Order this 23rd day of April 2025. The time is 7 p.m. Notice this meeting is being held in accordance with public laws of 1975 chapter 231. Inadequate notice meeting has been provided by a notice sent to the Azer park times and posted here in the main lobby of the
municipal building as well as on the website. Roll call, please. Appointment. Christina Bonosakus here. Muso here. Barbara Boz here. Megan Massie absent. Wilson BB here. Hernandez here.
Frederick Stone here. And Brian Carnegan here. Great. Thanks everybody for being here. We've got uh one item tonight which is the continuation of the Redbank train station development plan. Um, we'll do the minutes at the end of the meeting.
Um, I know I always forget, but you're going to remind me. Um, so our planner, Susan Favad, is here and she's going to go over some changes that we um would like to make to the
zone for continuing our discussion. So, Susan, the floor is yours. Thank you. So there are package of basic sets of changes that we've kind of gone through. Most of the these we talked about or many of these we talked about in previous meetings. Um I'll just go
through the first set probably most significant deals with height setbacks uh etc. The bulk district requirements the bulk requirements for the redevelopment district A which is the primary district we're talking about right there at the station. So the first
change proposed is to reduce the maximum allowable building height along the Monmouth frontage uh from six stories to five stories. That would result in a loss of the basically the upper story as had been previously shown in renderings. Um it would remain six stories elsewhere
on that site um where it faces the train station building itself but on the Monmouth frontage it would be five stories max five stories 60 ft um up to a depth of 25 ft in from Monmouth Street. Um another change is the building setbacks the minimum required
setbacks both on Monmouth and West Streets proposed to be increased from 5T to 10 ft. Um and then lastly in this category um the maximum non-residential building area is proposed to be capped. It already is controlled for air ratio
but then um there would be a cap a numerical cap of 30,000 square feet on the north parcel closer to Mama Street and then 17,000 square feet on the south parcel south of Chestnut Street. So those are the changes on the bulk requirements. Um, a couple other things
that we've we've talked about, um, in terms of building massing, design, and articulation, there have been discussion about adding, um, the word meaningful to the discussion of vertical breaks in the building to make even more clear um, the intent of that regulation and then get the planning board a little bit more
teeth when it comes down to site plan review to to require that breaking up with the massing. Second proposed change here is to allow balconies or cantal levered structures or portions of the structure to extend as long as they're above the ground floor to extend up to
5t into the required setback. Um this would basically allow some flexibility on the building so that you can get those increased ground floor setbacks come in more of the ground floor and then you could allow a little flexibility on upper stories. Um we've seen that done in a couple other examples in town and it does help also
to break up the massing of the building. Um, another change um that really is is result of the change of maximum height on MMA street. There had been some language in the discussion of the Mama Street circulation and access principles. Um, that you know that had
some some language allowing for some flexibility on heights above five stories. Um, and that language has now been removed, supposed to be removed. It's no longer relevant if you're not allowing more than five stories along Mama Street. Um, this change we had discussed on West Street. There is a
graphic that has been already in the draft that that really kind of tries to accentuate the lowscale residential desire character of West Street. Um some language has been added to accompany that graphic. Um you know making clear that um individual apartment entrances
with things like stoops, steps, porticos and similar types of architecture are encouraged. Um another change on historic assets. This came out of comments public hearings. Um there's language um that previously contemplated
relocating some um historic assets, preserving them, but relocating them. And that language is now supposed to be deleted um to make clear that all the historic assets that are on the site are to be preserved in place, not be removed. Next change is a little bit of
a a wonky change. Um there is there um is proposed to be added that if the historic train station building uh is ever subdivided into a separate parcel um that may be something that New Jersey Transit and and the developer agreement
on that if that becomes its own parcel that it will not be subject to the bulk requirements of the overall district. um we don't necessarily know that that's going to happen, but the the concern was that if that if that's how they sort of implemented the plan, then all of a sudden you're creating a lot of nonconformities that that really weren't
intended to be created. So really the intent whether it's its own parcel or it stays within the overall parcel is that the building itself obviously is preserved historic asset and that the entire area around the building is an integral part of that public plaza. So, it's it's a little bit of um of nuts and
bolts, but really just wanted to avoid unintended variance conditions. Um there was some language previously regarding the shared street where uh it said that a shared street shall be provided on the north parcel. Um the word shall is a little bit restrictive and kind of dictates that
that's what it needs to be. And so the proposed language makes that a little bit more flexible. Um I don't think that we're the intent was to necessarily require a shared street, but if the shared street was provided, there were certain provisions that would govern. So the language uh iso proposed to be revised to indicate that a shared street
is proposed. Um and any new street is subject to the burough engineers approval. Um it really ensures that that all potential new streets get that approval by the burough. And then there are still provisions that govern the design of a shared street if if that's provided. Um, and then the last change
is um something new on the um post offsite improvements or potential off-site improvements. Um there are already is a map that shows a potential north south connection um between Dr's Parker Boulevard um and Chestnut Street. Um be kind of a long-term change along
along the railard right of way. Um an additional opportunity is now shown on that map and described in the text. Um they would look for an additional north south pedestrian walkway um using the passenger rail right ofway. So it's a little bit farther to the east um a little bit closer to Maple Street. Um
there may be some room there. Again, this is a long-term proposition. I think New Jersey Transit would be concerned about obviously safety, security, so they would have quite a role in the implementation of that. We're not sure that New Jersey Transit's going to go for that, but we really
think that having that pedestrian walkway from Maple Avenue or from uh Dr. Parker Boulevard and essentially across from the daycare center where the tracks are, there's quite a bit of room. Whether there's enough room or not for
New Jersey Transit to put up a fence and feel like there's enough room from the train station from this pedestrian walkway, we don't know. Um, but we would like to see it and I think it would certainly shave some time off of people's walks if they were walking to
the train station so they wouldn't have to go all the way down Maple and turn left on Chestnut and take that full route. They could do a diagonal route. I don't know how much time it would save, but it would save someone time walking. We're not quite sure there's enough room for that pedestrian walkway.
Ultimately, that's going to be New Jersey Transit's decision, but we very much wanted to make it part of the plan. Having it in the plan just puts it out there. It'll it'll never happen if you don't have it in the plan. So, having in the plan is a good first step. So, those are the changes proposed. I think that
the changes on Mama Street um are a significant improvement and will help to set the buildings back. Um bring those up a bit more, make them a little bit less boxy. The height will come down and that'll be a little bit more in keeping with the surrounding context of M Street, which I think has been, you
know, of concern. We heard repeatedly from the public as well as the board members. So those are the proposals. I think you all were sent the memo as well as the change pages. So otherwise, the rest of the plan remains intact. Happy
to answer questions or take comments. So I'm happy to have anyone from the public come up with any comments or questions about the changes to the plan. Yeah, Dan, I think you have board members who want Okay, um I would please encourage you
not to come up and say the same thing you said last time. at some point during your testimony. I will remember that you're repeating yourself and I'll stop you. Um, so I would like some new information. This was a a big change what we what we've put forth so far. And
keep in mind this isn't a a site plan yet. We're not there yet. That's going to come later in the year when we actually get a plan from the developer. This is the zoning for someone to build here, not an actual site plan. So that
we're going to do this. It's going to feel like all over again because we're going to talk about a lot of the same things later this year. So, go ahead, Wilson. Uh Susan, thank you. A couple questions. Actually, three. Uh with the uh area height
setback and density requirements, the change in the commercial, the capping in the commercial space to 30,000 ft of the north parcel to 17,000 ft. So, uh how much of a change is that from what was in the ratios? Um it's not an enormous
um I wish I had the numbers right in front of me. Under the floor area ratios which are a minimum um and well they're based sorry they are a maximum but they're based on the lot size. Um it was like 38,000 or so if I recall 37 38,000 on the north parcel. I mean don't don't
rely too much on that but it was under 40 as I recall. And then on the south parcel it was um you know maybe the 20s. So, not an enormous, you know, step down, but a cap nonetheless, which should give a little bit of comfort. I know that was a concern about the the
amount of of non-residential space. So, it's not it's not a drastic reduction. It's not going to significantly change the mixeduse character of those buildings, but it is a a bit of a uh Thank you. on the uh West Street uh
access. Um why are we using the language encouraged? If we if we think from a design perspective that's what we ought to have, why don't we stipulate it? Want to say um preferred required shall be provided. What what's
the sentence? Oh, okay. I mean, this is why I Yeah. individual apartment entrances with two steps, porticos, and similar features are encouraged. You would rather it be required.
