plan application and not for this moment. Um, regarding the stop light proposed today, are we able to like would any questions or reservations or suggestions for that stoplight be reserved for the site plan application
meeting? Yes, it would be and and the testimony that uh or the the presentation that Mr. Klein gave is an omnibus presentation for the entirety of the redevelopment area. It was not tied uh you know to any particular aspect of
of the redevelopment plan. These are improvements that are proposed uh mitigation measures as part of the full buildout of the of the area. But yes, ask to come back to the planning board and ask the same question. Okay. Just for my own understanding, you're saying
that these are like suggestions given, not necessarily like specifics that are going to be carried out for these are all these are all going to be undertaken subject to all receipt of necessary approvals. Okay. Thank you very much.
Yes. Uh just I think it might be helpful to kind of explain uh what what action we're taking tonight and Mr. Dor, you can correct me if I'm wrong. Sure. But these are essentially zoning ordinances that we're changing and the details will
come from a a site plan application before the planning board. So the we these are redevelopment plan ordinances which establish the zoning parameters for a redevelopment project. The process is governed by the local housing and redevelopment law. slightly different
than the municipal land use law, but it establishes the development parameters and use bulk permissions in a particular area. How far can a building be set back from a property line? How tall can a building be? How many number of stories? How many square feet? What are the
parking requirements? Those are the basic standards that are being established by way of these proposed redevelopment plans. The actual development proposal with the particulars of what does the building look like? uh what does the architecture look like and what are the details of
the use. Those are done at the planning board by a civil site plan application which will include a lot of information a fully engineered civil set an architectural set. It'll include a traffic impact statement typically an environmental impact statement. It'll
have these specifics of the proposal and that's why the planning board is the place to go for particularized questions about each development proposal. This is just establishing the parameters for what can occur on the site. Thank Thank you, Mr. Worth. Does anyone else wish to
be heard on ordinance number 3590? Uh seeing none, we'll let uh the applicant uh state their uh position. Merryill Goner Souls Cummus and Gross representing PB Nutcliff Master who's the owner of the property which is the
subject of the redevelopment plan that you're currently considering the innovation plan. Um, we just want the record to reflect that the assertions that were made with regard to what Prism did, how much water Prism did or didn't
allow, whether there were increases, whether there were changes from what Hoffman Lar Ro had done, uh whether we are uh whether um my client is and has been in compliance with applicable uh DP
D and other regulations. all kinds of assertions. We do not agree with those assertions with the factual or the legal assertions and we also would encourage the board the um board of commissioners um to reject the
attempt to include you in their pending litigation. Um Nutley Lumber filed suit against um my client and others including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. They made many of the same allegations and assertions
that they're putting before you today. specifically their claims that um either uh PB Nutcliffe didn't comply with regulations or didn't get permits or change things or did things um and uh they have been unsuccessful in the
litigation um in their attempt to establish that um and with the um although they have not um we were not just for the record also as property owner and as their name defendant they did not provide us with
any of the materials that they placed before you. Um, but we are familiar with these uh allegations and misstatements. Um, as to their assertion that we mischaracterized what kind of application or should have gotten other
permits and applications. Um, I am reading from a reply brief filed by Deputy Attorney General of the state of New Jersey. This is a reply brief and it is on file and e courts. It's a matter of public record. Um, it is in docket
number ESX-L006952-24 and it is trans I have a transaction ID number LCV 2025444118. That's how you can identify it on the record. And the first page of the reply brief filed by the attorney general's
office says the central allegation in plaintiff's complaint is that the prism defendants are discharging storm water and other pollutants through an outfall here and after the outfall into St. Paul's Brook here and after the brook in violation of New Jersey law and it cites
complaint paragraphs 30- 47. The Department of Environmental Protection here and after the department disputes this claim. The department's view in light of its investigation is that prisms discharges are authorized by its
existing permits or otherwise consistent with law. That was the brief that was filed on behalf of the state in support of its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against the D where the allegation was the failure of D to enforce its regulations or require my
client to get necessary permits. The court granted the motion to dismiss found as the D requested that there was no failure on our part to get any necessary permits or otherwise to failed to comply with any requirements of law. And the order dismissing that part of
the complaint was entered on May 2, 2025 by honorable Annette's sea is the judge's name. So clearly we are not in agreement with these assertions. um this is an attempt to um to damage or
leverage uh against um my client who owns the property that's the subject of this uh application of this um uh ordinance. Um as you're aware, these issues will be dealt with at the proper time is when an application is before
the board. Uh there's already been a finding of consistency with the master plan that was done by your planning board and is not to be relitigated before the board of commissioners. Um and um that finding was supported and
stands. Um so many of these allegations in terms of the volume, in terms of the changes are not supported and uh DP has not agreed with these assertions. We don't believe that that's an appropriate argument or that those are appropriate
issues to be dealt with now in the context of zoning. Um the uh redevelopment plan does require compliance with applicable regulations. Um and those will be tested at the time an application goes before the planning
board when documentation with regard to storm water management and other issues will be presented and will be reviewed by the board's consultants. Uh the applications that have gone before the boards in this town and the adjoining town to date have been found to be
compliant and based upon the arguments made on behalf of the department of environmental protection who is the arbiter of these issues. we have been in compliance. So we would ask that this not be this distraction not be allowed to uh interfere with this part of the
process. This is as has been repeatedly stated by your council uh the adoption of an ordinance um the equivalent of an ordinance in the form of a redevelopment plan. These are the standards um those standards which are within the
jurisdiction of the township to determine that is what is in the redevelopment plan. We are still required to comply with any outside agencies having jurisdiction and we will be required to demonstrate that at the time we file for an application before
the planning board or as a matter of resolution compliance if an approval is granted. So, we would ask you not to accept as gospel or fact many of the things that you've heard and some of the things that have been put in the uh in the documents presented to you um
because I'm sure many of those same documents uh were in the paperwork that was submitted uh in the litigation. I don't speak from firsthand knowledge since my partner is handling the litigation. I am not. But I've certainly spoken with him and if that information
had been substantiated or convincing then the claims that they made against D would remain in part of the litigation and they are not. They have been disputed by DP and D's position is the position that was found um to be the
correct position by the court. So um that's our position simply that it be on the record. Uh, and um I will defer to my client to speak further on it, but for the record. Thank you. Oh, unless you have any questions of me,
Derek. Amy, I don't Thanks. I don't I don't have any questions. Um, uh, it it might be helpful if we had uh Mr. Reiner uh talk about uh paragraph 10 of the redevelopment plan. Uh
uh since this is kind of on topic, are you referring to on page 13? Page 13. Yes. Yes. Okay. So for the commissioners and for the public uh within the redevelopment plan of the innovation center there is a
requirement uh uh that's identified as number 10 on page 13 that indicates flood mitigation water management requirements and since this is such a topic I will just read this into the record. So uh there are two subsections 10 A and 10B. 10A indicates and states
any redevelopment pursuant to this redevelopment plan shall comply with the NJD flood hazard and water management rules uh as well as the storm water and it identifies NJAC 713 and NJAC 78
10 subsection B states uh any redevelopment activities carried out pursuant to this redevelopment plan shall be undertaken in strict compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. including but not limited to the FEMA flood insurance rules, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Flood Hazard Area Act uh rule, control act rules, and the storm water management rules. Uh the developer shall be responsible for ensuring that the design and construction of any improvements within the redevelopment area shall meet the design and performance standards of the
storm water management rule and minimize damage of life and property from flooding caused by development within the flood hazard areas. to preserve the quality of surface waters and to protect the wildlife and vegetation that exist within and depend upon such areas for
sustenance and habitat as required by the flood hazard area control act rules. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from NJD and any other applicable regulatory agencies prior to any land uh disturbance or construction
activities. So that is uh part of the requirement of the redevelopment plan and as has been indicated numerous times as a part of a site plan application. Uh the developer would have professionals that would present that to the planning board and the planning board's
professionals would be able to review that prior to any uh hearing date and be able to weigh in to make sure that those requirements are met as a part of a site plan application. Great. Thank you, Mr. Riner. Uh Mr. DS mayor commissioners and
uh uh public since uh I'd like to comment on additional comments from my uh my attorney. So look uh we object to Davis company and Lumber Lumbard's objection uh to the ordinance. Um, noticeably absent obviously from
their papers was any mention of the fact that there was pre-existing litigation that was resolved as noted by my council uh in respect that we are in full compliance with all permits and D rules and regulations concerning stormware
outfall. What they also fail to mention is their client's property is within a flood zone, a flood hazard area in the 100-year flood plane and has been since it's been built. any reference to 89 million gallons of
water. They state that to the public as if prison is producing water on the site and disposing of it in some nefarious way. If 89 million gallons of water fall from the sky, 89 millions gallons of water come off the property. This is
what happens, right? That is that is what is occurring. And what they're trying to do is to attempt to get you to somehow lift up their property out of the flood plane and have Prism solve the problem that their property is in a flood plane and is subject to flooding.
