Okay, that's better. Meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been that on May 18, 2022 2025, a copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was posted on a bulletin board outside
of Muro Hall, mailed facts or emailed to the Courier News, given to the clerk administrator, and posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall. If anybody believes that this meeting is being held in violation of the Open Public Media Act, please state your
views at this time. Hearing none. These pro proceedings are of a judicial nature. Only those items on the agenda that this board is going to adjudicate tonight will be discussed. Proper uh judicial decorum will be
maintained. Next item. Roll call please. Chairman Adair here. Ed Alllet here. Robera Carpinets here. Morgan Mccclaclin here. Rich O'Neal here. Brian Vadimsky here. John Flores here. Eric Alvarez here and
Stuart Daniels is excused. We have a quorum. Do we have any uh conflicts tonight? Okay, next item. Pledge of Allegiance. Right. Should be in the flag of the United States of America and
to the for it stands one indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Agree with you. question is should okay next I'm sorry next item approval of the minutes of the last meeting
sure you start them you put them out um someone like to move the the minutes move second roll call Ed Alllet, yes. Robera Carpinets, yes. Rich O'Neal, yes. John Flores, yes. Eric
Alvarez, yes. Okay, Carrie. Next item, resolutions. Resolution that's on the Oh, thank you. Thank you. The one resolution that's on the agenda is for all American Auto Parts, BV. Uh, I have submitted a
resolution for the board's attention. Um there were only there were only a couple of little things I you know I would apparently there was some I'm not completely certain that I uh I my thinking is we should make it a
condition first of all is that the issue regarding the circulation plan there was a great deal of a discussion about that which took up several pages in the resolution I don't know that we necessarily said made it a condition of approval appal that the applicant would
establish a circulation plan in uh to the approval of Mr. Cole. Uh apparently the the understanding of of everybody involved is that that was the case. So that condition will be added. You know, the resolution will be amended
accordingly and the board should consider that it's we're voting it's voting on a resolution which will include which will also include that as a condition of approval. If you look at paragraph 23 and the findings of fact,
uh the issue is set forth and discussed. Uh so I'll simply be making finding a fact 23. I'll be putting that in the form of a condition of approval, which is fine. Um I think all the parties agreed that there that that might be an
issue. I'm not sure that we necessarily concurred on whether it was a condition of approval, but to be completely built and suspenders. Uh my suggestion would be and recommendation is going to be that we add that as a condition of approval. That would be condition number
nine. The only other thing is is that and this is typographical um uh rather than the rather than the secretary being authorized and direction the applicant will be authorized and direct directed to cause the notice of
the resolution to be published in our official newspaper. So uh and you know that's merely a typographical error on my part. I apologize. Uh we'll correct it. uh the resolution could be considered to be voted on with that corrected text
because I'll make the correction as soon as I get home this evening and uh other than that I think everything is in order and uh the board can adopt the resolution as presented. I've got a question. Yes. The circulation that's a public street
basically. Who's going to enforce it? I mean the street I just see that was the concern I had. This is best efforts that the tractor trails will come off of Fifth Street, take center street and exit on the on the bridge off of Fourth Street. That's because these are drainage drivers coming off the port. I agree.