myself personally, I I would uh stipulate that as a as a requirement because I think it makes a big difference in um the character of the that side along West Street, you know, the break up of the facade, the uh sense
of community, but I'm one person. I mean, I would be happy if the chairman were to entertain it to make that motion uh at some point in the proceedings. Anybody have an opinion on that? I don't. I'm fine with it either
way. I I agree. I think that um a lot of a lot of the um discomfort that I'm hearing from from residents is that these are lifeless
buildings and they are like building and many needs of Um, actual feature because at this point we don't know necessarily if I think we've given them kind of the range. Oh yeah, I know. But once you say
required, what are we required? You know, it's not clear. You're saying got You have to have this individual entrances, which is a big thing. Um, and then you would be requiring architectural features that accentuate those individual entrances
and in keeping with the lowcale residential nature of this county area. And when they come in on the site plan, you're they're going to have to show those and they comply that they comply with all those conditions. And the B and they say, "Well, we think we comply." And you say, "Well, we're the planning
board." And we say, "You don't. You don't." They're gonna have to comply, right? Have to grant. You don't have to grant it, right? I mean, that's You would have to grant if that's what they were able to do. Yeah. In order for
them to do what they want, you would have to they would have to apply for a variance and ask you to grant it. you would not be required to grant it unless they met the criteria. Yeah, I think that's a really important uh change on that. Um thank you. Um and
then last on the um street seemed to me that was like uh a pretty great idea. Why would we go from shell to if you choose what what's the
thinking that was um something that that you know I really should call it because the word shall means this this is what you will do you will do right whereas should gives you a little bit of leeway and so you know I think it's we all think that the shared shoot's going to happen and that's what's proposed and I
think generally there's support for that but if they for some reason didn't have a shared shoot on the full extent or chose a design alternative that the board might also be okay with. It felt a little bit too binding um to say shall. So I just thought it would be helpful to
give a little bit of flexibility just because at this stage we still don't know like the chairman said we don't have a site plan. When we see an actual site plan we can hang our hat on should if we want. Yeah. Is that the library? Should Well
um question what page is that Wilson? It's on page 26. 26. I mean, you could always listen, I I have no leg in this fight, but you could leave it shell if if the board's so inclined, and if they don't want to do a shell, then they could ask for the
variance. Say we don't believe a shared street is appropriate. But I leave that. No variance 2025, by the way. Yeah. Let everybody know that now. So if it says shell, it's it's it's shell
right now. The proposed language um right now it says shall incorporate but the proposed language uh would say on on the north parcel uh of redevelopment district a shared street is proposed and then later in the paragraph the design of any shared street shall complement
adjacent place of public space and use design features etc. That's all exists there. So an alternative I think what you're what you're asking for is potentially we could just change the one word from shall to should. Uh which would it say north parcel redevelopment
district a should incorporate but that's what you're asking for. Yeah. Well I didn't do it right right now it says shall say shall so what Wilson's saying is leave it shall leave it shall proposal you have is for proposed. Yeah is proposed. I'm
okay with should. It was like when my mother told me that I should eat my vegetables. She meant that I shall. And there's I think we could really kind of go in that direction when the time comes if we think especially New Jersey Transit is interested in that as well. Again, we don't have a site plan so we don't know
for sure. That's an easy swap for one more should or shall to should. And there's language elsewhere in the plan toward the end that that talks about in shall versus should I go to war over should be totally okay with that. So what's the just so everyone's on the
same page what would the language read under your proposal parcel redevelopment district a should incorporate a shared street between new mixeduse buildings and the new transit right away the rest of the paragraph is okay.
Okay. So that's what it would read. How is shared street defined? Um just it's defined in a is okay street also known as a are designed to accommodate all roadway users through
elements like decorative pavement lighting curves that are flush with the pavement. So it goes into like okay the board have any questions for Susan chamber those changes well upping off the story of the mammoth
street site how does it change the total square footage and how does it change the potential number of units that can build I think it's about three or four units at post. Um, and that wouldn't necessarily be a total reduction. They
may they may go elsewhere on on the parcels. Um, so it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to reduce the number of units. It just might reshuffle them. Um, other question was Yeah, you answered. Yeah, it's it's a few
apartments. A few very precise. Thank you. Anyone else in the board? Does anyone else in the public have any questions or comments for Susan so far? All
please restate your name and address and please um from seeing some of the spelling of the addresses that was on our end. Uh please spell the street you live on. The mic doesn't work. So just speak up.
Allen Hill, 64 McLaren Street. That's McLaren. M C L A R E N McLaren Street. I hope you get that right for the record for the minutes because I just want to make a point. No minutes have been made
available to this meeting and especially as is normal, not even to the public. You, Mr. Manuso, have asked people not to repeat their points from last meeting. I don't know. Don't know. I can't remember what I said last meeting.
I've got a general idea. Mr. Mr. Hill, there wouldn't be any minutes from the last meeting that would be made available to the public because they won't be adopted until tonight. So, it's impossible to have released the minutes ahead of time. Mr. Lexstein. Yeah, it's Steam. It's Lex. Mr. Lex, I do. Thank
you, sir. You are no doubt familiar with Robert's rules. I am very familiar with Robert's rule. Public meeting. I'm very aware. A meeting. The minutes of a public meeting are the public public's uh property. They are up
to the pro it is the meeting. The minutes have to be approved, sir. The meeting should be put to the put to the meeting, not they are not the board's meeting. Now, I don't want to get bogged down. No, sir. You're wrong. So, so, so let me let me finish, Mr. Hill. So, let
me finish. Minutes are the they're the representation of what occurred at a board meeting, at a council meeting, at any meeting. There's no such thing as minutes being released prior to the board meeting to adopt those minutes. If
there was an error in those minutes and they got out ahead of time without the board looking at them, then they would be misleading as to what occurred at the meeting. So the board will adopt the meeting the minutes from the last meeting at this meeting and the second that they're adopted they'll be put online as is the normal course of
business and it has been done in history for the last hundred some odd years or more that minutes have been required. They're never released in advance. I can't they never they never are. I can't speak for the last hundred years. I do know this that mayor and council
meetings do print draft minutes and it is important because myself I have gone through those minutes and found my comments either misrepresented I have found my address put in wrongly stuff like that tell the
tell the mayor that he's not put out minutes I'm not going to advise the mayor and council on what they do if if you if you submit draft minutes to the public before before the meeting that that's up to the council. It's it's not this board does not and this board never has and most boards do not. So, I just
want to correct that. So, it it's it's inappropriate to to criticize the board that they didn't release minutes that haven't been adopted by the board yet. I'd like to hear that from the from the chair. I am rarely ever going to disagree with our attorney. The minutes are on the
agenda. I move them to the end of the meeting merely to get to the point of why everyone's here tonight and we will approve them tonight before we leave and they will then be announced to the public or released to the public. Okay,
on to questions. Um, as usual, we the public has turned up to a consultation meeting with either very little notice or even no notice of changes made to the
plan. We have spent the last 20 minutes listening to the board discuss memos and we we're sat here not knowing what the hell is going on. You know, it's just contemptuous of the community in this
town to carry on like that. I'm going to and to move on. It's all so typical of the consultation that this document has received over the past now all it amounts to virtually 18 months now since December what's it
2023 when any number of alterations have come out. We and we've and and even on occasions being faced like at a day's notice with a 235page document for us to brief
ourselves and go through. Not to mention consultation meetings, the workshops. Uh I'm not even going to go into them. What a travesty those were. But here's the but I'm going to ask an important point now. I notice
on the last draft a company called Perkins Eastermanman appeared on the as as consultants. When when when did this
board engage uh Perkins Eastman as a consultant? They are part of the BFJ team and the I I've looked up as if you can imagine I've looked up and they're a big
architectural firm. Yes. I don't recall if they're more architectural or engineering architectural engineering and you can assure me Mr. Manu so that they have no no uh connection with uh the Den Holtz
business. I could not imagine that we would hire someone connected to the devel the the New Jersey Transit's chosen developer. Thank you. Will that be that question be minuteed and your answer be uh sure. Thank you. Okay. So
we also then have heard that these changes and you know height sets backs public space blah blah have been adopt should we say um varied by discussions. The only discussions that
took place since our last meeting was Susan, Shauna, and I to talk about some proposed changes that all three of us thought from the public meeting that we thought were necessary for the zone. And those were what you
heard Susan detail tonight. And at no point in those discussions were um Den Holtz's negotiating points raised with you. What do you mean? I mean that Dan
Holtz I'm going to say uh was amanable to discussing setbacks but wasn't amanable to setting the height variation if that's the right word which implies to me that this plan which is supposed to be discussed for the benefit of the
town is actually having input from Denholtz and I want to know if that's happening that's a travesty Once again, well, New Jersey Transit is also involved as it is also their land
involved in the the zone. So, when the town sets our plan, we're setting a plan that's already been negotiated with these people. We're not setting the what we want it to be. We're setting, you know,
we're conceding already to Denhart to uh New Jersey already. We know that both those well New Jersey, we know that the motives New Jersey Transit are in on this aren't for the betterment of this
town. We know it's because they got catastrophic traffic numbers on this branch of the railway, in fact, the whole system. and they're looking at at it as a last chance uh to actually get more customers on the rail. They don't
care about this. They don't care about us. Denhalt has gone from being a local builder to being a gazillionaire's fund manager in the last 18 months. I see one or two people on the on the on
the D here just you know what those are facts. Now I'm asking you if if anybody in this room particularly officers of this town council have been involved in
negotiations with Denholds over this plan. NHL has seen the plan and I will tell you that there are parts of it that they don't like and I have told them and I've asked our representatives to tell them more than
once that I don't care what they like. I'm interested in doing what I think and I think the rest of the members are as well doing what is best for the town. New Jersey Transit has cho chosen that developer to work with
and they have seen the zone plans. Seeing the zone plans different than coming back and saying you we want this we don't we'll give you a little bit on the you know give you a little bit. That's all I wanted to say Mr. Manuso. Thank you. I
just want people to recognize what a travesty this has been. Well, that's your opinion. You're you're certainly entitled to it. It's misguided as I think it is. Um I'm not making I'm making a judgment on you. Don't you judge me. If you're making a judgment on me, sir.
It goes both ways. I Oh, really? Yeah. But you're in public office. I am just just a volunteer public office. And you have to take fair comment. I am a not a citizen. You probably know that as well. But I am
taxed without representation. I represent myself. But I do not come to places like this. Have you making insinuations about me? Well, you've done the same thing about this board and our our our people. You are. It's you've got to know the difference
between fair comment and your position as elected appointees. Look, we're not going to sit here and have a back and forth, Mr. Hill. It's inappropriate. Ma'am, Marjorie Cavalier, One Bridge, B R I DGE Avenue, Redbank. Um, first of all, I
want to thank the change about the historic elements not being moved. I just wanted to make sure if you could just list what you view to be the historic elements. And I I retract my statement about
spelling your street. It just sounds so ridiculous when people do it. So I'll help Shauna for any of the street doesn't know how to spell because it really sounds ridiculous when when you have to spell your street. So, the ones that are presumably named are the Mayor
O'Harn marker, uh, the gatekeepers booth, the county bust, and I didn't know what to call, but the circular the medallion that has a map of New Jersey on it in the pavement. Okay. That's that's great. That's what I kind of refer as the historic triangle there.