Last May or this past May, we probably all saw it on the newspaper because it was a big thing in the news. 300% more rainfall this past May than ever recorded in any previously number of May. This is not Prism's problem. Prism
is not producing rainfall. Prism is providing conveyance systems, reducing imperous coverage ratios on the property to create better absorption of water through the soils and controlling and working with the D and civil to
create the proper outfalls and flows of storm water off this site. Now Zaden was it Zayen I want to move to your comment. Yeah, our office is located right on Kingston Street and my window looks out over the campus and when we first
started occupying there over eight years ago, I saw scraggly foxes, a couple of raccoons, some other deer and things of that nature. And I want to tell you those foxes now that we've cleaned up the campus, we've built these buildings, we've provided more grass, more trees,
and more shrubbery, which we have compared to what's been there. We knocked down a significant number of buildings on the site over in Nutley that I can tell you that I admire watching three or four foxes, mother and and babies run around my window and run through that property. Same thing I see
deer. The deer look healthier quite frankly because they're eating our our our shrubberies right that we've planted. So my hope and I believe I can't tell you exactly what will happen to the creatures. But thus far with the development that we've taken on the campus, I've seen those animals
healthier and more abundant on the property. We're not creating a wildlife reserve, don't get me wrong. I don't want to mislead you, but I've seen those animals and I enjoy seeing them there. And we're going to take every step that we can in developing this campus in a responsible fashion so that we keep
wildlife in and around the air and healthy so you can enjoy it and I can enjoy it and everyone else can see it because we all appreciate and enjoy it too. And I appreciate you pointing it out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Diaz. U before you continue, I just want to
caution you. We we don't want to have a back and forth. If you have new comments, we're happy to hear them, but we don't want to create this back and forth argument type. I understand, mayor. I think it's important for you to hear. This is Rob Gory again. Sure. Um I anticipated that um Prism's response
would be don't worry, D's looking at it. And similarly to um Miss Goncha, I'm going to also read from a uh brief that was filed in the litigation. This was filed by Andrew Robbins, who is her uh colleague that she was referring to. And
just to make clear, I I'll read it and then I'll I'll summarize it. Contrary to plaintiff's core premise, this is on page nine. It's a February 18th, 2025 filing. It's available on e courts. It was filed joining the D's motion to dismiss, which
I'll also say was dismissed on a like procedural grounds. They said the cause of action could not be brought. It wasn't dismissed because of the merits of the case, which this case is still ongoing. But I'll read to you the Mr. Robin's statements. Contrary to
plaintiff's core premise for count four, under D's regulations, D does not review storm water unless the development activities are subject to review under other specific permitting programs regulated by D. This is not the case
here. Um, this is not the case here, nor has PLIF alleged sane. Consistent with the regulatory framework, storm water management was included in the reviews conducted for redevelopment projects built or being built by Prism. PLIF has misconstrued when D would review storm
water management. Under the department's storm water uh rules, D's review is limited to specific D permitting programs, none of which are implicated here. The import of this is that the buck stops actually with you, the board of
commissioners, not with D. you are responsible for storm water management in Nutley. D as admitted by Prism's own council is not looking at this issue. So when they say that don't worry, everything's okay with D. Yes. Do they
have permits from D? But the issues of storm water management, the quantity of storm water leading that site and how it's dealt with are dealt with by the municipality, by the township. And it is your responsibility as the board of commissioners to deal with it because no
one else is going to look at it. So that's all I'll say for now. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on ordinance number 3590? Uh, seeing none, I move to close the ordinance. Close the public hearing.
Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tui. Hi. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi. Commissioner Patco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. I uh I move the ordinance. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi.
Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. Uh I but I would like to add you know we certainly considered everyone's public comment and we certainly considered uh the objection as well as our our professionals. Uh and as I I alluded to
earlier this is a ordinance basically for a zoning and the specifics will be taken care of at a later date with the site plan application. Uh but I I did not want it to seem like we didn't consider the objection uh or or any of
the comments. Everything was considered and uh based upon the advice of our professionals uh we're going to continue to move forward with the with the ordinance. Hi. At this time, we'll uh h bring up Jean Diaz again. Uh well, actually, let me
read the ordinance. Uh this is ordinance number 3589, an ordinance adopting roof southside of Kingsland Street redevelopment plan. This ordinance creates an overlay zone for the redevelopment of the proper property identified as block 2000 lots 1 4 and
five and blocks block 2100 lot one which properties were part of the former hop in the ro campus so that property can be redeveloped into a data center or other uses identified in the redevelopment plan. Uh I'm going to move to open the public hearing and we'll start with uh
Mr. Riner regarding uh this this uh ordinance. Thank you again, uh, mayor, commissioners, Fran Riner on for F planning on behalf of the mayor and commissioners. Uh, again, I'm going to present this evening the redevelopment
plan that was presented to the planning board. Uh, the first reading of this uh was heard on June 17th. Uh, that was the introduction by the by the mayor and commissioners. On June 18th, a presentation was given to the planning board. I'm going to briefly go over that presentation uh for everybody's um uh
benefit. Uh there are a couple of of uh again minor grammatical changes that were made uh that are dimminimous. Uh those were made and placed on the new document was placed on the on the uh township's website. Uh but I'm going to review them just for the record uh as I
go through this. Not to to belabor the the same process occurred with this redevelopment plan as occurred with the previous one. Uh in March of 2015, the property was designated as an area in need. Uh for everybody's uh knowledge and
understanding, this uh site is the site that was uh or is the uh truck warehouse application. And so, uh, the zoning that would be, uh, that are is a would be is being considered this evening by the
mayor and commissioners would supersede the underlying zoning and the the zoning in this redevelopment plan would not allow would not permit a truck warehousing facility. That being said, uh, it's my understanding that the application for
the truck warehousing has been adjourned multiple times through the planning board. Uh the adoption of this redevelopment plan uh would would again eliminate the truck warehousing as a permitted use but the applicant would
need to uh withdraw the application the truck warehousing application which is my understanding is a part of the settlement agreement that they're working on. So although this doesn't allow the truck warehousing uh because the application was adjourned and not
withdrawn the technically that application is still on the books. Once it is withdrawn by uh the the developer then it this uh the adoption of this plan will not allow truck warehousing to occur. Uh the permitted uses uh within this
particular redevelopment plan are listed uh uh on the on the um screen. Important to note uh data centers is one of those uses but there are a number of other uses that are permitted. Again this is not a site plan application. It simply represents zoning through the
redevelopment law. So data centers, offices, senior and assisted living, scientific laboratories, uh fabrication, assembly of products, research laboratories, all use is consistent with uh with what Ro has put together in terms of the um scientific uses uh of
the campus are all permitted uses uh herein. Uh there's also a list of the accessory uses. Again, the accessory uses are uses that are are ancillary to a permitted use. And so those are all listed here on on the document and for
the record they're on page 13 in in the report. Uh if you walk through the bulk standards again I I'll I'll talk about them in regards to the underlying zoning because I think it's important to note that this redevelopment plan uh places
greater uh restrictions on the development than the underlying zoning currently allows. Uh so again uh for this particular plan the area uh the min the minimum lot area is one acre which is the same as the underlying zoning.
