Good evening. The Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment will come to order this 18th day of June 2026. The time is 6:35. Roll call, please. >> Ann Torrey >> Here. >> Raymond Mass >> Here.
>> Greg Fitzgerald Absent. John Gildea >> Here. >> Ana Cruz Vincent Light >> Here. >> Paul Cagno Absent. Eugene Horwitz >> Here. >> Chris Havens >> Here. >> Dorothy Cerullo
>> Here. >> Rebecca Flynn Absent. Thank you. >> Okay. In accordance with New Jersey law, this meeting notice has been published in the Asbury Park Press and the Two Two River Times and is available on the municipal website and the New Jersey
Secretary of State's website. It is also posted on the municipal bulletin board. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act and will be tape recorded. If the applicant chooses to use a court reporter to transcribe the proceedings, the board requires a copy
of the transcript. A break will occur around 8:00 p.m. in the conference room on the first floor. The public is welcome to attend, but discussion with board members will not be allowed. No new case will be heard after 9:00 p.m. and the cut-off time is 9:30 p.m. Any
applicants not heard will be rescheduled for next meeting. Um pledge of allegiance. Okay, we have a couple of administrative matters to take care of. Approve the meeting minutes from
May 21st. I have a motion. >> Mints. >> Second. >> You could just say aye or nay. That's fine. >> All in favor? >> Yeah, aye. Then all opposed.
Okay, we also have a resolution of approval for 273 Shrewsbury Avenue. Mr. Kennedy. >> Mr. Chairman, that was the Thrive resolution that was Jackie and approval approved I'm sorry, an approval of an
amended use variance application. The amendments included some of the units became a little bit smaller and also the therapist was therapist not just for people to reside in the building, but for everyone. We had a rather extensive and intensive conversation and I tried
to capture all the the the pros and cons of the argument and this a lot of conditions which were discussed at length during the hearing process and this resolution was initially set out about a month and a half ago and then reset out. So I think everyone's had a chance.
So if it's acceptable to the board, we can adopt that as presented. >> And thank you for keeping it under 100 pages. >> [laughter] >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Uh you should do a specific roll call on that.
>> Antoree? >> Yes. >> Raymond Mass? >> Yes. >> John Gildea? >> Yes. >> Anna Cruz? Vincent Light? >> Yes. >> Eugene Harwood? >> Yes. >> Chris Havens?
>> Yes. >> Dorothy Cerullo? Thank you. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the annual reports from 2022 to 2024? I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> All in favor. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. New business. We have 199 and 205 Broad Street. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman. Couple of preliminary procedural things. As the
applicant's team comes forward, you'll recall [clears throat] we previously accepted notice in jurisdiction on this file and I think there was a request that it it from a month ago or 2 weeks ago that it be adjourned. So we extended notice to tonight and
what we're going to do is we're going to swear in our two witnesses. So we have Jackie Durman, our board engineer, and Dan Howben. Dan, good good evening and welcome. Uh Dan is uh a planner from our uh board engineer's office. So, uh Dan
and Jackie, if you could just raise your right hands and uh say, "Do you both swear that that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God?" Okay. Let the record reflect that Jackie, as our board engineer, has been
sworn as well as Dan, our board planner. And what we're going to do is we're going to um uh there's a lot of information in the file, so we're going to officially mark uh most of these pieces of evidence or
most of these documents into evidence. So, the application package we're going to mark as A1. And then uh A2 is the preliminary and final site plan prepared by Kennedy Consulting Engineers dated February 14th, 2025,
last revised July 28th, 2025, consisting of eight sheets. A3 is the architectural plan. Sorry. Oh, got it. So, A3 is the architectural plan prepared by AHD & Company Architecture & Interiors, dated February
25th, 2025, consisting of 18 sheets. A4 is the project narrative. A5 is the traffic and parking study prepared by Dynamic Traffic, dated December 18th, 2025. A6 is the stormwater management report
prepared by Kennedy Consulting Engineers, dated July 28th, 2025. A7 is the transmittal letter prepared by uh Rick Brodsky, who's sitting at the council table. He's the attorney for the applicant, and that was dated December
22nd, 2025. A8 is a summary of variances. A9, excuse [clears throat] me, is our Red Bank Green Development Checklist. A10 is going to be the T&M Associates Review Memorandum
dated March 25th, 2026. That's the right date, Jackie, right? Okay. And then A11 we're going to mark as the intent to proceed and A12 is disclosure of ownership number one and A13 is disclosure of ownership number two. So just uh
uh just for the record, the documents suggest that there's two applicants. One is 205 Broad Street LLC and another is 199 Broad Street LLC. So for members of the public, uh whenever we're dealing with a
corporation or an LLC, uh for transparency purposes, we like to put on the record who the principals are so that uh if one of you says, "Well, that's my cousin, that's my friend, that's a client of mine." We can disclose that or
or learn that. And uh the disclosure of ownership forms indicate that the individuals who have a 10% or greater interest is uh John Smallwood and/or the John Smallwood Investment Trust. So for record-keeping purposes,
uh hearing those names, uh 205 Broad Street LLC or 199 Broad Street LLC or John Smallwood or Smallwood Investment Trust, does that create any issues or questions or concerns about conflicts or potential conflicts? Don't
see any. Very good. And with that, we will uh and with the chair's consent, we'll turn it over to uh Rick Brodsky, uh attorney for the applicant. >> Thank you. Okay, what about A6? >> A6 was a storm water management.
>> Got it. Got it. >> And then what I don't know uh if I don't know if I saw any specific uh interagency reports, so we'll we'll get them in a little bit. Uh >> Yeah, we received a few today. >> Okay. So, why don't why don't you Do you
have them handy? You can tell me what they are. >> Um yes. What we have So, we have a report from the uh environmental commission. >> All right. Uh we'll mark that as A 14. And do you know uh what date that was?
>> Yeah, I'll tell you in 1 >> It might just be an email. >> 1 second. March 2nd. >> Okay. >> Hold on. >> All right. >> And that is A >> 14. >> 14. Okay.
And then we had Shade Tree Commission. >> Okay. >> Um >> That'll be A 15. That date is You see it? >> February 9th. >> February 9th, 2026. Okay.
>> Okay. And HPC Historic Preservation Commission. >> All right, that'll be A 16, HPC. And I believe that was dated today, correct? >> June 17th, yep. >> June 17th, okay. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Brodsky on behalf of the applicant, uh 199 Broad Street and 205 Broad Street
LLC, respectively. Um and uh not surprisingly, the application pertains to the properties located at 199 Broad Street and 205 Broad Street. >> [snorts] >> Um uh the application before you this
evening seeks preliminary and final site plan approval with variances to permit the construction of a of a couple of things on these two sites. Um Uh what's proposed are uh
per- permission to construct additions to two the two existing buildings at 199 and 205 uh as well as uh a proposed connection of the two buildings. Um
Have them function as a single to have the two function as a single office building. Which of course is a permitted zone in the PO zone. Um also proposed and and we'll go through that in in in more detail. Also proposed
uh for the site are uh six uh residential units a separate building at the rear uh towards the rear of the site uh for six uh residential units uh with first level garages at at the rear of the property which we'll go through.
Uh and as well as associated improvements for park walkways lighting landscaping uh revisions to the underwater underground storm water management system. Um so we come here uh this evening
uh by way just of a little background uh Mr. Smallwood who was mentioned earlier by Mr. Kennedy um uh purchased purchased the first building back in about I think about 2012 or so
and he's been operating his uh financial planning business there since that time. Um so you know 14 15 years or so. Um more recently a few years ago um Mr.
Smallwood Mr. Smallwood through his through his other LLC the building next door became available and he saw that as an opportunity to do something creative here in town. And he purchased 205.
Um moment, he runs a uh I wouldn't call [clears throat] it a family business, but he does have a number of family a number of family members living working there as well as a number of other employees,
many of whom work remotely most of the time or out on the road meeting clients who are utilizing their financial planning services. Um so um
Mr. Smallwood is very passionate about the project, very passionate about Red Bank, and very passionate about doing something um that is, you know, a little unique uh and a little forward-thinking
and something that will also uh kind of brings some more pedestrian and other traffic down to that part of town. Um the the uh what you'll hear when we go through the
testimony is that there are a couple of variances that we do need as part of the application um and those are uh a variance for density with respect to the
the six residential units. Uh there is also there is also a variance for um uh minimum floor area for the apartments. There are a couple of apartments that are less than the 600
minimum square foot required as part of the design. Um and there's a parking deficiency and you'll hear where you'll hear from the traffic engineer on the details of that. Um so the ordinance requires 62 parking
spaces with what's proposed and based on with the EV credit, we actually the application proposes 40 spaces with with the EV credit in addition to the existing on-site off-site
on-street parking. You'll hear from our we'll hear from our traffic engineer on that in terms of um what we think is a really good symbiotic traffic sharing park parking park parking share for
perspective. Um Uh there are some existing conditions existing non-conformities that would be removed as part of the application if the application were to be
approved and you'll hear about that from our site engineer as well as our as our as well as our planner. Uh And there are some there are a number of existing non-conformities with regard to
mostly signage as well as a couple of existing side setback variances. Um some of which will go away, some which will remain basically unchanged by virtue of what what is being proposed as as part of the
project. Um So I think that kind of gives the board a little little bit of background Um um as to the nature of the application, the thought process behind
it, and what John Smallwood envisioned when he um saw the opportunity to purchase this second building, which which, while not listed as an historic building, you know, is a is goes
is an older construction. And of course John has no desire to tear it down. On the contrary, you know, the you know, people had suggested, "Oh, you can tear it down, make more parking, do
other things." That's that's not what he's about. Um and so he came up with this sort of creative design, which which he and the team are excited about. So, what I'd like to do, unless the board has any questions, I'll start off with Mr. Smallwood coming up come up,
just give the board a little background. Also, a little more detail with respect to the operation, his his [clears throat] business operation, which I alluded to earlier. We then have with us tonight Andrew
Colmey, who is the project engineer. He'll he'll be our second witness. We will also have our architect, who will discuss the architecture. Um Anastasia Harrison, she will be
our third witness. We then will have John McCormick will be will be our traffic engineer. Um and then our final witness for the evening would be our professional planner, Kristen Sheppard. Um so, unless the board has any
questions >> I I do. Do you Do you have a copy of the comments from the historic preservation committee? Cuz I haven't seen it. I haven't seen any >> I got them uh earlier today. Um I don't know if I have an extra copy,
but >> Great. Yeah. Copies. Thank you. >> Rick, can I just ask a couple real quick for preliminary? Are those three exhibits have they already are they already in our package? >> No, those are new exhibits that we
should we can go ahead and mark. Um Yeah, I mean, I think they're self-explanatory. >> Okay, so the first one will be A17 and if you could What is A17? >> A17 is delineated as uh is that it say exhibit A?
Exhibit A, which is uh the front of the of the two proposed buildings. >> All right, and that's prepared by >> That's prepared by uh our architect's office. >> Okay, and uh if is there a date on it or we just put today's date? >> Um
There is a date on it. 616 >> 61626, okay. And what about A18? >> A18 B would be I guess it and it it's it's also the front from just a little different perspective.
>> Okay. >> Same date. Same preparer, Anastasia Harrison Design and Company. >> Okay, and then A19? >> A19 is uh is show
created as C, same date, and that shows the proposed uh six-unit apartment building that I had this that I had referenced earlier, proposed for towards the rear of the property. >> Okay, thank you. And then Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things for
um board members, new board members, and our new board secretary, and members of the public who maybe don't uh come uh to as many uh zoning board hearings. So, this is a use variance application. So,
uh in this situation, um Charlene, when we ultimately vote, only seven board members will vote. So, we have eight tonight, so everyone can question, comment, make statements, and but if we vote tonight, only seven members vote. And the other thing is with this type of
use variance or D variance application, the law says that uh in order for it to be approved, uh they need at least five affirmative yes votes. So, unlike other scenarios where majority wins, in this
situation, the prevailing state statute says, in order for this application to be approved, they need five affirmative yes votes. So, just keep score at home for that. And the final thing is, Mr. Chairman, since we have some members of the public, can I just real briefly explain the general rules
uh so that uh can facilitate the process. Uh it's awesome that uh interested members of the public have come here, and this is a quasi-judicial hearing. And that word is a sort of a funny word, quasi-judicial, and it means different things to different people, but
generally speaking, what everyone agrees it means is that we have to act sort of like a court. Uh and we have to be very uh official and very procedurally oriented. That is why we are marking things into
the record. That's why uh we swear in the witnesses, so we just don't get up and start hearing from someone. We're going to have uh his or her professional qualifications vetted, make sure they're current and up to date. And the way the process works is
generally speaking, when the witness comes forward, board members will pretty much ask questions whenever they want. And when Mr. Brodsky is concluded, the chairman will then open it up to the public. And that is opportunity for the
public at this point to ask questions of the witness based upon what the witness stated. So, it is important, let's just say the witness is the architect. And if your question is all about traffic, you really can't ask, and if you do ask, uh
it's okay, but the architect's going to say, "I'm not qualified to answer the traffic questions." Likewise, you wouldn't ask architectural questions to the traffic engineer. And the other thing is, at that point, it's just asking questions.
And then we'll go to Mr. Brodsky's next witness. And again, board members will ask, and then when he is concluded, it'll be opened up to questions from the public for that witness based upon that area. And then, at the end, after Mr. Brodsky has totally
completed his case, if there's any other case, or any other presentations we'll have, but at that point, members of the public will be given an opportunity to not just ask questions, but to make statements. And that's your opportunity to say, "I love
the project," or "I'm not in love with this project," or "I would like the project so much more if you did X or Y or Z." And Mr. Chairman, sometimes when we have our half-time breaks, sometimes members of the public come up to me and they're like, "You seem like a nice guy, but why won't you just let me
get up and talk?" And and the reason is is because this process is the judicially recognized and judicially condoned process. And if we don't follow this process, and if there was an appeal, Uh, the
judge would likely find that our whole process was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. And and so we have to sort of do things through that process. So, I know sometimes it's it's annoying and sometimes it's frustrating, but this is the you know, judicially time-tested
process. So, with that Mr. Chairman, let's turn it over uh, to the first witness. >> First, anybody having questions for Mr. Brodsky? >> Just just one for clarification. You mentioned apartments, these will be rentals, right? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you.
>> Any other questions for Mr. Brodsky? Public have any questions for Mr. Brodsky? Don't see any. Your next witness, please. >> Okay. Um, let's have Mr. Smallwood step forward. Um, >> This is on? Great.
