Oh, we're ready. Meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act is that on January 21st, 2026, a copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was posted on a Bolton board outside of Burough Hall, given to
the clerk administrator, mailed, facts, or emailed to the Courier News, and placed on the Burough website. If any member believes that this meeting is being held in violation of the Open Public Meeting Act, please state your views at this time. These proceedings are judicial in nature. Only those items
on the agenda will be addressed. Only comments and questions on the agenda items will be heard by the board. All questions are to be given uh directed to the chair. Um next item, pledge of allegiance. Pledge of
>> Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Next item, roll call.
>> Chairman Ardair >> here. >> Ed All >> here. >> Robera Carponets >> here. >> Morgan McLaclin >> here. >> Rich O'Neal >> here. >> Brian Viddimky >> here. John Flores >> here. >> Eric Alvarez >> here. >> Stuart Daniels >> here. >> We have a quorum. Does anybody have any
conflicts? >> I do. >> Okay. >> All right. Noted. Okay. Um, next item. >> Minutes. >> Someone like to move the minutes of the last meeting. >> Second.
>> Move and second. Any corrections, additions? >> Roll call, please. >> Chairman Ardere. Yes. >> Ed Alllet. >> Yes. >> Roberto Carponets. >> Abstain. >> Uh, Rich O'Neal. >> Yes. >> Brian Viddimky. >> Yes.
>> Eric Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Stuart Daniels. >> Yes. >> Were you at the last meeting? >> Oh, yeah. >> Morgan McLaclin. Sorry. >> Resolutions.
Uh, we have the resolution 2025 017Z, Top Asian Fusion, Inc., 156 North Gaston Avenue, block 83, lot 10. >> Someone like to move the resolution. >> I'll second. >> Any comments and questions?
>> Mike, they got it all squared away, right? They got the >> Yes, we're back and forth, but the resolution is u I think everybody's agreed on the resolution. on the resolution resolution. >> That's correct. >> Right.
>> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Chairman Ardere, >> yes. >> Ed Alllet, >> yes. >> Roberto Carpinets, >> Morgan McLaclin, >> yes. >> Rich O'Neal, >> yes. >> Brian Viddimky, >> yes. >> John Flores, >> yes. >> Eric Alvarez,
>> abstain. >> Steuart Daniels, >> yes. Okay. >> Next. Next we have the hearing 2025009Z Princeton Canal LLC
69 West End Avenue block 129 lot six. >> Just before we start that if there's anybody here from PS&G on Hamilton Street that will not be heard tonight. >> Uh good evening members of the board. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Orodnik
with the >> Before we start, when we left the last time you were here, we had a motion and a second on the floor before you came in and said um you're going to retreat, regroup, and do some other
things. So for just a matter of protocol, I think we need to ask Mr. Mclacklin if he would withdraw the motion and Mr. O'Neal to withdraw a second. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Um, as you know, this is
the application for 69 West End Avenue, block 129, lot 26.01. Um, so this is an application. My client acquired this property uh a couple years ago and Miss Carbinez, who will be sitting in on
this meeting, did she did have the opportunity to review the uh tape and um uh review the transcript of the tape of the March 4, 2026 meeting with respect to this application. Uh I am preparing a
certification for her to sign to verify that but uh she has done that. So she is eligible to sit and vote on that. I presume that is I presume that is acceptable to you. >> Of course. Yes. And and I appreciate it. Cliff, thank you for following up on
that. Um so this is an application that we had filed about a year ago. We had uh had a public hearing first on October 15th, 2025. Uh we also had a second hearing on February 2nd, 2026 and we're here
tonight. We provided testimony from the civil engineer, the architect, the traffic engineer, the applicant, the HVAC engineer, and our professional planner. In direct response to the board's feedback during the October 15, 2025 public hearing, the applicant modified
the proposed project. Um, and while the original 8unit project remained a viable application, the applicant subsequently submitted a revised six-unit plan to work with, uh, to address the board's concerns. That hearing was adjourned to
November 3, December 3rd, uh, which only required a few days for us to get everything completely revised. We made that uh 10day submission requirement deadline, but unfortunately that application was then adjourned
first to January and then to February. We did renotice for the February application and heard night two essentially consisting of the site plan uh minor the major site plan amendments and the architectural changes.
