That was that good? Okay. Please stand for the flag salute to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank
you. >> Cal, you should actually maybe be over here. Maybe you guys should be over here. All right, please call the role. >> Mr. >> Excused. >> Mr. Del >> here. >> Mr. Smith >> here.
>> Excused. >> Zoom. >> Oh, did he get in on Zoom? >> Here. Mayor Kelly >> present. >> Mr. >> Here >> excused.
>> Mr. >> Here. Uh, okay. Uh, Mr. Canella, please say for uh, Mr. Mctown. >> Sophie Cunningham. >> Uh, we got some uh, uh, minutes the other day. Everybody have a chance to
read them. Any discussion? I'll hear a motion. >> Move it. >> Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. >> Communications and bills. >> I have one uh bill. It's from Miss Antiseri for attendance at preparation
of meeting minutes for February 18, 2026, which were just read and approved by the board. It's in the amount of $150, which I find to be fair and reasonable. >> I hear a motion. Move it. Second. Second. >> Favor. I oppose. Thank you.
Is it? >> That's it for communications and bills for this evening. >> All right. Very good. Okay. So, we're here tonight uh for a uh a workshop meeting. We have a couple of uh Where's Dave? Dave, could you hand those out, please? Yeah, hand them out. Uh we have
an ordinance from the uh commissioners last night that they want us to review um and I believe give our opinion. I assume we have to uh determine if it's uh consistent with the master plan, what you're looking for, right? >> That's one one request. Yep. >> That's one request. Um uh before we get
to that, >> Jar, >> I'm going to I'm going to turn the meeting over to you. I know you have uh uh some statements you want to talk about. >> Please make note that Mr. M panel was got lost somewhere in Nutley and has now
determined that uh he wants to attend. >> Come on, sit over here. Mr. Delu, the floor is back. Um thanks. >> So I wanted to you know we had our joint meeting zoning board and board of ed on
February 18th. Sorry the microphone. very important. No, it was on. >> There you go. >> So, we had our uh this year's joint meeting with the zoning board and and board of education on February 18th of this year. And,
>> you know, especially for some of our newer members, I wanted to go over uh a couple of things. I >> I prefer the band. I was going to say >> normally they normally they toot before I start speaking uh and just kind of uh
explain how what we do how it works and also you know just generally discuss a couple of comments that came up at the meeting that I want to clarify. So I prepared a little statement I'm just going to go through it so I don't forget anything. So, what I'm what I'm about to
say is I wish to uh bring some clarity to some of the board's efforts over the past few years relative to our joint meetings with the zoning board and the board of ed. Each year, the three bodies meet to compare notes and uh to discuss issues common to our work efforts.
Uh these meetings at these meetings we identify areas of improvement in our zoning ordinance and policies and procedures. And uh at the uh annual meeting, the zoning board typically, you know, reports on the applications that they've uh visited over the past years
and they make recommendations for possible changes uh to improve our zoning rules and uh areas of land use. Um so to address their recommendations and others, uh we the planning board, we
typically set up a a smaller working group to you know, review the recommendations of the zoning board uh with uh and you know, we work with uh our code official as well as um Paul
Ricky, our uh expert planning consultant. And you know, at the working group meetings, we drill down on uh some of the zoning board's recommendations, get into the weeds, and typically after many hours, too many hours of meetings
uh outside of this board's meetings, um the working group typically makes certain recommendations to this board and ultimately um they go to the board of commissioners for their consideration to change the ordinances. We just recommend uh the board of commissioners,
you know, they they make the official changes and the idea is you to develop a process of continual improvement to our land use in Nutley, recognizing the changing world we live in. So at the last meeting on February 18th, there was
raised a concern that certain land use issues need to be addressed very quickly. Uh especially the issue of warehousing and warehouses in Nutwick. Um the development of truck terminals and warehousing to pro uh accommodate
the proliferation of home delivery services such as Amazon is a great concern to us. Uh you know a big a big fulfillment center type facility anywhere in town would have a significant impact. Um and in addition
there was there was a proposal to construct such a warehouse or truck terminal type operation on Kingland on Kingsland Avenue that um is no longer an issue for us. Um, so that's why in January of last
year, even prior to last year's joint meeting, which was held on February 19th of 2025, this board began evaluating certain land use definitions, including warehouses and truck terminals. So after meetings uh of the
affformentioned working group and subsequent vote from this board, we sent to our township attorney recommended changes to land use definitions including warehouses and truck terminals and several other related definitions for consideration of our commissioners.
There were nine recommend nine recommended changes and that was March of 2025, a year ago this month. So, I'm puzzled regarding the need for this board to move quickly on this issue. And before that, in the fourth quarter
of 2024, we sent other recommended changes relative to the prohibition of certain types of retail operations that, you know, we were uh not were not interested in having proliferate in in the town. And these were also based on
prior uh joint meetings. So, I so what do we do now? So go going forward, you know, I'd like to suggest that, you know, we look at our our collective administrative processes and and develop a two-way follow-up system in order to
track the status of our work efforts so we can collaborate better. uh we we should codify the process by which we make formal recommendations to the board of commissioners and you know draft some type of follow-up system maybe a
flowchart some something we could check off on uh and maybe we keep an ongoing list on our monthly agenda of of ongoing is of ongoing issues outstanding issues just as a placeholder that way no one will ever you know we won't forget about them
Um and and there's also talk about, you know, Washington Avenue, um the business district on Washington Avenue. And you know, I I agreed with a lot of what was said. I think I think regarding potential development of
Washington Avenue, whether it's now or 20 or 40 years from now, this board should take a hard look uh at the uh entire stretch of Washington between Kingsland and and uh King Street.
You know, we I'm going to suggest we we retain um Paul Ricky, you know, to do an analysis of that corer. What you know, what's there now? what's allowed. Um, you know, should we look to make any
changes in the zoning of any of those uh properties along that carter? Remember, you know, we're we're in we're in this for the long for the long term. And the other thing I'd like to make is if anybody has a concern or an issue, um, there's no need to wait for the joint
meeting. If somebody's got if somebody has an issue uh whether it's a citizen, a commissioner or anybody else on the people on the zoning board, you know, especially if it's an emergent thing that they think it might be an emergent thing, they should uh bring it to our attention. You know, you don't have to wait or no one has to wait for the joint
meeting to bring something to our attention and you know, especially that you know, the wheels of these boards act relatively slowly. The sooner we become aware of something that we should be looking at, the better. So I just wanted to clarify that a little bit and uh you
know explain the process too for you know some of our some of our newer members. >> Thank you chair. >> Well you explained it for me being here now seven plus eight. I'm sure I'm sure surprised about learning this process
only in the last two weeks ago that there was you know a I thought it went from us to a particular body and then directly to the commissioners. I didn't know it was in the hands of someone else to interpret
and then maybe considered the job. So, it was a lot learned even after being here seven years. And thank you for outlining. >> Seven years. You mean your seven years? >> I think Barry tricked me. >> Sure. That I know that. >> Yeah. You know, I I think we should codify that process.