>> Yes, good evening and welcome to the Red Bank Zoning Board. If you could just uh, state your name and address for the record. >> John L. Smallwood, 46 Conover Lane, Red Bank, New Jersey. >> Okay, welcome to the Red Bank Zoning Board. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your
knowledge, so help you God? >> Yes, sir. >> And just for the record, um, you are the principals of the the 199 Broad Street LLC and 205 Broad Street LLC? >> Yes, sir. >> And you're also a principal of the uh, Smallwood Investment Trust?
>> Yes. >> Very good, thank you. >> Well, principal's not the right term, but >> Okay. >> Beneficial owner. >> Got it. >> Yeah, okay. John, if you would, you you heard what my little brief description description of of uh, well, your vision
and your operation of the business. Um, let's start with the vision. Let's start with the vision first in terms of what your mindset was when you acquired the second property, you know, what your thought process, your intent, and and
you know, your desired outcome in just a little more detail and then we'll talk a little bit about the actual operation, hours of operation, numbers of employees, things like that. >> Okay. First of all, I want to say thank you for everyone [clears throat] here tonight and I want to get as much
information out as I possibly can. >> [clears throat] >> Uh prior to 2012, my wife and I were looking to relocate our our firm out of the uh Crossroads in the American Diner in those older buildings, looking for a special place. We made offers and bids
on 12 to 13 places. They were They were in bad shape. We found 199 Broad, which is a 1904 Queen Anne Vic- Victorian uh that was in horrific shape, but it was level. And we I have a blog up. It's called
199broad.com, which has all the before and after photos of the of what we did in that space. And what we wanted to do was to turn it back into a beautiful Queen Anne Victorian home that looked like a home,
but operated as an office. And when I went through the entire process, we put as much parking uh we we we only needed 10 or 11 spots at the time. We put the 26 parking spots because we felt that was in compliance with what was
happening. When I was acquiring the property, the gentleman who did the survey s- took me aside and said I should level the property. It's a giant piece of crap, quote unquote. And I said, "You must not understand much about an a 1904 property and also
it's a 60-ft wide lot. If that property was destroyed, you would have a very narrow, long building on that space." So, long story short, we renovate that property. We win The Historic Preservation Society has granted us us
an award for historic preservation in an area where we did not need to do so, okay? We have a lot of pride. We have a lot of ownership. Everybody comes into the building, loves the building. People drive by, they stop in, they see the building.
I had a very friendly relationship with the woman next door, Karen Herrick, who owned that property for many, many years. And when she was ready to sell it, I said I would love to buy it. That is an 1895
Victorian as well. And it was in pretty bad shape. We do have photos, but the blog is not up yet. Um, we have partially restored the interior of that space. We took the drop ceilings down. We took the
all the rugs off, all of the linoleum up. And we have re- we took the weights and balances in the windows and restored them back to what it was, okay? And our vision is to have a really
comfortable place to work, to be able to walk to the downtown. And as we all know, my end of 199, my end of Broad Street, a lot of the businesses do not survive because there's not enough foot traffic during the day, and the evening it's all down by the boardwalk. And
that's been an ongoing area. So, when we were able to acquire the property, I thought, "What a great opportunity to put some apartments in the back that are small, have some garage space, have a little
bit more office space, so that you could be more part of the community, but most people don't want to go into downtown Red Banking Red Bank cuz they fear parking." With the on-street parking and the parking that we have, there's plenty of parking.
Um, and people love to come. So, that's kind of the vision. >> And and I wanted to Any questions for Mr. Smallwood on that aspect of it? We're going to talk about the business operations in a in a moment.
>> Yeah, could you clarify the last part about the the parking and who that benefits? >> The parking when when people visit to come to an office in Red Bank, they don't have parking, right? So, you have to park somewhere and walk to it. People can park in our
back lot. They can park on the street. They It's very easy to get into the office. So, people are very happy that we're not in downtown, but we're right there and there's plenty of parking and the we've, you know, in the What is it?
13 years that I've been in the building or 12 years? 15? 13? 13 years? 13 years that we've owned it, we've never had a parking issue except when we do a holiday party. We have people parking in the overflow lots to our left and in the church parking lot cuz we have a great
relationship with them. But, we do beautiful parties. Um we've had the the Red Bank Classic. We've had a food truck there. It's been great. So, does that Did I answer it? >> I understand now. Thank you. >> So, people it's very easy to park.
Cuz our density in the way we operate >> And so, I guess it's a good segue, John, into into the way you operate the business. So, what what's going on now in terms of number of employees, what their work habits are,
um clients that come uh or you meet offsite or people working remotely, that kind of thing. >> Do we Right now, we have approximately 13 employees including myself. Um three of them are 100% remote, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Chicago. Um we have a policy where the people that are I have one also in Philadelphia who has a remote office there. Um they never come to the office.
We have the rest of the staff is there, uh but we have a policy where we allow people to work remotely a few days a week based on their schedule and what they're doing. Then we have four advisors. I'm one of the advisors and we
I work in 27 states. 28 states and a lot of my day is on Zoom. Um but we also have probably if we're going to have four appointments in a day, two to three will be Zoom.
Two to three will be in person depending upon the flow and where they are coming from. Um and the younger advisors who are in the firm, they have a very similar schedule where we have three conference rooms
downstairs so people can meet with clients or do a Zoom meeting and it's it's a very open area. And as we expand, it seems like we're expanding with virtual as opposed to you know, in person. >> Got it.
>> But we have the way the space is, there's plenty of room for it. >> And are you open Monday through Friday or Monday through Saturday? >> Monday through Friday. >> Okay. >> And uh Fridays at 2:00 in the summer, we're all out of there. >> Got it. >> Okay.
Um uh and what about hours of operation? >> We We typically we we start seeing clients at around 9:00. Um people arrive to the office around 8:30. Um and we typically are out of there by
5:30 or 6:00 o'clock um Um, you have one or two late meetings, which happen. Um Um >> Questions for Mr. Smallwood. >> Yeah, you had mentioned that increasingly your um clients are meeting you virtually. Do you just roughly have a rough split of how many clients you
have virtual versus those who drive to your office to meet you? >> We could get the exact count, but um right now, if I look at my average week, where I have about 15 appointments, half of them are virtual and half of them are in-person. >> All right, thank you. >> about 50/50, but if you really want me
to check, I can get that actual >> No, that's that's fine. >> Yeah. >> Um with the with the addition of the other house, are you expecting to hire a lot more people? >> What we're expecting to do there is with the bridge to have that as more of like
a larger conference room area, um and to have bigger, more open space. Right now, our offices are very tight. I have three advisors in I don't know what size that square footage is, but it's really small. It's a really small room. They're on the phone. We want to have
more open space there. But, we also want to provide in 205 a couple of smaller suite-style offices that will appeal to small business-type of people, accountants, attorneys, or something
to that nature. Um that are looking for space. Cuz people are also Most people are tired of being >> stuck in their home all day, and they want to go out to a nice place. >> And work. So, we're envisioning smaller, low-density type businesses occupying it.
If it was the Ford days, when the Ford was open, you'd have a bunch of engineers that would be working in and coming out. You could have the same thing. You could have production people that are there, um as it modifies. Um but, we're
we're thinking of it as smaller suites that are available. If it's I don't know that what the exact square footage is, but 1,500 square foot spaces that would hold, you know, house three to four people. >> So, if I can just clarify, that means you some of the space at 205
would be renting out to other >> Other businesses, yes. Other professionals that were complementary in some way or um we're [clears throat] seeing a lot of, you know, private equity firms that don't see clients at all, but want
office space. So, there could be three to four advisors. There's hedge funds that are like that, too. Um we're not looking you know, I don't want 800 cars there in a day, personally. So.
But we won't have enough space for people, sorry. >> Sorry, are you done? >> Yeah, sorry. >> I have a question. You mentioned you wanted to provide some apartments within the area. Now, Red Bank has some, you know, standards. So, my big question
to you is why did you pick six, which triggers the D5 variance, as opposed to a smaller number of units? >> What we were trying to do is to restore the property back to the grand vision of the way properties used to be
where you had small carriage house type properties in the back of the property. Uh William Sutton was the owner of the property. He was a mayor of Red Bank and his father his father was a mayor of Red Bank and he was a dry goods merchant and he had a whole bunch of businesses in in
downtown. Most of those houses had a carriage house in the back. So, what we were looking for is when we looked at the spread and we saw, okay, now we have 120 feet. Can we make a really nice looking carriage house? How many
apartments can we can we get? I thought eight, the architect said six. So, >> Well, one of the other standards that you're deviating and maybe we'll go into this later is also the minimal habitable square footage. So, that's another
variance you're requiring. If you went to four units and made them larger, you would not need several of the variances. >> True. And you know, I will defer to the to the experts on that. >> And as the owner as the owner of the
property, you don't have a feel for four versus six? >> I sort of do. What we were looking for is some smaller units that you could effectively if [clears throat] you're if you're building the same way, you could offer them at at a lower price point. Um
as you know, the pricing on apartments in Red Bank is pretty darn expensive. Um so, by having the same square footage and having a couple more apartments, technically you could have a better priced apartment. I don't know what the full math is cuz we don't have the
building cost yet, right? But the idea was have them nice, have them livable, have them have them in a great environment, have them look good. Um if you wanted to have four units, you would need less variances, but you would
now have a larger apartments and >> [snorts] >> a different type of product. Um it's it's it's looking for what can what can be optimal on the space and there are different formulas
that you would do if you were going to do six versus four um in this. But >> less apartments, higher rents. >> It'd be higher rents. Um which I mean, it would be good, but we're also
trying to we we we kind of think of it as a person that's going to work in the community that's younger or that's worked in the community for a long time that needs a small place. Maybe they go to Florida, maybe they don't. Yeah, we don't know who the tenants are yet. Um,
I'm not sure of that. We think it'll appeal to people because it has a relatively nice look and feel to it. It has that carriage house look and feel. You're going back in time. We're not, you know, we're trying to look good. Did I answer? >> Okay.
Other questions from the board? >> Just one. I wanted to um follow up with on Anne's question. You you clarified that some of the uh spaces in Is it 205? Did I get that right, Brad? Um are would would be rented out to other firms, but I think the one space that
would be used by your firm was a conference space, right? >> So, what we're envisioning is that Smallwood will continue to Smallwood Wealth Management will continue to operate 199, occupy that entire building, and we will spill into the bridge, and we will expand into the
bridge area that goes between that. The 205 will get [clears throat] a slight bump out at the back, and that's that most likely that will be rented out to other businesses depending upon our expansion. Um we actually currently reduced some of
our staff in size um and in favor of virtual um and it just was better for the things that we were trying to do, but we also see potentially we could be spilling into that space also with more um
admin type people as opposed to uh sales side. >> Okay. So, I was under the impression that the bridge was like a passageway between the two buildings, but when you say spill into the bridge, do you mean there would be usable like office space in the bridge as well? >> forget the exact square footage. Is it about 1,000 square feet? >> can just go through it. Okay.
>> Yeah, but it's about it would be a really wonderful conference room and/or like right now in the building where that is bumped out the space that's on this in the front of it that's kind of bumped out that's two bedrooms that were
combined in the house. We have six people in that office. Preferably we'd rather have those people in a little bit larger space and have the other rooms converted into smaller conference rooms for client meetings or individual offices for the
advisors so they get some privacy. >> Okay. Understand. Thank you. >> Yeah. And the architect will go into the floor plan in detail so you can envision it. >> Any other questions from the board for Mr. Smallwood? >> I have a I have a quick one and it may be a little out of sequence, but um
would you or your firm manage the rental property? >> Yeah, someone on my team will manage. Yeah. >> Great. Thanks. >> Okay. Any questions from the public for Mr. Smallwood? Come on up. Grab a microphone.
>> And you know what we're going to do? Uh just we're going to have you state your name and address. We'll swear you in. Um and every other time you get up, if you get up, you don't have to get sworn in again. You just state your name. So your name and address, please? >> William Hardigan, 122 Hudson Avenue. I'm a direct abutting property to the proposed project.
>> And you just uh spell your last name? >> H A R T I G A N >> All right. Uh good evening. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide, to the extent you provide any, will be the truth to the best of your knowledge so help you, God? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Um I guess, you know, the question I have is uh you know, obviously, you know, why do you need the you know, the the the variances for this project, you know, and you can't comply with the the you know, existing ordinance. Um is
it to you know, maximize profits because you you know, you did just mention that you wanted eight, but your architects, you know, recommended you do six. Is that the, you know, the goal is to to maximize the profits that way?
>> Um I I thought you When you build something, you do want to have a return on investment. So, whether you build four apartments or six apartments, you're going to make a return on investment. So, if you're going to build a smaller place, it'll be
a smaller investment. You'll make a return on that. So, what we were more looking for is the aesthetics and how it would look on the property and would it look natural or would it look forced. And when we Anastasia and I >> You know, hold on one uh
>> Charlene, is the mic picking him up? All right, it Okay, thank you. It is. I have to take it close to my mouth. I'm very sorry about that. So, so the idea was that when we were looking at the optics, we wanted to look right. We didn't want it to look like like a
like it didn't belong. So, we were trying to get the space to be full and beautiful within that space. So, that's why it's six. And I, you know, we we were looking at it and saying, "Okay, it could be longer." And then we have
different setbacks and comply with that. >> All right. So, basically, it's it's to maximize with trying to keep the look that you think would >> I I'm about the look and feel of it. And then yeah, and the rental income it has it has to make sense. I mean, it has to make sense.
>> So, you you you weren't able to figure out a way to to basically conform to the existing ordinance and and still make the profits that >> There are ways that we could do it, and it's really ugly. And I don't think you'll like it. I'm seriously.
>> Uh I also have a, you know, you mentioned the parking and and I just want to clarify. You said you used the church parking lot for a overflow for an event or something? >> Yeah, I had a holiday party. I had about 150 clients come to the office.
And Bob Silver, who owns the church to I guess he's to your would be to your left looking at the back. >> Yeah, I know Bob. >> So, he was very gracious and he said you can use some of our parking for your people. And matter of fact, in 2000, November of
2014, when we had our grand opening event to celebrate it, which was a holiday party, our parking lot was not done. So, he allowed us to use his parking. And that's still the two times that we've actually used his parking. >> Yeah, and I'm I asked the question because you do need a parking ordinance
and if you had used it for you know, you needed overflow for for something else, you're going to have uh you know, less parking than is required by the ordinance. >> Yeah, but it's only it's only if it's an event. Like if we had an event. >> Okay. >> Which >> You might have an event.