Okay. And then the the question that I have because again I haven't seen I if if this fits into that same zone. The other concern I had was um relocating the bus route onto putting more onto
West Street which is very residential. So that aspect has not chang that has not changed. That is where New Jersey Transit has at this time where they prefer it. That obviously needs a lot more analysis and study and that's all baked into the plan that you know the
circulation route, the turning movements, all of that has to be agreed upon between New Jersey Transit, the developer, the burrow, everybody's got to be on the same page with that. So there's some more work to be done. Yeah. I I just considering the the number of pedestrian accidents in town and and
that I I believe is a really hot corner where you have the buses, you have the trains, you know, you have many more traffic uh coming into that at certain times of the day and to to more
on West Street, which is narrower than Mammoth Street, I think will lead to additional problems. I I think a lot of the problems actually on are because of all the curb cuts and the different ways people coming in and out and that is creating potential for so you know rationalizing those and
streamlining them with fewer curve cuts I think should improve the overall Yeah. I I mean I I've almost been hit with a pedestrian walk. Yeah. And when I challenged the person they said well what do you want me to do? Go to confession? you know, I you know, so I
almost Sorry. Well, I So, you know, I'm just saying it's a it's a very dangerous section of town. It's not the only one, but I think if we can be very strong in negotiating, that would assuage I did my
concern considerably. Thank you. I have Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Emily Fchell 49 Oakland Street. So would there be any way um
ma'am on the West Street side that would still be six stories? Um yes. Yes. So five story reduction is just fronting Monmouth. Okay. So, I don't know if you're familiar with like the the lofts over West Elm. The top
floor of the lofts kind of looks slightly set back from the other stories. Would they be able to add some stipulation about that in there? Just because it's it's mostly residential off of West Street like she just said, and it it would just be like a huge wall
looming looming over that side of the neighborhood. And I think if they absolutely needed six stories, like to have the top the sixth story set back slightly somehow, maybe those balconies will be on top of the fifth story would make a lot of difference.
I think it's it's a little difficult because there's a parking garage that they need to mask with the rest of the apartments. But one one point also is that um the Wanito's restaurant site on the corner, they're not going anywhere. So everything on west, the extent of Wanitos is sort of behind Wanitos. So
it's not the entire block west. It's about half. Okay. Almost up to Oakland. Um so how far down Oakland are you? Um I'm right across from the charter school. And then I also do agree with
the bus stop being moved on West Street. Like when kids are going to field hockey, like they're coming out of between parked cars like a game of Frogger. Like I'm constantly slamming on my brakes over there. People are always stopped where it's painted yellow and it literally says no stopping or standing
and kids are unloading. I've literally had people pop the trunk at the stop sign. They didn't pull over at the stop sign, but like literally stop at the stop sign, pop the trunk. Like it's a very weird intersection, and I really hope New Jersey Transit takes that into consideration with moving the bus stop. And they'll they'll be here. I assume
they'll be here. I would like them to be here. They're here now. I would like them to speak. I know they don't want to, but yeah, that that some point they will. And that that is a concern of ours as well is the bus circulation on the site. It it just is. And it's there now
and it's not going to go away, but any opportunity to make it better, I would certainly like that. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else from the public? Come on up, Brian. Brian, why did I call Dan? She's my name.
Okay. Uh Dan Rearen, Tony Irving Place. Um, so my understanding of the way that this process goes is we've heard from the beginning of the process that this is much better than zoning because we can put specific requirements on the on
on the developer on the zone. Isn't this the spot at which we put those specific requirements on many? Yes. Not specific to a site plan because we don't have one, but to the zone itself as if you were reszoning downtown. But when the
site plan comes in, you'll have to review it like any other site plan. The variance is based on what we're doing here tonight. Yeah. And up it's going to be an up or down vote. But the So you won't have any more control when the site plan comes in than you would if you
were just doing a regular application any more than the regular zone. No, you're correct. This is the spot where we need to get specific as specific as we're going to get. Um we don't have an opportunity later to get specific. not to do
less necessarily than the zone says. Like if you only want a four-story building like the rail, now is the time. Yeah, I'm not encouraging everyone to stand up and say that. While I would agree with you, um I do in fact want a four-story building. But um but some
things that I think uh would be good to put in there uh are some green requirements. There is no green requirements at all. There's a few suggestions. Uh, and the plan says, you know, it we're great. We we uh help with
the the Mammoth County master plan goal of putting having more green infrastructure. And then there's no green infrastructure in it. Um, they don't have to have a green roof. They don't have to have um they don't have to have anything. They don't have to be leadcertified. They don't have to do
anything green at all. Uh, and you can't make them do green things when they get when the site plan comes in. So, this is the time to make them build a green building. What page is that?
Yeah, Sha Shauna is showing me on page 27 where it's got item J, sustainable green design. There are a number of of practices that are encouraged, but it also says change you to change the numbers. The page
number may have shifted. Yes, my apologies. Um, here we go. It says new buildings in redevelopment district A shall meet NJA green building shall meet. So, there is no choice here. They don't meet it. It's very request. Um, it
shall meet NJA green building standards for type one construction or equivalent levels of sustainability achievement. and then the reference there. um I believe that those are comparable to lead um the EDA requirements and yeah so it's it's not a choice in
that matter and then but there are a number of ways that you could get there and so that language talks about things like energy efficiency LED lighting green roofs those types of strategies well I just it doesn't seem green enough
to me the other thing that Hold on I want to just stay on this for one second Dan because building on it the the the language that it says, right? It gives a whole list of of, you know, low impact development, green storm water infrastructure, green coal
roofs, and then at the end the whole paragraph says these things are encouraged. Yeah. Is there I guess based on what Dan is saying, right? Is there I don't obviously you don't you don't list all of them because some of them are you
know maybe not um possible here but um but if they're not is there any language that we can put in here? I mean yeah not not to not to parse words but you could use the word should rather than encourage because should has a heavier weight. Shall is a requirement. I
wouldn't want to require specific strategies because we just don't know what's going to work on that side of that building. But if it doesn't work, then the commit the board can be convinced of that and give a variance. You could I like shall better than courage. My mother didn't encourage us
to eat vegetables. Okay. Much stronger than encourage. So I'm okay with shall Yeah. So they I realize you're we're gonna have to rewrite that quite a bit. I fit that in, but
yeah, there you go. Yeah, right now the way it's a whole list of things and just adding the word shall would require them to do all of those things which wouldn't be possible. Um so language like it's a brand new building.
It's hard to believe strategies and these strategies. Yeah, it's hard to believe that they can't make this as green as possible. And I don't real I don't mean that that's whatever the the top lead level is. That's a totally different thing. I
I think that should would be strong enough at this point in time because we have no clue as to where they're going. We can we can always shell them later. Um but right now
um I think I I think that should is is a strong enough word for this particular phase. I I don't know. I don't like mayor encourage but I think should would it's
it it shall with with that list if it were just one thing or one one specific but that list is pretty long and you know how many variances we'll have to clear them through if if it if they decide not
to do any of them so I think if we put should we would be everybody would be happier. here. Yeah, I think deciding not to do any of them is a non-starter. Yeah, I would just say first of all, I'm in favor of all of these things, as many of these things as we can get. But the
second sentence as it stands is, if I'm reading this correctly, sustainable/green site and building design methods shall be incorporated to the maximum extent practicable and will be required in the future redevelopment agreement, redeveloper agreement. So
there is a shell. Yeah, I missed a shell ahead of that whole list which is then a little bit. So what is the what's the encouraged language then? Because that seems to be not consistent then. Right. Right. It's either shall or it can't be
both unless the context is different. I just don't have it. Okay. And to greatest extent practicable, right? Yeah. I I think the intent of that long list was here are examples of how you can get there. You should have do it. Here's a bunch of strategies and
so we can work on that to make it not not able to be right. Question related to this about solar. Is there any opportunity to have solar panels in
this project? We don't know at this point. Um I mean there may be two separate quad depends on the design of the roof but if we don't you shall use it's in the list there under the encouragement type of things that we I would think that a comp
a kind of a halfway between. We could require some of them some of them that we think are most important. And like I remember the VNA thing. We had a list of 10 things
ranging from bike racks to solar. What do you think they chose? Two bike racks or something like that. Bike racks raise and they're required. Yeah. But I'm just saying if you give a list that fancy dog pooping thing on the roof too. They wanted to do
I'm looking forward to seeing what that actually looks like. Yeah. So I go to So I have the text in front of me and I think they're two separate clauses is what is what's going on here. So they shall use the sustainable green green site design methods but then it says as examples the use of low impact
development green storm water infrastructure green cool roofs block so on and so on are encouraged. So if you want to get rid of that last R encourage, I think I would put like should be incorporated. Does everybody happy with that? Does
that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. But I'm I'm still concerned about the solar. I think that in the list. Is there a Yeah, it's in the list. But they won't adapt it unless they'll adapt the cheapest thing they could do. It's just a given. We we
can't assume they're going to say, "Oh, I'll I'll take the hardest thing." Well, in a five or six story building, they're certainly not going to achieve enough coverage in solar to make a significant impact on the building if it's five or six stories tall. Are they? Mr.
Chairman, if I if I can just Mr. Just just to let you know, it's if it says should be incorporated, they would have to come and give you a reason why they're not incorporating it, which the board could then each and every element. Yeah, because it's not saying it's not saying here's your list of 1 through 10,
pick two. It's saying here's your list. All these things should be incorporated. So, I think you're protected. And when they come in on the site plan application, if for some reason they say, "Look, this building just wouldn't support solar panels." I'm just using it as an example. You could say, "Okay, that makes sense at that time." But they
couldn't just walk in and say, "We're not we decided not to pick solar panels. We're only putting up a bike rack." They couldn't do that in that case. if you say all these things need to be incorporated. So I think I think you're safe. I wish I could the language that's
already here in the section 4 underneath that requires them to meet these NJBA rebuilding standards. There's only going to be certain ways that they can get to those standards. So right. Yeah. I I think again if you just put should be incorporated instead of are encouraged, I think you're catching
everything that they they can't walk in and say we we decide as the developer we're not going to do this. They can't do and the board just say okay no it doesn't work that way. I I don't know exactly what was going on with the VNA. That was it may have been a list that they were able to pick and choose from. That's not what this language would
allow them to do. Hope not. And for VNA, it would depend on what the zone there said. We're writing the zone now. That was it. They were they wrote the zone. He wrote the zone. Yeah. Did we write the zone? That was the zone. That was a redevelopment.