Just best efforts to say the circulation won't go through the community. Best efforts, Rich. Yeah. Just in just to say that you're going to do the oneway on Fifth, make the left on center where the uh the old uh tree business was. Yeah. Make a left tractor trailers onto Fourth
Street. The business is on the left. drop off and then leave on fourth to back the bridge just so it doesn't impact. I agree with you. I get that, but I don't know how you'd ever enforce it because these are you don't best efforts. I just don't want to, you know, some get
an idea. It's not something that the police are going to be able to arrest a driver on. No, that's we discussed that at the meeting. Uh I mean I you know and and frankly at the time the condition did not you know I I know I I asked on
the record and uh it was not a uh it did not appear to be necessary but I understand that on second blush one might want to have that you know frankly to protect just to protect the public interest and I believe the board could
could do that. What do we do about it? If we notice that there's a lot more trouble, I think at that point we would have to we would have to have uh the police advised and they would have to be a little more vigilant. I mean we you know we can't establish a
truck route right in a resolution in a res I know I mean the council would also have to step in and do this. Yeah. Just not to impact the residents the best just the concept that Okay. Okay. I'm
not so good at concepts. I'm good in black and white. No, no, I agree with you. I agree. I I agree that what Cliff is saying it's not something that it's going to be the cops out there looking at. It's just to let them know that they should be doing this route as our
brought up to minimize impacts to the public. That's it. That's just it's really a feelood, Rich, to say your board addressed it. As the chairman said that CYA that we recognize we're going to have 50 53 foot
tractor trailers going through that area and that they should take this route to minimize impacts to the residents. That's it. Will it be 20 or 40 containers? So yeah, right. I just was curious. Someone like to move the resolution?
I'll move it. Someone like to second it. Second. Moved and second. Roll call, please. Chairman Adair. Yes. Morgan McLaclin. I don't think I can hear. No. No. You know, you were you were you were within 200 feet. You can't hear us. He wasn't there. Oh, yeah. You were at the
meeting, but you left before the hearing. That's right. Sorry. Uh Rich O'Neal. Yes. Brian Vadimsky. Yes. Eric Alvarez. Yes. It's carried. Okay. Next item. I believe it's application
BMR. 131 North G. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Eric Andrea representing BMR LLC. Where's Frank? Right there. Frank's been with before us many times.
And who else is with you? Brian Conway here as a planner tonight. Okay. Do you have any other witnesses you'd like to have sworn in at this time or shall we swear them in one at a time? None at this time. We might have some of the attendants show up, but I don't see
them here. Okay. Would you like to uh do your introduction and please enter your and you've entered your appearance. I need to swear in your witness if he's going to if he's going to testify. Okay.
All right. Please stand and raise your right hand. You saw me swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth. So help you God. Yes. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record, sir. Certainly. It's Brian Conway. C N W A Y. Thank you, Mr. Conway. Counselor,
your witness. Thank you. Um, so we're here to seek approval of was it four items and Mr. Conway has prepared testimony to discuss the issues that have been presented in the colon associates
memorandum of June 10th. Okay. Qualify. Sorry. Qualify me. Uh, actually your your attorney should do that. Would you please favor the board with your credentials? Certainly. My name is Brian
Conway. I'm a landscape architect and a professional planner. Um, I graduated from college in 1989 with a degree from Ruckers with a degree in environmental planning and design. I've been a licensed landscape architect since 1992 and a licensed professional planner since 1994. I've had varied experience
in landscape architecture and planning for the past 30 plus years. Um, I've been before many boards as as a planner and as a landscape architect. I'm here mostly as a planner, although I will speak about some landscape architecture also.
Mr. Chairman, no objection. None. I have a question. May I? Certainly. You're a landscape architect and planner and all that. Do you deal with traffic issues? No, I'm I'm here to speak about planning tonight. Okay. I just for
myself I want to know that. Yes. Okay. Any any um traffic centric um testimony tonight will be planning based not statistic based. Okay. Okay. Stipulate to his qualifications.
was going to need help. Okay. Uh sir, please proceed. I appreciate you. I I I think I mean, you know, I'll I'll try to help you as much as I can. Um because the procedure here is a little, you know, a little bit
different. not this board as opposed to any others, but you know, this is uh you know, you we'd appreciate your testimony in uh support of the relief requested and enumerating the actual relief requested.