The front yard setback along Kingsland is 50 ft whereas the underlying zoning it's 20 ft. So it's a greater setback meaning there's more front yard. Uh the rear yard setback is uh requires 50 ft
whereas the underlying zoning is 20 ft. uh 50 feet next to a uh resident. So there was one item and I mentioned uh there was a a grammatical uh error that was that was uh within the prior document that has subsequently been changed. U again we believe it's the
minimum because I presented uh the minimum building sideyard setback abuing a residential area. uh the the current document states that the greater of 50 feet or the height of the building. The document that was on the record uh prior
to the last couple of days indicated that it was lesser of 50 ft or the height of the building. To be clear, it has been corrected. It is the greater of 50 ft or the height of the building. A budding residential. I know I believe a resident had pointed that out. That was
an error on my part. We corrected it. Uh we believe it's dimminimous because I presented it to the planning board as the greater of even though the language said um the lesser room. Are you moving not on me? All right, there you go. Okay, smart, smart, man.
Uh just a couple of more minor things in terms of the bulk standards. The height uh requirement for the Kingsland redevelopment plan is 75 ft where the underlying zoning allows 100 ft. again lowering the permitted height of the buildings. The lot coverage uh is 40%
whereas the underlying zoning allows 50% meaning less development can be developed on the site based on the new redevelopment plan. And the impervious surface uh requirement in the in this plan is 75% whereas the underlying zoning uh it essentially would be 100% because it's not they don't have any uh
requirements. Uh we presented this plan to the planning board uh and the planning board planner as well as myself walked through the uh township's master plan and we determined uh it was our opinion that the uh this redevelopment plan is consistent with the um with the
township's master plan. Uh the board planner uh Paul Richie also determined that it was consistent with the township's master plan. Uh this redevelopment plan also includes the same language for the flood mitigation storm water management that I read into
the record on of of the previous. It also includes all of the other um design standards, building standards, fence requirements, lighting requirements, signage requirements that I read into the record as a part of the previous redevelopment plan as well. So uh so
it's our opinion that this is consistent. the planning board sent uh their recommendation to the commissioners saying that they believed it was consistent and the board's planner also believed that it's consistent. So with that, we would ask that the uh commissioners uh consider adopting this uh this redevelopment
plan. Thank you, Fran. And uh the traffic presentation has already been given there. We're not going to repeat that in connection with this redevelopment plan. So it's back to you, Mr. Mayor, uh to open it for public comment. Uh before I do, do any of the commissioners have any
questions of Mr. Riner for this ordinance? Nothing for me. I just have a a few questions. Uh uh landscaping. The the plan calls for a substantial variety and quantity of trees and plant materials that is
aesthetically pleasing as a gateway into the township of Nutley. Uh and this is on page 18. Uh is that correct? Yes. So we have both general landscape and screening standards. We also have uh off- streetet surface parking uh landscape standards as well as interior
landscape planting standards uh for surface parking. All with the uh the idea of creating uh good tree coverage, low lessening uh the impact of uh of um of asphalt and paving by placing trees
and plants. uh as well as uh requiring screening along uh the adjacent uh residential uh properties. Uh there is a requirement for a double row of evergreens uh along the rear residential as well as uh providing additional
deciduous trees u as a part of that buffer. And sticking with the the landscaping, uh shade trees will be provided at regular intervals of at least 35 ft uh intervals for providing shade to the
uh yes project. Yeah, that's under B2 um D right as part of the requirement. And as we spoke on the earlier ordinance, the fences shall not exceed six feet except the minimum of height of 8 ft uh when it's abuing a a residential
property and it can't be a chain link fence. Correct. And then the same is same again with the lighting. Uh the lights have to be shielded to prevent any sort of spillage onto the the neighboring properties. Same thing with signage. Jenny
illumination uh stops at 10:00 and the applicant will be providing a phototric study. So signs uh that are facing residential neighborhoods have to be shut off at 10 p.m. Other illuminated signs that are not facing residential have to be dimmed
to 50% between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. And then the same issue with with the uh the noise. It's it must adhere to the New Jersey administrative code and applicable uh decel standards and regulations and uh if I understand
correctly from the planning board meeting uh the applicant will have at least a phone number of a individual to call in case there is any sort of noise issue that can be addressed before having to I guess code to the town for
uh some sort of intervention. Correct. Uh I don't have any further questions uh at this time. I'll open the public hearing to any member of the public who wishes to be heard on or mayor. If I might before we open the public hearing, as part of that planning board process,
uh as the as the parks commissioner, our town certified uh arborist will in fact review all the plans that are submitted to compliance to make sure that the nature and the character of the town isn't diminished and in fact will be enhanced by portion of this project.
Excellent. That's great news. Uh so now anyone wishing to be heard on warnings number 3589, please approach the microphone and state your name for the record. Thank you. Um Robert Gory, uh Davis Environmental Law. Um we are council to Nutley Lumber
um 263 Hillside Block 2000 lot 27. Um we are here in opposition to the ordinances uh for the reason that they or specifically this ordinance this time that they would be they are inconsistent with the master plan in that they roll
back storm water protections that exist in Nutley's municipal code and make it easier for um storm water issues not to be addressed or addressed in the similar way that they have. Um the property at issue, our our client's property at
issue is the directly across what is referred to as St. Paul'sbrook or Springerbrook. They've been there for 100 years. They've literally probably I think almost as long as or close to 100 years, almost as long as Ro was there.
um they have watched their property and and the development of this town and um they feel incredibly threatened by the developments that have happened since Prism took ownership of the property which is ironic considering um that Ro
was operating there and the legacy of contamination associated with their work. Um there is an outfall directly across from my client's property. Um it's been referred to on some as alpha 002 or 002A. Um that outfall existed has existed um
back to the days of Broch. Um that outfall was used solely for um it had an Egyptian permit, New Jersey pollution discharge elimination system permit and it was used essentially to operate as um what what is a um combined sewer
overflow permit. um RO because they had miles of uh uh processed uh wastelines, sanitary, storm water, everything uh and a lot of contaminated water going through their system. They essentially had a municipal wastewater treatment
system. They referred to it as the environmental control facility or ECF. It was located on the parcel that is subject of the the Southside um uh Kingsland redevelopment plan. That um uh treatment facility treated all of their
waste um and then discharged all of it to PVSC uh Sex Valley Sewage Commission under a sewage use permit. the storm water that was collected from that area of the site. And if you refer to um exhibit I believe it's exhibit let me
just see three in the um written submission uh we provided yesterday you can see the conra um rail line and everything minus the very top closest to route three everything to the right of that the majority of the 119 acres that
is covered under that um uh storm water from that site is collected on that site and used to go through the ECF F was treated and then discharged to PBSC. The import of that is not a single drop of storm water that hit that side of the RO campus, the largest side of the RO
campus, was discharged ever within the boundaries of Nutley. It never went to Nutley except for on two occasions. One was during Hurricane Floyd. And in Hurricane Floyd was uh 1999, I believe, it was like a three-day storm. It rained 10 in. In that respect, it was very
similar to Hurricane Ida. In that 2 to three day period, that site, that 119 acres generated 17.5 17.2 millions of gallons of water which was discharged through that alcohol. So just to give you a size and scope, we uh Ro's
estimates uh of of the amount of water it's discharging found on exhibit 4 in the submission we made to the town is that it's 244,000 gallons per day, which comes out to roughly 89 million gallons a year. That number is deceptive because
storm water is generated when it rains and a few days after or you know in the in the time around it rains maybe a day or so after is when it discharges. I think I read an estimate it rains 160 days and not about that give or take in an annual year. So you're not talking
about 244,000 gallons a day. You're talking about storms where 17.2 million gallons are entering Springerbrook. I don't know if you've seen Springerbrook. It is not a big stream. It was never I I don't no sane person could look at that
and say that's an adequate water body in the middle of residential town in the middle of of builtup nutley to unleash 172 million gallons into a stream that three blocks later hits a covert and now I
know I there's testimony from um various commissioners about uh flooding issues on Elm Place that just started happening and nobody knows why you're having it studied. That's where that covert goes underground. That covert of that the
covered portion of St. Paul's Brook goes underground there. I don't know if that's the cause of it. You guys said you had hired Peroni, your engineers to study it. I don't know what they came to, but I can tell you that Brook is not set up to receive 17.2 million gallons
from a storm and then discharge it down. And this this this town has been facing flooding issues. They've been the topic. Your your storm water management plan uh deals with how challenging it is because your your um town is mostly developed.