>> You're right. Document, you know, who gets what when, you know, put a little flowchart together or something like that. Just we all understand because a lot of times we say, "Yeah, we sent it to the commissioners." Okay. What does that mean? >> Yeah. >> You know, and did we and did they receive it? who which ones or do they all is it with their attorney? You know,
and uh so, you know, we you just nail that down a little bit so there's no no confusion. Well, as as I've said to you and I've said before, when we do something like that, I think it behooves myself as the as the as the chair, and I'm going to I'm going to enlist you as the secretary and the best record keeper
I ever met that we sent X on October 24th of 2024 and it went and I an email was sent from our board board attorney to and then we we put together a flowchart where okay on December of 2024
we do we make sure we do a follow up to see what um >> what h what happened to it and which which brings me to um the process as far as getting a recommendation from the board of commissioners to the planning board to
look at this and send us a recommendation by by land loose land use law we only have 35 days to do that so that's something we need to make sure we keep an eye on um the other question is I have actually probably for you Barry
if you can help me cuz I can't get a the right information or I don't know. So we we vote to definition for a pawn shop. All right. And we send that to the commissioners or we approve that definition and we approve a
recommendation that should be a prohibited use. All right. Now what do you do with that? Where does it go? that goes well it goes to the uh the board attorney because he represents the commissioners and that's who I as your
attorney deal with and he disseminates it to the to the board members. It's it's always sent in the form of that. All he all he has to do is forward it uh when he gets it. >> Okay. >> He has to look at it and make sure it's okay and then forwards it because he is the attorney.
>> Does he copy you? Here's my here's the the anal thinking. So when he you presume he forwards that. Yes. Does he copy you? >> Not necessarily. >> So if you don't get a copy, you don't know if he sent it or not. >> I assume he has. >> Right. That's part of the problem. >> I assume he has because you know he's >> that problem. It's part of the reality.
>> Responsible attorney. He's got a lot on his plate. >> Yeah, I get it. >> But it's always sent in a form to make it easy enough just to forward it. Uh so he doesn't have to do much editing of say I got this from the board. >> Yeah. But I know typically when that when that happens, whatever the recommendation is, uh it's typical that
the board that the board of commissioners wants to get a response from their attorney to see whether whatever they've gotten is appropriate and whether it needs additional study or not and then they get it and of course they may have additional studies they want to have done. >> Oh, sure. Yeah.
>> Yeah. You know, look, I I think we don't want to be in a position where we're waiting to hear from them and they're waiting to hear from us on the same thing, right? You know, you know, we're sitting here thinking, "Hey, you said that." >> Once you send it, they've heard from >> you like like you're getting this
tonight. You've got 35 days to reply. You have your reply ready, whether it's yes, no, or an amendment. And here it's the question is whether it's consistent with the master plan that was specific they want to find out about. It goes to them saying yes, it was consistent or no, it's not consistent and this is why
it's not consistent. Uh uh whatever else. Okay. You just said it goes to them. >> It goes to >> you send it to Bruno. >> Yeah. >> And you copy this board. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So you presume Bruno sends it to the balance of the commissioners.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So the next step in the process is John Bruno sends it to the commissioners. And what happens to it then? Do you guys send it to an expert or is it the matter who handles it is or >> send to five people? >> Right. Yeah. You sent the five
commissioners who handles it. >> I guess it all depends what what you're getting really. I suppose >> right. I mean I guess I don't want to talk about specifics but Right. So if it's forwarded to us then it's a matter of who's going to move it forward. Right. whether it's going to be the
mayor, whether it's going to be the uh the revenue and finance commissioner who has code under his department and um you know and I think you know depends on who's going to move it, right? or you
know sometimes I mean you listen and I'm not going to make excuses for us but we get a lot of emails you get a lot of so it's like it if it's not on your radar it's like okay I read that >> and it may just language >> I and I respect the fact you have a
business to run you have a job you >> so it could it could you could read it right I read it I look at it and I go okay >> so does it does it also depend on the subject matter good. >> Sure. >> You know, if it's if it's something that
is of interest, like you know, you like I said, it's on your radar. I I want to get this done, you know. Um, >> so so, you know, I think there's some codifying on our end.
>> Well, so, so if I I'm sorry. So, if I may, I think our it it it lands on us to keep asking them what's going on because they have other things to do. >> Well, that's true, but keep in mind under the municipal land use law, we have two commissioners on the board. So,
it's not as if we don't have a pipeline to the commissioners. It it shouldn't be that we have to keep reminding all the commissioners what they're supposed to be doing. We have two commissioners here and that's the purpose of having him frankly >> and and the the you know the mayor's representative the same thing. He he
fills in when the mayor is not available. But that's so that the the commissioners, you know, hey, you guys just got this or John just got this or they just talked about this or they're about to decide this, whatever. So that there is some freshness to the concept over at the
commissioner's office without >> Yeah. you know, constantly chasing, you know, >> and I know at the last meeting, um, you know, it it it seemed like, you know, we didn't it it was said that we didn't do
our job, right? But I I really think either forgotten or or never aware of what was already received, which is what I said that night, Mark, Mark, didn't we already send this over? >> Yeah. Yeah. So that I mean
>> the commissioners could could choose not to deal with it. >> Correct. >> Or say disagree with us, >> right? >> My big issue is I wasn't comfortable that everybody received the information and maybe they forgot but and frankly that could happen too. It was a year ago. >> You know, I'm not comfortable.
I'm not comfortable that our We need a two-way follow-up system to confirm you got it. You know, it's it's not good enough to say. Let me just say it's interesting because I I I don't disagree with you. I do agree with you. There should be more communication, but
it's interesting the way the municipal land use law gets written. >> Yeah. >> They send it to us. You better get it done in 35 days and send it back. >> And and and you do, but there's no time frame for ever getting a response under the law. And it's deliberately done that
way. It it is deliberate. I mean, it may feel terrible and it may feel, you know, kind of not very efficient, but it's done that way because they have more on their plate than just land use. >> Yeah, fair enough. >> And so, it's it's drawn that way and there's a lot of complaints about it because there is a lack of a lack of
communication everywhere in government. >> But from the planning board and uh when work is done and then nothing happens, that's frustrating. >> Amen. Well, Mark Mark even put it on the
agenda. He's got a specific old business item every >> That's the only thing that's on there. Ask about, >> you know, where are these ordinances that we sent? And it's on there. It's gone on there for months now. >> Oh. Oh, God. Maybe longer than that. >> And I have followed up, but >> I've seen those emails, too.