They did a redevelopment plan. God. Okay. It was a choose your own adventure. Was it? And this is not a dog thing. That was like really you let the dogs be on a roof. And I think that's appropriate com if that's what the V again I wasn't here for VNA but if VNA was more or less a choose your own
adventure. This language is not a choose your own adventure. You are saying these things should be incorporated. as I recall pick X number for certain they could get more they got more density if they if they enacted six of out of 10. Oh, okay. Well, that's not
what this is. Well, it's a good thing you're here, Dan. What else you got? Just on the bike racks, just so you know, they can't use the uh ones that are already train station bike boxes. All right. So, um, another thing
that we could demand now and we can't demand later is that walkway to Dr. James Parker Boulevard. Um, our best chance of getting that is to say is to require it now. Yes. Uh, what is it? You know, if it's a should, okay, but, uh,
something to something to more than just we envision this somewhere down the line. That's that's what what my reading of it was. Well, it it's along the right of way of the train station. I cannot imagine there's a place that there isn't a place somewhere in New Jersey they've got something like this. And I'll bet
you New Jersey Transit has a design standard that if you want to walk next to their train, you need X number of feet. I don't know what that is. I'd be blown away if that wasn't out there already at New Jersey Transit, but um we're saying we'd like it. We've said
where we'd like it. They might say, "No, you need 75 ft, which I know we don't have. I think we have 30 or 40 feet in places, but I don't know how close they're willing to put a fence to the tracks and then leave room and then prepare that
ground for people to walk or ride bikes on, but we have it. We've added it to the plan and we're saying we'd like it." Okay. Can I ask a question about that other thing? Um, I'm concerned about the
safety of of that. I mean, you're you're talking about having this thing and I'm I'm reading weekly, okay, the numbers of people who have been hit by trains and died in New Jersey this year already. Um, I think that this is playing with
dynamite to put that thing put that there with kids running between the schools, running running after school. Um, I see how they drive down ride down the middle of the streets on their bicycles. What's going to happen at the
railroads at at a walkway so close to the railroads? I would really like to put that on hold and see see what um a safety engineer has to say and what what happens because I I really am very nervous about that. They're going to
have probably a six or eight foot fence. Have you ever seen a 12-year-old climb a fence? I was 12. I mean, I I there's going to be a bunch of engineers on this. I I know. I'm just talking about the safety factor right now. And I think that we should have some question marks after that. Seems to
me this is more of an ask than demand because the developer doesn't control these rights away. Oh, this is all New Jersey Transit. This wish is all New Jersey Transit. This is sort of it's uh you know a little bit removed
from the core redeveloper plan. Absolutely. Yeah. But we we we see it and I've walked down there. I'll admit it. Um without the 8ft fence and not been a run over by a train. And I think someone who wants to be hit by a
train, Lord knows there is plenty of places to do that in town. Absolutely. I listen to it all night long. I do too. They love to blow that horn like they're getting paid just to blow the horn, right? We'll admit it. And I realize no one wants to go down the road of trying to get an exemption. I get that. This is
the busiest grade crossing on the New Jersey Transit line, but I I wanted to make sure we mention this so they know we're looking for something like this. All right. Do I think New Jersey Transit is going to go for this? No, I don't. Yeah. Okay. Because kids can climb a
fence, but if you want to get hit by a train, just go down by the station and get by the train or go over by the house. But I mean, those are those are the the ones who were doing it intentionally. And the and statistics show that 85% of the people who were hit by trains did it
intentionally, which is very sad. And um but if we're we're providing a walkway, a bike, Transit's providing it, so hopefully it'll sue them. Yes. Not us. But I just don't want my grandkids run over by trains, you
know? I mean, if they're cuz they're their their brains are not thinking are not working properly. Greatest part about being a child. I know, but not What else you got, Dan? Uh, I meant to mention this when I was talking about green stuff. 85% impervious seems really
high. Maybe that mixeduse street could be uh some sort of permeable. It's pink. You know, maybe they should have some per permeable services that you want to run buses over all day long. No, no, not on the not on West Street. On the shared
whatever the whatever that thing is. I hate pavers, but sure, whatever. Um, so I I was looking at the density and of course I think the density is already too high. Um, but if we take the
north parcel is pretty easy to to figure out what the area of it is. They say it's three and a half acres. That three and a half acres includes the train tracks and the parking lot that's not being developed. So, it seems to me that New Jersey Transit is not going to turn
over uh control of the train tracks to Denholes. They're not going to lease it to them. They're not going to sell it to them. So, it's not going to be part of this development parcel. So, you're really looking at 2.2 2 acres which gives you a density more like 90 per
acre. So I think the density is way too high. Uh and I think before you even talk about density we ought to be talking about okay what is the area? So what are the four acres in the south
parcel? It's not it's it it's not defined anywhere of those four acres isn't defined anywhere. and I couldn't make anything come to 4 acres. Um, but so I think the plan should delineate what the
redevelopment area is, what what is covered by this plan because the vast majority of the train yard is not covered. The vast majority of the the right of way going south going both south and southeast is not covered. Um,
but they are part of this redevelopment plan. Uh, it seems like they ought to be pulled out. Um let's see. Uh parking. So um on page 13, well page 13 of my version, uh under parking, it says
available public parking. Uh there is available public parking within walking distance. What public parking lots? You can only park there for four hours. Use listless to someone who's living in an apartment and needs a place to park. The only place they can park is on
the street. they can't park in any of the lots. Um, so I don't think that there is available public parking within walking distance. Um, certainly people complain when they have to walk from the from those lots to the Count Basy or every time I go meet
Lupitas, I park on Bridge Avenue in front of the restaurant across the street every single time. Now, I don't go in the middle of the day and I don't park there at 9:00 in the morning. If there are 400 400 more apartments with people who only get
part of a parking space per apartment, you won't be parking in front of me pizza. Well, it'll be gone anyway. Gone, so I won't care. Um, gone. Um, the other thing is I kind of did some calculation on bike parking. Um my understanding is
that non-residential uh is going to be limited to 30,000 for the north part or the north section 30,000 square feet and at the parking requirements that's going to generate a requirement of 75 to 120 parking spaces. And at one
bike parking space per 20 non-residential spaces that's between four and six bike parking spaces. Seems a little light. That's just on the non-residential portion. The residential portion has its own bike parking requirements as well. But the does the
residential is the residential one available to the public or is it for the residents? Like it sounded like at least part of it had to be indoors in a secure area. Um I'm just thinking people go to the train station, they're going to need more than four. I would hope that we'll
need more than four to six parking spaces, bike parking space. Um, for the residential, at least half of them have to be inside secured. Um, the rest could be outside and those generally are open to anybody. I haven't seen multif family
developers restrict them to only their residents. They're outside. Susan, what do you think about increasing that four number, doubling that to eight? It certainly seems like we have the room for it.
But I think the ratio would need to be one bicycle space for every 10 double because right now it's one for every 20. Okay, I'm all right with that if everybody else is okay with that. And then the last thing, I'm just not happy with how tall it is and how close
it is to the sidewalk. Well, we did move it. Yeah, I'm encouraged to hear that it's 10 feet off the the thing now. That's better, but it's still going to be on West Street uh 70 foot wall rising 10 feet off this
from 10 feet off the sidewalk. Um uh I I think it should be or stories uh and it should be the setback in that zone is 30 feet. It should be somewhere something like 30 feet. Um uh where do
we have 30 feet for a big building anywhere in town? And whose fault is that? Just saying. I I didn't write the rules. I'm just 30 feet seems like a lot to me. Sheep's downtown type.
The other odd thing to me is there's actually a negative 10- foot setback on the Oakland stub. They actually are building their building 10 feet into the right of way. Seems weird to me. How is that? How do they They're not leasing it
from us. Are they the department had to vacate that public street? So that'll be part of if that happens that would be part of the redevelopment agreement with the burough. Okay. It would become a pedestrian only. Okay. Uh that's everything. Thank you.
Anyone else from the public have any comments or questions? Bill, I didn't see you Suzanne. We'll do you next. Good evening board. My name is William Poku 90 Bank
Street. Um I apologize for uh not coming in uh a little sooner, but I was in the library preparing for this meeting. So my understanding uh hearing someone talk about a page 14 of something uh in the presentation
which I missed uh says to me that uh uh something else has been shared at least with the public and some folks uh that development plan itself that we're talking about is on the burough website. Okay. All right. So
I'd like to kind of uh uh add a little bit more on to what uh Mr. Alan Hill said about uh call it agendas. I looked up uh for agendas on
the uh uh on a public website and there's nothing for uh uh 2025. Nothing published for uh 2025. Uh the only agenda items that can be seen on the
redbackj.org or uh uh agendas uh what you call agenda site for the planning board is just uh for 2024 and past. So, I'm just pretending the Yeah, the issue is that for people
like me and others that want to look at uh past minutes, what transpired and all that, we're pretty much very limited in terms of uh uh uh you know, it's like if Martian just got here on the spaceship
and wanted to know what was going on in Redbank, uh they they would be basically limited to 2024 and previous and uh maybe you can speak to that. Maybe I'm not looking at the right spot. I just went to the new website. I searched planning board
agenda. A couple of clicks later, I'm looking at an April 9th agenda. It's there. I just did thing. Excuse me. I just did the same thing. I just looked on my phone. I got the agenda right away. Okay. I'm talking about minutes, past minutes for I mean I I I heard of
minutes being approved the last time that we were here. There are no minutes for the last meeting that we uh go down that we attended. None of the minutes for 2025 have been published. Is anybody else in the
public? Yeah, I I see somebody else nodding. I just found the March 26th minutes. you go to the actual meeting date and on the left are the agenda the agenda the agenda packet and the actual minutes and you click the little download arrow and
the minutes just popped up for March 26. They're there. All right. So I must apologize then because then uh uh that's something that I've wrestled with. I also spoke with the librarian Mary Ellen Mess. He basically shared the same
thing. So we we will work on uh uh uh trying to get squared away with that. Okay. So that's that's that was not on my uh uh agenda of what I wanted to talk uh today about, but I just thought I' I'd throw in something in support of uh Mr.