Um, we also, I think just for the record, we did meet with um the board professionals on on multiple occasions to try and address uh each and every concern raised in the review memorandum. At the February 2nd hearing, uh we had
basically uh one major uh amendment which was the elimination of the two basement residential units. Um, the proposed apartments were removed. The basement level was repurposed for resident amenities, including six individual storage units, uh, a common
wreck room and a half bath, and then a dedicated mechanical and utility area. We also addressed the board's concerns related to the initial 8 unit density by decreasing uh, from 24.2 units an acre
to 18.2 two units an acre which would constitute a 25% decrease uh in the density to provide it uh with more prevailing residential standards in the P zone. Um we also you know by
reducing that unit count we maintained the parking spaces for the parking field that exists there today significantly exceeding the RSI requirement uh for the proposed one and two-bedroom
units um and allowed for that additional um handicapped van accessible stall. We heard comprehensive testimony um that the project satisfies the positive and negative criteria with
the requested density and bulk variances. We heard from Ted Bayer, our site engineer that talked about the grading and the green infrastructure for storm water management. Ashraf Ragab, our architect who's has an office here in town, um provided testimony about the
facade, the materials, uh the adapted reuse of the outdated office structure, uh while trying to preserve the residential aesthetic of that neighborhood and and that street while upgrading the building's envelope and internal systems. Uh it also provided
the aesthetic enhancement testimony by uh the two uh the two-unit or the two-story rear edition and the modernizing facade uh which we felt was a visual asset to the west end corridor. I was over there the other day and and my opinion is that building's looking a little weathered.
Um we also had testimony from Justin Taylor, our professional engineer as related to traffic. And I think this is a a key point that we wanted to emphasize in our closing. Um, you know, we our expert testified that the sixunit
residential use generated a significantly less peak uh fewer peak hour trips than the previous professional office use, representing a a net, I would say, intensity win for the neighborhood. The application uh was
then also amended to enclose the front porch, which was to address some of the board's concerns related to minimum square footage of each dwelling unit, which added 1,193 square feet of living space to the
building. We added accessible ramps and accessible additions to be compliant with the code. Um, and again, we're fully compliant with the parking, which I know has historically been uh a concern of the board in this and other applications.
Um, our planner testified that the conversion satisfies the positive positive criteria by promoting the purposes under NJSA 4050D2, including the encouragement of adapted reuses of existing structures, uh, which I'll get
to in a minute, and promoting efficient land and desirable visual environment and providing for a variety of housing types consistent with community needs. Um she testified it's particularly suited for multifamily residential to its essentially to its uh based upon its
location and surrounding mixed residential and office uses and that the negative criteria was met because it wouldn't cause a substantial detriment to the public good or impair the intent of the zone plan. uh emphasizing parking
buffering design mitigations uh and adaptive reuse as the main uh substantial um impacts on the public good. The F variance was discussed about how the site can accommodate it. It's
you know it's it's essentially a been an office for a long time and there's some existing uh improvements on the site that we can adapt such as the parking area etc. And then there was a couple of C2 variances um related to the sideyard
setbacks. Again, those were pre-existing. Um we feel that 69 West End Avenue is an a responsible adaptive use of the outdated office space by modernizing the site with enhanced architecture, green infrastructure, and diverse housing. This project satisfies
both positive and negative criteria for the requested variances. Miss Mcnanis testified. We also discussed the ATO report um which furthers some of Silvermill's goals uh by addressing the bureau's dominant demographic and
economic trends. Specifically, uh 74% of Somerville households have no children and 65% of Somerville households consists of one or two people which creates that critical demand for small smaller more efficient housing rather
than the large single family homes. Uh also related to the zoning master plan and the Ato report um by providing those one and two-bedroom options uh the project serves a significant population of young professionals uh under 25 and
millennials who are currently driving the demand uh but facing a 12.49% year-over-year increase in local median prices. And um we heard also extensive testimony about the economic vitality of
bringing in uh residential density for small households within walking distance of the downtown that provides the consistent foot traffic necessary to s sustain Somerville's retail sector. Um so we met on several occasions with the
principles and the professionals and unfortunately um any reduction in the density below the six units makes this project uh not economically viable uh due to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in carrying and
rehabilitation costs necessary to restore the structure. Um, so we're asking for a vote on the six-unit project, uh, which we think advances core purposes of the MLU all by promoting a desirable visual environment and encouraging an efficient use of a
long vacant um, property uh, since the engineering firm had left there several years ago. Um, we also, and this was kind of the the last few meetings that we had with Mr. Cole's office was, you know, the
full generator um and relocating having a full generator for the site in case of emergency and then relocating those uh condensing units for uh for noise issues. We went through um you know
specs related to the anticipated sound and that was kind of the final touches that we had on this application. Um, so, uh, we're just asking that the board consider this to be a positive rehabilitation of that structure. Um,
and we respectfully request that the board grant the use and bulk variances and major site plan approval subject of course to the professionals staff conditions that we had gone over in detail last hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Bradley.