>> Yeah. Would it require maybe somebody appearing in person to say we have just sent you whatever and we hope that you take a look at it at your earliest opportunity. Go on record that way. >> Any kind of communication would help >> rather than just you know an email from
Barry. >> Well I I don't think I'll leave it to the commissioners to answer that question. I mean I I don't think it would hurt but I don't know if it really would speed the process up either. >> I mean as you said we do have two people here. that counting on
>> you know the problem >> unfortunat unfortunately it doesn't >> doesn't work that way >> I know I know >> well you know look it's a little >> but let ancient history >> two people commission
when I was on the planning board my first term as a commissioner I took the responsibility to present everything to the commissioners I didn't wait for somebody else to send it to him. I did it. Usually the mayor should do it, but the art
Mr. Cully didn't have a keen interest in in zoning ideas, so he delegated me to do it all the time. But so that way I made sure I got to them and I made the the resolutions, introduced them without waiting for anybody. So you had somebody on this board
communicating to the other board what we what our intent was and that made a big difference and that was back in the days we didn't have a lot of stuff we didn't have site plan then we didn't have requirements then we had all that together
big things we did back then that's how we communicated this board that was als I do want to add that this It's not just we do our work here gets sent over to us. It it it goes from from from Barry
to our attorney who then our attorney does their own internal legal review and own internal legal due diligence. So it's not an instantaneous process. And so there there is uh there is going to be some lag and some delay from when it goes from here to the board of commissioners just because that that's
the nature of I guess the due diligence process on making sure that we have the right product and ready to go. Uh so that way we don't have to do this more than once. We get it done right the first time. >> Yeah. I wouldn't call that a delay. I'd call that part of the process. You know, >> you guys are making the ultimate
decision and so it better be right. So you got to have your attorney review. You know that's not a delay. That's just part of the process. I'm just not comfortable that you guys are getting the information that you know that's because you know >> Mark, could I just chime in for a second? >> Absolutely.
>> So, um I've been involved with this for a long time now and um the last two successful code changes that we made with the planning board. I believe one was in 2018 and then there was another one I believe maybe in 2021.
2018 there was a drastic ones and in both of those times planning board did their work like we always do. We did workshops we got the board involved and when Paul Ricky was heavily involved and Paul Ricky took these visions and these PDFs and he put it in an actual track
chain version and then he gave it to the commissioners. I think we really need to discuss with your points. We also have to discuss how are we going to give it to the commissioners in what form? And I think that's something that I offered with Mark last week to work a little bit better on and I spoke with Paul Ricky
about this after you make your suggestions and you make your actual uh decision decisions to the board and send them like what context how are we sending it for like what code section where where does it fall where is the change and that was that's what like the
codified version u I think we're not talking about enough I think we just can't send the commissioners just a PDF on a definition because I don't think that's clear enough. We have to send them where it's going, what code section and that's where Paul's help in
putting it in a track change version um then sending it to the commissioners. I think that will fix this issue that we have. Um, and also too, let me remind everybody, we all know the the year we had last year, right? I mean, with all the work that we we've done with the board and the workshop, you know, it's a
very busy year last year. So, um, I think that will help. How do we give it to the commissioner? Like, what do we give? Just an email or just a a PDF or we can't just give the commissioners that. We need to give the commissioners something like in a in a track change
version. I believe that's my opinion. That's how we've done it in the past. >> But you still need him or him to explain to the unless they do it. They're not going to read it. >> The the the reality is Dave, I understand it's easier to to digest that
way. And that's ultimately probably what's going to occur in the modern age and how it's done. But that's that's within John's province, not the planning board to tell him where to put to put things. >> Fix it a little. >> No, I I I I listen, I understand the
concern that, but that I I think Mark and the zoning committee when they when they make their recommendations, they are quite specific as to what they're talking about and what's necessary and and as to placement and definitions and refinements, that really goes on, you
know, John John takes care of that. He's got resources that deal with that specifically and we can't overstep our bounds either as as a planning board. We have limitations on what the planning board can do. Uh and that's we're not there to we're not there to draft the
legislation for the commissioners. That's really a function of the township attorney. >> I'm not saying let you know. All I'm saying is put it in standard code. We could test it. >> I agree with what you're saying. I'm sorry, but I agree what you're saying, but I'm going to I'm going to
continue with embarrassing. That's not our place to do that. Our place is to come up with a one way or another. We have an issue. We have a use. We come up with we think is a good definition for that use. >> We we wait for we come up with a good definition for that rash.
>> We go wait for a good definition. We come up with a good definition of that use. We recommend the definition and it it being a pro prohibited or permitted use and we send it via email from our board attorney to their board attorney. It's up to John to get it to a Paul Ricky to to make it
>> that's not how we did it in the past. >> I don't remember doing that. >> Like what give me like stuff it all happened that way. That's exactly how it happened. And I I don't I don't know how productive it would be to put it in a codified version to send it
to uh uh the town attorney to then have it sent to Paul Ricky because it's going to it's going to go through a lot of different revisions, a lot of different changes. Uh and I think that the I guess the meat of that dialogue is going to happen between uh John Bruno and Paul
Ricky. And that's that that's what happened here is that they worked together to present this document to us. I think part of the delay was uh as you pointed out everything that went on, we couldn't really move on this until a lot of issues were addressed uh prior.
There's a lot of conditions that had to be met before we can deal with this. >> Uh and so this was definitely put on the back burner until it was at an appropriate time to address this. >> That's a great point. And and now that now that we're in a situation where we
can address it, we're going to do that. But I want to make sure that the process going forward is clear who who does what where does it go and then where once we send it where does it go from there and then and then we'll all have to follow up to make sure that it goes somewhere.
So you're saying that it would be when we send you a definition that we approve and etc. we send it to the attorney John to get it codified. >> I I or or is if if there if you think there's a better solution or more
efficient way, please. I just want it to work. >> I I I think the the the the best solution would probably be to continue what we've done, have Barry send it to John, but maybe CC both the chair and then the the two the commissioner and the mayor who are sitting on the
planning board as well. uh just to so that we know when that I guess that signal has been sent. >> Okay, >> we can do that. >> Uh Commissioner Scarpel, do you have any >> Would you want the township clerk to get a copy at this time?
>> I don't think that's necessary. >> Jack, so what are we supposed to do with this? What's >> Okay, that's our next that's that's our next >> Okay, find out. Well, >> I am I am on. Can you hear me or No, >> not at all.
>> It's loud. Huh? >> Very loud. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> There you go. >> I don't I don't see I just see an audio option. I don't see a video. So, um on my end. >> Okay. So, did you review this uh ordinance 3608? So, you can uh give us
your opinion. >> I I did. >> Okay. So, why why don't you uh why don't you speak to that now? >> Okay. And just just quick as a as a background, um you know, based on the meetings that that I had with the board and and Dave Barry, there was a
secondary document that that you know, um that has a lot of additional changes that I think are going to at some point get vetted and come to the planning board in the commission commissioners. And a lot of it was just cleaning up uh of the ordinance and things that that
Dave saw as well as um I think some of the goals were to to have some recommend some additional new land uses that are emerging that make sense and the like. So wi with that said, all that um language that was being considered um um
you know working document per se, all that was pulled and the commissioners ended up introducing um a very specific ordinance just largely dealing with commercial warehouses as a principal use
on lots. And that's what this ordinance does with the exception I'll I'll just say one other uh item in a moment that the ordinance also um recommends in a couple areas that the concept of a contractor office and that's something that uh I guess at
least I recall discussing with the board and the board seemed to be um um okay and favorable of the concept of a what I I'm characterizing as a contractor office where you saw down on River Road
that that one building that we we talked about kind of in from the Dunkin Donuts a few properties in I think. >> Um so so what this ordinance really entails is is definitions that would be eliminated that exist today for a
warehouse and replacing them with new definitions. And also it recommends to eliminate warehouses as a principal permitted use in all the districts in Nutley except for the Mzoning district.