Hail. Now I get on to what I prepared for. Uh basically uh there's something else that's being proposed. Uh some kind of an amendment. You know, we're trying to uh tailor this thing to RedMac. But
everything that we're we're talking about so far that I have heard is dealing with uh how does redband uh what you call the control land use and all that but from the uh point of view of
the NAACP I'm the president I'm more interested in the FHA the fair housing act so uh uh there's going to be issues of uh compliance with the fair housing act and I uh I heard you that points
that were made uh uh earlier, you know, should not be repeated. I'm going to try as much as possible not to repeat them, but I established the last time that we met here that the planner did not uh tap Fair Share Housing Corporation, NAACP,
Redbank Affordable Housing Corporation as assets in uh coming up with a with a plan. And uh with that in mind uh I proposed perhaps not very seriously
uh uh to the board that why don't we build uh 80% affordable and have a set aside of uh uh 20% for luxury units because there is no shortage of uh luxury units in uh um uh Red Bank and in
response Mr. Chair, uh you said you find a developer. So I took that up as the Manuso challenge to try to find out other developers that might be interested. uh
as it is right now, it looks like we have a monopoly that uh uh we keep hearing that the New Jersey Transit has uh basically chosen their developer which is Den Holes and we seem to be trying to tailoring everything to uh
make that happen. But there are other developers and uh in terms of uh uh antitrust and monopoly and all this stuff there examples like Homes by TLC, there's uh Dystra Associates, Habitat for Humanity, Homeless
Solutions, Walters Group, all these folks should probably be brought to the table, you know. Uh so instead of having uh a huge uh uh maybe three four huge hives that looks like uh
a B ship uh brought in here into Redbank. Maybe we need to encourage other uh developers that might be might be interested you know like Habitat might be interested in being part of the solution know. So it appears
that we have now created a solution looking for a problem uh that we really don't have but we do have a problem of homelessness and uh uh unaffordability in in Redbank and that
is the the the the the focus that we should have. I mean the focus in the sense that we have an obligation that we're going to need to meet. And that brings me then uh to the question of uh uh prospective needs and
uh uh present needs. And if I may ask the uh the planner uh uh does she know the deadline for uh the town to uh produce uh it ef say that our present need is 154. Very
good. And uh what is our prospective need? our prospective our prospective need. How how much? How much is our prospective need? She's checking. I'm checking. Yeah. While she's checking, I wanted to
respond to the first part about an affordable housing development. Many of those are great developers. Been involved with a couple of them. The biggest problem is the bureau doesn't own the land. So, the bureau can't dictate what developer can come in. New Jersey Transit and Benholts own the land. If the burough did own the land,
um many municipalities issue requests for developers. Um and that's often how affordable housing developers come in. When the land is publicly owned by the municipality, they ask for development proposals, they select a developer, that's where you often have 100%
affordable or even lower affordability. Um it can work very well, but the bureau can't control that in this case because the bureau doesn't know when to win. But the borrow can incentivize. the borrow can uh uh encourage and uh using its uh
police power by way of uh uh zoning and land use encourage uh whoever owns the land. You know, uh there used to be what you call an owner of a piece of land that was purchased by when uh Mayor
McKenna was mayor uh to create Cedar Crossing. Now, Cedar Crossing is something that is like an ideal of what would we would like to have more of. Now, if we had uh
basically put up some kind of a plan to deal with uh compliance and uh uh worked towards a June 30 uh uh what you call a deadline to present something that takes Red Bank away from having to deal with
litigation. That's more important than trying to uh satisfy a developer and and uh uh what what the developer is proposing to put in there alongside with some of the ordinances that town has
adopted is clearly creating an atmosphere where this is this place is going to be uh turned into some kind of a Martha's vineyard or a Romson or a Mailburn and and and to clarify that for instance
the Hispanic community and I'm speaking to uh basically uh to it on this part here. They have brought something to Redbank that did not exist before which is entrepreneurship landscaping. You know
guys running around with what you call trailers. There's one guy that even started off with a trailer hooked up to a bicycle and then gradually uh uh came down to being able to afford a car. Okay. So now you got all these B ships
that are being planted around here. Can you envision some uh Hispanic startup trying to uh uh set up a a self-employment whatever dragging his truck with a trailer into one of these B ships. It ain't going to happen. Can't
walk in there. So, we've got to uh uh kind of a put up some kind of a a plan that allows a diverse set of uh housing so that we can also deal with the uh burgeoning homeless population. Okay, we
we got to we got to address that. So I'm speaking more from the FHA, the fair housing act and the interaction of uh this town with uh NAACP, you know, the the council and mayor uh Portman can uh
correct me if I'm wrong, but has adopted a position that uh the town of Redbank will not deal with the NAACP because of its current president. that if we got a different president that would not uh
sue the town and whatever, then maybe the town would engage with uh with the Are you talking yourself out of a job? I would I'm I'm what getting there towards the age of the pope. Sooner or later, I'm going to be exiting and I think it's
time to start getting the young people in here thinking about the future because we're I feel the same way. Yeah. So, you and I are in the same boat. So we are birthing a new red bank and we got to look at uh 100 years from now.
What's red bank going to look like? The baby's coming out breached legs first and we're still trying to drag that baby out. We need to push that baby back in there and reorient it and have it come
up head first. So my point here is that trying to massage this and Dan, you are very familiar with software and all that stuff. You keep on putting updates and updates. Pretty soon you got a a huge
mess that's hard to load and all that stuff. Let's do it right. Okay. So I'm I'm basically saying to you that I'm not fully aware of where we are in terms of uh new developments since the last time that we met. And obviously there are
some changes that are being made. Let's put a little stop to this here and Susan can make more presentations to the public and we can more fully uh address things that we can uh change to come up with a a plan
that helps us in meeting our obligations. Thank you. I just want to address your answer though. Um, so our present fourth round present need obligation is 54. Speaking I I hear voices right here. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, so our fourth round present need
obligation is 54 units. Um, and our prospective need obligation is 154. We do plan to submit um to fair share and a vacant land adjustment which the planner is at not Susan another planner that we
work with is uh compiling right now and drafting and they'll be submitting that to fair share um which will lower those numbers. Okay. So that hasn't been done yet. And right now the proposal from uh what you call it uh
Denholtz still leaves us short that even after they do whatever it is that they're doing, we're still going to have to come up with a another maybe 80 more units or something. And this is the time for us to now look at collaboration with
other developers, some of whom you say you are familiar with and all that. Bring them to the table. We don't want to create a monopoly. It's better for Red Bank if there are competing developers all willing to, you know, uh, trade and whatever. Who knows? New
Jersey, uh, Transit might decide to sell its property to some other developer. There could be some, uh, uh, uh, sources of funding coming from other places. We got to do that kind of work and see whether we can come up with a better
plan. That is not going to change. Dan, you and myself out of this place because Ben Forest said that if he was trying to get into this town of Red Bank today, he could not afford it. Thank you. Thanks,
Bill. Zan, did you want to say something? Excellent. Did you want to again? Okay. Go ahead. Um, Suzanne Viscom, 25 Cedar Street. I think I can say this on behalf of most of the people here that
we're not here to be negative. I think we're here to bring ideas, suggestions, different points of views, and it seems like it's working because things have changed. So, we're not here to be negative. Number one. Um, number two, it's kind of interesting. Um,
because you mentioned zoning board earlier, and I know it's not the zoning board, but just last week, the zoning board said no to a house because the density of the house is too big on a small piece of property for this family that wants to move their mother into a house, which
is great. Single family house, I believe, on South Street. But here we're going above and beyond the density and I think um uh Dan mentioned the calculation and even to the uh meeting before uh another woman mentioned the calculation and how we're using land and
the calculations not actually being built on. So I mean like I see accounting is in our form not a science. Um, so some of the ideas you guys brought up like so I went around this was passed. This is on Mama Street straight up and down. One, two, three,
four stories straight up and down. This that's not Redbank. I mean this is Redbank. This is right down the street where it's going to go. A nice colonial nice house with a porch. This is Redbank, right? This that's not really Red Bank. This million-dollar home. I mean,
this is what's coming into Redbank. And then somebody mentioned uh at the last meeting, well, what's one story? What's the big deal about one extra story? Well, I don't know if anybody drove through like Cedar Crossing, one story. These these uh residents have a story above and these
people are looking out their house all the time. This is one story. Add a couple more stories to it. It does matter. Go down Cedar Street and take a look. It it is important in context. I mean, and then the new development that's being built across from Oh, sorry. Let me back up. I cannot speak on
behalf of any board or committee I'm on. I always say that I forgot but um across from the um Harding and the middle school there's uh that new big place is getting being built and I was told um I don't I could stand be corrected that the um the low-inccome housing is going
to be separate to this group separate. So if you're only in housing, you're going to be looked down upon at this construction. Horrible. Hopefully nothing that happens that everybody is mixed up in the um development.