>> We could have an event. We could have a pickleball tournament. I don't know, whatever you want to do. >> Uh I guess that's uh it for my questions for now. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? Oh. Mr. Moss.
>> Good evening, Mr. Moss. If you could just state your name and address for the record. >> Thank you, Mr. Brodsky. >> We'll do that again. Kevin Moss at 115 Hudson Avenue. >> All right, good evening and welcome back. Uh do you swear that the information and testimony you're about
to provide to the extent you provide it will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> First, I'd like to compliment Mr. Smallwood on the uh restoration of 199 >> Thank you. >> of Broad Street. That was a terrific job, well done.
>> Thank you very much, sir. >> The um first thing I want to get into was uh back to the your characterization of the pedestrian traffic in the area. Now, you're four lots, as I understand it, from the post office. There's the
Bell Tavern, there's a dental, then there's a parking lot, >> Parking lot 195. >> it's Yes. The parking lot's 195 and then 199, which is which is yours. So, >> Correct. >> there's a lot of pedestrian traffic at the post office.
>> Yes, they go to the post office and leaves. >> I don't >> They They mean people go to the post office. >> Yes, they do. Yes, they do. >> And and then they go home or they go to work or they go somewhere. They don't come and shop. They don't They don't They don't frequent the downtown. What I was saying about that was
I'd love to see more businesses and/or restaurants that have more foot traffic and a reason to be down on this end, south of Garmany and stuff like >> So, so how many more pedestrians do you expect to be with the six apartments? >> Six Six Six people and we have a couple
more employees that are here. There'd be more people to go to the local businesses for lunch and stuff like that. >> Well, I'm I'm referring to the res- the resident your proposed residential six units in the back. Do you think you're going to solve the pedestrian problem?
>> No, but it's going to be one starfish at a time. >> Okay. Now, you you mentioned that people don't come into Red Bank because of the parking. There's a problem with parking. There's But this application itself, s- according to the letter that Mr.
Brodsky sent me, sent said that 62 spaces were required and you're only providing 34. >> Correct. >> Now, you'll probably update those numbers and that kind of stuff, but so you're going to be pushing more traffic
out into the street, right? >> Well, assuming >> Which to expect them to park? >> Well, assuming that we have that's 100% occupancy of all people at all times, which if you you can see I think you can see our parking lot from your property.
>> Excuse me? >> I think you can see our our parking lot from your property now. >> I can see the parking lot next to you at 195. I'm at 115 with >> Right, I thought you could see 199 also. But 199 currently parking is and there's
this traffic study that typically has less than half of it filled and 205 virtually has nothing on it at this point. >> So the the technical application itself though says you're short parking. You need a variance for that. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And and this putting residential units in the back will only exacerbate the technical requirement. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Assuming of the occupancy of the office space. >> Okay. >> That's the factor that's the unknown.
But if you have six people and you have two people in each apartment or 1.5, you're going to have a little bit more parking in that parking lot at that time. >> Okay. Uh that does it for me uh at this point. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay, anybody else from the public? Come
on up. >> Good evening. Name and address, please. >> Thomas Jones, 133 Hudson Avenue. >> Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Small, well first of all, congratulations on the renovations to
the building. >> Thank you, sir. >> It's just what this town needs. >> Thank you. >> And I like the drawings or the illustrations here of incorporating the new building. And even the bridge, I don't mind so much. Um it's going to be
going to be takes away a little bit from it, but it's still good. >> Thank you. >> You talked about the uh the the biggest concerns I have are the units in the back, the residential. That's where all the variances seem to be coming into play. And you talked
about the aesthetics. You're not going to see much because your buildings are pretty well covered, so you the aesthetics don't really come into play cuz nobody's going to see them from the street. >> Um I think you actually you actually do
because from this angle you'll see them here. You'll see them through the bridge, and if you're coming we don't have a visual coming from Broad Street heading I guess south, you would see them from that perspective too because of 195 lot being a complete parking lot, which is
something I'm trying to avoid. >> Well, the still concern is all the variances are based on the residential, which is not a What's the word I want to It's not That's what you need the variances for. It's not allowed right now.
>> Correct. >> And if we just we made that go away, this meeting would be a lot faster and >> Can you speak into the mic so we make sure we pick you up? >> if the residential went away, most of these issues would go away. We'd solve a lot of problems. I think this
town is getting very overcrowded and uh we're taking away we have less parking than is required or proposed anyways, and I think that's going to exist. >> If I could just interrupt you for 1 second. So, I think the question was if the residential aspect of the project
went away, would a majority of the variances go away? That was your question, sir? >> Correct. >> I believe that's accurate. Yeah. I believe that's 100% accurate. Um one of I'm going to one of the things that when we looked at the properties
and we looked at the 60-ft wide lots and we looked at the use, and then I have this beautiful 1895 property which if you go inside it looks much better. Outside we didn't do much on it, right? But technically we could put all of the density behind
199 Broad Street and make 205 a parking lot and that would literally kill me. Cuz it would be doing something that is horrible for the town and the aesthetics and the view and that is something that I that I do I don't I don't want it to.
I want to make it look beautiful. I want to make it look like it's been here for 125 years. >> Well, I appreciate that when you said all the density could be at 199 all what density? All do you mean if >> All the density that we're looking for in the variances
with apartments and office space off the back of 199, level the 1895 property. I'm not saying I'm going to do that, okay? But if we were to do that, if we were to level 205 and turn that into parking, we would satisfy the parking and the density and
we wouldn't actually even be here tonight. >> Okay. But again, if you didn't have the density you wouldn't need the extra parking, you wouldn't need a lot. So you If it If the residential went away
everything would just about everything else would go away. >> Yes, but residential is allowed in the area. It is a permitted use and rather than do all office space, we thought a mix of residential and office
space was a better model for the area and the aesthetics of the town. But I understand what you're saying. >> Sure. >> And I appreciate what you're saying. >> Well, another comment on that would be uh you based a lot of your assumptions on you maintaining keeping the buildings
and maintaining them going forward. >> Right. >> We all know the world changes. Somebody else could win and >> What if my kid wanted Who the hell knows, right? >> You don't need the parking, so if they give you the variance on the parking spaces, the next owners of the building
may need it. So, then we have another issue. So, we're we're putting blinders on that we might have not have a issue now, but we won't have an issue in the future. >> If If you just If you have any more questions, you'll like to comment later at the end, so
>> Thank you, sir. I Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public have a question for Mr. Smallwood? >> Hi. >> Name and address? >> Catherine Hardigan. >> All right. Catherine with a C or K? >> The other guy. H A R T I G A N.
>> And Catherine is with a C or K? K. All right. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide, to the extent you provide any, will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um so, I was just wondering, did you say
the lots are the same size? >> They're 60-ft wide. They're the same width, almost, and Andrew can actually tell us exactly that. Depth is very, very similar. All right. There's probably a 2-ft to 3-ft difference in the I think 199 goes a little further
back than 205. >> Yeah, so that's what I was wondering. So, the one on the left is a smidge >> Oh, yeah. Smidge larger. >> But, you decided to put the apartments on the right. >> They're on both. >> Oh, they're on both? >> Yeah, it's on both. >> Oh, so it stretches across
>> Yeah, we have the Do we have the board of that that's there? >> sound view, maybe? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we And it's a top down, so it's >> So, it's behind both. >> Yeah, like this, technically, is that side is closer to 199 Broad.
And it gets smaller as it comes towards your house. Like it's higher on that side and it gets smaller on that side and there's a little bit of gap there. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's all for now. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Any other questions from the public?
>> All right, you're still under oath. Just state your name again. >> [snorts] >> William Hardigan Um Are you okay? >> Do you want this? >> No. >> Um Mr.
Did you think I took it from you? I thought you were giving it to me. I apologize. Um do you think this would uh set a precedent in in in these neighborhoods, the surrounding neighborhoods, where other businesses could you know, do these projects and and get
these ordinances? >> If you look at what's happened in development on that street, when people do it, people are not investing in their properties the way I have invested in 199 and 205. I'm hoping to
spur and inspire quality of investment and people do nice things with their property so that when you drive into town, it looks like a fabulous town that it is. Um so I'm hoping to spur people to make
strategic decisions to beautify their properties. >> Okay. Uh the other question I have is Did you ever consider you know, reaching out to like direct abutting neighbors like myself um to you know, let us know kind of what
you were thinking about doing or you know, seeing how we felt about it. Did you ever consider that? >> In hindsight, you probably should have done that and we did not do that at this time. Um so probably should have. >> Yeah, cuz uh you know, we got you know,
the first notice we got like we received like 7 days. I I I think it might have been sent out 8 days. I think that's the requirement, but we got Is it 10? And we got it like 7 days prior, so it wasn't a lot of time. I know it got extended, but you know. Yeah, that's the That was my question if
you ever considered uh reaching out to neighbors. >> Thank you. >> It's kind of awkward to [clears throat] knock on people's doors today. They don't really answer. So, um but we could >> No, you can denote it or something, put a letter or something like that. Like you know, like we received the letter on
the variances. >> Yep, thank you. >> Thank you. Here you go. >> You can give me a call or we Yep. >> Okay. Any more questions from the public? Close the public portion. Go on with your Go with the next witness.
>> Yes. So, this is the project engineer, Mr. Andrew Comey. Um Kevin, we have one one other exhibit. Two two exhibits that we need to uh mark. So, let's uh first >> Good evening, Andrew R. Comey, c o m i.
Kennedy Consulting Engineers. I'm located at 211 Maple Avenue, Red Bank, New Jersey. As professional engineer. They are. Certainly, I'm a licensed New Jersey professional engineer. Just to give you the benefit, I am a graduate of graduate of Rutgers University in the field of
civil engineering and I have 20 years experience uh in land development engineering projects, both commercial and residential. >> And I believe you've testified before Red Bank Zoning Board before. >> I believe so, yes. >> And uh you've been qualified by other boards
and accepted as a professional witness. >> Yes. >> Excepted. >> Okay. And now you wanted to enter into uh Charlene, what are we up to? A20? So, what is A20? >> A20 is an aerial exhibit. I do have
small-size copies of both of these exhibits that I'll that I'll hand out. >> Okay. Uh this exhibit is >> entitled aerial exhibit prepared by Kennedy Consulting Engineers and the date is June 18th, 2026. >> Thank you.
>> And the next exhibit is just a colorized or colorized rendering of the submitted site plan. It's entitled site plan rendering prepared by Kennedy Consulting Engineers. This one's dated May 21st, 2026. >> Okay. So, that'll be A21. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Okay, Andy, if you would >> Um sure. So, while >> Maybe some of us can share and you can leave a couple up. >> I think there's >> Okay. I want to leave some for the audience. Oh, you got it. >> Two two more. >> Got it. Great.
>> Or I can turn the the boards around. Whatever work whatever works best. Maybe I'll just do that. >> Um I don't know. The board may want to see it, but >> Does that work for the board? Should I turn this back around? I Okay.
>> No, we're fine. Okay, Andy, if if you would um let let's walk the board through uh and the public walk the uh site as it exists today, essentially. And then we'll get into what's proposed as part of the application.
>> Yes, so referring to A20, the aerial exhibit. The proper project site is highlighted in red. As you heard, it consists of two lots. Both are in block 105. Lot 16, which is 199 Broad Street, is the lot to
the north. And lot 15, which is 205 Broad Street, is the southerly lot. The site is located in the PO professional office zone. And the overall property is 34,143 square feet, or just a little over 3/4
of an acre. 34,143? That's both combined, yes. The site has 120 feet of frontage on Broad Street to the west, and that includes both lots. It borders a commercial parking lot to the north, borders a combination house
of worship and office building to the south, and single-family residential properties to the east, or to the rear of the property. 199 Broad Street contains an existing office building that's 3,255
square feet. And a paved parking lot at the rear. Driveway access on Broadway that's used for two-way traffic currently. And 205 Broad contains an existing office building that's 3,060
square feet. A paved parking lot exists at the rear, and also has a driveway on Broadway that's also used for two-way traffic. Both lots include other improvements, including existing lighting, landscaping, walkways.
And storm water management. That's That's Any questions on the existing conditions? Cuz then I'll I'll switch to the next exhibit which you have. >> This is A21? >> Correct. The site This is the site plan rendering
of a colorized version of what of the plans that were were submitted. Beginning So, with the proposed Moving on to the proposed conditions, uh starting at the the front office buildings. In the proposed conditions, as you've heard, the two buildings are
proposed to be uh connected with a second-story uh bridge addition, which you'll obviously hear more about from the architect. Uh the bridge will have a clearance of 12 ft 8 in below the bottom of the structure to the uh driveway below. That's The driveway is
to remain. Uh an addition is also proposed at the rear of the 205 building. That's the southerly building, which will bring the total uh floor area from 6,315 sq ft existing to 9,940
sq ft. Uh both the bridge addition and the the other addition behind the 205 building are shaded in a darker shade of orange, while the existing building is is is in a lighter color. So, you can kind of see what's what's to remain and what's uh
proposed. Uh before moving on, I'll I'll note now Obviously, the building straddles both lots. Uh we will, of course, uh merge the two lots together as uh in the proposed condition.
Uh this actually eliminates two existing nonconformities. Both lots uh only have 60 ft of frontage, where a 75 ft is required. The The new lot will have 120 ft of frontage and now, of course, will conform to the to the zoning
requirement. Uh next, the apartment building at the rear of the property will have six um six one-bedroom apartments. You'll hear more about that from from the architect. Uh the building is proposed to be 35 ft high, which meets the maximum uh
permitted height in the zone. The ground level will have uh six single-car garages, each one of which will be assigned to one of the units. Uh additional parking for the residents would be uh within the shared parking lot, which
which we will get into. Um building access for the apartment building, the main entrance is uh at on the west side or the parking lot side of the building, and two emergency uh exits are proposed at the rear of the
building. Uh the apartment building requires two variances. Uh the first is the residential density, where a density of six units per acre is permitted and 7.65 units per acre is proposed. The second is the minimum habitable
floor area, which which is 600 sq ft in the in the zone, and two of the units are proposed to be uh 500 sq ft. Uh the unit size also requires a separate design waiver and a uh of course, you'll hear uh more from the architect with with respect to the
unit sizes. Uh in addition, several other design waivers are also required for the rear uh building. The first, although the building meets the 10-ft uh side yard setback requirement on both sides, uh apartment buildings, specifically, uh are required to have a 20-ft side yard
setback. The proposed setbacks are 15.6 ft and 10.3 ft. 10.3 ft to the north, 15.6 ft to the south. Uh therefore, these design waivers are requested. Uh additionally, multi-family buildings
uh are required to have a setback from internal driveways up by of 25 ft. And as you can see, the building and garages are proposed with uh no setback to the internal driveway. And that's that's primarily for the garage access.