You have very few parcels where you can actually um in integrate storm water management, build reservoirs or or or retention ponds because you you're completely infilled and there's no room to do it. Regulation's hard. The RO facility is the singest large
largest parcel in Dutley. It's 119 acres. I know some of it extends into Clifton, but the acreage of it, it's five, the the overall acreage, 119 acres, is 5.5% the size of the entire township of Nutley. It is massive. our uh expert Van
Clee who you guys would not let uh speak earlier. He um looked at the storm water map, the drainage maps for the wershed. 23% of the all drainage in to the um Third River wershed goes through the Ro
site. We can't control water falling. You cannot control it. And if and if rains are increasing, then they're increasing. But you can it put in place storm water mitigation measures to protect against flooding to control how water is discharged to control at the
speed it's discharged. So I spoke about what ro did ro did that for years contaminated water send it all to PBSC average of 90 million gallons a year and we talked about the fact that that's a deceiving number because it's episodic that's 17.2 2 millions roughly
20% of that entire average in a two or three day period from Hurricane Floyd. That's what you're looking at. That's what's coming out. That's what came out during Ida. That's what's will come out next storm we get 10 in will be $17.2 million gallons, maybe more, maybe less,
cascading out of a single outfall into St. Paul's Brook into Springerbrook and downstream to the residents downstream. beginning in 2016, uh, Prism bought the site September 30th, 2016. Uh, 2016,
less than two months later, they send a letter to the, uh, NJ, it's exhibit 5. I think it's important that I read it, but basically, as previously communicated to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the transfer
of ownership was completed on September 30th, 2016. The facility has an existing basic industrial storm water permit for the west side of the property. That's the innovation center we just talked about. That's where they've always been piping their ground their storm water into St. Paul's Brook.
Historically, the east side of the proper property under the previous ownership consisted of research and development laboratories and the storm water from this area along with the non contact pooling water was discharged to the Pic Valley Sewage Commission Sanitary Sewer. There are no longer any
process or R&D operations conducted on the east side of the site. Prism plans to decommission the wastewater treatment plant and route the storm water from the east side of the property to the storm water discharge, the outfall across from my client's property. This requires a
minimal physical change at the facility to route the storm water from the east side of the property to the storm water discharge instead of the sanitary sewer discharge. The non-cont pooling water has been permanently piped into the sanitary sewer. For guidance received from the D, this letter serves as
notification of the change to route storm water from the east side of the property to the storm water discharge. The storm water pollution prevention plan is also being amended to reflect the change and an updated copy will be maintained on si site. Given the simple nature of this proposed change, Prism
plans to proceed with the change of routing the storm water from the east side of the property to the storm water discharge starting December 1st, 2016, unless we hear otherwise from D. They aren't asking for D to look into it to
assess the volume of storm water that's coming through. They're telling them this is what they're doing. And that's what they did on November 30th. They decommissioned it. They turned a switch and that outfall has been running ever since. And as my colleague Mr. Davis
asked, our assumption is that you do not did not know that was occurring because anybody who is sitting here thinking that stream is capable of receiving an average of 90 million gallons or 17.2 million gallons in a single storm has
got to be out of their minds. I I So from there, that's what's been going on. There is no the they confirmed in a letter I guess what was it uh two months later that I think it's at exhibit six that they did in fact do that DP never
once looked at the quantity of the water and if you want to look you guys have prepared uh storm water pollution prevention plans we included the one they just referenced it's exhibit two there is not one mention of the quantity of water it is all about you know having
protections around USS and and other things where you you store pollutants. Nothing deals with quantity because quantity is the responsibility of the board of commissioners and of the planning board. It's hand handled at the development level. DP is not looking at
this issue. The only people looking at this issue is the board of commissioners and the planning board. Prism is submitting storm water management plans and they are woefully woefully misrepresentative of the issues. There
was an agreement back in 2012 between municipal engineers that when assessing storm water, they will look at 2012 when Hoffman the Ro was fully developed. there. The rationale there is that if
you compared current conditions where Ro knocked down all their buildings and tore up a bunch of their parking lots that if you looked at it now, anything they did would be an increase in the amount of storm water uh runoff from imperous surfaces. The amount of imperous surfaces on the Ro campus went
from 4.2 million uh square feet to 1.2 million between 2012 and 2016. So they asked for this so that they could say, "Look, we're just like Ro, but they're not just like Ro because Ro ripped up everything." So now any project that
happens, let's put the outfall aside for one second. Anything that happens is a storm water increase. And anything that happens on that uh east side from Conway Rails is a storm water increase. Emphatically, that's not a debate. It is
not a debate. It doesn't matter how many storm water manages reports they write. It is an emphatic increase in storm water going into that. But more importantly, they took the best parts of 2012. They took the impervious lock coverage and said, "We can now compare
our storm water management plans to this to say there is no net increase in storm water going in because we're looking at RO 2012 fully developed. Not the ripped up holes in the parking lot uh situation you have going on over currently. But
the worst thing they did is they completely ignored the fact that every ounce of water that hit that east side of the property, the majority of the property was piped to PVSC. It never saw a water body in the township ever. Never
once except for two occasions which we outlined before. So they take the best parts and they submit these plans. We've reviewed them. You can look at uh let's flip to 10. Exhibit 10 is the 275 Kingsland storm water management plan. And it isn't worth the paper it's
written on. And I'll tell you why. There is we can go to page uh six where they say this is what existing storm water runoff is and this is what our proposed runoff is. And look, we're less. There was no runoff. It's all
going to PVC. Every drop was going to PVC in 2012. That's the benchmark they agreed to use. except they don't use the fact that there's nothing going into St. Paul'sbrook. There's not a drop going into St. Paul'sbrook. Every number should be a zero. So they get up there
and they say, "Look, there no problem with storm water. We don't have to mitigate. We don't have to create retention ponds. We don't have to create dams. We don't have to create um you know uh gates to allow for the amount of storm water that goes through. We have to do nothing because look at us. We're
just as good as Ro or better." So they're not doing anything. You have a massive parcel that could control storm water into Springerbrook, a company under one ownership who has the finances and the resources to deal with storm water issues. And they're submitting
reports to say we can do nothing and you're approving it. You're giving them site plan approval. You're not. No one is looking back at whether storm water is an issue. And meanwhile, you're commissioning studies to figure out why Elm Place is flooding. you're like, "What? We're going to get to the root
cause of it. Don't worry, community. We're going to figure it out." And no, no one's saying, "Well, maybe it's the 90 million gallons that in 2016 they started discharging and never were discharging before." The reason that the consistency there's
a issue with consistency is there are more protections as home rule as part of the uh municipality you have the authority to require more D is not looking at the issue as I said and what's been proven at the site plan
stage whether it's ideiation way whether it's the medical center whether it's uh uh 275 the the proposed warehouse is that none of them they're all saying less storm water, less storm water, less storm water. None of them are disclosing
the fact that there was all the storm water was going to PBSC and not a drop was hitting your streams. Not a drop was hitting St. Paul's Brook and not a drop was hurt uh hitting the Third River. The the way that the code is written that your municipal code is written is you
have protections in other places. You have sight the site plan rules have protections that say you can prevent any downstream can prevent any uh impacts to downstream uh residents from storm water. You have that power. But when you
propose an ordinance and a redevelopment plan that doesn't include that provision, the ordinance on its face said those says those provisions are repealed. So nobody's going to look at it. You prepared in two 2024 a storm water uh uh
management plan for the municipality where you just lamented how difficult it is to regulate storm water despite the fact that you have this parcel and this redevelopment and this opportunity to deal with it. But in it says that every
single site plan approval is now going to include flood mitigation uh flooding analysis and mitigation. By passing this ordinance, you are repealing that provision because it's not in the redevelopment plan. Your
power to deal with this when you are the only people responsible for it is slipping through your fingers because you're being pressured by an entity with a lot of money and a big budget for litigation who sued you. This is the opportunity to change that. And if you
don't, guess what? We'll get another storm water management plan that says, "Oh, pre-existing conditions." Looking back at 2012, look, lots of runoff. We're doing less. We're doing more. It's a it's a farce. It's a smoke show. And you're all falling for it. At the same
time, you're lamenting why there are flooding issues in Nutley. You're not looking at the issue. This is the opportunity to do it. It is not going to happen at the site plan process. And if you don't deal with it, you will feel the repercussions of it.