It is generally we the the the the former Getty station you're talking about near the middle school. We this board did not do or did not approve. And yes, those two units are affordable units. And it's been important to us that affordable units are mixed in with
the standard units with the same amenities and finishes. So I say what it states it in the plan. Oh, and it's it's in the plan. It's got to be on site. And I would I I am not a fan of that development either because of
the the way they place those two units. I agree with you. Perfect. And um you know again I think if you actually went to go talk to people on Oakland and in that area unfortunately people don't really get involved that much because we have
things that have grown basy grew great one more parking spot. I think people feel disenchanted. So again, I think I'm happy you guys are all here and I hope you guys tell your neighbors what's going on and tell them that this group has actually took in consideration some of the ideas and and problems. So I I
thank you guys for that. And um lastly uh to add to that was it Manuso challenge? Is that's what you said? Why don't we use the pot money to uh pay for the 80% low income and 20% luxury and and that money is is already been
earmarked for parks and wreck. But you can switch it up if they want to. The council can't. Just an idea that you can switch it up. 30,000 a quarter adds up fast and if it grows, why not use it to something something that just doesn't
help one area. Thank you. Thank you. Point that the affordable housing set aside is a minimum. It's 20%. If a developer came in and could make development work at a higher set aside, provide the same types of amenities and public space etc. There's nothing in
this plan that prevents that. Marilyn. Okay. No mics, so I will try to speak up. My name is Mary Ellen Mess. I live at 95 Hudson Avenue. That's Hudson like the river. Um, yeah. Just would like to
uh say that uh I do agree with some of the points that were made by the previous speakers uh with regard to the the discussion about minutes. I think at the very least it would have been helpful to have some bullet points of the changes that were proposed by DFJ
um so that we would have a reference and able to kind of make a a salient argument when we come up here uh to discuss this. I also agree with Marge that the idea of uh moving the bus up to West Street is a really really bad idea.
Uh given the size of the uh road, the width of the road and the fact that you know it's there's a stop there so people can try to cross Mammoth Street. There are a lot of things that make that a very bad idea. And with regard to Dan's
comments, I agree with him that the parking calculations are grossly inadequate and a lot of the parking is going to spill over into the residential areas and make it difficult for current residents to park their cars on the street. And I also agree that we should
really limit this to four stories. Um, if you take a ride on the train up to into uh New York, you'll see that most of these uh transit developments that are centered around the train stations
are limited to four stories and also that there is uh surface parking. So, um those are some comments. Um, you know, we've had a a young man who's come to a couple of these meetings, uh, lamenting the fact that as
a young professional, he can't afford rent in Red Bank. And the only reason he's here is he happened to get, uh, lucky and found an apartment that he can afford. Well, he still won't be able to afford any of these apartments in this
uh development because if you are familiar with the income limits, they are tend to be very low. So, if you're a young college graduate and you get your first job, you're not going to you're going to be making too much for an affordable unit and you're not going to
be able to afford a luxury unit. And I really think the missing piece here is that middle ground where people can um just normal working people with average salaries can rent an apartment.
I personally have a problem with the New Jersey affordable housing policy which is really focusing on rentals and not really focusing on o owneroccupied units which really has been the basis of the developing middle
class after World War II. people were the GI Bill. There were a lot of there was a lot of investment in uh helping people buy homes and that really is the wealth for most families in this country which is now being squandered on
overpriced assisted living facilities and luxury apartments because who is moving in here? For the most part, empty nesters who have cashed in on property that they've owned for decades. They have defined benefit pensions. They have
401ks and they have social security. So, paying $4,000 a month for an 820 square foot apartment doesn't seem like a big deal. But getting back to uh the Susan's points, I just wanted to uh
clarify um where is the garage egress going to be? If we're expecting all the computers to park in garages, where are those entrances going to?
Yeah, that's a side. Okay. Um, could you explain to me about the balconies? How the setback's going to be 10 feet? So those little stoops there, the little doorways are going to be 10 feet from the sidewalk, but we're going to allow
the upper floors to hang over them potentially. You know, it's an up to. So if you look at Westside Walls, there's some aspects of that building that have a cantalver in the upper floors. And that was, you know, that was kind of what we're going for in the sense that you've got more room on the ground floor where
the setbacks are really meaningful for pedestrians. You might have some flexibility on the upper floors. It helps to break up the overall building of the sun. All right. Well, I'm not sure. I think I think that's kind of a a flimsy a flimsy way of kind of saying,
"Okay, well, we're going to give you an inch, but we're going to take back, you know, a foot someplace." Um, does any of this consideration of this density uh require any analysis of our water resources here? Because I think that one
of the big problems in our inter infrastructure here in Redbank is our aging water system and we've had some significant problems with that. And it just seems to me that we're adding these all of these buildings. I mean, there
are what, almost about 75 apartments going up on Mammoth Street right now. There's another 45 going up on Mechanic across the street from another 45 unit building. There's 238 going up on the
VNA site. And now we're we're adding another 400 units plus commercial space. And it just seems to me that this is going to put an enormous stress on our water water infrastructure. And are we asking the developer to address any of
the the weaknesses in that uh infrastructure? So this plan is the planning board's plan and it's a little bit above their perview to look at issues specific issues of water and utility improvements but engineer will be involved in the process of the redevelopment agreement and those
aspects would be worked out between a burrow and a developer in terms of if there's any kind of um monetary or fee requirement that the the developer would have to okay it would be part of the developers agreement which is not the perview of
this board at all. Oh, uh, well, you know, it just seems to me that this whole process is, uh, very convoluted and actually kind of farcical because he's saying, well, we're going to get the site. Basically, Benho's
properties has given us their site plan and now there's been a lot of be, you know, bending around to try and accommodate what their site plan is. So this I and in our last meeting um council said to the board, "This is your
plan." Okay. But I don't feel like it's your plan. I don't feel like it's Redbank's plan. I feel like it's Denholes's plan. And it's getting being shoved down our throats. And it's it's very upsetting because I do think just
too big for us. and it's going to change the entire uh atmosphere. And quite frankly, when people get down get off the train, you know, they don't want to really, you know, walse around and and look at the grass and everything. They
want to get to their cars and they want to go home. And I think um if we are eliminating all surface parking for commuters um that's problematic because the people who live on Harrison Avenue, the people who live on John Street, the people who
live on Prospect Street, who moved here because of our proxim their proximity to the train station are now going to be funneled into a garage and we have no information on how much that is going to cost them. And I was at the train station yesterday and the sign says for
$4 a day you could park on the lot there. My guess is Denhulse is going to be charging a whole lot more than $4 a day. So I feel like we do a lot of things in this town to accommodate the visitors and to accommodate the people who are coming in. But what are we doing
for the people who are already here? And the answer is really not much. Um, but just to clarify, Susan, will there be surface parking for commuters other than that little lot that is on the west side of the train station? So, the language
reads, "Minimum of 150 spaces shall be provided in redevelopment district A in a combination of on street and garage spaces to serve commuters and the public and shall be clearly designated and accessible as such. So, where those actually are, you know, hasn't been determined yet. Some of them probably will be in the existing bridge street
lot, which I think is about 60 spaces, but some will also be along the shared street. Uh, and then some will be in the garage. All right. Because I don't think that was the answer you gave me the last time, but um because when I asked about will there be surface parking for commuters, you said to me no. However,
that wasn't clear. The language is is there and hasn't changed. However, I do agree with Mr. uh Rearen's comments that it just is not planning for adequate parking in this area. Sorry, I forgot my eyeglasses today, so I'm struggling with
my little notes here, but I did want to just I don't know if these will help. Oh, that's great. Okay. So, could you clarify? New Jersey Transit is not
selling this property to Denho's properties. Are they leasing this property? I don't know. It's not not Okay. And I just wanted to be clear because most of us who are here from the public are
expecting Denho's properties to uh request a pilot and go through that process. And um I don't we're not going to talk about pilots and it's and pilots are again every time pilot comes up I know everyone wants to talk about the pilots. The pilots have nothing to do
with this procedure and shouldn't be discussed in front of the planning board. So it's inappropriate kind of pilots between it's just it's inappropriate and I've said you brought it up before I've told you before we can't talk about pilots someone else did I think miss I think maybe Mr.
talk. I don't want to talk about the pilot. Why are you mentioning it? Because I wanted the board to know that three of these buildings proposed are in the opportunity zone and that has tax implications for us and for Denholes and
I think that has to be part of the the equation and that's the only thing I wanted to say about by reference. We're all residents too and many of us probably feel the same way but in the state of New Jersey this has nothing to do with the planning board. So you can all come back to the council meeting
when they talk about Oh, we will in terms of whoever the developer ends up being is looking at all kinds of financing alternatives, but that's not up to this board to and they'll probably be sure to say that it's more tax revenue than you're going than you're collecting now, which is
zero on the majority of it. But we shouldn't get into that. So, let's not talk about it because every time said that the board members start talking about it and the public's going to get up and respond and it's just father really never gave me this kind of a hard time. Well, I'm just questioning, you know,
the the current zoning with the uh train overlay zone would allow uh the council to pursue a transit village designation. So, we really don't need to increase the
zoning to six stories. I understand the rationale for the redevelopment designation because this allows uh this plan to deal with facades and and that kind of thing. But, um I really don't see the point. And I think as probably
one of the most congested towns along this train line, we are expected to jam a whole lot more into a whole lot less space than many of the surrounding communities. And
I I have to ask, you know, why the developers in New Jersey Transit think that Red Bank, you know, is open to being strong armed like that this because that's what I feel like it is. This has been just the most
ridiculous process starting with the master plan through this plan through this um you know planning board adoption and then when we go to the council and all along the way say well we can still change it we can still stop it. Well why
don't you do it now? As Dan said this is the time to put the brakes on. I don't understand why we're just opening the door to more to more density. And that's all I have to say.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else from the public have any comments or questions? Go ahead, Bill. This is basically uh the conclusion. This is William Poku again, 90 bank street and uh I have two copies of uh a
Tri City News. One copy for the chairman. I mean, in case you haven't seen it, I don't know which issue it is or whether or not it's the latest issue. Okay, probably not. And uh Dan Jacobson brags that he was the founder of our new
form of government. And and I I I saw how he fought for many many years relentlessly, you know, uh turning us from a a different form of government to where we are right now. So he chimed in.