And the Mzoning district is a small district. I wish I could share my screen. It's it's essentially five or so properties. Um I should zoom in on the on the map. It's it's on the the northern portion of the town on the border with Pake. It's where the self-
storage facility was built a few years back. Everyone know what I'm talking about or no? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Um so the zone is largely consistent of that self storage facility. I'm zooming in here. >> Um and in Baltimore Street and it
doesn't it doesn't for front on pake. So it's one, two, three, four, it's like six or so properties. Um, and then I'm just going to give you just a general overview, then I can dig in uh
deeper. And then the ordinance proposes to allow a contractor office in the M1 and M2 zoning districts. Only Dave Barry knows where the M2 zoning district is because it's not on the because it's not on the
zoning map. >> It's like five lots in the whole town. So the M2 is a separate it's only Dave Barry I think those Yes. >> M2 is the East Center Street area. Correct. David >> 12 lots. >> How many? >> 17 lots. >> Oh only I thought it was less than that
>> on the >> Is it Is it in the East Center Street area? >> Yeah. >> Okay. On the north side there of all those properties >> down the hill. >> You have you have the lot block numbers, right? >> They're in the zoning ordinance. We're
at the beginning of the zoning orders in section 704. >> 704 copies. >> Oh, thanks. >> Thank you. >> It's easy. decision. So, so just to uh
clarify some of the discussion that the commissioners had last night is um we took we took out of this for consideration the warehouse accessory because there
was some question on the square footage and the percentage and I think Dave's actually doing a little research to see how many properties actually uh would be considered accessory warehouses.
>> That's something we can add later. >> So, so yeah. So, right, David, >> you're gonna you're researching the accessory warehouse locations. >> I got a list from from Ed industrial properties and then I had Jessica in my
office create um the lot size, the square footage, and the zone. And I'm trying to get from Ed the tax assessor on some of the building cards. It's pretty cool. It shows the actual footprint and it actually shows the
amount of the office and the amount of the warehouse. So you could you might be able to get a little bit of a percentage. >> So how much the percentage of the warehouse? >> That's something that'll be done a little bit down the road. But we wanted to get this >> uh we're going to introduce it actually
tomorrow. we we uh extended our meeting because we we wanted one some clarity and two to get it before uh the planning board to look at. >> Okay. >> So, um you know the the the way that
Paul explained it is pretty much um where where those uses are in the prohibited uses, but I just wanted to explain a little bit about why you don't see the accessory warehouse in there. >> Understood. So Jerry go. So are are are these proposed
definitions the same ones we sent forward or are they changed in any way? >> No, they're the same. >> They're the same. Okay. So I still don't know what we're supposed to do now. What do you want to >> just that it's as long as it's consistent with the master plan?
>> You need that officially because >> because when we sent it over >> because this is a this is actually a zoning change. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I get it. It's an official thing. And when we sent it over, >> we we reviewed it that it was consistent with the master plan at that time. >> That was at that time. That's with with
Paul. We had Paul We had Paul. >> So, we're paying Paul twice, by the way. >> We had Yeah, but we had we had deemed it to be uh consistent, >> but now it's >> it's in an ordinance. >> Yeah, I got it. I get it. Fair enough. Okay. And I think it's just um just to to make sure we're dotting
all all the eyes and crossing all >> in that vein. I have a question for you. >> One one more thing just for the new members. >> Okay. Why this was important is because we were in litigation over the the existing definitions that you see under
warehouse um and didn't cover truck terminal that we thought they did and we wound up going to court and losing. Now, that's off the table right now, but it that's part of the the um genesis of looking at
this and getting better definitions of what each of the and you guys should be congratulated on the work that you did because >> I doubt there's another town that has this kind of specificity. >> Definitely not.
>> Um in what where kind of warehouses are. So, uh that being said, Mark, >> okay. I just the original version that I had had it in there. It highlights it says remove this portion. I have the revised version and the last page uh the
last line is accessory warehouses shall be limited to one principal building per lot. Can we even address it in the ordinance if it's not defined? Um it's it would right now it would be an interpretation by by David Barry because
there's examples of today and by way of example uh that you approved at the at the innovation center where they have a portion of the building that's identified as warehouse space that is you know customary and incidental to the
principal use. So it would require an interpretation by the zoning officer, but there are uh appears to be numerous cases where you have a portion of a building that's being used for uh warehouse slash storage of inventory and
things of of that nature today. Uh and and with that said, in your zoning throughout Nutley, you do not identify um accessory uses that are that are specifically permitted. So the zoning
officer has to interpret what is incidental in in uh to an existing principle used today. So that's that's just I'm just throwing if everyone captures all that uh it's really not changing how your code is structured by
having some that language per se because your your code does define what an accessory use is. So that that concept is in the code as a you know a use that's subordinate incidental and um you know your code does define
what a warehouse is. So I think the the uh zoning officer could um determine what that is and he could I think he could interpret it in the short term >> in the short term. >> Short term and in the long term it'll be in the long term it'll be definitely be
>> clarify. Yeah. >> Okay. Got it. >> Yeah. I I for expediency I I get it, but we should follow up with this because I think over over the years you've asked us to help limit your ability to interpret, right? You want us to you want you want
>> you want to amend this definition >> specific. Right. Correct. >> I I started already today. Yeah. I I started making a spreadsheet and I'm starting inventorying all these similar buildings in town that have a a storage or whether it be what you
call a warehouse or an inventory or you know however we decide to call it you know it's really inventory you know it's somebody who sells pools somebody who sells there's somebody who sells cosmetics there's people who sell there's a a florist there's I know a
janitor you know he sell janitor know cleaning supplies. So, he sells cleaning supplies and he has his inventory there. However, we want to describe it. Um, we have several of these uses throughout the town. >> Can I ask you a question? Um,
>> Paul, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, Dave. Accessory warehouse, does that mean it's attached to the principal building? Can it be separate? >> No, it's part of the building. >> Yeah, right. That's an accessory use inside a warehouse. It's not accessory warehouse. So I I was reading this as a
separate building on the property, not not attached. >> No, >> no. >> It would be similar to like um you know, Commissioner, right? >> He sells pools >> and in the back of his he has his inventory.
>> But that's not how this I read this accessory warehouses. >> You're you're looking at the >> the last sentence that Mark was pointing out. Well, I think what Jerry said for expedience, I think is right. You have to remember that we did have it defined.
>> Yes. >> Right. And that's what we kind of pulled out of this last night. >> Okay. >> Right. So, I'll read it >> way it was defined previous that that's probably going to be >> amended. >> Okay. >> A completely enclosed building where up
to 50% of the building may be used for the storage of merch merchandise. constituted an accessory use to such establishment. Accessory warehouse may not exceed 35,000 square foot of gross floor area. So that's the way it was defined. We
pulled that out because there was a question about making sure that we weren't going to make too many non-conforming uses of those existing properties. >> So that you know maybe you know 35,000 square feet is not the right number. Maybe 50% of the building is not the
right number. So we don't want to make these existing buildings become non-conforming. So there was the the talk was to let Dave do a little research and then we could make sure that whatever numbers we put into this
match the existing areas. Is there a way to discern between >> a way to discern between new construction and uh what's existing? >> So that what you're talking about is setting a a zone for new construction moving forward.