Uh with respect to parking, the existing parking lots at the rear of of the office buildings are to be modified and connected. Uh in total, 34 parking spaces are proposed, which includes 28 surface spaces and six and the six
individual garage spaces. Uh of those 28 spaces, three of 28 surface spaces, three of which will be ADA accessible as required. Those are indicated on the plan. And in terms of electric vehicle parking,
uh currently six uh EV spaces are shown as your board engineer pointed out. Three additional uh EV spaces are required. And as well, a percentage of which are to have the EV chargers installed at the time of the CO. Uh and of course, we'll update the plan
accordingly to to show those. Uh in total, as mentioned, 62 parking spaces are required. And with the allowable reduction due to the proposed uh EV spaces, that brings the requirement down uh to 56. And therefore, a variance is required
for a deficiency of 22 spaces. And you'll hear testimony, of course, from the traffic engineer regarding uh that variance. >> Numbers one more time, what what's required? >> 62 spaces, but with the EV credit, it's 56. I think I I believe I incorrectly uh
did the EV credit uh wrong on the submitted site plans. I've since learned that you're supposed to uh deduct the EV credit from the requirement. Isn't that correct, Jackie? So, I I I added them to the proposed. >> [clears throat] >> So, 56 are required, and what are you
proposing? >> We're proposing 34. >> Thank you. >> To uh net Yeah, net net deficiency of 22. Okay. As far as uh design waivers for parking, uh parking spaces are proposed to be 9 ft wide by 16 ft in length where 18 ft
in length is is required. Therefore, design waiver is requested. Uh I'll note that the existing parking lot currently has 16-ft long parking spaces, and uh that parking stall size has been adequate for the existing businesses for
as long as Mr. Smallwood has has been in his his office. Uh as far as site circulation, the northerly driveway, the 199 Broad Street driveway, will be converted into a one-way entrance, while the southerly driveway
on 205 Broad will be converted uh to a one-way exit. So, instead of having two two-way driveways, we'll have a clockwise circulation where you enter from the one the 199 Broad Street driveway, circulate around in a clockwise direction, and exit out the existing 205
uh Broad Street driveway. You can see that on with the arrows indicated on the plan. Uh we propose to reinforce that one-way direction with additional uh signage and striping that we'll, of course, uh add to the plan to make sure
we add do not enter signs, of course, so so nobody goes the wrong way. And that will be that will be updated on the the next uh submitted plans that we that we present. Uh regarding the circulation, there are two existing conditions that are to
remain which require design waivers. That's the width of the the driveway, 199 Broad Street. The entrance as is as narrow as 9.6 ft while the uh 205 Broad Street exit is as narrow as 10.7 ft wide
where 18 ft is required for one-way traffic. In addition, the 205 Broad Broad Street driveway is has zero setback. It's right on the property line to the south and 3 ft a 3-ft setback is required. So, that's again
another design waiver that's existing condition that is to remain. With respect to trash and recycling, it's not shown on the plan, but we intend to provide an enclosure or a
concrete pad with a 6-ft solid fence surrounding it near to in the southerly portion of the property near the apartment building. That would be for the residents for the six residents of the apartment. That enclosure would contain wheeled cans
that would be picked up by private hauler. So, so that is the the plan for trash and recycling pickup. >> Is that on the plan you gave us? >> It is not on the plan. It was a comment that we received from your board engineer and we decided that it would be
best to place that on in the exterior in the within the site. >> So, where exactly is it? Can you >> If I can I can point. There is a landscaped area to the in the southeast corner of but in front of the apartment building.
>> So, you would remove the tree that's shown there? >> It may have to be adjusted. Yes. So, you you you got it. It's it's where that tree is located. We'll have to If it can't fit between the tree and the apartment building, we'll make some
adjustment. >> So, how how big is that enclosure? >> Um we didn't really show it on the plan, but I would assume about 10 ft by 6 ft. Some something enough to to to have a number of cans for the six one-bedroom apartments. Maybe six six total wheeled
totes. So, it doesn't have to be tremendously large. We're not proposing dumpsters. >> Okay. >> Just just uh As you can imagine, six one-bedroom apartments wouldn't generate nearly as much traffic as a a larger commercial uh business. So,
>> And you would you said a 6-ft fence surrounding it? >> We would definitely propose a solid fence surrounding it. >> And you proposing private removal of the garbage? >> That's That's what I testified. We would have a private hauler uh to come pick up those. I believe the existing office buildings do wheel their cans out to the
street, but we didn't want to have, you know, 10 cans wheel wheeled out to the street. So, that's a you know, with the addition of the red multifamily, we thought it best to place it in one central location for pickup at the rear, out of sight,
screened with a with a fencing. Uh with respect to signage, there are two existing ground signs, one on each lot. Uh in the proposed condition, those two signs are uh proposed to remain. However, once the the lots are merged, a
variance then becomes required uh because only one sign is allowed per lot. Uh so, that variance is requested. We want to keep both ground signs uh uh in in their exact location, size, setback, and and and all requirements.
There are two There are several design waivers for those existing signs that are to remain as well. Those are in terms of the front setback, the clearance from the bottom of the 205 uh Broad Street sign, uh as well as the size of one of of one of
the signs. They're They're outlined in your board engineer's review letter. But, uh those those existing nonconformities are to remain. >> So, you you're combining both of those lots? >> Yes. >> So, how many principal structures then are on here? One, two, or three?
>> If they added by the bridge, then that's one. >> So, then there's two two principal buildings on the one lot then? Okay. Do we need a a waiver for that? >> Okay. So, that that's that's as far as signage. Uh with respect to utilities,
new connections for the rear building are proposed to be made in Broad Street. Uh those are shown on the the northerly part part of the the property. They'll they'll squeeze in between the existing building and and the adjacent property to the north.
Uh we've submitted to the water and sewer department our flow calculations. And uh I'll I'll note that for the rear building, the mechanical equipment for the new building will including the AC units, they're not shown on the plan. We'll we'll show them on the plan. They're to
be proposed on the south side of the building. >> Sorry, what was that? What's on the south side of the building? >> The mechanical equipment including the AC units. How many AC units? If six, one for one per unit.
So, those So, we right now we have foundation plantings that'll be adjusted uh due to the the six AC units. >> Does that affect the setback, the southern setback? >> Doesn't affect the building setback. Uh uh >> Okay, right.
>> The AC units will be within the setback, but Uh next with respect to uh stormwater management, the project is is not a major development uh per the borough's definition. Uh however, a stormwater management system
is proposed so that the peak runoff rates for the property or leaving the property will be decreased actually when compared to the existing condition. I'll I'll explain the existing system and the and the proposed additions real real briefly. The parking
lot behind the 199 Broad Street building currently contains an underground stormwater detention system that consists of 30-in diameter piping surrounded by stone that was installed when that when that site plan came forth in 2012 or so.
That is to remain, but it will be modified. It'll be expanded to to accommodate the the additional increase in impervious coverage from from this project. The proposed system will as well as the existing will be within the
the existing parking lot or the proposed parking lot to be to be modified. The as in the existing conditions, the underground system is designed to store and detain and infiltrate into the ground up to and including the 100-year design storm without reaching the
parking lot level. And nor running off into the adjacent properties. And as requested, we will provide soil testing for the expanded system, although I have gone to the site, witnessed the existing system after a rain event, and it was it
was dry. So, we do we do feel that the soils are very very well draining. So, we do expect the the soil report that we'll provide will will confirm the same. Your board engineer did ask whether or not we looked at providing a piped
overflow to any of the surrounding stormwater management systems, such as in Broad Street in the county the county's system. I did investigate that. The nearest inlet, which is in front of the parking lot to the north in Broad
Street, is about 250 ft from the stormwater management system. Found that it was about 2 ft lower than the parking lot, which we did not feel was conducive to uh providing an overflow pipe of any real significance. It would
have been have it would basically have no slope. Uh so, therefore, the proposed system will function just like the existing system with infiltration into the ground being the sole means of of draining that that stormwater management system.
Uh lastly, I'll note that the property owner uh will remain as the responsible party for maintenance of the stormwater management system. Uh with respect to lighting, the parking areas are proposed to be lit with downward pointing LED uh light fixtures
that will be 20 ft high. That matches the the pole heights of the lights within the existing parking lot behind 199 Broad. We'll just be uh essentially turn There's three lights there today. We'll be having not uh six fixtures in total. Uh two of the light
poles will actually have two fixtures, one on each end or 180° from from the other. So, there'll only be uh three light poles turning into four light poles essentially. Uh the goal with the lighting, of course, was to uh minimize and ensure
low light spillage beyond the property line. We feel that we we've done that, but as an additional measure, we'll will, of course, add uh house side shields uh at all of the lights at the perimeter of the property to further screen any light and glare.
Uh and to be honest, the the exis- the proposed apartment building will also provide uh a significant amount of screening for for the parking lot lighting being 35 ft tall uh and and much taller than the proposed lights. Um the only lights at the rear of the
building are small uh overhead lights over the the the two emergency exit doorways. Those Those aren't shown on the plans, but they would be small like coach type light fixtures, but as as required for the emergency exits. Uh, since the parking lot will be used
for multi-family parking, the lights would be on from dusk until dawn, but we can work with your board engineer to see if we can reduce the light levels, um, during the evening hours and overnight as much as possible. Uh, but at least for to have a a a minimum safety
lighting level. Uh, with respect to landscaping at the front of the building, the existing plantings are proposed uh, to remain. At the rear of the building, in total 13 trees, 86 shrubs, and additional perennial flowers are
currently shown on the plan, uh, as requested by our board engineer. Additional plantings, including a double row of evergreen trees at the rear of the property, uh, will be provided. They'll provide screening for the the residential neighbors to the
rear, uh, as well. >> That's not shown on this plan. >> No. No, we will add a We show some evergreens at the rear, but we'll add Make sure it's a solid double row of evergreen trees. Uh, in addition, additional plantings along the southerly side yard will also
be proposed. And further, a 6-ft solid fence will be proposed at the rear of the property for additional screening. But I believe there's there's part and partial There's a There's a solid fence there today. Of course, we'll continue that and make sure the entire rear of the property is
uh, has has a solid 6-ft fence. >> Is that fence on the property line? But both >> It appears to be. I I I don't think it was on the survey. I think it's but it may it may be a pretty new fence. I just noticed when I was there 2 weeks ago. Um,
As far as street >> The Oh, you said on the southerly side of the property there'd be evergreens that are >> The rear, the rear on the southerly side we will add additional Well, there's there's really not not much landscaping other than foundation plantings there. We'll we'll continue the evergreen plantings and
along the southerly side of the property. >> Right. And and that's not shown and what's also not shown is the AC units you said would be there and you've got sticks of them. And >> Yes. >> And does that mean is there room for both? >> Well, it's getting it's getting a little tight. I I will say you that we will
still request the the variance for not providing the required 42 trees in that landscaped area. We'll we'll we'll supplement that. We'll we'll probably bring the number into the into around 30 trees, but we'll do our best. We'll make sure we
still have maintenance act We need to make have maintenance access around back and sides of the building. So, it is a good point. >> Okay, so AC units will definitely be on the southerly side and the trees as it space allows. Is kind of like >> Correct. Correct. Trees as as as we can provide. Probably won't provide a double
row on the southerly side as we will on the the easterly side of the rear of the property. >> All right, thank you. >> Uh-huh. As far as street trees, the plans currently don't propose any. Uh three street trees are required as as noted in the engineer's review.
So, we would like to update the plans to add the trees if we can. There are two driveways to remain, two sidewalk two signs to remain, and there are trees on on the side lot lines. If we can provide the three trees, we will. If not, we will contribute to the
street tree fund for the remainder. So, that that is that is the plan and that will be shown on on the next resubmission. >> I have just a question on the landscaping again. >> Yes. >> Looking at what you gave us, there are a couple areas that have like
purple shaded areas that do not have landscaping. What's what's going on there? >> [clears throat] >> Uh those were existing trees. >> All those are trees? >> It's hard to tell on the rendering, but yes. We were trying to I I think our our landscape architects
was proposing some perennial plantings at the base of those those existing trees, but we'll have to we'll have to look at that and see if we can supplement and and of course the goal is not to eliminate any trees. I think we're eliminate we're eliminating three total trees
on the property and of course we'll comply with the the bureau's tree removal ordinance and the plans will be updated accordingly, but those those trees at the rear were to remain. >> Okay, yeah. Because in terms of being able to look at this and see what
kind of buffering exists between these lots and neighboring lots, it would be nice to see maybe what is there existing as well as what is proposed. >> Yes, I I think it's it may be a little clearer even on the black and white submitted landscape plan. Uh it's just
harder to tell with the colors that were splashed on here with the aerial background. So but there there are two existing trees I see. >> Okay. >> Uh as far as landscaping there are couple of design waivers as I mentioned 42 trees are required. We we're
requesting a design waiver for providing less than that of course. We will add as many as we we can. Uh so those will be shown on the the next resubmitted plan. And additionally a landscape strip of 5 ft is required along the side lot lines
that would be to the to the north and south. And the the the proposed landscape strip is is variable, but less than 5 ft in width. Therefore, design waiver is required. >> And and you you the You've reviewed the board's board
engineer board planner's letters. >> Yes. >> And I think I think we've hit the majority of the points, but um >> Yeah, I got a question. Have you consulted with fire officials? >> Ashley did uh speak with a fire official
this morning. And uh we were mostly I was interested in to see what they they thought about the bridge connection. I did learn that the So our our clearance is 12 ft 8 in, and I learned that the largest the tallest uh fire ladder fire truck that
would be that would service possibly the site would is 12 ft, so it is higher it is taller than that. Fire truck can enter uh the rear parking area. So. >> No problem with turning up around back in >> We will provide uh turning templates.
Those those haven't been prepared yet. Uh we're still but of course we will work with the fire official to their satisfaction of course as as required. >> Uh if you're the right person to ask this uh if
the beautiful 199, you know, hadn't been renovated and 205 wasn't and they were torn down and this site was vacant uh how many apartments could you put on it in the current zoning? >> Well I guess I am
>> Smallwood. You know, like studios and ones like people are building. I mean people have built twos and asked six grand on Mama Street, but it's hard to get that. So Well How How many apartments could you put on this site as of right if it was vacant completely clear?