I have two other orders or pieces of business that I just wanted to talk about unrelated. One of which is we submitted two more um uh pieces I guess I'll say of opposition today. One of which was a requirement um in the nutly
I mean in the um uh in the state code uh uh NJSA 4055D-62.1 which says that all residents within 200 ft of this proper of a redevelopment plan change in zoning have to be given notice of it. Our client did not receive
the notice and my question is did those notice letters go out? So this is uh commissioners the objection I think there's another one or a protest petition you're going to reference uh in a moment I assume the
objector is asserting that the notice of the redevelopment plan was deficient. Uh they are inquiring if individualized personal mailing notices were sent to the 200 foot list. 200 foot list notices my understanding were not mailed. Um,
with that said, I will state that it is my legal opinion that because this redevelopment plan is done under the local housing and redevelopment law, individualized personal notices to the 200 foot list is not a requirement under the local housing and redevelopment law
for this redevelopment plan. But the objection is noted. The only exception in that in the in the quoted statutory provision is um except for re-examinations of the master plan which this is not. So I was citing
to give me one second. I'll get you NJSA482A-7 which is a statuto provision under local housing and redevelopment law. So that that is what I was referring to as to why a 200 foot list mailing is not required for a redevelopment plan. But
your objection is noted reserved for the record. All right. The other one I will say which is that we submitted today a um a petition um our understanding is that um the properties the area the property is equal 200 ft of the um
surrounding surrounding area. Yep. Were you able to I I we calculated it uh 20.99% is not lumber giving us a.99% uh I guess majority on that. So under
the uh this is a provision from the municipal land use law when a surrounding pro property owner with 20% or more of the land surrounding a site which is I'm I'm not quoting the statute exactly correctly but it's 20 it's in
200 ft of all surrounding lands of a site that's being subject to a resoning ordinance when a the owner of that land or multiple owners if there are multiple submits a protest to the uh ordinance the governing body. Uh, in order for the
ordinance to pass, the ordinance must be approved by what I'm just going to call supermajority vote. That's correct. And the council has um their initial protest petition was unclear if they owned the in excess of the 20%, council has
confirmed uh on the record they own, you know, 20 some odd percent. Uh while I am not aware uh if that particular I'm not aware of any supersedeing provision of the local housing and redevelopment law
on that particular issue. So I'm unclear if it is uh applicable here this evening. Uh they've asserted that it is applicable and which would mean uh we need a supermajority vote if this redevelopment plan is to proceed this evening. Uh I at a future date I can
delve into the issue in greater detail on the applicability of the protest petition statute to a redevelopment plan but I'm not aware of at the moment of uh contradictory authority in that regard. The only other thing I'll say before I I
close these proceeding or before I finish my my comment is that the I know that there's pressure on the board because of the settlement and I know there are people worried about 275 Kingsland. The traffic study may not be adequate
grounds to deny a site plan um for approval. a failure to follow the storm water management rags and adequately uh cate categorize your your storm water management contribution from your proposed development. I believe is um
all I'm saying here is that there is relief that can be pursued so that these issues can be looked at. What we're asking for is that the board take a very serious look at these issues. don't just rush forward with their plan to move
this ahead now that they're presented with the facts and details of this issue. It is a serious issue. I think everybody in the town of Nutley wants to see the Ro campus ultimately redeveloped. But what Nutley One Lumber
wants to do is see it redeveloped in a safe way so that they are not being threatened, that development approvals aren't being rushed, that the whole powers of the that exist under the code are being considered and thought of so that them and other downstream residents
aren't be being put at peril. Thank you. Thank you. I I do have a a couple comments. Uh this this isn't this isn't something that happened overnight. uh we as an entire board look at things and take actions that are in the best
interest of the township. And if the best interest of the township was to continue to fight uh and litigate, that's something that the sport certainly has the fortitude to do. Uh you mentioned that Elm Place suddenly has flood issues. El Place has had flood
issues since I was a child. Uh and and the the redevelopment plan does again have the same flood mitigation storm water management requirements of the ordinance or the redevelopment plan that we just passed number 3590.
Uh so I I did want to put that out there that you know we're not just simply capitulating. This is this is a measured uh measured measured step taken by the board and this is uh you know we're
we're considering this uh with all due diligence. Mayor, if if I may, I would just respond to your statement about the the Elm Place flooding issues by quoting from the November 30th, 2021 board of commissioners meeting. In that meeting,
an Elm Place resident stated on the record that she quote lived on Elm Place for 18 years and three years ago, that would be 2019, was the first time her house was flooded. And it happened again this past July 2021 and September 2021.
In response to that resident's concerns, Commissioner Petraco stated in relevant part, quote, I'll take responsibility for Nicholls uh especially in the Elmplace area. We've walked the culvert the day after the storm. The increased volume that's coming through from these
two intense storms over the last six months. Um, we don't have a lot of answers why that's occurring. What's different? Is it something different that happened upstream? Is it something, you know, the mayor did to address meeting with other
municipalities that all contribute to those streams? So, there are things we're looking at commissioned by our engineers to do the study. We're going to have to wait and see what comes back. So, in response to that, Elm Street's always had flooding issues. Um, I just
refer you to back to Miss uh Commissioner Petra's prior testimony because it seems to conflict with your uh recollection of the flooding issues on Elm. The statement is what it is. Uh again, that's one particular resident with one
particular property. Elm Elm Place is a rather long street. Uh so where the flooding issues may or may not occur, uh certainly water moves over time. Uh, Commissioner Vaka, did you want to
respond or I I just like to respond and say that I've listened to both sides and um I think that, you know, global warming has attributed to this. I mean, there are spots that I've noticed, but I and I lived here for a long time. Elm
Street did get flooded to the magnitude when we have a storm that's 12 in in 2 hours. I don't think any parts of town are going to be able to mitigate that at all. Um, I own a few properties in those areas, too. I've been dealing with
flooding for many years here, but I do think that the storms are getting worse. And um I think that it's fair to say that you know we have to consider all our residents and we represent all the residents of Nutley
and that you know moving forward I hope that we could come to some kind of resolutions for both parties to be happy. Anyone else wishing to Mr. Diaz? Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Gene Diaz again not Cliff. Um, so look, we object to the
objection again for prior reasons and other issues, but I would also just like to point out a couple of factual issues uh in in connection with uh was it Corey was it? Goring uh his math and his statements. One at 119 acres, 65 of
those acres are in Clifton. That would put us less than 5% would put us about 2% of the nutly land. But he also stated that we're that the nut the entire campus represents 23% of the storm water getting into St.