>> I'm not sure you even have to call it a warehouse. I mean, >> it doesn't seem right. >> It doesn't seem right that it's an accessory warehouse. It's it's a warehouse with an accessory use within it. It's it seems backwards to me. You're calling an accessory where the
warehouse is not the accessory, right? That's the principle. The the section of the warehouse is >> No, I think you're missing it. Look, it's a dominant use. Let's call it a a retail store. >> Cosmetic store on the shade. >> Call it a cosmetic store. >> They have a they have a huge online business.
>> And they have an actual retail. You can walk in, you can buy stuff, >> but they have a larger the larger probably the largest area is a ware or inventory. >> It could be could be 75% of the building is warehouse because of your online. >> Yeah.
>> And it and it's got a dock. I mean, you know, it's a warehouse. I mean, it's got a loading dock. Yeah. >> It's, you know, so >> Wow. >> You know, >> and that's being classified as an accessory warehouse >> and it's accessory inventory.
actually goes back a little bit to some of what we actually called a warehouse, right, David? Like previous >> previously that was that was an appliance place. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So when you say accessory to me it means secondary the principal then it's really
a a warehouse with an office up front for small retail. >> Yeah. >> Retail. >> So majority of it's >> there's different ones too. I mean, you know, >> different percentages of >> warehouses, >> but there's there's different I don't have a list that he has, but off
the top of my head, I could think of some that are out there that you have, you know, different areas, but I think for tonight's purpose that we put that on the side. >> Yeah. It's only going to make I was just gonna step in and say what we're this conversation we're having
right now is that's a that's a workshop for another day. Yes, >> I'm I'm doing I'm thinking we might just talk make it uh amend accessory uses and come up with something like that. But that's uh >> so so just to clarify >> anything coming up down the pike that
Dave knows of that would >> only right now as far as I know. Um, so I just to clarify the answer to my question, can we approve this ordinance with the accessory warehouses mentioned
if we don't have a definition for an accessory? >> Paul said yes. >> Paul, you said yes. >> I think you can. I think you need to update it eventually, but >> Okay. All right. >> Gives you it gives you more protection in the short term. >> Okay, fair enough.
Uh, >> are you gonna update the Are you going to address the consistency issue tonight even though the ordinance wasn't? Uh, >> well, we're going to do that. We're going to do that. >> Okay. >> Uh, so why we are you what's your opinion of the uh consistency of uh
ordinance 3608? >> Right. Uh there's one this is I'm going to discuss it with you and you're going to have to make your own uh interpretation here. Okay. Right now the the ordinance recommends keeping
warehouses in the M district and the only remaining districts where it's proposed to be removed are MO M1 and M2. The MO the master plan is clear that's the Hoffman Lar Roach former Hoffman Lar
Roach area prism. Um it there recommends eliminating warehouse not associated with like a manufacturing and it's clear that it recommends the elimination of of warehouses as a use. Um the M1 and M2 districts don't have specific uh
recommendations and throughout uh sections of the master plan. It it does discuss um I can just verify if it's in both districts, but at least um in the discussion of the of the M1, it does indicate that warehouses are are are
permitted uh land use. Um um within throughout the master plan there's there's sections that talk about um and I'm talking about now the the Washington Street Air and East Center
Street area. The master plan specifically and that's where the area where a good portion of it is in the M1 district. It suggested that the area be reszoned to acknowledge its current uses and to support uses that will be compatible with the area, encourage commercial and small business
development, which large warehouse is not to support the neighborhood's needs. But there's no specific recommendation in those districts to eliminate uh warehousing. Um regarding um goals in the master plan, it says to undertake a
review of zoning districts to ensure that they are responsive to market conditions and allow for the attainment of the township's overall goals and objectives. Consider new compatible uses with the existing community which allow for economic growth. Doesn't really
speak about eliminating it there, but it does speak for you to evaluate your your zoning districts. Um, uh, general goals, broaden the tax base to the attraction of commercial uses compatible with a res.
>> Excuse me, Paul. Dave has a question. >> Got to be on the mic. Dave, >> Paul, I'm sorry. Dave has a question. >> Paul, I'm sorry. >> Speak to the mic there, buddy. >> I heard you say zoning district down Washington Avenue and East Center Street. That's primarily an M1.
>> Yes. four there. Washington Avenue is B4 and East Center Street's B4. You get to the bottom is M1. >> Park Avenue is >> Yes. >> Washington, >> but everything south of East Center Street, the B4 zone is an M1 >> to the border. South to the border.
>> Yes. >> But it talks about the East Center Street and Washington Avenue area. So, it's it's a the whole area was kind of like grouped together there. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, the master plan, I mean, regarding that area specifically, the
master plan considers that a opportunity for a redevelopment zone >> that that as well. >> I'm saying is I'm just bringing up that there's no it's not 100% clear regarding it doesn't propose to eliminate it. Um
it acknowledges that the that the uses are allowed, but it still the master plan discusses the need to, you know, have compatible land uses that are compatible and consistent with with the area. Uh it's my opinion that a large
oversized warehouse would not be consistent with those areas. Um however, you know, it's not it's not cut and dry in terms of what the master plan says. So the the law says that if there's any inconsistency
with the master plan, the inconsistency that potentially exists is that the master plan does recognize, let me pull this up here, um when it discusses permitted uses in the
M1 district on page 332 and 3323, it says the industry and garden apartment districts M1 located in the southeastern area of the township adjacent to East Center Street is an area in transition. Historically, this area consisted of
manufacturing and industrial uses which benefited from the adjacent freight line. However, over time, garden apartment buildings have replaced manufacturing uses. The M1 district permits and it goes on and it permits all the uses and it permits it says
commercial warehouses um is what it said. So it recognizes that warehouses are permitted there. It doesn't have a recommendation whether they should be eliminated or stay. I think the only um reference to
the prohibition of a warehouse is at the la ro redevelopment. >> Absolutely correct. >> Right. So you we didn't I I don't recall that we said it there should be no more
warehouses in any zone. >> Um not that that's a good or bad thing. I think that the master plan was specific to the hop and the ro not not the uh balance of the zones we're talking about. I think I think
market conditions have also changed. >> Oh my god. right from when we did the master plan >> which was 2012 was the last time I >> so I mean you see these huge warehouses fulfillment centers as we define them uh and and and others
showing up not all you know and being proposed in town and also showing up in adjacent towns and all across the state. So, I I think it's, you know, I think um the master plan does allow us to look at
those conditions. I I'll leave that well Ricky to look at those conditions and make changes accordingly. Um which would be consistent with the master plan is that we're allowed to make changes like we're doing. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> So, by direct
>> um it it it does and it does encourage that. It's just not 100% clear when it was when it was 100% clear regarding the one area. So, >> so the question is, is that an inconsistency? It doesn't it identifies it as a
permitted use, but also says um you know to to encourage you know development that's compatible with the area as well. And the one thing that I would say that that changed since 2012, there was, you know, a significant
demand for larger warehouses that occurred. And it was a it was really a a land use that you did not see um in this area, New Jersey. And it was just a for for lack of a better word like the term run on a bank. It was just a substantial
amount of warehousing being built much larger. The model shifted from there used to be large distribution centers out in the middle of nowhere and now they started coming closer to residential areas and and the like. So,
um, you know, there there were changes that occurred, um, um, clearly in the marketplace that if, you know, if the town was looking at the master plan a few years later, there might have been some, you know, it might have been
addressed more closely. But, um, it's so the the question really arises, is is that something that's does it create an inconsistency? The potential for the inconsistency is is that the zone recognizes that it's it's a permitted
use and then it would be eliminated. That's the potential for the inconsistency I think. >> And the other thing is the commissioners if they choose if just say the board says there's an inconsistency here but not here just say that happens. Um you can
the commissioners can still vote an ordinance through. They need a supermajority vote and they need to state their reasons on the record if you say there's an inconsistency. So it the question is from a legal perspective is it safer to say that and
then have a super majority vote and explain your reasons for why you're doing something. That's the question. >> So clarify something for me Paul. This is more if uh we approve this uh um bill as as as it's written here where will
there be any zones that warehouses will be permitted? >> Yes, the M district >> M zone >> just a straight M zone not M1 M O M >> just the M >> and that's >> where's the M zone >> that's uh
where >> the nor the northernmost area of the township. six lots. It's for like the new self storage or fairly new self- storage facility. >> The Atlantic whatever property at one point
>> it's across the street from the old >> place where the store used to be and you'll find >> used to be famous. >> That's right. >> Famous. cookie place. >> Then you should make the cookies there.