>> Well, to meet to meet all of the requirements, uh six units requires a variance for the density. I believe four units would would comply. I think six if even five is a slightly over the six units per acre that's allowable. But
I was going to ask uh answer your question a different way. I did look at what would happen and I think Mr. Smallwood e- even uh alluded to that earlier Uh what would happen if we were to knock both buildings down and provide even one combined building both residential and
uh office space the same amount of square footage in the in the office portion and the same amount of uh units in in the uh in the in the residential portion with just parking all around that building
and we were able to get very close to the parking. I think we had we had 53 parking spaces in that scenario. Uh we likely could could uh tweak the design to get to get up to the required 56 spaces. Uh so it is a possibility,
but again to answer your question only four units would comply with the density requirement. There's many other >> Right. >> requirements. >> is already above density grandfathered because of the 6,000 ft of houses. So you couldn't you couldn't recreate
those houses as apartment buildings from scratch by by the current zoning. >> Uh six six units wouldn't would not and we're we're about the property is is the size that it is the 3/4 of an acre in size, so.
>> Got you. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board for this witness? Any questions from the public for this witness? >> Was there a >> Could you state your name again? You're still under oath. >> That's Thank you, sir.
>> William Hardigan. Wow. Uh this is a lot to digest. Um could you do me a favor? Could you point out on this plan where the air condition units are going to be
for the apartment buildings in the rear? >> As I was saying, it would be to the south of the building. >> Okay. And the you know, the garbage, which it kind of blows my mind how it's not on the plan because it's it has such an
impact on the the neighboring residence. >> the idea was that they could have possibly been stored within the garages and wheeled out during pickup day as as you know, that that's one that's an option, but we were we opted to provide an enclosure for those for the cans.
>> And that enclosure is going to go where? >> Also on the south of the property, likely in this area, right here. >> Okay. Um also tree-wise, you're saying that the existing trees are going to are going to stay.
>> Yeah, that that was that was uh what Mr. Light had mentioned. It shows as a purple color. I think that's just the perennial bed at the base of these two existing trees. That's why but there that's why there's a gap in the area. >> Okay, there's there's another tree that
comes more back into the property where I believe is where this building would go. You're going to cut that tree down. >> three trees within the site that are to be removed. And probably one that you're talking >> So look, you're going to leave two trees or three trees in the rear of the property. >> Well, these these two specifically will
would remain. Uh the the three trees I believe are within the parking area and where the where the apartment building is located. I could show you exactly where those are on the existing conditions plan, but it's harder to see. It's it's screened
back here, but uh >> Okay. Woo. Um Let's see what we got here. >> Um just as a follow-up while while we're waiting um Andrew, the um
along the rear again, the revised plan will show that it's going to be a double row of evergreen, right? Okay. So, how and you're estimating we're adding how many trees to this site? >> Another 15.
>> 15? I I I would say just just a guess. I I would say at least another 15 to 20 trees. In order >> Scattered or on the back of the property line, one side, all over? >> In in the back would be a staggered rows, so meaning that that would provide the the maximum screening.
>> Um You know, I you're going to get a a traffic engineer up here. >> Yes. >> So, I you know, I I do want to ask some questions about the the parking. Um maybe questions go to both you guys, but uh you know, have you factored in you know,
how the parking's going to you know, with service vehicles and and visitors and like uh the zoning board gentleman said with the you know, police and EMS and and and and fire. Like have you done a study
on all that? >> I will defer that question to the traffic engineer report. >> Okay. Good enough. I'll come back up for that. Um All right, I'll I'll I'll stop for now. >> Anybody? >> I've got one more question. Oh.
While we wait for Mr. Moss, I've got one more question. >> Yes. So, looking at this diagram again with the six apartments, where are the mailboxes going to be? >> Uh I will defer that to the architect. >> Okay. It's not on the plan.
>> It is not. No. >> Okay, Mr. Moss. Uh Kevin Moss returning again. >> Still under oath, thank you. >> I have three uh three questions and I think the uh each one of them was touched upon the question, but I didn't get the answers, so I'm not sure I'm not sure. I
think Mr. Light was on one. Um you said the lot was uh 50 ft and non-conforming, but we're going to merge the two lots, so it's going to be 100 ft and then it's going to conform. >> Close. It's uh 60 and 60, and then when
they're merged, it will be 120. >> Right. So, the lot width would then be conforming. >> Correct. >> I think that was what you testified. >> It it it would be 70 75 ft is the requirement, so. >> Now, there'll be three primary buildings on that one lot.
>> Three or two? I I we we we call it two. >> was referring to that. Is that Is that legitimate? Is that uh conforming? >> There's no requirement, yeah. We would We consider this as two buildings. One in the front >> 199, 205
>> Which we are now >> carriage house in the back to be three >> Yeah. >> is prime Mr. Kennedy, is that a primary structure? Is it a principal structure? What's the legal legal term on that? Or maybe I'll give you a professional's. >> Yeah, we're we're going to have to uh
have some discussion on that and >> I thought you wanted the answer. >> And we're going to have some discussion on that later on. >> To be continued, hopefully. >> Yes, to be continued and whether or not there's any requirements, so we'll talk about that in a little bit. >> Thank you.
As a long time borough firefighter, I am interested in You've checked the the roof or the bridge and it just clears by 8 in. The biggest truck is 25 years old and there's discussions
underway to get a a new tower ladder truck. Did you check the widths uh with regard to those two driveways with a residential premise in the back? You're going to need fire equipment to be going all in the back.
Did you check the widths? >> We did I did discuss that with the fire official that I seen one that I spoke with. Uh 9 ft was the width that uh I was told was was the minimum width that they could get the fire truck through. We have We have a slightly more than that. But my
the goal hopefully was that no fire truck would need to to access the rear of the property, but uh should they need to, it can be done. Yes. >> With six residential units, you would need to get back there, for sure. So, uh the last the third question was regard
to the uh the existing evergreen trees on the back of the property. >> I believe there are some evergreen trees that are with right where the proposed building is located. So, we're going to be supplementing the rear of the property. >> So, the rear of the property by Mr.
Hardigan's house, correct? Has some huge What would you estimate the height of those evergreen trees, the existing ones? >> The ones These were the ones that were planted uh the ones on our property, they were planted around 2012 when the site plan when they're
the rear of 199 Broad, the northerly lot. Uh There's They're They're mature at this point, but they are relatively new evergreen. >> would you estimate the height of those to be? >> Uh I do have a photo of it. I could I'd rather look at it than take a thing guess.
>> One of the questions is, are they staying? >> No, they're they're within the proposed uh building footprint. >> double row of evergreen trees would come in. Would they Would they be the same height as the ones you're taking out? >> They will get that high, yes.
>> And will >> [laughter] >> You you you It's It's not recommended to plant 30-ft trees at the at the rear. They're They're not going to survive, >> So, how What's your estimate of the height then of the existing trees? The existing trees put up a pretty good
barrier. >> I I would estimate 30 ft again, 25 to 30 ft. I'm I'm guessing. It's really It's not the easiest to tell from these photos. >> And so, what's what's typical with your double row of proposed evergreen trees?
What's the typical height that you would put in initially? >> It's listed on on the plant list. Uh they're proposed to be uh 7 to 8 ft. >> 7 to 8 ft you replace the 25- or 30-ft trees with 7- 8 ft.
>> That's what's proposed, yes. >> Do you have an idea of how long it would take them to mature to become 30 ft? >> I'm telling you that these trees that that were planted around 2012-2013, they're they're that high now. I don't know how long it took, but but uh the the proposed evergreen trees can the
those they can grow very quickly. >> Are you testifying that the trees that were planted in 2012 were 7 or 8 ft tall? >> That's my understanding, yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Suprowski, that's >> Okay. Anybody else from the public? Oh.
>> Uh I just want to clear Thank you. >> Would you state your name for the record? >> William Harnick. Uh can >> you just tell me where the lights are going to be again in the in the rear of the property? I couldn't really hear before. >> The lights are highlighted in red. You can see them.
So we have This is an existing light to remain. This is an existing light to remain, but it Yeah, so I'm I'm pointing to the the colored rendering. The lights are indicated in a red shade. They're small, but I'm pointing I'm pointing at one on the northerly
property line, two within the central landscaped island within the parking lot. The those would have two fixtures each. And then there's one on the southerly property line. No, there only the ones on 199 are
existing. My understanding behind 205 is just a building mounted light and that's it. >> There's there's going to be no lights back here. They're all going to be in in the parking lot. >> The lights at the rear of the building would be two small overhead lights above these emergency exit doors. So they
would be down 8 ft or so. >> And they would stay on all night. >> We can ask the architect that question. I'm not sure if they're required or perhaps they can have some some kind of a motion sensor. I'm not sure. To be honest to be honest.
>> Thank you. >> Where is the light on the southern uh border? Is it in line with the >> I can refer to the lighting plan that was submitted. That's all I'm opening up here. Just And and there may
I didn't see Yeah, there is one. It's it's You know why I didn't see it? It's in line with the parking stall striping right in the middle of that row of six spaces. It shows very clearly on the on the lighting plan. >> The other lights are on this plan.
>> It it's on this it's on this rendering that you're that you're referring to. It's it's at the second second parking stall in from the back of the 205 building on the southerly property line.
There you go. Yes, to the left of the 16 ft. >> Okay. Beneath the two double arrows. >> Yeah, exactly. >> And may I follow up on the clearance for the pedestrian bridge? It's it's a tight clearance, right, for those emergency vehicles? Is do you
intend to put signage that says what the clearance is? >> Yes. You know, and since this since these plans were submitted, I've I've seen the court set Red Bank that the office building on on Maple Ave, they have the same basically the same thing. It has a a sign indicating the
clearance. That's what we'll that's what we'll intend to do. >> Okay. And to the gentleman's point about the wider fire trucks, do you also intend to put a physical protection for the building on that passageway, so like bollards, basically? >> Likely we we would probably do something
like that. But of course, I'll work with the fire official. We'll make sure that and that's not a necessarily a fire official requirement, but we want to protect the building, of course, but we'll we'll work with the fire official as far as any signage and and
protection of the building, of course. >> Okay. Um unrelated, do you intend to put a bike rack on the property? >> I think that was a comment in the board engineer's letter. Yes. We we will agree to do that. I I should have mentioned I think we were saying at
the end. I did review the engineer's comments and we'll agree to comply with all the other conditions and and and comments that I didn't mention. I tried to touch upon, you know, many of them. >> Yeah, I was just I was going through them now and um do you intend to provide them should I continue to ask or do you intend to provide them?
>> If you need to know the answer, sure. >> Okay, yeah. I mean another one was about snow removal and so there's not a lot of room on the property to um stockpile snow and so what is the intention for that? >> Uh the intention was to uh push the snow into either the the
striped areas at the end of the parking islands or into the landscape areas, but uh there it could be some time during heavy snow when some of the a couple of parking spaces would be impacted. I mean that's that's typical, but Mr. Smallwood could probably
uh confirm that I'm sure less less uh people would be coming to work perhaps on on that particular day, but uh but yeah, that's the intention is to uh push the snow into the to the uh areas outside the parking areas. >> Okay, I've got Sorry, one more question.
>> Sure. >> The um I'm sorry. The um the driveway for the northern lot you said was 9.6 in? >> Yes. >> Um >> It in one the tightest spot. It starts
at 17 9 ft 9.6 ft. >> There there is nothing directly south of that next to the lawn so from what I can tell. So if you need to expand the driveway, could that be done there? >> I did think of this when I was having
that discussion cuz that is the tightest point. Um it the the 205 edge exit is a slightly larger. Uh it's possible if we needed to, but I did I did get the feedback that I was looking for. It was that the 9 ft was
what was required or 9 ft was the minimum needed for the fire >> fire department. >> Correct, but again what >> 6-in clearance is very tight. >> Understandable. >> Especially for very large trucks. >> Understood. But I like I said, we I just had a quick informal conversation. We'll work with
the fire official in more detail. Yeah. >> I have one question. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry, just one question. It's not in my letter. It's not a difficult one, but it's one that we've been addressing with a lot of the applications recently. Similar to thrive, have you spoken to or
consulted with um the electric company in terms of power needed for your proposed development? Will you need a transformer? And where would you put it if you need it? Cuz I don't want to come back here and talk about your transformer.
>> Sure. Uh I have not spoken with the power company other than to submit for a will-serve letter, which I believe we did receive. But uh no, not as far as uh transformer requirements. I didn't have that discussion. >> We can look into that.
>> Of course. >> Right. Okay. Any other questions? Well, your next witness, please. >> Next witness. Yes. >> Motion for a 5-minute break. >> Hm? >> Motion for a 5-minute break. >> Okay. Yeah. We can take a 5-minute
break. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Okay, good. Okay, uh can we have roll call, please? >> Ann Tory? >> Here. >> Raymond Mass? >> Here. >> John Gildea? >> Here. >> Anna Cruz?
Vincent Light? >> Here. >> Eugene Horowitz? >> Here. >> Chris Haven? >> Here. >> Dorothy Cerullo? >> Here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Brodsky. >> Yes. >> You're up.
>> All right, good evening. And if you could just state your name and business address, please. >> Um Anastasia Harrison at 114 Elm Street, Westfield, New Jersey. >> All right, and Anastasia is spelled A N A >> S T A S I A. >> And last name?
>> Harrison. >> H A R R >> I S O N. >> Okay, and your business address, I'm sorry? >> 114 Elm Street Westfield, New Jersey. >> All right. Uh if you could just raise your right hand, welcome. Do you swear
that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. Have a seat. And uh just for the record, you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed >> architect. >> architect. And your licenses,
certifications, qualifications uh are uh current, up-to-date, and in good standing? >> Yes. >> And if you I'm sorry. >> Yes, go ahead. >> If you wouldn't mind just giving the public and the members of the board a brief uh description of your qualifications. >> Um, I'm a licensed architect and have been so for the last 28 years. Um, I
specialize in, um, projects where it's historic restoration and renovation. I have, uh, 6 years experience of sitting on a planning board, testifying as the architect, uh, on the team, and, um, have worked on numerous historic homes
that have received certification. I've already I I've also sat on historic preservation boards in my town. >> Great. Thank you. We accept. Thank you. Okay, Anastasia, if you would, um, if you could just, uh, first of all, you you your office prepared the
architectural plans that have been submitted, right? Okay. And you have you were also, uh, prepared the renderings that we have up there that have been previously marked. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and so, if you would, could you walk the board through
what you were asked to do, uh, in connection with the project, what you, uh, what you sort of investigated, what you took into account, and then what led you to the designs that are proposed, both with respect to the exteriors and the floor plans.