Paul'sbrook. But yet he called us the largest contributor to it. I'm not certain. I think there's inongruity in that statement. 23% is a lot less than 50 and it's certainly a lot less than 100. Right? We're one of the smaller contributors coming out of our landshed
watershed into St. Paul's Brook. I'll tell you where the majority is is and I'll tell you why he's not going after them because he said it himself. The majority of the other 77% is coming from all the residential population to the north and to to to the west of us and to the south of us. That's all part of the
overall wershed and the drainage wershed and that makes up the other 77%. He's not suing them and he's not going after them because he said it themselves. You got a part you got a party here, one company who's got plenty of money, go after them. We're only 23% of the waterfall going
into St. Paul's Brook. That includes his statement if it is correct and we don't know it is 90 million gallons somehow is now going in there too. That includes if that's additional. We're still only 23%. We were below that. That we're the smaller volume coming in. Now that also
presumes he with all this fire and brimstone. You guys know what you've approved on this site so far. What has been done on the En3 campus in Nutley in terms of development thus far which would have had an impact. We've built one garage.
The only development in Nutley thus far has been the 10020 metro garage. And now they want to blame all of this flooding and water and storm runoff because we constructed one garage in place of 3 million ft of other buildings
that have previously existed of imperous coverage. Their numbers don't add up. Their motives don't add up. And I object to any of their statements and objections. They want to try this. Let them try this with the litigators. They must have plenty of
money because they're suing us. So, let them try it in the courts where something like this belongs. This is not a matter for you guys to get for these commission, for you commissioners to get involved in. The D has already stated it. We are legally discharging in conjunction with all of our permits. We have met all of the rules and
regulations associated with storm water and flood hazard management stated on the record in front of a judge and determined to be appropriate. I can't get in anymore. Appreciate all your time. We appreciate that he has problems with his property. We are not the resolution for that prop for that
property. We will abide by the law and continue to abide by all those regulations and do what we have to do underneath the law and the technical guidelines that govern this. Uh I just want to deal with a couple of legal issues. Mel Goner Souls Kumis and
Gross representing PBliff Master. Um and with regard to their some of the issues, um I concur, you don't need my concurrence, but I agree with Mr. or that the um uh there is no requirement under the redevelopment law. Um there is
a there's actually an exception that says that specific requirements related to the MLUL do not apply. Um and so there is no requirement for uh for individual notice. Uh furthermore, I would object to accepting any petition.
It's nice for someone to stand up and say what we measured it. The requirement is that in order for someone to file a protest against any proposed amendment or revisions of a zoning ordinance, which I would suggest this is not, this is a redevelopment plan which is
governed by a separate statute. It has its own procedures, objection basis and standards. um may be filed with the municipal clerk signed by the owners of 20% or more of the area either of the
lots or land included in such proposed change. Obviously, since my client owns the property that's subject to this redevelopment, they couldn't possibly qualify under that or two of the lots or land extending 200 ft in all directions
there from inclusive of street space whether within or without the municipality. I believe it's incumbent upon them to provide the acreage of all of the lots extending 200 feet in all directions from the subject property which are the subject of this
redevelopment plan with a calculation including the streets to indicate that they exceed 20% and not simply to throw out numbers without any backup or justification um as indicated. The only difference then is not that the board is not able
to act, but that they are required to act with a larger majority. I don't believe that that's applicable in this instance because I don't believe that they've met their proofs to demonstrate that they qualify to submit such petition. Um, we've made our objections to their
allegations previously. I would also point out to them that under the municipal land use law um and under the specifically with regard to redevelopment plans, the redevelopment plan supersedes those areas of the
ordinance which it says it supersedes. To the extent that this redevelopment plan specifies that it is subject to um regulations and ordinances, they are making blanket statements which may indicate lack of familiarity with the
redevelopment law but are not an accurate statement of the um the law as it's applied and is merely um sounds like threats that they're trying to scare the board of commissioners to believe that they're doing something
dangerous or nefarious. is and under the law as I understand it that is not the case. Uh and so we object to those assertions that were made with regard to the legal impact and also to their ability to make a protest or to make a notice uh objection because uh it is not
applicable under the redevelopment law as written. Thanks. Thank you uh Miss Gonchar. And I'll just say uh Mr. Corey, following the uh the board's vote on this uh redevelopment plan, I would just you I may ask you to submit a C
calculation of the lot area. Okay. Or you can have it right now. Okay. I don't I'll have to have my engineer take look at Okay. So that let's put a pin in that
issue uh at the moment. Okay. It may not it may or may not be relevant. Does anyone else wish to be heard on ordinance number 3589? Mr. Davis, thank you so much. I won't repeat the um focused discussion
that Gor made um but I do have a question just a clarification. So, it's not the intent to to make any storm water review any less than the existing site plan ordinances, storm water
ordinances currently require. And that the intent is that all of those will be um required and applicable um as this goes through the rest of the processes at the planning board and so forth. I think that that's your intent. Is that
correct? I'll take that as an ascent. You're right. I would I would simply say that the language is what it is in both documents that when an site plan application goes before the board, that the board engineer, the board planner, and the
other board professionals will review that language and make sure that anything that's submitted is meeting those requirements. I think I think um opining on that question at this point is probably not is not relevant. Okay, that's brands are planner. That's what
he's that's what his response is. Are there any other comments? Okay, Mr. Mayor. Seeing none, uh I move to close the public hearing on ordinance number 3589. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi, Commissioner Tucci. Hi, Commissioner
Scarpell. Hi, Commissioner Patco. Hi, Mayor Kelly. I uh move the ordinance. Second, Commissioner Evans. Hi, Commissioner Tucci. Hi, Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi, Commissioner Petraco. Hi, Mayor Kelly. I
We still have uh a number of resolutions to go through. I know a lot of people were here for the ordinances. If you like to take the opportunity to leave, uh we'll give you some time. Uh now take care. Sorry,
you're not going to stay for the resolutions. Well, I am going to stay for Yeah. I think so. Thank you. It's gone. Jerry, he's like
Let's go. Get out. Thank you. I'm gonna go. Okay, guys. Bye. Jonathan just put on the website
again. Sorry. All right, guys. Thanks, All right. I think he started there. All right, I'm moving that to resolutions. Commissioner Evans, thank you. Thank
you. My god. Will you give me a a break? Um my first resolution is 16525 uh NJSA485-4 requires the governing body of every local unit uh to have made an annual
audit of its books and accounts and financial transactions. Uh we have done that. We have utilized uh Nisvacian company who is a registered uh municipal accounting firm a able to do that work
uh and they're authorized by um and RS 527B34 authorized the local finance board of the state New Jersey to prescribe reporting pertaining to local fiscal affairs. Uh the local finance board has
prom promaggated NJAC 530-6.5 a regulation requiring that the governing body of each municipality shall by resolution certified the local uh finance board of state New Jersey that all members of the governing body have reviewed at a minimum uh the
sections in the annual audit entitled comments and uh recommendations. uh the members of the governing body have personally uh reviewed uh the minimum uh requirements as evidenced by the group's affidavit form of the governing body
which is attached to the uh resolution. Uh such resolution of certification shall be adopted by the governing body no later than 45 days after the receipt of the annual audit pursuant to NJAC 5 col 30-6.5.