>> I wish I had cookies. >> Well, you do say that it's it's that the ordinance is consistent with the master plan except for so >> um there's the potential for there's
there's no recommendation for the M1 or M2 districts. And the M1 district, the master plan recognizes that warehouses are a permitted use uh in the master plan. Doesn't give a recommendation, good or bad, just recognizes that it's
permitted. >> Well, that's just a statement fact. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if if you look at um I can't believe I remember this, but part of the master plan in um
in the in the land use elements, you know, section three B4, we talk about the plan evaluates the current zoning for consistency with Nley's existing land use patterns. You talk about the
change in use, right? and it says there are several areas of the township where changes in zoning are recommended so as to be consistent with the existing land use. Right? So, you know, we could argue that um
the the warehouse activity is and and the potential uh uh traffic and noise and general activity that it brings is inconsistent with
the current >> M1 >> planned and existing and uses of of the uh of the zones. >> It goes to that that last file concept that's come in with with these you know these these warehouses and I think
there's a change market condition and you know right now it doesn't fit in with with what we see uh the goals of the master plan. >> Yeah. Exactly. I ask a question. Go ahead. Finish finish your thought because you're going to forget.
>> Nobody's gonna hear it anyway. >> You get one good some of the some of the uh past uh uh issues that we had >> where it might wind up in a legal uh situation. interpretation I think
clear defined things is what probably keeps us you know uh from these legal battles right when we we talked about truck terminals we thought it was included it wasn't I think to be more specific I think it will reduce those
potential >> there's going to be a super majority >> yeah yeah no I know but I'm just saying >> so however however we choose to send it back Um, I I leave it to to Paul and Barry how it
should be worded, but I think I think that we're all in agreement. It's a good change. >> And and the other thing is part of your responsibility is is it to make a determination regarding whether there any inconsistencies but also any other
recommendations that you have to the commissioner. So theoretically you could say, hey, there may be a a a limited partial inconsistency, but we believe it's in the interest of the township for the reasons that you set forth as well.
Um, so >> it it may be safer if anything was ever challenged to say there's a limited inconsistency that the master plan recognizes it, but we believe it was the intent of the master plan to continuously uh review and evaluate the
appropriateness of of land uses in Nutley as the the master plan really discusses. Um, so it's I just wish there was um more language to that regard, but making some notes. Making notes here.
>> Yeah, listen. I'm I'm going to I'd be more comfortable if we I'd be more comfortable if we do. We need to vote on this tonight or can it come in our next meeting? >> I I think we need to vote on this tonight. So,
354 days. You had it and we had an hour. You said what I was thinking. >> Hour and two minutes. >> Well, like uh the commissioner said that a lot of it is an upgrade to what was here.
>> Correct. >> Listen, it's a lot of it's you guys discussed for a long time. >> There's nothing there's nothing new in here. >> That's that's true. Let's do that. >> Well, there is the fact that when we
went through all this, we did discuss um I don't remember at length or not, but we did discuss it consistency before we set it up. Yeah, I think it was in one of the emails. >> Yeah. The way I'm thinking about it is the right way to potentially approve this is
to as Paul said approve it as written with li and prove its consistency with a limited amount of inconsistency but it does reflect the overall spirit of the master plan and the long-term uh uh best
uh the long-term spirit of of Mley and and and maintaining our quality of life because eventually We're going to address it anyway. >> And I think the statute, let me bring it up again, um, does recognize there can
be some limited righties. >> I I do have I guess some confusion because the way it's so this is being written, it's the M zone, the M1 zone, the M2 zone. uh allow
uh any building permitted in the M zone, for example, with the exception of all types of warehouses as a principal use. And I think the addition of as a principal use can get us into trouble down the line because maybe some savvy attorney or
uh developer can try and get around the prohibition on warehouses by saying, "Well, it's not a principal use." and we end up with a warehouse that we didn't intend to have in Nutley. Why is it just not, you know, warehouses are prohib
all all types of warehouses are prohibited? >> Um because the reason it was written that way for consideration was that uh places like the innovation center where they have like storage of of materials in there um they use a portion of their
building for for warehousing. um other businesses that maybe retail in the front and have merchandise in the back would be considered uh accessory warehouse. Uh it was meant to protect those type of activities that are that
are commonly occurring in the township and then the township the definition limits the size um of a of a commercial warehouse to be 35,000 square feet. So if anyone ever won an argument that it's the accessory, the maximum size could be
35,000 square ft. >> Right. I think we're tableabling that that piece of of what? >> No, no, but the definition of warehouse is commercial warehouseed to 35,000 square feet in the commercial warehouse definition.
>> Excuse me, Paul. You mentioned the innovation center. Um the fact that that was done under a redevelopment agreement does that uh does that reflect on this on your comment at all? >> No. My comment was just to give an example trumps are our songs anyway.
>> Yeah. And do we need to carve out specific protection for already existing uses because would they would they not be protected by just by virtue of being grandfathered in? uh and it should we would just be preventing potential future headaches in the down the line.
>> Well well any use that exists is allowed I think we recognize is is allowed to continue as long as they don't you know change or or modify that use. So there's nothing you can do under the law regarding that. But the the definition of a commercial warehouse does limit the
size to 35,000 square feet. So um if the ordinance was adopted um under any facet the maximum size could be 35,000 square ft. So um what I'm saying is is that while
there isn't a definition of an accessory warehouse um you still have a um an accessory use can't be greater than a a principal use. So you would have you would have that size protection as well.