>> Um, >> And actually, before I do, Mr. Brodsky, uh, during our half-time break, uh, the architect handed out, uh, I just want to kind of mark this in before I forget. Oh. >> Didn't we mark them in at the beginning? >> Oh. >> You marked them in at the beginning. >> are just reduced versions of, uh,
>> Okay, so this is nothing >> They were already marked in. >> Thank you. Uh, and the additional exhibit that, uh, we have all the way to the right is just a copy of a plan that's already been submitted. We don't need to, uh, mark that.
Okay. >> Um, one of the things, uh, that Mr. Smallwood and me and my team discussed was really his desire to keep the two existing buildings, improve upon 205 because he's done such a wonderful job
in 199, and really ensure that a project of the scope and scale that he was trying to achieve could be done in um really maintaining the residential character of this neighborhood. That was an important element of all of the
designs that we sort of put in front of him. And the idea of bridging the two buildings really gave us the program we were looking for. And um keeping the historic character of the entire development was very important.
From the carriage house idea of the apartments in the back to the scale of the driveways and ensuring that we didn't just demolish 205 and put one big driveway. A lot of those things were very intentional in the design.
>> So, let's let's go through let's go through um you know, what you what you found from the from a neighborhood perspective, what you what you just talked about. And then just talk about a little bit about the building materials and the color palette that you chose um
before we get into the uh to the actual floor plan. >> Well, the actual idea of the connection of the bridge, it's it's to be representative of like a portico share or something you might have seen in older Victorian homes where you would have sort of a drive aisle underneath a
part of the building, and that is the overall design aesthetic that uh gave us that um that form. And then looking at it, we decided to make it a lot of glass, so it had a transparency to it, so it didn't feel like a heavy
connection to the two buildings. The existing building is hardy shake painted, and it's all uh restored trim that is also painted in two different colors. The new building is Hardy uh cedar shake, and it has been renovated,
and it will be painted and updated just like 199 was. So, we have a shake asphalt roof. We have shake siding on both buildings, and we have painted trim. >> Sorry, if I said it again, shake asphalt roof?
>> We have Hardy shake on 199 already. We're proposing to really just restore 205 with the shake that it is, and any new addition to 205 will be of the same character. It's meant to have a residential character and feel to all
the trim, moldings, and elements of the building. And then in the back, the carriage house is a little It's a It's a little hybrid [snorts] because we've got the big beautiful brick church um to the side, and we've taken brick and made that the lower half of the carriage
house, and then supplemented it with a shake and a shake and siding above on the second floor. >> Okay. And uh let's talk before we get to the floor plans, let's talk a little bit about the uh uh apartment building, if you will, the
the carriage house. Um did What were the thoughts there in terms of the apartment sizes, the number of apartments, that type of thing? >> Yeah, um because Mr. Smallwood wants to build a building that's higher quality, we have this we were really looking at
the size of the units and what they could be. And there's sort of like a double-edged sword. You You don't want to create two-bedroom apartments because it just it it adds a lot of people and parking, and smaller units are what younger people need. They need lower rents,
smaller units. They need to be in a community, living in a community maybe that they grew up in or um and and the newer apartments that are one and two bedroom are fairly large and very expensive. So these units being a little
smaller and having in a you know their own garages really help that demographic. >> Okay. >> And it was we made them smaller on purpose, right? Like that was part of what we did. They're not any smaller than typical ADU if you were building
those on a residential site and again, this is meant to feel more residential in nature as opposed to more commercial in nature. So it doesn't feel like an apartment building. >> Okay. So let's let's talk about the floor plans a little bit. First first with
respect to the uh the office building. >> Mhm. >> Unless is there anything else you we we you wanted to add with regards to the architectural design that I didn't that we didn't hit yet? >> Okay, so here here on um the site plan, this is 199 and the existing building is going to be
renovated and will remain the same. Here is 205 and this is the existing area. It's darker on your floor plans. And then there is a new addition to the back which adds more square footage for the program that the client required and
it gives us our ADA and fire accessibility with stairs. >> Okay. >> Coming to the back of the build the back of the property, we have um created smaller density um housing over here on this on the I guess
it's the south side of the property on um in with intention because that's where more of the residential area is over here. This is all a parking lot. So we were able to design the building a little taller on one side and a little shorter on the other.
Um and then I can I can flip to the individual individual plans you'd like to talk about next. >> go through. >> I'm just going to go to the first floor of 199 and 205. So,
this is the first floor of 199 205, right? Yeah. So, um the existing building will not change. It already has uh stairs and um ADA accessibility along the back. But, the new building will have a new
office suite in the back and it has a mail area, janitorial, vestibule, the important elevator and stairs. And then the existing space, which on the inside has already been restored. There's a lot of beautiful millwork, all wooden oak uh millwork in the space and
it's already been restored. The stairs have been restored, the floors have been restored. It was in terrible shape a couple years ago when I saw it. Drop ceilings everywhere and it's really very nice now. >> Right. And now we can second floor? >> So, on the second floor, you come up to
the second floor in an existing uh stairwell on 199 and you can come across to the bridge, which is uh another office space, could be conference area, could be um it could be common space. It really has an open floor plan, it's
meant to have an open floor plan in order to keep the transparency of the glass on both sides. >> Right. So, there was a question earlier by one of the board members that it's not just a sort of pedestrian passageway, it's actually usable space. >> Yes. It's usable space because it one of
the one of the programmatic requirements was to increase the square footage of certain areas where the office. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then coming through this pedestrian >> Question. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> Okay. Coming through this pedestrian
area, you come into the newer part of the building and you have offices, hospitality, toilets, vestibules, and the like. >> Okay. >> And because the buildings are so tall,
they have existing they have existing third floors. And it's really just like an office suite. >> Got it. Got it. >> Both sides. Coming into the carriage house in the back, there are six garages
that exist at the lower level. There are two means of egress. There's a four-unit building and a two-unit building. So, one of the questions before was like, "Where are the mailboxes?" Again, we're trying to keep this residential. We're
not thinking that there's going to be a stanchion somewhere with six mailboxes on it. There'll be four mailboxes on this building and there'll be two mailboxes on this building and they're going to look like residential mailboxes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um also on this floor, there is a room
for mail, a sprinkler room, and in speaking to Mr. Smallwood, we have an area inside that we can keep garbage. >> Mhm. Um and then two of the units, which are the two that are the 500 square-foot units?
>> Well, that's the next plan up. So, you come up the stairs in the common areas and you have a one-bedroom unit that's 596 square feet here. So, it has a bedroom and ADA bathroom. It has a common living {slash} kitchen.
The next unit is 500 square feet, which is the smallest. And it's really the smallest because we had to provide an elevator and stairs, and you know, just all of the mechanical things you absolutely need. Um it has a full bathroom. This one is not ADA, but it
has a nice walk-in closet, and it is a studio. Come to the next one. It is a They're all one-bedroom or a studio. There's two studios, four one-bedrooms, okay? So, this one is a one-bedroom, has a kitchen with an island. This one is a
one-bedroom. This one's 655, and this one's 650. And then you go up again to the second floor of housing. Technically, the third floor cuz the garage is the first. And you have um another studio apartment
that's 596 square feet, and the other small unit of 500 square feet up here. But this half of the building, the apartments that I just recently showed you, are under the eaves of the this roof. So, that it brings the character of the
building down. >> Mhm. >> That's the roof. >> Okay. >> And I I I'd rather you look at the renderings and the elevations here. But in looking at these renderings, they're not printed to scale each. They're each their own scale.
Um I don't want you to think that the carriage house is bigger than the main houses cuz they're not. They're smaller than the main houses. So, um What's What's the height of this? It's It's under the 35, right? Yeah. This is This is 38 feet, and this
is somewhere around I think it's 29 or 30. Tell me the exact number in a second, but just so you you know when you're looking at these, these are smaller. These are this side is smaller than these. >> And all And the heights are all compliant. We're not
>> Everything in it. Everything on the height is compliant. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Questions for Anastasia. Was there anything else, Anastasia? Anything I could have missed? >> No, I I think um in the architecture of the carriage building, we really went
out of our way to try to mimic some historical references in the architecture with brick, curved brick above the garages, carriage garage doors. We flared the roofs and added extra um extra eve boards and some
brackets in those eves. So, we really tried to make this building feel like a residential structure as opposed to like an apartment building that was really modern. >> A couple questions about the bridge. >> Mhm. Yeah, I can give you an exact square
footage. Oh, I I can't. Oh, it's here. Oh, 868. >> And front view shows front of the bridge has wonderful 24 windows. >> Mhm. >> What does the back >> The same. >> So,
brick eight to eight >> Mhm. Yes, that was on purpose. Thank you. >> I I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> On the rendering with the driveway, it shows in
and out arrows, but Mr. >> But it's only one. It's only one way. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say that it's only one way. Okay, thank you. >> Any questions? >> Yeah, I had a question clarifying the You said the 500 square foot apartment
it is not ADA accessible, but it has the elevator. And so I was confused by that discrepancy. Oh, the bathroom is the one that's not ADA. So So the apartment's not ADA if the bathroom's not right. Yeah. >> The elevator goes to an ADA apartment.
>> Okay. >> The elevator is access to an ADA apartment, which is 596 square feet. >> 590 is the ADA accessible apartment. I understand now. Thank you. Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, could I just ask something? Uh just from an architectural standpoint
and I know Mr. Moss had earlier asked this and I don't know if there's any legal significance to this, but is it those is it one building or two buildings connected by the bridge? And just I mean, are they going to be two separate addresses? Are they going to be uh you know,
from a construction standpoint or occupancy standpoint, does it matter? Are there you know, separate dedicated parking areas, separate addresses, separate kitchens? I mean, just and I don't know if there's any significance to it, but what what is it? >> Let me Let me Let me just jump in. We
consider it to be a single building. It will have a single address. Um and even though we we had in we had talked about signage, for example, there's a sign for the 199 and one for
205 uh as existing conditions, um we would simply let's assume that it's going to go with 199. We would keep the two signs but have them both indicate 199. >> And can the people who occupy the building on the
left freely walk into the building on the right or >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> And there's no separate doors per se? >> Well, there there there two individual entrances. Like there's an entrance 199
and then there's an entrance over here. I mean, that's going to be an internal management discussion of who walks in which doors. If you are a If you are Smallwood Associates and you're primarily in the left side of 199, um
you're going to walk in that door. If you are a therapist who's working out of the right side of 199, you're going to walk in that door. I think that's the purpose of the two signs. But once we connect the two buildings, it all becomes one under the building code. >> All right, so it becomes one under the
building code and >> And however they manage the location of who goes where. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I think any questions from the board for this witness? >> Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on one last thing you said there.
One of the variances is to uh increase the number of signs on the lot because there's two signs now but we're going to combine the lots into one and so that's why we need a variance for multiple signs, right? And so I I think I heard you say that um the intent for the two signs is to show visitors which of the
entrances to use. Right. >> Wayfinding, really. Like what tenant is located where. So, in a building such as this, which is technically one building, you sort of walk to the front of it and then you figure out, okay, do I have to go to the left? Do I have to go to the right? You know, it's really just wayfinding. It's not a big sign.
>> Okay. Thanks. >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> Can we just go back to the height of the residential structure, please? >> Yes. >> Um It does look like it's taller, correct, than the front building?
Is it Can you let us know how tall the residential structure is? >> The residential structure average mean height meets ordinance. The average mean >> What's the total? Like what How How tall is it? >> Well, it changes. It has different
heights all the way along. >> Okay, at the at the tallest point the tallest >> is 43 >> And what's the tallest point on the front building? >> 38 >> So you you see it from the back like this Didn't somebody say you don't
>> This piece only >> Well, at the perspective of from the street, it is so far back, you won't see it. Um we did the rendering in order to show you that, and you could see it here. It It's It's a true rendering, so it was
done from a computer model, so you don't see it from the front. >> You will >> is hides. >> Right, but that's the short part of the building. What about the tall part? >> The tall part of the building would be seen on this side. >> You can't see it
because of this. It's just the perspective. If you were straight-on elevation um as a bird flies, you could see it, but not in perspective. >> And you said it was 30 eight I'm sorry, 40
>> 38 ft for 205 and 37 6 for 199. >> That's to the highest point. >> Mhm. >> And then for the rear building, the highest >> is 43, and then this is 14, and then it's 23. 31
>> 31 >> I did math. >> And then Jackie is I'm sorry. >> Does 43 trigger a height variance? >> I'd I'd have to check the >> Yep. >> We >> have to check the definition. >> In the In the code, it was the average
mean height. And that's what we calculated. And looking at that average mean height, we met the ordinance. >> On average? That's very bad. So, Jackie, just because the tippy top of a building might be 43 ft under our
ordinance. And we'll we'll check it. >> Yeah, you might have to I have to check, but usually you take all four corners and you average what it is on all four. >> But this building has more than four corners. So, we averaged it from all the corners. >> Yeah.
So, it it might mathematically not trigger it. We'd have to check it. But you can see like one side is much taller than the than the required it just But >> And the reason for that is like if we
were to lower the roof, the We had internal design discussions about that. And we didn't want to flatten the roof on the left side of this building and get and stay out of character with the Victorian homes that are right there.
So, we could do a 4 and 12 pitch, something you'd see in a home that was built in the '70s or or maybe even the '80s. And that's not something we wanted to do. So, this was an intentional 12 on 12 pitch to keep the dormers in the shape that they are, to keep the side in the shape that it is. So, that's how we
got to the height we got to. And it was intentional. It's not Oh, let's make the building as tall as we can. We're not hiding anything underneath it. It was about the architectural presence of the building. >> Yeah, I mean, I think it looks really nice. I just want to clarify if we need
a waiver, let's make sure we get a waiver. I don't want to have to >> Agreed. >> approve something and then come back. >> No, but it was it was an intentional design decision to keep that roof pitch. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board?
Any questions from Sure. >> Um so Mr. Smallwood alluded to there being >> I'm talking to the mic. >> I'm sorry. Uh Mr. Smallwood had alluded to >> You have it on now. >> there being considered other >> There you go.
>> other uh alternatives like a uh constructing additions to the uh rear of the existing buildings. Can you tell us a little bit about what those look like and why they were rejected? >> Um they were very schematic in nature. They were only in two dimensions. Uh
they were we did it as an exercise to have the knowledge. We didn't do it as an architectural exercise because it was not something he was interested in. He really was very very steadfast on preserving the two buildings. >> All right.
Any questions from the public for those with us? >> Quick quick sorry. We'll just go back to the height. Um when you revise your plans, can you show us how you calculated your building height and the averages? >> Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Moss, you're back on.