First moment of truth for big red bank train station proposal. That's the latest article that he has in there. And he starts off by saying, "Red bank, it's the first moment of truth for the transformative proposed
redevelopment project at the train station." Of course, transformative can mean different things to different people. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good, and to others something in between. And then you go on now to page
47 and he uses a bad word that as a Catholic I cannot repeat. It starts with a P. So you can fill that in. And he ends up by saying, "Anyway, the Tri City News will continue to be a P word as we
keep putting off taking a stand on this project." So this copy I'll leave here for you. Thank you. uh as a part of that and uh uh Tri City News is very well regarded around here
uh as far as uh their neutrality in uh stuff. So I leave that as a a last comment for this. Thank you. Neutrality isn't the word I'd use, but he's just for the member. There isn't much that happens in Detroit that Dan Jacobson
hasn't taken credit for. And that I will give him credit for what he's created. Yes. And that he still doesn't put a word online. Last chance for the public. Any other comments or questions? I will make a motion. Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the
public portion of the meeting. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. Any abstensions or nos? Okay. Is there anything specific that we need to do? Someone makes a motion. No,
you just you just need to, Mr. Chairman, you just need if if the board is so inclined to adopt the or to recommend this ordinance uh to the council, that would be the motion. I have the four changes discussed tonight. It might be helpful. I don't
know if you want to put motion on first but are helpful just to summarize. Go ahead and go through them. Suggested by various members. So um um west streets about the stoops the individual apartment entrances to say required rather than encouraged. saying
that on the shared street change uh to should um question about discussion we had about the green um provisions his idea I think Mr. Lexine had some suggestion about at the
end of the list the second list of pain strategies that could be incorporated. And then lastly on the bike parking increase the ratio to one bike space per 10 on street parking spaces. That's
twice what was there? Y in addition to the changes that we discussed public meeting, right? Um so at this point I will open it up to anyone on the board if someone would like to make a motion to approve or to deny this application. I will say an
application this recommendation for this zone to the mayor and council. Um, I have never in all my years been so influenced by the members of the public. Um, many times I have been
influenced, but I've never been quite so influenced as I have on this application. Um, I guess I'll save whatever else I have to say if anyone would like to make a motion. So, move. What do you What's
the motion? This will no one made the motion. Yeah, he just made a comment. Okay. To recommend it to the council. Is there a second? For the purpose of discussion, I'll second it. [Music]
You want to open up for discussion? There's there's a motion on the floor. So, if the council wishes to discuss that motion, they may. the board the board wishes to discuss. Sorry. I I don't like much of anything about
this application besides the affordable housing which I think is very important and I agree with Mary Ellen. It helps a very small but very needy population get a place to live. It doesn't help our kids get a place to live here. my son who will live
in Florida until I die and leave him my house. Um, which he specifically asked to have happen, which he'll have to work out the other half with his sister. But, um, we have a significant challenge with people wanting to live here. For the most part, the majority of us couldn't
buy our houses today. While this is helping 80 or up to 80 people find an affordable place to live, it's affordable housing. Doesn't make it mean that it's an affordable
place to live. Particularly for someone who maybe just graduated college or didn't gradu graduate college and is maybe making 50 or $75,000 a year and maybe their spouse is making the same, they're not going to qualify for affordable housing. So those 80 units
are are very important and I think we need them while I at the same time I think we need another 80 or 100 units for people like I discussed but that I don't know that that's the role of government either. Um and it's happening
everywhere. I'm in the business. It's horrible what's happening to prices unless you're selling and moving to your vacation condo in Orlando. which yes is secretly a dream of mine.
Um, this development I don't feel particularly good about. I don't feel particularly good about the fact that that New Jersey Transit picked a developer without as far as I know, you know, asking us what we
thought. And I don't necessarily like the massing of the building. I don't like the height of the building. I'm glad that we've made some changes really based on your feedback 100% based on the last meeting. No doubt about it, but
personally, I don't love it. And I'd like to love it. I'd like it to just be rows of town houses, but I also understand that New Jersey Transit doesn't see it that way, and they don't see that value in
it either. And we don't own the land. The town doesn't own the land. I wish we did. I wish we could do whatever we wanted with it. But that's not the way it works. And I have to explain that to people a lot. Like my family, but will call me after this meeting tonight and it won't
be kind. And I, you know, I I I as I've explained here, if someone left you an acre of land in Redbank, would you just make it a park or a botchi court, which I would love, but you wouldn't. you want to put an apartment building on it because
that's going to allow you to retire tomorrow. So, those are my feelings. I don't like it. I I I understand. I'm I'm not going to be mad at people who vote for it, but I'm not going to. So, if anyone else from the board
has a comment, you're welcome. I don't um I grew up on Mama Street. I've lived in this town my entire life. Right now, I am in the same place that Dan is in. I'm very conflicted. And one of my
biggest concerns is we have at least five unfinished business apartments being built right now. How is when they are all filled and people are waiting to get into
apartments in Redbank. I understand that when they are all filled, how is that going to affect the entire town? How is it going to affect the schools? How is it going to affect the traffic? How is it going to affect our infra infrastructure structure? We need to
take a step back and think about these things before we add another 400 and some odd apartments in this town. Um, just be careful that we we can't take
traffic into account in our decision making. I I know about what gets felt or not. And it we should but we can't. I think it was 1993. It was a dark time. Yeah. That that the state made that rule. And I don't necessarily agree with
it, but that is the law. It's still in my thinking and it's not it's not the primary thing because I kind of like sitting in the traffic and watching everybody else struggle. Um this is a little sick but I am but um it
you did you did stop in front of my house the other day and just stopped traffic to talk to me while I was watering my grass seed and there's cars backing up behind you and no one beeped. I will tell you I was impressed. Yes. Because they didn't beep at little old ladies, you know. stupid. What can I tell you? But this is this is something
that we really have to seriously look at. What is we have a master plan. We have we have all this and does it really meet the needs of the people of the town. I'm not sure. And
I am not in favor of this at this point in time. Um, maybe in five years I probably won't be sitting here, but that's beside the point. Um, it might be a thought, but right now we need to get
everything else in order before we can figure out what what should be there. Thank you. I'll I'll go on. Um, I mean, I think about the use of that land, right, and the fact that it's just parking lots and that's what we're looking at. I think
about the fact that we can meet our affordable housing that we're already behind. And that is what I'm looking at. We talk about what it looks like a 100red years from now. It it shouldn't look for me having that look like parking lot for five more years. It's
such a waste of that space. And uh to a comment made earlier about people not wanting to hang out at the train stations when you get there, I actually do. I quite enjoy towns that can have a place for people to go right after you get to the train station when I travel.
It's like my favorite thing. I dislike towns a lot. When you get to a train station and there's nothing for you to do at all because it's not a welcoming space. Um, and so for me, I think about the hard choices and I think about what Lou said last time. We've been dragging
our feet for a long time because people don't want to see change. But change is here. It is inevitable. And so we just have to make hard choices. And I think that it is a responsibility for all of us. And I'm grateful for all the residents that are
here exercising their comments. And I'm grateful to the chair and the people here that were willing to take comments directly from last session and put them in. It's been a long road to even get it to this point. Um, and it's not an ideal setting and it's not an ideal thing to
have to do. Uh, no one is anti-affordable housing, but affordable housing will not be solved by localities. We know that these are bigger economic issues that are happening. The one thing we can do is provide 80 affordable units. and failing to do that to me feels irresponsible. So
I I would encourage us to consider it's a hard choice and not a popular one, but someone's got to make that decision. Um you know, I don't I am not uh overwhelmed by the density of it.
Um in part because by counting the right away of the rail areas uh that in and of itself is open space in terms of visuals and circulation
uh giant electrical tower. Sure. Right. Uh and then there is the um you know proposed walkthrough on Oakland Street which I think is a is is a plus. But what I would ask is don't we have a conversation
about, you know, bringing it down a story or so? what what's we haven't had that conversation and I'm curious as to why we don't um why we why we don't start digging in to make it a
little more acceptable to those that have a different view than I do of of the project. One of the challenges I find is not knowing what the economics are. I mean that's, you know, I feel as though I have a hand tied behind my back
that I don't know the economics of what it takes to do a development like this, provide the, you know, the affordable housing units and make it all work. Uh, we certainly have an opportunity to ask that when we get a plan. I will tell you that
someone has reached out to me about that very thing and said that New Jersey and I don't know if it's just New Jersey Transit or New Jersey as of the state there's an Aspire program
for financing and I've been told that without six stories they don't get their Aspire financing. Now, I don't believe that. If someone from New Jersey Transit is here tonight would like to come up and talk about that, I would love for
you to have the nerve to say that in public if that's true, but I didn't like seven stories, which was the first thing that they wanted. I don't really like six stories either. I think the rail, despite what I thought about it at the time, looks
great at four stories. So, if it was Mary Ellen or someone else who said it should be four stories or it was Dan, I'm I love that. I think that fit in better than I thought it would. I think they did a better job building that than I ever thought they would. And I kind of
feel the same way that I might not hate this as much as I thought I would when it's built because I think Den Holtz has done a good job on the buildings he's had so far that really, you know, I don't think they're cutting a lot of corners. They
look great. And I feel that way about the one across from Riverside Gardens Park. The only time ever in all my years the council, not this council, overrode the planning board and gave them the density they wanted. Man, I was pissed. But that building looks better than I
thought it would. So, I'm no architectural genius, but six stores, six stories is just a tall wall for me. So, there is some aspect of this financing, the Aspire financing, which I've heard about for a while in New Jersey.