We've already closed the public portion. not going to be any discussion on that. It's on the board. Would someone like to move the application? >> Motion that we >> I'll second it.
>> Move the second for denial. >> Uh discussion. >> Um I actually I think it's a a good use of the a vacant property. Um I think that the intensity
uh lowering from what it was is also a good thing. Uh I think that there is a need for housing in town. Uh and I think that overall it's a it's a good project with
a minimal effect on the on the surrounding neighborhood. There are other uh multif family properties within within the the area as well. My concern is as I understand it, we
have standards for the minimum size of apartments and I sorry sorry sorry we have minimum requirements for the size of the of apartments and I believe the minimum requirement for a
one-bedroom is8 800 square ft. I believe from what I heard in the tape and what I I read in the transcript that these apartments are on the low end of the 700s.
That's a concern for me. That that's no space at all. I I also feel if we have a minimum standard, how can we approve something that's so much lower? So that'll that's my reason. I I don't
support this. >> Chief, >> I could support the use, but I I've got a problem with the intensity here. It's a P neighborhood that's trending toward residential use, multif family use. We all recognize that when these changes
are made, we have to look at more than just the subject property. We have to look around it. And you've got cam in place the back door to this property. We're going to be adding I think we have an opportunity to reduce the amount of
black top there by reducing the parking. The parking lot could be redesigned so was not to put headlights looking at the houses across the street because that's that's right where they were headed before. The question was asked as I recall was never answered about about
shielding the parking lot. I think that the we can allow something to cause injury to a to a neighboring property. It's a positive effect on the building that we're talking about, although too
intense, but I think we have to look at the neighbors at the same time. And that's my concern. I just think there's just too much trying to go into too little bit of property. Fewer apartments would allow for the partial removal of the parking lot, a redesign of the parking lot, and would
make an overall space available for the occupants of the subject building to be outside in the yard. Right now, there's basically no place to go. And I just don't think I think if we're looking at this as a residential use, we should look at it as a residential use. Now, I I support the concept and I do
think that neighborhood is definitely moving in a residential direction. I think that's good. But I think just a little bit too much in this and I don't think that as I understand it we're not supposed to be talking about the financial impact. I don't think that's excuse me. I like the idea of converting
the building from office to residential. You can tell the plan as presented will require a significant investment and improve this building uh which does need a lot of attention. That being said, I am against the application for a few reasons. There is not enough green space and with
so many apartments proposed, if you look at the properties on the street, the subject property still ex exits to a residential street and for that reason I'm against the application. >> That's a tough one. Um,
I appreciate the efforts to reduce the intensity. Um, I'm on the fence as to whether I think where we've crossed the line. Um, is it still too intense? Is it
intense enough to to operate? Um, so yeah, it's a tough one for me. I I think I might I would end up supporting it, I think, because
um I don't think that the detriments are um sufficient for me to vote against it. >> I mean, it's been said I think the intensity was too much. Um adding the apartment into the garage definitely
foot is being used now and I think it became too intense. Uh we went outside the actual bonded those two together the building in the in the garage. Um I think it would have been better off less units. Like everybody else said, I'm I've got a
problem with the intensity. density is what we deal with in this on this board. Um the impact on came and place every time there's a an application over in that area came in place is treated like a redheaded
stepchild we can't kind of forget about and a lot of things it's small and um but and it's a quiet street I could go for not using the the garage
or and maybe down five departments. Um we've taken the position um the leadership position on the P zone over the last several years. We realize that it's it's in the end of its life cycle
and that more and more residential uh uses are coming to the PR zone. offices are being converted into uh residential units. We recognize that. I'm really on the fence, but I'm leaning
towards not voting for it. If we could cut back on some of the intensity, I would be in in favor of it. So, we have a motion. We've discussed it. Roll call, please.