Uh whereas all members have received and have familiarized themselves with at least the minimum requirements of local finance board as stated uh aet and have sub subscribed to the uh affidavit as provided by the local finance board failure to comply
may subject the members of the governing body to a penalty uh uh of $1,000. now therefore be resolved by the board of commissioners of the township of Nali hereby states that it has complied with NJAC 536.5
and does hereby submit a certified copy of the resolution uh and the required affidavit to said board to show evidence of set compliance. I would just add that uh the audit was completed. Uh there were no material findings uh as a result
of the audit. Uh the there were a couple recommendations uh which was to continue to uh incorporate technology into our services and to advance the use of technology uh given the uh the environment we're in.
Um so and overall that was was the most uh significant uh comment which is again an opportunity to advance our systems of of control. Uh so move second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner
Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petrono. Mayor Kelly. I uh 7725. Township has a need to acquire the services of an independent professional planning expert to assist the township with the preparation of zoning ordinance revisions into formal regulatory zoning
ordinances to be retained on a non-fair and open uh basis pursuant to provisions of NJSA48 colon 11-5 Paul Ricky AICP uh AICP comm of Richie planning uh 170 Mammoth
Avenue Atlantic Highlands Atlantic Heights and New Jersey possesses the requisite education experience and lensure to provide services at a cost of $135 an hour not to exceed $5,000. The anticipated contract will will run from
July 1 uh 2025 through December 31st and funds are available on account 501 219205 which uh has been certified by uh by the chief financial officer Paul Ricky uh has completed and submitted the business
entity disclosure certification which certifies that they may have not made uh any reportable contributions to a political or candidate committee in the township of Nelly in the previous one year and that the contract will prohibit them from making any reportable contributions through the term of the
contract now therefore be resolved by the board of commissioners of the township of Nelly County of state New Jersey authorizes the mayor and municipal clerk to enter into a contract on a nonfair and open basis in accordance with NJSA 48 col 11 uh.5-5
with Richie planning at the stage rate of 135 an hour not to exceed $5,000 so moved Second, Commissioner Evans. Hi, Commissioner Ty. Commissioner Scarpell. Hi, Commissioner Petraco. Hi, Mayor Kelly. Hi. Uh, my last one is
being resolved by the board of commissioners. Uh, touchable Nelly, uh, that the treasur is hereby authorized to refund overpayments of water charges in the amount of $43,151 for block 3303 uh, lot 8. So move. Second.
Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. Uh, thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tucci. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Whereas NJSA48 colon boards 87 provides that the director of the
division of local government services may approve the insertion of any special item in the budget of any county or municipality when such item shall have been made available by law and the amount thereof was not determined at the time of the adoption of the budget. Whereas said director may also approve the insertion of any item of
appropriation for equal amount and section one. Now therefore be it resolved that the board of commissioners township of Nelley County state of New Jersey hereby request the director of division of local government services to approve the insertion of an item of revenue in the budget of the year 2025
in the sum of $1,211,000. Which item is now available as a revenue from the urban parks grant pursuant to the provisions of statute. Section two, be it further resolved that a like sum of 1 million 211 B and same is hereby appropriated under the caption of
general appropriations A. Operations excluded from caps urban parks grant Father Glassback park improvement project other expenses 1,ion211. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution will be electronically filed with the director for approval as required by law. This is for the the
upgrade of the girls softball field uh at Father Glattsback Park that uh that abuts Grant Avenue. I move resolution. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Mr. Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor
Kelly. Hi. Whereas DMR architect 777 Terrace Avenue suite 607 Hazbrook Heights has been awarded a non-fair and open contract pursuant to the provision of NJSA1 19 colon 44A 20.5 to acquire specialized professional services for
one Kennedy drive conceptual design through construction administration for the public open space fronting Chestnut Street and whereas a director of parks and public property has recommended the following change order from set contract change order number one for conceptual design in the amount of $81 $1.51
and whereas the funds are available from account 5-01502299 and has been certified by the chief financial officer said certification being attached to this resolution now therefore be it resolved by board of commissioners township county state new jersey that change order number one the
amount of $81.54 being is hereby approved I move resolution second commissioner Evans hi commissioner tui hi commissioner scarpelli hi commissioner Petraco hi mayor Kelly hi it's all I Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner
Scarpelli, whereas NJSA484-87 provides the director of division of local government services may approve the insertion of any special item in the budget of any county or municipality when such items shall have been made available by law and the amount thereof was not determined at the time of the
adoption of the budget. Whereas the director may also approve the insertion of any item of appropriation for equal amount and section one. Now therefore be resolved that the board of commissioner towns from the county of vas state of New Jersey hereby requests the director of division of local government services
to approve the insertion of an item of revenue in the budget for the year 2025 in the amount of $200,000 which is now available as a revenue from the CDPG grant pursuant to the provisions of statute be further resolved that a likes
sum of 200,000b and the same is hereby appropriated under the caption of general appropriations operation excluded from the cap uh $200,000 via further resolved that a copy of this resolution be electronically be filed with the director for approval as required by law. Move the resolution.
Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Mr. Scarpelli. I. Mr. Braco. I. Mayor Kelly. I. This is also for a an insertion in uh in the budget. Uh now therefore it be resolved
that the board of commission tly county vessic state of New Jersey hereby requests director of division of local government services to approve the insertion of an item of revenue in the budget of the year 2025 in the amount of $37,4826 which item is now available as revenue from the recycling tonnage grant
pursuant to the provisions of the statute. Be approve resolved the like sum of $37,4826 being the same is hereby appropriated under the caption of general appropriations operation excluded from the caps the amount of $37,4826
be further resolved that a copy this resolution will be electronically filed with the director for approval as required by law move resolution second. Commissioner Evans hi. Commissioner Tuji. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. I. Commissioner Petraco. I. Mayor Kelly. I.
That's all I have. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Petraco. Yes. This is resolution 167-25. I'll read it from section one. Now, therefore, it be resolved by board commissioners, township, but not county of Essence, New Jersey. Hereby request director of division of local so local
government services to approve the insertion of an item of revenue in the budget of year 2025 in the amount of $7,000 which item is now available as revenue from the clicket and ticket
grant pursuing the provisions of the statute be further resolved that a like 7000 be the same and is hereby appropriated under Caption of general appropriations operation included excluded from the
caps. Click it or ticket 2025 seat belt mobilization grant or other expenses $7,000. Be further resolved that the copy of the resolution will be electronically filed with the director of approved and required by I move the resolution.
Second. Mr. Evans. Hi. Mr. Tucci. Hi. Mr. Scorpelli. Thank you. He um stepped out for a second. Uh Commissioner Petraco I. Mayor Kelly I. Um this one's 168 um-258.
Whereas um now therefore be resolved by the board of commissioners catchi county of county county county of New Jersey hereby request the director of local division government services to approve the insertion of an item revenue in the budget 2025 of $50,000485
which item is now available in revenue um from the cops grant FY24 technology and equipment program pursuant the provisions of the statue be further resolved that a like sum of $50,485.95 be in the same is hereby appropriated under the caption of general
appropriations operation is included from the caps cops grant FY24 technology and equipment program other expenses $50,485.95 be further resolved that the copy of the resolution will be electronally electronically filed with the director
approval as required by me second Mr. Evans. Hi, Commissioner Tui. Hi, Commissioner Scarpelli. Commissioner Petraco, I mayor Kelly. Hi. Okay. 169-25 therefore be resolved by the board of
commissioners Tashali County Investors New Jersey hereby request director division local services government to approve insertion of the revenue in the budget of 2025 sum of two $10,500. Which item is now available as revenue
municipal alliance grant pursuant to provisions of um statute be further resolved that a like sum of 10,500 BN this is hereby appropriated under the caption general appropriations appropriations including capus county division of community health services
municipal alliance um other expenses 10,500 be further resolved that the sum of 265 representing The amount required from the municipality share of orphaned
grant appears under 2025 budget and the budget appropriation matching funds for grants and is hereby appropriated to the municipal alliance grant and here be it further resolved that the notification of these budgets charges will be made by the chief financial
officer director of division of local government services through the electronic submission process. I move it. Second. Commissioner Evans. I. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. I. And Madam Clerk, can you mark me yes on the resolutions I missed,
please? Thank you. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Petraco. I. Mayor Kelly. I. Not to be redundant, if I could just read um briefly, this is the national this is um resolution 178-25.