I'd like someone to come up and tell me if that's true or not. And if if it is true, why can't you go back and reapply five stories or four stories, but no one's been willing to stand up and say that yet? I'm hoping that someone will at some point, either at the council level or back here later this year when
the developer comes with a plan. Um, but I I feel completely with both of what you're saying on this. I really do. You know, it's just it's that hundred-year thing that I'm really not that that this thing is bigger than
anything we've done by by a considerable amount. It bothers me. Mr. Chairman, if I if I can, just to Mr. BB's point, um, if the board votes tonight, a majority of the board votes not to send it on to council, the
conversation doesn't end because it's still a redevelopment. You've already declared this an area need redevelopment that the burrow has. Someone's got to come up with an ordinance of what's what's permissible within that zone within the resellment zone. The council's asked this board to do it. So, if you decide you don't want to send
this plan on, the conversation is going to continue and you're going to revise this plan and come up with a plan that the board does feel like sending on to council. So, it's not like you vote, if you are inclined to vote no tonight, it's not like, okay, we go home and we never talk about it again. We're going to have to talk about it at the next
meeting. And I'm not encouraging you not to do that, but you're going to have to do it. So, this conversation will continue and continue until a majority of the board finds an ordinance that they feel comfortable with that they can send on to council. I mean, unlike a lot of the things that we've done, uh,
right? You know, we've we've added more uh footage on on the west side. We've added individual uh entryways. We've created larger setbacks on Monmouth. Uh why can't we incubate this a little bit longer? I hate to, you
know, hit the can down the road, but you know, could we answer this Aspire question? Uh so I would jump into because I I was going to bring up the height thing as well. There's been a lot of concern from the public obviously on the hype and the
one sticking point that I'm because crafting the zoning is like trying to find that perfect balance and when we don't understand the economics that's a big missing piece of the puzzle. Um we want the 80 units. We want the like I'm I'm for the density. I'm not scared of
that. Um because part and parcel of that is the requirement for the affordable. So we're kind of maxing that out. when we add in the height then you know to some of Lou's points at the last meeting um there's the balance of open space um where I have a little bit of concern
with the current plan is on West Street and that sixstory wall and what does that look like facing uh single family residential neighborhood it's not great and you know we have the walkth through on Oakland Street but is there some way we can
either reconsider the height along on West Street or potentially put some language in there that would maybe require um walk up ground floor residential units facing West Street with some sort of stoop or
portico or some language like that to kind of bring a residential scale fronting that single family residential neighborhood. I'm just concerned that that might be a blank wall parking area, ground floor level, which is which wouldn't be dissimilar from the building
caddy corner on Mama Street facing Mammoth where we have a completely dead block, you know, it's all just barking there and it's barred up windows and it's it's kind of awful. So to the height, I'm I'm still unsettled on the
six stories particularly in that area personally. To me, if I if I understood the economics and the difference was between getting it done and not getting it done at six stories, I'm for it. No question. Um,
but if we can shape it a little bit more, I support that and and not next year now. Move it along. Well, if whoever made the motion I've already forgotten who it
was wants to hang on. If it wants to retract her motion because that's where we are right now is we're going to vote on this. She wants to retract that in favor of spending some more time. That's totally up to her. If not, we're going to vote on this and then we're
going to end up wherever we are. If you vote on it and you and and it doesn't pass, we're back to work. you're back to work. That's that's all it is. So So you can either force us back to work by voting no or can retract her motion and
the second really what are you changing? Yeah, it sounds like the height sounds like the height is the biggest thing. Yeah. Like I mean I sixtory wall. I'm happy to retract it. I think if folks can talk about what it is that they feel comfortable with. But to me it's just one of those things where I don't you
know I I don't disagree about the height. Like I get it, but I also think that it's one of those things where as as council said, like we have to make a choice. It's going to have to move. And so I don't begrudge taking what an additional two weeks, but just like Wilson said, like this shouldn't take a
year for us to really get to it. We've never taken a year to do anything. I know. So let me ask I mean if that building was lowered to that area was lowered to five stories rather than six, is that what the board's looking for? Keep in mind the south building is already five stories.
It's just the north. I understand that. And it's that wall on West Street, which if you think about the building next to Bagel Station is five stories. It's a tall five stories because it's all lofts. So, it's going to be taller than that. I don't think much more than five or six feet taller than that because
that's an unusually tall building for five stories. But, it's going to be at least that tall, which is very tall. And I get it. And but as Susan pointed out, Wanitos is not included. Which by the way baffles me a little bit. I want to grab him and shake him a little bit and
say, "What are you doing nuts?" Um, yeah. Like the like the three story building across the street from West that the fire was at not that long ago. That new building, that's an affordable building, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. That's three stories, so it's going to be twice that
tall. I don't like that. I've I never like tall buildings. I've been against tall buildings forever. This would be seven if I didn't hate sevenstory buildings so much. Um yeah, that's that's that's a tall
building. How tall is station place? Station plate station place is four or five stories. You're right there. I you know lowering four stories. So lowering it to four stories, wouldn't make I mean station place looks horrible. And I I
think I think we're going to have the same problem smack up against just like Count Bas. Hang on, Bill. I don't know Robert's rules of orders that much, so just hang on. I I'm afraid that we're going to have the same problem with a big wall on West Street, whether it's
four stories, five stories, or six stories. I think you have to make a major change in order for it to look good on West Street. You have to make it like there's a place in Aspbury Park near downtown where it look set back
there. It's a it's like, you know, it's like oldtime units almost, but it looks really nice. Uh you're saying you'd like to take some more time to look at this and find a way to make it look better. Yeah, I think the height could potentially work if it's activated at
the ground level with some sort of articulation like residential units that you access from the ground floor or you know some ought to have more setback. I mean I walk along I think it's west
street where the compa is. I wonder how that ever happened. It it looks horrible as does station place. Blame the zoning board. We shouldn't make a mistake. I did again. I blame them. It hold on. Bill was my street is such an error.
Erase the point of order. Go ahead. Yeah. Robert's rule of order. Just say what you want to say. In order for discussions to go on, the motion must be seconded first before you do. It was seconded it for the purpose of discussion. Yeah. I apologize. Okay. If
it was not seconded, it would die. Okay. So, have a little Robert rules of order at book at home. I should read it. All right. So, at this point, you know, any uh the board members uh move to split the house and and and and vote. But you
it's okay to keep on discussing it at nausea, but I I'm sure. Well, next time I have a Robert's question, I'm gonna ask you. Thank you. my just I understand what everyone's saying but about articulating it but that can
be done at site plan approval that's when you can really define what the structure looks like that's when you can say but we can knock it down to five stories if we want not if six stories is approved right but if you want a more defined west street you can say I don't
like this facade come back with another facade So funny. Well, does what does it talk about with facads? We're talking about like the people break, right? Yeah. Well, vertical bras mean horizontal bras. The language we talked about on West Street tonight does
require the individual stoops and entrances. So that would create on the ground floor on that stretch of West Street a scale that's comparable to what's across the street basically. So the board will have control at site plan over those type of elements because the ordinance requires it. Tampa site plan.
I mean, I have seen redevelopment plans come in when they come in for site plan and there are two or three meetings talking about the details. Absolutely. I've had I've had variancefree site plans come in and the applicant sits there and says, "Well, you can't do
anything. We have no variances." But that is not true. And they've had to res redesign major elements of the site plan because it just doesn't work. So, but if we specify six stories and we don't specify setbacks,
that's correct. You could not you could not force them to come in for fivetory building if the ordinance permits a sixstory building. I'm not willing to give that up yet. Regardless of how I feel the particulars, this is being what is being
considered, as you said, is the biggest project that RedVac has ever seen. I don't mind us taking our time to make sure it works. That's it. So, it's, you know, it's been it's been a crappy looking area for how many years? Another
another few weeks or month to get this right is is not going to make or break it. Well, can I make a suggestion? I mean, I don't know how you want to do this, but what what what the board should my recommendation anyways, what the board shouldn't do if you're going to carry
this to another meeting is wait until that next meeting to come in and and have this exact same conversation again. I would highly suggest that you form perhaps a subcommittee that can that can work with Susan, come up with a final draft that can be presented to the
board. And and I've seen it before, subcommittees come back and the rest of the board doesn't like what the subcommittee did. That's possible. But at least you won't be starting from we won't be having this exact same conversation again. I think we should have some advice for the subcommittee. Like West Street, it's now moved from
what five 10 five to 10. Can't make it can't we push it back even farther? Like what can't we you run into and keep in mind we don't have a plan to look at? I know. So I don't know how that impacts the ability to build a parking garage
behind it. You might not have turning radiuses to put a parking garage in, which then if I was a builder, I'd say, "Okay, I'll fill it with apartments. See what you think about that." But I don't know the answer to that question. And if the developers on the Zoom or they have anyone on the in the
room right now, they're probably having a small coronary just thinking, listening to us. So, I'm sure that they'll have a lot to say and I'm sure there's some math on how far you can go back where you I can't build a parking garage there anymore. I'm not saying we
make the decision right now. I'm just saying we give advice. We prefer a bigger setback. Maybe we would prefer the height be pushed back on on the other side of the garage. Have the height on the train station side. Yeah.
Right. That's possibility as well. That you might be okay with um six stories on the train station side. It's really west street that you're talking about. No, not I I wouldn't mind. I'm hearing no there were a few board members who
Yeah, I I think I think we'll we'll tackle that with the committee. Um it's a Did I hear you say you're you're fine withholding your motion? Yep. And Wilson, your second.
Okay. Okay. So, um I'm going to make a motion that we're going to carry this meeting to not to the next meeting. Not to the next meeting. Notice because if All right. We're going to notice. So, for those of you who complain that there was no notice, even though I gave you notice last time and even though no notice is required, right, you're going
to get notice on this one. Um it'll be in the paper. It'll be in the paper. They're not getting for those of you who can still read a newspaper. Um so, I don't know when we're going to carry it to, but it won't be months away. Um, it'll probably be in May, but you'll
get notice. So, I'm make making that motion. Do you um to carry the meeting to sometime in the future? We have a second. Second. All in favor? I. Any abstain? And I say it every time, but I
really appreciate everyone coming. and you would not have had the results you're going to have had you not been here because we would have approved what was what was listed on the original plan. Yeah.
Um because if no one comes I don't know how anyone feels aside from the people that call me and complain. Um we have the meetings of April 9th regular meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes or additions?
Adoption. I'll second it. Second. All in favor? All in favor? I. And then they will be posted on the website for you to critique at will. Um Barbick abstains because she wasn't here. Yeah. What's our next meeting? Um
the next meeting is May 14th, but we have no application. All right. We have a May 14th on the calendar, but we have no application, so we probably won't be here. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Thank
you. 14th 28th. I will not be here the 28th. I will feed.