Previously sworn. >> Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Um just just want to make sure for the record's purposes that the I understand what's going on. So 199 and 205 is going to get a bridge that's going to be
pretty good size, but the rest of the footprint of 199 and 205 is not going to change. >> No, that is incorrect. >> That's correct. >> The footprint of 199 stays exactly as it is. The bridge is new, and the footprint of 205 extends to the to the rear. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Um with regard to these um new residents, the proposed residential units I understand they're going to be rentals, right? Is there an [clears throat] affordable housing aspect of this application?
>> Uh that's not um my expertise. I defer to the lawyer. >> Who would I ask? Mr. Brodsky? >> Well, I mean, whatever we have to comply with from with respect to the affordable housing laws, we will have to do. I think on
this in on this size this size development, Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's probably a contribution. >> Well, and and Jackie, is the contribution at five above? >> I can answer that. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, uh any uh any development between
five and 10 units uh has to just they just pay a development fee into the trust fund. >> Yeah, so what he was saying >> Yeah, yeah, so they they they don't have to produce affordable housing. They have to make a payment to the municipal uh affordable housing trust fund.
>> Not a unit in dedicated, it's a payment instead. >> That's right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But let me just add a clarification, Mr. Moss. Even though they don't fall under affordable um housing, because they're more than four units, they will fall
under the Red Bank rent control ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. Light. >> Okay. Any other questions from the public? >> William Hartigan. >> Thank you. >> Uh Anastasia, isn't it?
Um first question is, did you ever try to uh design a structure that would comply with the current zoning requirements? >> No. >> Okay. Um my next question is, how many windows
are in the rear of the property facing the the houses on Hudson Avenue. >> Two. >> Two. >> Two windows? >> Yeah. One of the We were We were being We were thinking that minimizing how
many windows overlooking the other property would be a benefit as opposed to a negative. There's 1 2 3 4 5 6. But these are small up here, windows.
>> Uh how high do the windows go up? >> 17 ft maybe to the bottom of this window sill. >> To the bottom of that window sill. >> 13 ft and up a little bit. That's about here. And it's about a 5-ft window. >> It's a 5-ft high window, you think? Give
or take. >> Or 21 So 21 ft to the top of the window, but nobody's head is that tall. So I I would say it's, you know, the middle of the window is where somebody's head is. 20 ft
from the ground, which is typical to Excuse me. >> Did you do a study on that? >> No. It's the Your head height and my head height are completely different, but um it's typical to a two-family residential house, these windows. Uh if you were putting a house in the backyard, that's about where the second
floor story windows would be in a typical home like yours. >> Do you think it'll have a impact on the privacy of the rear property? >> No. It was designed intentionally to not have an impact. >> Well, how high So there's a 6-ft fence.
>> Yes. >> The windows are Did you say 17 ft to the bottom? >> To the bottom of the window, yeah. >> And then 5 ft high is the window. >> Yeah, but if you were to build a two-family house in the back of this property, the windows would be at the same height. There's no windows up here. If you see
how this was all kept with the higher section of the building has no windows on purpose. So, it really gave you more privacy. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other questions from the public for this witness?
Okay, we'll close that portion. Okay, who's next? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have our traffic engineer stepping forward. >> We We got about a half an hour left, so >> you. Very fast talker. >> Hopefully. No, he is not.
And there's going to be a lot of questions, so >> That I can't control. All right, good evening and welcome back to the Red Bank Zoning Board. If you could just state your name and business address, please. >> John McCormick, Dynamic Traffic, 1904 Main Street, Lake Como.
>> Okay, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge, so help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. And for the record, you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed >> traffic engineer. >> And your qualifications and certifications are all current and
up-to-date? >> Sure. >> And in good standing? >> Yes. >> Okay, and why don't you just explain to some of our new board members and the public your your I mean your qualifications. >> Very good. Um I have a Bachelor's of Civil Engineering from Villanova University. I've been uh practicing traffic
engineering for over 30 years. I've been licensed as a New Jersey Professional Engineer for over 30 years. Um I've sat at boards at Jackie's job. I've also uh prepared testimony for private developments throughout the throughout the state. >> And for the record, I believe you've
been testified at front of this board on a number of occasions. >> Absolutely have. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right, John, let's Let Let's start with, you know, what you were asked to look at uh from a traffic perspective with
respect to this development and then what your findings were and we'll go from there. >> Sure. Okay. So, you have my traffic and parking impact study dated December 18th of last year. We'll talk about a few things. We'll talk about the access which Andy already talked about. We'll
talk about traffic generation and the comparison between the existing buildings and what they could generate and then the proposed site plan. We'll talk about the driveway operation even though I'll say that the traffic is very minimal. The driveway operation is very
standard and it's county jurisdiction. So, we'll say that up front but I'll get to the details and then we'll talk parking. I'm I'm sure that's anyone that's all that everyone wants to talk about. So, when we talk about the access, Andy mentioned it, we're improving the access. I'm not going to say significantly but we're improving
the access. We're taking two full movement driveways coming out to a county road and we're converting them into a one-way in and a one-way out. We're simplifying the driveways. We're consolidating. We're reducing the number of movements and conflicting movements.
The driveway alignment in the proposed plan is significantly better than the existing. It's under county jurisdiction. So, they will ultimately review and approve it. I don't see anything on the plan that indicates that they would do anything other than that.
Let's talk about trip generation. There's two office buildings here. It's almost 7,000 square feet of space. It's going to be proposed to be almost 10,000 square feet. So, a couple thousand square feet of office and the six apartments. It's really not a significant difference
when you talk about traffic generation between proposed and and and existing. We looked at the small office building in the ITE. You guys have all heard ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers. Basically, this property when it's all
said and done in the morning would generate about 18 trips. It's about 13 coming in and five out. And in the afternoon, about 24 trips. Nine coming in, 15 out. That's the whole property.
Um and that's the peak hour. And remember, this is office, so it's very much peaking. Most of that traffic most of the traffic during the day is in that peak hour. Those are the total numbers, 18 and 24 in an hour. The difference is seven trips in the morning. That's the
difference. When you talk about a couple thousand square foot of office space and a couple of apartment units, you increase the traffic by seven trips in an hour in the morning. And you increase the traffic by nine trips in an hour in the afternoon.
So, just to put that in perspective, right? We can all do the math. It's a It's a car every five, six, eight minutes, what have you. It's really minimal. Broad Street, just to give you a little bit more perspective, has about 800 to 900 trips
in an hour going back and forth. 300, 400 in one direction, 300, 400 in the other direction. We're talking about adding seven in that hour, adding nine in that hour. So, to be honest with you, it's imperceptible. Um as I said, we're going to We analyze
the driveways. The county would require us to do that just because we're turning one into a one-way, one into a one-way out. Um again, I said it simplifies the levels of service as you've heard um traffic engineers say. That's kind of kind of our grading system for the
intersection operation. It goes A through F, just like in school. These driveways operate at B and C only because, you know, the Broad Street has some has some traffic on it, so they have to wait a couple seconds to get out. Um it doesn't
change when you add the 3,000 square feet and the six apartment units. It's level of service B or level of service C. there's there's virtually no impact and no change. And again, all this stuff will have to be looked at by the county because it's their jurisdiction.
Okay. Let's hit the parking cuz that's that's that's why we're here, right? So, Andy Andy laid a lot of groundwork. I'll just hit some of the numbers again. We're providing 34 spaces on site. We're providing 28 spaces in the lot and six
garages, right? Let's Let's talk about how this is this is a perfect shared parking model, right? How is this property going to work? You You had John up here. He's an owner-operator. He's going to manage this property. There's going to be
little sets of rules and and regulations in these leases, etc. It's written in my report what the what the plan is. The plan is for weekdays, right? Let's talk weekdays 9:00 to 5:00, 9:00 to 6:00, 8:00 to 5:00. Pick something like that, business
hours. The parking lot will be used by obviously office employees and their clients. Okay? The residents, if they have a second car, are going to have to move their car off. If in fact it finds that the office needs the spots. The garages will
obviously be apartment tenants. They have the garages and Broad Street, which is the is the hidden gem of this whole project, will be any apartment tenants or if the second car is not leaving the property to go to work, they'll put the car on Broad Street.
Now, let me talk about Broad Street. Broad Street between Harding Road to the north and Bergen Place to the south. It's basically four blocks. It's we're almost dead in the middle, two to the north, two to the south. You can park on both sides of Broad Street for 2 hours, 8:00 to 6:00,
except resident permits. So, the resident permits can exceed the 2 hours and can park overnight. On those, I'll call it eight blocks, right? Two up, two down, both sides. There was about 100 spaces.
So, there's 96 spaces within two blocks of this property on Broad Street, right in front. I talked to, let me just get the name right, Bill Wilk of the Red Bank Parking Utility. I specifically asked him the question.
He said, "Residents of this property would be eligible for resident parking passes." So, those parking passes would allow resident to park on the street either all day, exceed the 2 hours, or overnight, exceed the uh you know, the
overnight restriction. So, essentially, there's there's 96 spaces in the front yard that are available. And I'll get to the counts cuz we did some counts, and we know exactly how many are available. Um let's just get to that now. So, we did a 12-hour recording.
Actually, it was 13 hours. It was 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., so counted both ends. Um and during that time period, there was 24 vehicles parked on the street on Broad Street, and I'll call them on those eight segments, right? Two
blocks north and two blocks south. That was at 12:00 noon, 24 vehicles. So, that leaves 72 on-street spaces during the peak current on-street parking condition. So, >> Could you clarify 24 was the max? It
wasn't 24 vehicles that entire 13-hour period. >> It was the max. There was 22 in an hour, there was 18 in an hour. It went down to five or six, to quite honestly. And it significantly drops off the further south you go. >> What day did you do this?
>> That was October 29th of '25. Mhm. Okay. Um and it was that long ago because that's how long we've been brought on the project, quite honestly. I drive up and down Broad Street routinely and the parking looks very similar every day. Uh
you know, there's a lot of parking up up top, um up by the Harding, which I think is probably because of the apartments or what have you, it's diagonally across the street, and it just fades out the further you go south. Um >> John, sorry. Can you clarify the length
like where again the study was from Broad Street from where to where? >> Yeah, from Harding. So, up at the traffic light two blocks north up by the post office or diner, if you want to call it that, and then two blocks south, East Bergen, the other light. >> Thank you. >> Right. So, it's essentially four blocks.
The southern southernmost block is a bit longer, but it's essentially four blocks. It's the same regulations on both sides, um which is 2-hour time limit 8:00 to 6:00 except residential permits. >> And John, that was a weekday, not a holiday, not a special
>> Yeah. It was It was a typical weekday, school was in session, people were, you know, going to and from work. It was nothing special. Um Okay. Um do do do do do I You know what? I'm going to I'm going to leave it there. >> Okay. >> Uh Rick, and if the board has questions,
we can obviously dig in uh as much as you like. But you know, essentially just to wrap up, the access is being improved. The trip generation differential is minimal, and the parking will be managed, and not only is the parking on site sufficient
for Mr. Smallwood's business and the anticipated business moving forward, but the on-street capability and the on-street supply is so significant that that's going to help uh you know, any condition that anyone is concerned about. Okay. Go ahead.
>> Questions. >> Question. >> Yeah, um I asked before about uh eight bike racks, and so I think it was the engineer testified that there will be bike racks. Uh how much bicycle storage will be adding to uh the property and where would we put the bike racks on
this plan? >> Do you guys require half a half a space per unit or something like that? I would expect it to be one rack. >> Okay. >> You know, it'll hold six bikes, five bikes, 10 bikes. I don't know how many bikes. I think people that own bikes in these apartments are going to put them in the garage.
>> So, it it would be intended for the uh residents of the apartments, not for visitors to the >> could be both. >> I think it could be >> both. I don't know. Andy will find a spot for it, but I'm It looks like there's a piece of lawn at the north corner of the 199. Maybe by the by the ADA parking spots,
maybe that's a spot for it. I don't think it's going to be this tremendous bike rack. The need is not there for something tremendous. The need is there just to have a place to lock a bike. >> Yeah, no, I understand. I'm just trying to clarify who it would be for there, right? Is there Is will there be enough
bike parking for both the tenants and >> I think a single rack would be enough, but I think if you live there, you're going to put your bike in the garage. >> Okay. >> That would be my guess. >> Sure. >> I think Mr. Gildea, we have There's room to to have two racks, maybe you know,
one closer to the commercial building to the office building and then one for the residences. We can We'll show that on a revised plan. >> Uh, John, do you uh share my observation that uh
in behind all these houses converted to offices on Red Bank and Maple, uh the parking tends to be half full or less? >> Absolu- Absolutely. >> is there's a lot of spaces behind these houses that are never used. >> Absolutely. It's the type of It's the
type of use that you have on that street. And that's what Mr. Smallwood said is that, you know, he's got 10 employees and some of them are remote and some of them are this and that and just the demand is not This is not a data center, you know what I mean? This is a different type of a not
>> It's not a medical office. Exactly right. >> It seems my observation in the commercial parking in Red Bank even in in Central Red Bank often the dedicated parking is often not used by many by many of the tenants down there. Thanks.
>> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> Will the parking spots Will there be any parking spots for electric? >> Yes, there will be. There has to be. Um I forget. Andy will have the number. It's It's a couple, you know, it's >> out in the garage.
>> Um I don't know if of the garage is going to be wired for a charger. Yes. No. Yeah. The garages will be wired for a charger. >> And how many EV spaces? >> Nine EV spaces.
>> No Nine EV ready, right? Six ready and three chargers. Yeah, three chargers immediately and six of them have to be EV ready and they get put in over over time. That's state state statute and we will satisfy that, obviously. Yes.
>> Any other questions from the board? Any [clears throat] questions? Okay, Jackie. >> All right, quick question. >> Yes. >> Um you show two-way circulation You show one-way circulation through the driveways and then two-way through the parking lot. Can you just explain your
thought process um considering the fact that you have You're asking for a waiver for this for the depth of spaces. >> Yeah. I didn't I didn't do the rendering with the two-way arrows. That's I'll have to explain it. This is going to be a one-way parking lot, essentially. I
don't I know you you intimated that maybe we should angle the parking or do something to further enforced the one-way circulation, but I like I like the 90° parking the way it is. I think there's going to be arrows as Andy mentioned and some signs in the
parking lot that just reinforce the one-way. Remember, the residents are in the back. It's office employees. You know, we're going to have maybe two or three people a day that you know, maybe have not been on the site before and maybe they have cuz they're clients. So, I I think the
one-way is going to be very evident if we do a couple of pavement markings. >> The whole thing is going to be one-way. Okay. >> Yes. >> And you're going to have a 24-ft wide aisle for one-way. >> Yes. >> Because of the >> The aisle is Yes, the aisle width is more related to the angle of the parking
spaces than the direction of travel. But, yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And John, if you if you look at the color rendering, right? That's that's the arrowed parking and the ingress. >> sets of arrows. >> The ingress egress off of Broad. >> Yeah, that So, 199 will be the ingress.