I guess I still have some concerns. We're trying to eliminate warehouses entirely in town. Why are we permitting it in some form or fashion? Need more time to review it. >> Okay. Well, I think the reason was that because they exist and then you would
you would be zoning your existing businesses uh into having nonconformities is that was the concern and that was raised by the planning board as well as as my discussions with with Dave Barry and anyone I spoke to in the township
regarding the creation of this that that's the basis. I I understand that's I think we're doing an awful lot of work to do something halfway. But by way of example, what happens if
you have a shop, right, and you want to then you'd have to say, are you okay if somebody has a toy store and they want to store, you know, train tables in the back of their building? >> Yeah, I don't prohibiting that. I don't
see that as a warehouse. I I see that as part of the store, being able to store inventory or or what have you. I don't see that as a warehouse. I see a warehouse is more of a something like uh
like if you go into a Costco, but it's or Home Depot, but instead of having the retail space, it's just there to as a means of getting things from point A to point B more as a I guess a distribution center.
Uh and I agree with you and uh the definition of accessory warehouse I I modified it today before it was removed and I put language in there that said you know it should not this would not be considered you know inventoryous I forget the I'd have to pull the exact
language up but >> inventory associated with like a retail use but >> I think the accessory warehouse that I think that meets the intent of trying help these or keep these businesses as a
conforming use where I think we're we're giving a little bit too much away with some of these other other definitions. I I I don't think we should I think we're going to eliminate warehouse. I think we should eliminate it
entirely, not just eliminate as a principal use. and the the accessory warehouses that we can tweak that definition uh as as we need. >> So you you're saying that the definitions that we have here for
warehouse should be prohibited in all zones not not >> right in all zones. Well, so if that's the case, then the recommendation of the is that you know it be the or the recommendation the
ordinance be changed to reflect that it shouldn't be as a principal use it should be prohibited in general. >> Yeah. So that you would just stop it as with the exception of all types of warehouses period and get rid of
>> have to change the ordinance. Point out point out what we feel is is something that may be lacking or something that needs to be changed. >> So our our job is to determine if we have a consistency or a limited inconsistency
but any changes like that would be >> yes but you can you can point them out right. they we looked at it and we we feel that that that uh can be changed >> and and that's the I don't mean to keep
I apologize if I talk over anyone. It's hard when it's to hear or the stop. >> That's the intent of the statute for there be a consistency determination and any other recommendations that the board has. So I'm just saying um what I heard
is is just eliminate the words as a principal use in all types of warehouses. is your recommendation, >> right? >> Yep. >> And then we still have the protection for those uh I guess the limited number of residents that Mr. Barry pointed out within that
section 6 739. Uh and I guess we we'll just be clarifying that definition accessory warehouse at a later date. >> So So can to make sure I understand what you're saying. You want to eliminate where it says with the exception of of
warehouse as a principal use. No, just eliminate the last four words as the principal use. >> All right. All types of warehouse. >> Okay. >> Just take the word as a principal. >> Yeah. I I think I think even
you know you mentioned the uh the uh the on three with agree which which building but I think that that that could even be fall under the accessory warehouse. It's an accessory to its primary use.
>> I'm I'm sorry. Was that a question for me? Was it I think >> just a statement I think uh with respect to the innovation center as we go ahead and and nail down the definition of accessory warehouse I think we just need to be
cognizant of that make sure that it fits in the accessory warehouse definition. >> It needs to fit in with the not just which I'm sure it does. Um, so if we were to do that and say it's
prohibited in all zones, all end zones, later we would come back and and approve a definition of an accessory warehouse and make that a permitted use in an M. >> Well, I think or whatever >> I think if this I guess is going forward
as is minus the uh as a principal use. I think accessory warehouse will be going forward. or it just will be undefined and be left to Mr. to in the interim until we define it to >> I would imagine we would have a workshop together and I would gather some
information for the board and we could >> when you get that I'll worry about that tomorrow >> with with Paul and the board we could come up with a definition that fits that inventory of properties >> definition that we have here fits we just don't know if the numbers work but
we'll we'll change the numbers to make it work >> and that should that shouldn't be a whole percentage of the building. >> But part of the language I was trying I I think it needs to be worked on, but I was trying to add some type of language.
This definition shall not include traditional retail establishments with incidental back of house storage, but that it may not just be retail. It may be wholesale and it needs to be tweaked, I think, that language. But the goal being, yeah, you're not differentiating
the mom and pop from a from a what's clearly a a singleuse warehouse that's completely different than an old style business just trying to have some inventory on site. >> Well, did you say you tweaked the accessory warehouse definition
>> before it was removed? I was trying to >> You have a different version than what we have before we removed it >> for for accessory warehouse. Yes. Yeah. >> So, when you're done, you have something that you're comfortable with, could you email that to me, please? >> Yes. And I think it's it I think Dave
was going to do some more research, too. So, we were gonna I don't It's different. It's different than the one from a year ago. >> Um, yes, that language I just read. And then um um I I just kind of tweaked it like just
to clarify instead of saying like the storage of merchandise, the storage of goods, materials, supplies or equipment directly related to the principal permitted use. I was just trying to clarify things. >> That's what he just said.
Oh, he just not here. Once he finishes it, he'll have a workshop or a zone figure. I'll figure it out. So, if this is passed back to the commissioners,
we're still going to have a workshop on this. >> We'll have a workshop on the accessory dwelling. accessory >> accessory >> accessory warehouse then present back to the commissioners for >> yeah
it'll that it'll supplement and will address our in town issues with customers citizens that have that situation in their business >> okay I sort of agree with the mayor that uh
you know trying to encompass existing to what's future development and mixing the two can get somewhat dicey for us. I'm keep thinking about all these recent legal battles that we had recently
commission as well. Of course, we're we're not clear on our definitions where smart lawyers and developers got to get clear on on that next definition. >> Yeah. Leaving it sort of
it's coming out completely. What we're going to approve what we're going to discuss approving tonight is we approve it. It's not going to have that. >> So, one might approve something in front of you that doesn't >> It's not on. >> Where is it? >> It's on This is the first one that they sent in.
>> Yes. >> And then they sent the second one. This is the one that everybody has. They just handed that out. >> And the first these are be eliminated. These three are going to be eliminated. Okay. There's no new definition for existing for accessory warehouse.
>> This one right here. These are all the new definitions. Cold storage, trunk terminal, commercial warehouse, warehouse fulfillment, and office contract. There there was a new definition for accessory warehouse, but it was removed prior to this meeting uh
to be considered at at a later date. >> I believe that's a motion. So, I'll make a motion u that the board approve ordinance number 3608 with with the with the edit of removing the words
uh as a principal use uh on page 303. Uh additionally, uh regarding the consistency, we found that there's a limited inconsistency, but it overall reflects the spirit of the goals of our master plan. uh and uh we think it is uh something that should be addressed.