This is for national opioid um settlement. This is in the amount of $20,75920. I'll move it as written. Second. Commissioner Evans. I. Commissioner Tui. I. Commissioner Scarpelli. I. Commissioner Petco. I. Mayor Kelly.
Whereas the township and LA Police Department need to acquire um proprietary software for the purpose of hiring police officers through police app. And whereas the use of police app located at five Brookside Drive, Wallington, Wallingford, Connecticut
that is increases efficiency through the hiring process of police officers in the Nutley Police Department. And whereas NJSA 48115D permits the award of the contract without public bidding for the provisions of proprietor software.
Whereas the terms of the contract shall be for the period of two years with an option for one year extension. Upon re expiration of the initial term, the contract will automatically renew for subsequent prior to non-renewal starting
July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026. The yearly contract shall not exceed 25,000. Now therefore it be resolved by the board of commissioners and the township of Nutley in the county of Estis that a contract be awarded police app in form approved by the township and
attorney and that's all I see. So I'll move it as is second. Commissioner Evans I Commissioner Tucci I. Commissioner Scarpelli I. Commissioner Petraco I. Mayor Kelly, I
always fresh. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a few on for this evening. Resolution number 17025, a similar chapter 159 insertion of a special item into the 2025 budget uh of the public affairs, the NJACC grant sustaining local public health
infrastructure for a total of $24,951. I move the resolution. Second. Mr. Evans. Hi. Mr. Duchi. I, Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi, Mr. Petraco. I, Mayor Kelly, I. Uh, we have a resolution
number 17125. A raffle license application has been received by from John H. Walker Middle School PTO and off premises 50/50 cash raffle Sunday, December 7th, 2025. Whereas the application has been reviewed and approved by by the municipal clerk and
the police department and therefore be resolved by the board of commissioners, township of Nutley, county of Essex, state of New Jersey. The affforementioned license hereby approved by municipal clerk and she is authorized to issue said licenses. I move the resolution. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner
Tucci. Hi. Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petraco. Hi. Mayor Kelly. I town has applied for a grant in the amount of 3500 through green city green good food bucks program. which funds will be used to offset the cost of reimbursements to vendors in the Nelly
Farmers Market that participate in the senior farmer market nutrition voucher double coupon program. This program awards eligible patrons an additional $25 in farmer market coupons to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables in conjunction with the state farmer market nutrition program vouchers through the county of Essex. Now therefore be
resolved that the mayor and commissioners of the town of Nelly in the county of Essex state of New Jersey formally approves the grant application for the city green good food bucks program for the 2025 season. So moved. Second. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. Hi. Commissioner
Scarpelli. Hi. Commissioner Petro. Hi. Mayor Kelly. I. Uh the next one I read on behalf of the entire board of commissioners. It's resolution number 18025. Resolution of the township uh commissioners of the township of Nutley authorizing the engagement of Inglacino,
Webster, Wick, Scala and Taylor LLC is council for the township of Nelly concerning legal matters with respect to on three redevelopment area. U this is uh specified professional services rendered performed by persons
authorized to practice law. for instance said professional service requires knowledge and advanced type in the field of learning acquired by prolonged formal course specialized tr study English wiscala Taylor located 600 Pipony sweet 604 New Jersey 07054 estimated proposal
runs for these services an hourly rate of 295 beginning July 1st 2025 through December 31st 2025 and pursuant to this resolution shall not exceed $50,000 in the aggregate whereas funds are available for for this purpose from account number 5-01-012-
205 subject to the adoption of the 2012 municipal budget which I think we adopted. Uh certificate availability funds has been filed with the chief financial officer of the township in accordance to local budget law. Uh whereas Wikiscal whereas Ingles and Webster Wikiscala Taylor has completed
the submitted and submitted a business disclosure certification which certifies that the firm have not made any qualifying reportable contribution to Canada or Canada committee in the township of Nelly for the previous one year that would violate the injury statute annotated title 1944A
20.5 or the township's local unit payto-play ordinance adopted by a referendum uh and any relevant executive orders New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission disclosure requirements at The contract requ from making any reportable contri contributions through the term of the
contract now therefore be resolved by the board of commissioners of tenti county county county county of ethics that the accordance with local public contracts law hereby author authorizes the mayor and municipal clerk to enter into a professional services contract with the frame of English Webster Wiscala and Taylor LLC an hourly rate of 295 not to exceed $50,000 in the
aggregate be it further resolved that the business entity disclosure and business entity disclosure of campaign contributions shall be filed So be placed on file with this resolution and be further resolved that a copy of this resolution shall be published as required by law within 10 days of its passage. So moved. Second.
Commissioner Evans. I just appoint it's English and Taylor now. Okay. Right. This needs to be updated and I think mayor you referred to the fact we already adopted the budget, right? So funds are available, right? Thank you. All right. I'll make those
changes on the resolution. Commissioner Tui. I Mr. Scarpelli I Mr. Petraco I mayor Kelly I last one I have on this evening's resolution number 18225 whereas the New Jersey Department of Treasury Division of Taxation has provided tax clearance certificates and
said licences are qualified to be licensed according to all standards established by the New Jersey statutes annotated title 33 and regulations promulgated there as well as per local ordinance and conditions consistent with title 33 for each establishment listed below for this renewal period where the establishments have been inspected by
the board of health fire department code enforcement department and police department of the township of Nelli are in satisfactory condition and therefore be resolved by by the board of commissioners of township of Nelli County of Essex State of New Jersey that the renewal for the plenary retail consumption licenses plenty retail distri distribution licenses and club
license be granted to the following licences effective July 1st 2025 through June 30th 2026 further resolve that the municipal clerk is hereby authorized to sign issues of licences for the period of licensing for the said license certificates for the
licensing period of July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026 for the licences listed in the resolution. So moved. Commissioner Evans. Hi. Commissioner Tucci. I. Mr. Scarpelli. I. Mr. Petraco.
I. Mayor Kelly. Abstain. Uh Mr. Bruno, I believe we have a need for a another closed executive session. Yes, Mayor. We do have a a a need to go into close session to uh discuss matters that are of attorney client privilege.
Thank you. I'll entertain a motion for executive whereas section 8 of the open public meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975 permits the exclusion of the public from meeting in certain circumstances. And whereas the public body is of the opinion that such circumstances exist.
And whereas the board of commissioners of the township of Nutley in the county of Essex and state of New Jersey desires to proceed to close executive session. Now therefore be it resolved that the board of commissioners township of Nutley move into close executive session to discuss attorney client privileged. Be it further resolved that at the time
when such discussions may be disclosed to the public shelby when and such disclosures may be made without adversely affecting the township pending and or anticipated legal personnel, contractual matters and other matters within the exceptions provided for by statute. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Commissioner Evans.
Hi, Commissioner Tucci. Hi, Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi, Mr. Petra. Hi, Mayor Kelly. I And we won't be conducting any more business this evening. Move to adjourn. Second, Commissioner Evans. Hi, Commissioner Tucci. Hi, Commissioner Scarpelli. Hi,
Commissioner Petraco. Mayor Kelly. I Our next meeting will be July 15th at 7 p.m. And the time is now 10:28.