205 essentially will be the the the exit. Uh it's just these two sets of arrows. You know, because the aisle is 24, I guess Andy's draftsman put the two. But, there's really no need. There's no need for an apartment resident to come back this way.
You know, you're going to come in, you're going to find a spot, and you're going to you're going to park easily. So, the one-way is much smoother. That is the intent. >> Can you talk about loading and unloading, please? >> Sure. Um well, I mean, we talked about the width and the height under the bridge, right?
That's the critical aspects. Um as Andy indicated, the fire department uh has mentioned that their fire apparatus goes under the bridge and can fit through there. I agree with the with the idea to try to get a little bit more width uh underneath the driveway. The height
is fine. It's the the width a little bit more, maybe center it between the buildings as opposed to one-sided where it is now. Um but, trust us, there's no one that wants that uh driveway and that overpass to work more than we do and and John does. So,
um it'll fit not only the largest fire truck that the town has, all the garbage trucks, um this the U-Haul trucks for people moving in, uh the Amazon delivery vans, all that stuff is smaller than the fire truck.
So, we we have no issue with the 12-ft 8 clearance and no issue with the 9 ft and 6 9 ft 6 in or 9 ft 7 in, um but we I think we are going to look into making that a little wider, the width.
>> The Where is loading going to be staged? >> For the for the office buildings, I think they're going to find a parking spot, quite honestly. Um or they're just going to stand in the aisle like they kind of do now. I mean, we're talking about Amazon or FedEx truck in and out. Um right now, if you
think about it, these two buildings are kind of dead-end parking lots. So, this is a significant improvement over that. It allows that truck to free flow through, not have to K-turn and go back out. Um you know, for for move-in and things like that, you know, it'll be managed. It'll be weekends. That parking
lot will be empty. And a U-Haul truck will be able to sit virtually anywhere. >> And John, really, for for we're we're talking about FedEx FedEx deliveries. I mean, there's no large trucks coming onto this site.
>> No. No, no, no. And no, FedEx trucks, single box trucks, all of those things obviously fit the width and the height under the bridge. >> Okay. Okay. Any questions from the public for this witness?
I don't know. If you're going to ask, just state your name for the record. >> William Hardigan. >> Thank you. Um Did this study that was done, did it account for um um like
holidays and and summer peak hours and and weekends and such? >> Typically, the the industry standard is for an office and apartment is to do a typical weekday morning and evening study. So, no, we don't want to look at
holidays. We don't want to look at days when school is out. We won't want to look at those abnormal days. We want to look at a typical day to have a typical condition. >> You know, the the traffic to that light on Broad is has been an issue for our street.
Hudson Ave became a a cut-through because of it. >> Okay. >> So, [clears throat] you know, in my opinion, I'm >> I'm not What's that? >> At Har- at which >> Hudson Hudson Ave became a cut-through. So, you know, coming on Broad up to Harding, >> Okay. >> that's why it became a cut-through
essentially, you know, it's just that it becomes backed up. >> Yeah. >> So, in you know, my opinion, I'm not a traffic engineer, but any added traffic there becomes an issue. So, I my question is how would that affect
another, you know, residential street like Waverly where, you know, people don't want to stop at that light, they come out, they want to cut through and get to, you know, Maple. Have you done a study on how it would affect that street? >> Well, quite honestly, that we have to go
to the county cuz the driveways are on the county Broad Street's county jurisdiction. The volumes that I've indicated, the county does not require even the study that we did for the town. They don't require it. They set minimums of, you know, trips per hour and we like
I said, we're less than 10 trips added in the hour. Their minimum is 50 trips in an hour to even look at something. So, yes, there is going to be a resident that wants to cut across and go up Waverly or Yeah, there's going to be an added car or two here or there. But, you know, when you look at the
numbers, it's it's insignificant. The daily variation through town is is so much more than the numbers that we're talking about. You know, just any kind of regular daily variation in traffic is probably 5 10 times the traffic that
we're talking about. >> I I just think we have such an issue at that intersection in particular, and I don't know if there's been a study or or if you guys have a plan to maybe, you know, change the intersection, but I saw somebody get hit at that intersection myself, and I had to get
out and and help the gentleman, and you know, the ambulance came, and you know, it it wasn't pretty. >> Sure. >> But, there's been a lot of issues at that at that intersection of people trying to jump the light and and try to get through where, you know, I don't know if you know, other people that have gotten hit. I haven't looked into it, but it's been a concern of mine with my
my kids, you know, going to town, that intersection is my biggest fear. You start adding traffic from any place in that area, especially there on Broad Street coming in and out, it's an issue, in my opinion.
Um what about uh you know, construction trucks coming in and out of there when it's when it's being, you know, developed? Uh that's again, that that brings me to my point with the fear of pedestrians in particular, you know, getting hit. Like it it's this
and and and when you're talking, you know, there's there could be a lot of blind spots. I I don't know how that coming in and out of those areas, um if there's, you know, any blind spots with cars parking on the street. I I'd have to, you know, look into it, but I'd
be concerned about, you know, pedestrian traffic more than anything. And it's not the widest street in that area when you're going from where you get the proposed project to Harding on Broad. Uh
so the the added construction traffic, again, you know, this is this is new to me. Like, I'm just asking questions cuz I I have concerns. Um have you uh sat down with the local police department and uh the fire department,
emergency services uh and and discuss this this plan and the level of parking and you know, everything that goes into it? >> Well, uh Andy Comey, the design engineer, we finally got connected with the fire department this morning. And that was quite honestly the most
important conversation uh to have. You know, I don't know if there's a board sent to the traffic safety officers or police department. I'm not 100% sure, but we would welcome a meeting with the traffic safety officer to discuss any concerns they have. >> Yeah, I think that would be essential. I I I know
you know, you're downplaying, which is fine. I'm I'm not, you know, I hold nothing against you, but you're you're downplaying any addition in that that vehicle traffic, truck traffic. I mean, Amazon is so
frustrating. Like, they might pull in there into the back and do their deliveries, but they park anywhere they damn well please. And, you know, that creates blind spots. That creates issues where people are trying to pull out, maybe somebody could get hit. There's a lot of there's a lot of variables. >> And and and like I said before, this
this site plan allows those vehicles to pull in. At I don't know if right now that some of the drivers may not want to pull in because it's a dead end parking lot. But, now they know they'll going to going to be able to come in very easily, one way in, loop around, and one way out. I I think that's a significant
improvement as far as the access for this little piece property. >> If you're correct and there're there's going to be, you know, ample parking. I mean, obviously it doesn't meet the standards, but you don't know how you know, you don't know how many cars residents will have and and I don't know. I mean,
I I it's it's hard for me to say, but you know, a lot of people have have couple vehicles. I know the units are small, but a lot of people, you know, people have more than one vehicle, but um Let's see here. Uh What was the methodology that was used
to determine that fewer spaces are sufficient for these uh zoning requirements? >> So So we we did two different things. One, we looked at and I kind of jumped over this and I apologize. We looked at the existing actual demand, right? John mentioned before he's got like nine or 10 or 13
employees, nine or so of them are there. We counted this parking lot and sure enough there was there was nine cars in it. So he's and I think there was one client. So we had we had 10 vehicles parked, excuse me, 10 vehicles parked and there were nine employees on the
site because there was a client there at the time in the middle of the day. So his actual demand is like 1.1 spaces per employee and I think that's a much better way to gauge parking than square footage. I think I honestly believe that
five spaces per thousand is antiquated in an office setting. Um so we looked at his actual demand, 1.1 spaces per employee. Um you know, he's been saying that, you know, we might have 20 employees on this site. He might have 15 of them. There might be five in the other building. So you know,
we're in the 20s at the highest point of a parking demand and we have 28 spaces in the parking lot. And we have the entire street for guests if they need it. Uh the other way we looked at it is we looked at the ITE. ITE is the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
It's an industry standard that helps us estimate trip generation, like traffic generation and parking demand, right? The ITE says that the average parking demand is 1.3 spaces per employee. That's the need, right? So if
you multiply that out by the the 20 employees, right? Now we're at 25 or 26 spaces, we have 28. Plus, we have 70-something on the street. So, the the parking on the site, I'm not going to say it's not tight. I think it fits perfectly with what John has
envisioned, but there's 70 spaces within I think 300 ft of the building on street that people can use. Not only can the residents will be able to use it with their permit, but clients and even
you know, even an employee that pops in for a meeting can use the on street if needed. So, it's the ultimate fallback for this site. I'm We are very confident in the parking. It's It's not It has never been an issue in my mind at all. >> It It seems a little anecdotal to me the
way you've, you know, figured it out, but I mean, I don't know. I I think Red Bank definitely has a parking issue, and I know you're tucked back more from the center of town, but it definitely obviously there's no secret that there's a there's a major
issue with parking in the town of Red Bank. Now, will these, you know, overflow vehicles, will they go to streets like Waverly? Will they go to streets like Hudson? I don't know. >> There's no need. There's There's plenty of parking right in front of the buildings.
Plenty of parking. >> Um Okay. That's uh That's it for now. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? We're going to make this short cuz we're we're about ready to wrap it up, so.
Just tell your name and >> Curtis Jones. >> Thank you. Still on the record. Thank you. >> I heard a term before that I wasn't familiar with. It was turning templates. >> Turning templates? >> Sure. And I'm looking at your drawing. >> Speak up so we can so we can everybody hear you, okay? >> I'm sorry. >> Speaking to the mic so everybody can
hear you. Thanks. >> Do it this. Um First time I've seen your picture, but it looks like it's a it comes in so almost like a circular pattern. >> That's right. >> So if I was driving a fire truck that's 30
ft long is there enough space at near the residential units to make those turns? >> That's what Mr. Cole, these are Mr. Cole's plans. We are going to put those turning templates on that plan and we are going to discuss it with the fire department. >> Okay. So that hasn't been addressed yet.
>> It was addressed verbally this morning between Mr. >> I heard the width the width of the driveway was discussed this morning. >> The fire department has seen the plans and they had a verbal they had a conversation about it. Yeah. >> And the same thing with any big truck coming in. But okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah, we welcome the input from the fire department. We don't we want this site to succeed more than anybody in the room. >> Okay. Yeah, that was a question. Thank you. >> Very good. >> Any other questions from the public? Okay, close public.
>> I I just have one quick question. >> Okay. >> Um you mentioned part of your methodology was to look at how many employees he currently has working there. >> Mhm. >> Um does ITE have a rule of thumb estimate for how many employees a 10,000
square foot office building supports? >> It's a good question. Um I probably don't have it here. That's something I'm going to have to get back to you, but they typically do. I'm I don't know if they have it for this land use, but they have different variables that they pull out when they
collect the data. I would expect that could be one. I'm going to have to look into it and get that back to you. >> Okay, thank you. I'd appreciate it. >> Okay. >> All right, so Mr. Chairman, I'm uh we're at our witching hour, so I'm assuming we're going to Mr. Brosky is going to ask us to adjourn
and with the requirement that there be no further notice. And just real quickly at the risk of overstepping my bounds just obviously I don't know if the I've got no inside information. I don't know if the application is going to ultimately be approved, be approved with conditions
or be denied, but just to make a more efficient hearing process just a couple real quick questions. I know during the hearing there was some discussion about hey, can we see what the rear elevation is going to look
like? Is that something you want to see now soon or we don't have to worry about that now and we'll deal with it later. If it's now, we would just say that. Same thing Jackie would said about that I how the height calculation formulas were were calculated. I would imagine
Rick if you could get that document to us, we could submit that and the same thing there was a discussion with or the witness had indicated that if desired they could meet with the traffic safety or
fire officials and if that's the case and if that's what you want, I would say maybe you suggest that they do it maybe they can get it done before the next hearing. If you're not interested in that, we don't have to bring that up. And then the same thing with Vince's we'll get information on that office I
IT office classification number. But anyway, that's are those types of things that you would want the applicant to work on getting us sooner rather than later or we don't have to worry about that. >> Um Kev, so I just want to clarify. So
the plans do have the rear elevation >> Okay. >> of the of the residential building. >> Okay. >> I don't know if you who looking for a to have rendered? >> Well, Jackie did mention she'd love to
see the calculation for how you >> For the height. For the height. For sure. >> All right. So, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is availability to continue this hearing on August 20th,
2026 at 6:00 p.m. So, Mr. Brodsky, is that date okay with you, August 20th? I'm sorry, 6 6:30. August 20th. >> August 20th. That's reasonable. >> No availability in July.
>> I think we only have one meeting. >> meeting. >> It said the July 4th. Um I don't know. >> I think there's only one in August, too. Only one in August. >> All right. So, let me ask this. Mr. Brodsky, do you, on behalf of your
client, consent to extend the time frame within which the board has to act on this matter? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, before you leave, there's going to be a motion to carry this application until August 20th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. So, what
that means is there's not going to be any further notice. You're not going to get another certified letter. This is your notice. So, if any of your friends couldn't come tonight or any of your friends left early, let them know. It'll be on the the bureau website, presumably, as well. So, is Mr.
>> Yes. >> William Hardigan. I don't >> William Hardigan. I don't know if it matters, but I am traveling in London, England during those dates, and this affects me. I would really like to be here for these for these hearings.
>> All right. I mean, all we can do I I certainly appreciate that. Certainly, you're very interested in it. I appreciate the board appreciates um that in and of itself is not always uh a determining factor. Uh I would have to ask Mr. Brodsky, are you willing to uh
change the meeting date to accommodate that? >> I can't We can't do that. I mean, I mean, if if the board could could see us in July, we certainly would do that. Okay.
>> There is September date. What's the September date? September 3rd and the 17th. >> Um not really fair to ask the applicant to wait that long. Um Actually,
I'm not available on the 3rd. >> Well, it's up to you, Mr. Brodsky. >> I think we will hold on We'll hold on the We'll hold on the August date. >> August 20th. All right. Uh so, Mr. Hardigan, you can obviously be in touch with Mr. Brodsky.
Um but, the there's a motion if uh it's the desire of the board a motion to carry this application to August 20th, 2026, 6:30 p.m. without the need for any further public notice. Is there a motion to that effect?
>> I'll make that motion. All in favor. Mr. DeLoach in favor. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? >> Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's 10:00.
Motion to adjourn. >> Mhm.