>> So I I want to amend your >> okay >> to say that we we recommend that that language >> we recommend that that language be >> in all instances because it's listed three times. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. We have a motion on second please call the roll. Uh, yes. >> Mr. Deltu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Smith. >> Dr. Maresy.
>> I thought it would be. Yeah, but I never >> he unmute. >> We have a visual. >> Unmute. >> That was a yes. >> Oh, he just unmuted himself. >> Yes, that's a yes.
>> Yes, that's a yes. Thank you, Doug. >> Mr. Corbanic. Yes, >> Commissioner Scarpelli. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gory Tandia. >> Yes, >> Mayor Kelly. >> Yeah,
>> there >> Mr. Audi. >> Yes, >> that's it. >> Thank you. Excellent job. Yes. Not that I know. >> Before we go, I just want to bring up one last thing. We've discussed this
accessory dwelling thing for a long time. I spoke to uh Mike, our assemblyman. Um and uh he's confident that it's probably not going to go anywhere. Uh but he told me when he was mayor of Bloomfield, they
discussed it and they they started working on an ordinance uh a definition ordinance prohibited use. But he didn't get to it before he left. But he did recommend that you try to put something together that makes it a prohibited use just in case it does come through.
>> In in that vein, uh Mr. Barry handed us out the the I guess the introductory chapter 7 article 4 zoning districts and it lists out what is a R1 R1 A R1 doubleA R2 and it defines it as uh for
example R1 a residential one family to a maximum net density of approximately eight families per acre. I think we run into an issue with ambiguity there. What is a family? Is it a couple and kids? Is it a a couple, grandparents, extended
family? Uh I think maybe it might be part of part part of that conversation might include redefining what what kind of density we're looking at. Uh is it eight single family homes? Is it eight housing units? Uh something along that
lines. I think families can how do you define families and how do you enforce that is >> families in the dictionary >> our definition is very open if you ever read it I mean me and you could live together >> right >> we could live together as long as we're
living together as one single housekeeping unit >> using the same bathroom using the same kitchen that's how our definition is written Paul can you chime in >> um and there's also I mean there's there's case law on this I'm not an attorney attorney, but I don't know like
six or eight college kids living together under the law were determined to be a family. So the the the legal definition of a family is is is can be more broad than than many people may consider it in a normal fashion to be.
Um >> so the problem with using the term family is it's a social definition not a mathematical one >> right >> and the reality is what you're really talking about is not families talking
about numbers it doesn't matter whether related or not really trying to focus on these different definitions is the size of a Yeah.
>> ties into the size of the building. >> Well, the the density you can do, you you have you have more I'm just saying is that that if you if you're going to regulate something, use the density rather than family. >> Yeah. Right. >> Be much more neutral and
>> you could just change, >> right? But I I think that's something we would need to change. I just wanted to flag it as part of that that conversation in the future. And I know our secretary will figure something brought up again. I'll
>> forget. But you have I think was that 4500 45,000 square feet. 42. That's nine. >> Yeah. So that's nine 5,000 square foot lots, right? >> Yeah. Almost.
>> Close. >> Okay. Because it's saying families rather than Okay. So in a density term, it uses the word family for density. >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. >> Approximately 85 families per acre in our >> That's interesting.
>> To change it from family. >> Yeah. >> That should just be like the housing unit, not family. >> Uh, you know, single family homes. >> It's great. see what happens.
>> Put that on our when you talk about an ADU on in the same acreage that's going to affect that number of >> you have to that ADU thing is frightening long term. >> Yeah. He wasn't really that confident
that it was going to happen, but he did work on trying to protect field before he left and he recommended we do something. I have people ask me now for that. >> I'm sure it was push. >> I'm sure people waking up. Like I said,
it doesn't make any sense in nothing but in Warren County every 3 acres. >> You know, so the problem the problem that we face socially is not Warren County. The problem is Essex County, etc. >> Yes. >> People ask for me now. I get emails
quite often if they can do that in their backyard. The difficulty is the solution doesn't always and you have to come up with a better answer >> utilizing existing structure or a >> I'm putting putting putting up something in the backyard.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. But then you get into lot coverage and all that other >> they ask about it. >> I'm trying to beat it halfway rather than >> I got a great line that I'm not going to say. >> I'll tell you later.
>> Say whatever you want. Well, we're going to need to eventually come up. I obviously have a couple other things in front of us, but we're going to have to come up with a definition that works, which we have already, and and and establish that as a prohibited use, and then put together some kind of
a I guess a reason why we don't need why it doesn't work out just in case we get challenged. Dave, as you suggest as you suggested that when we present something to the commissioners uh seeing that it
relates to the codes of ordinance as I read this here, is that what you were talking about reading uh you know stating where in the ordinance that it would be >> related to do that on that recommendation listed describe it
ordinance 749 for want for the for the assessment as well. >> Yeah. No, we don't have that. >> But Mark and I we're gonna with Paul, we're going to work together to to make a better presentation to the commissioners. We're going to work we we're going to work that through.
>> Okay. >> You're retired now, right? >> Go to the gym and then come to the code department. >> I join the gym. Okay. We are Let me look at this real quick. >> We're good with Paul, you think? >> Um
94% developed looking just take out of the measure plan. So when we start talking about these accessory dwelling units, we we're bursting at the seams as it is residential. So yeah, we have a good position uh you know we we we have we'll have a
good story to discuss fully developer quality no overnight street parking if you have a twobedroom house you have to have two parking lot parking spots your existing your new house your house house only has two you can't >> provide a parking space for the people
who are going to that that language none of that matters I know something. >> Well, listen, I I said it at the meeting not so long ago. You have to always go back to health safety. >> You can never be you can never be criticized for trying to protect your
health and safety. And in fact, if you don't do it, I think you're acting on that because that is your obligation. Whether you're the planning board, commissioning board, you you have an obligation to create a public feel, healthy, safe, proper community. And if you state law,
it goes the opposite way. I don't think you're bound to be unhealthy, unsafe against people and I don't think it'll be upheld. Listen, this problem that we're dealing with is an interesting social problem. It's there.
The courts have been dealing with this for 50 years now, almost 50 years, because it started when I was in lawsuit and it's and it's still going on. And the progress we've made, I have to say, is abysmal. I mean, it's abysmal. But when you think about all the litigation
that's going on and all the attorney fees and all the extra fees of all the different recommendations and fair share plans out and how much money spent, how many units have actually gotten built? It's like a sporadically huge.
>> Oh, it may be. They're trying to make it work and it's been that way for years. They've always been trying to make it work, but there's so much resistance to it at the same time. >> The the legislature if they would have acted >> Yes.
>> then this would and that's the that's why the courts had to step in because they weren't. >> But courts are not the way to get it done. lawyers all jocking around the table that's not necessarily
when it comes to jury preventing it by the point that's the only way to get it prevented you can't you can't res >> if you resolve it the lawyers can't bill anymore
just keep it We'll find something. >> Yes, I'm sure. >> I will entertain another motion. >> Absolutely. >> Second. I >> Paul. Thank you. Good night.
>> Thank you. >> Good night, everyone.