>> Chairman, art there. >> No. >> Ed All. No >> Roberto Carpinets. >> No >> Morgan McLaclin. >> No >> Rich O'Neal. >> No. >> No >> John Flores. >> Yes. >> Eric Alvarez. >> Yes.
>> Thank you for your time. >> For denial is carried. >> Thank you, Mr. O'Gradic. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. This was a tough. >> Yes, >> certainly.
>> All right. >> Let's take off the record. >> No. >> Oh >> My bad. Cliff, >> we have I think
>> Motion was to deny. Ryan, it was a faux paw. Could you make sure you bleep that? >> I don't I don't see an issue. The motion was for denial and the vote was the majority was to agree with the
denial. >> Right. So I I don't see >> and I I I think it's clear that the denial record if you vote for the denial that's the yes vote is for the denial. >> Just want to clear it up here.
>> Yeah, that's fine. >> That's we got to clarify. >> I think we just clarified it. >> But are we on the record now? >> Yes, >> we're on the record. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And I must apologize for my outburst. That is the first time in my life I've
ever used profanity. >> I'm gonna start. >> We have that you >> going on new business here. Uh PSENG is asked to be continued. Um they're asking to be continued I do
believe to the June 3rd meeting uh without additional noticing. be noticed tonight and they're asking their notice be essentially carried. Uh I suggest to have all participation in the
board that it be kicked to uh June 17th for the public hearing on June 17th and uh the board has to make a decision with or without noticing. >> I'll sit here right now and say that length of time you got to notice. I
agree. But that was notice should be given >> and there was an extension for a time for the board to act. I don't I that's my understanding that they gave us they gave the board an extension for the time to act through June. >> So they have to renotice.
>> They have to renotice and uh is the board comfortable with June 17th which is the third Wednesday. Come back and tell PSG it's the third Wednesday. I'm I won't I probably won't be here. >> They're they're requesting the third,
but again to have the full board I think we have a full board on the 17th. >> I think we have American Legion Convention that week. >> I'll just double check. Will we have a will we have something approaching a full board or >> Well, that's the thing. I do believe
that one of our members has a conflict >> on the first typically a conflict >> on the third >> on the third because what had happened in the past we used to have one meeting a month >> right >> and then we went to two that disturbed some people's schedules because that's
just the way it was. Uh so on the major applications, the high intense applications, I'd like to see them all on the third Wednesday to give all the board members a chance to participate of a potential conflict on the first Wednesday. That's why I'm just
suggesting the uh 17th >> makes perfect sense to me. >> Okay. Whatever is the sense of the board is fine. I'll I'll make sure I'm here whenever you need me. >> Okay. So I will get back to will let PSG know it's the 17th that they have to
notice and I will confirm that the extension when the time to act is >> June >> is uh through June. >> I have a conflict on that. >> Okay. >> We talked about that. >> You're out anyway.
>> Any issues obviously let me know. >> Yeah. >> I'm a customer. >> We want to do that. Uh, >> I think we've done what we need. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> they have to
Mr. Chairman, do you have any discussion or chairman's comments? We just discussed PSCG, so we're at the uh bottom of the agenda. >> Nothing yet. It's just good to have the whole team back together. >> We have a big agenda coming up.
On the 15th of April, we have the uh the climate controlled self storage that was carried or extended, not carried. It was uh rescheduled. >> Right. >> We have a residential application on April Fool's
Day, April 1st. And then we have to schedule the 206 self storage application which will be in probably May and then we have this on the 17th. So
we're winding down in terms of backlog. >> Good. >> I I don't see we'll we'll circle back on this in May or June, but it might be appropriate to go back meeting a month if we get the backlog all
>> caught up. >> Right. >> So I I'm not aware of anything. >> We have pardon me this one >> but uh the only thing the schedule ends in May on the 206 self storage
application which is where the old diner was now it's where the excavator is. The board heard a car wash many years ago. We have that application and then the 2030 on April 15th and then the residential application.
>> Right. Okay. >> Okay. No other business come before the board. >> I have a certification for you to sign. >> I'll bring it over. >> Someone like to make a motion to adjurnn. I'll >> move. Second. Move >> second. All in favor?
>> I.