Sir, are you an attorney at law of the state of New Jersey? Yes. Okay. Have you have you handled lane use matters in the past and before boards? Uh no. All right. Because there's certain protocols. Okay. I I'll I'll I'll help
you. Um but anyway, if you if you would uh if you would provide us with your testimony, sir, I'd appreciate it. Absolutely. So, the project in question is 131 North Castston Avenue, Somerville, Block 74,
lot 1701. It's in the B4 neighborhood business residential district and it's also part of the U Gon Avenue redevelopment plan. I just wanted to make sure I got the terminology correct. Okay. Um a little bit of site description and project history. I have
an exhibit here. Um it is the plan that we had submitted previously but I had gone out and I had um inventoried all the trees that were on site. So the trees have been added to this A1. Yes sir please.
So the the drawing is called existing proposed tree exhibit. The drawing number is E1 and it's dated July 2nd, 2025 today. So, the subject property is located at the southwest corner of North Gaston
Avenue and William Street. They are both two-lane uh roads. There's a traffic light at the intersection with left turn lanes heading south and west. The parcel is L-shaped with 281.6 6 foot frontage along William Street and
a 100 foot frontage along North Gaston Avenue. The address is 131 North North Gaston Avenue which is the smaller frontage and the yard opposite that is the rear yard. The yard opposite the William Street frontage is designated as
the sideyard. The property ranges from 100 ft deep for this first u um piece to the east and then it u jogs back to 149 147.69 ft deep parallel to William
Street. The total lot area is 34,952 square feet. There is a 100-year-old um one-story masonry building that was repurposed as retail under a 2006 approval. And we'll be talking about the
2006 approval uh throughout the testimony. The building is currently occupied by four tenants from west to east. There's Prima Pizza at the west end, Highcaliber Ordinance, was a gun which is a gun shop in the center. Heritage, which is a hair
salon to the east of that in the center, and the Delta Smoke Shop um on the eastern end of the building. While the building has front elevations facing the street along both the William Street frontage and the North Gasson
Avenue frontage, the main entrances into the building are on the south side of the building facing the parking lot. There's a one-way access drive from North Gaston Avenue into the site with nine angled h nine angled uh parking
spaces including two uh handicap parking spaces. As you proceed west west through the site, when you get to the end of the building, you can make a left to go to an additional parking uh area to the south or go to the north. There's some additional parking there and then to
exit onto William Street. The uh rear parking lots uh collectively have 21 parking spaces. The drive out to William Street was approved to be a one-way drive during the original site plan application. It
should be noted noted, however, that the drive is approximately 24 ft wide and can accommodate uh two-way traffic. So, the application that I'm before you with tonight is for a new building mounted tenant directory sign. It's
proposed on the parapet on the east side of the building. The sign is not compliant with the zoning ordinance and requires variance relief that I will discuss tonight. In the course of the application, there were two other items from the prior
approval that came up, specifically um street and parking lot trees and the William Street driveway. I will discuss these two items first. um they're related to the prior approval and I'll finish with the signed
variance. Um based on the prior approval um and per ordinance section 102-82 L3, there's one street required for each uh 50 feet of lot frontage. The aggregate lot frontage between the
William Street frontage and the North Caston Avenue frontage is 381.6 feet, which would require eight street trees. Um, there's also a section in the ordinance 102-81.L.2
two that specifies that trees shall be located where they will not interfere with curb, sidewalk, driveways, electric or telephone wires or poles, utilities or pipes located above or below the ground. It should be noted that along
the entire property frontage along Gaston Avenue as North Gaston Avenue as well as William Street, there are utility poles with low wires overhead. Um the building orientation and location um in the close proximity to William
Street really precludes plant tree planting within that area which leaves us essentially two areas to be able to plant street trees. The one of them would be the North Gaston Avenue frontage. The other one would be the area um to the north of the parking lot
and the landscape area uh to the west. In light of these constraints, we're proposing four street trees. Two along William Street and two along North Gaston Avenue. Um, one near the west corner of the prop, northwest corner,
one um adjacent to the building in a parking lot island. There's some uh building utilities, a ladder to the roof and the like. Um, a small narrow tree there I think would do a nice job of complenting that and helping hide those utilities. And then on the North Gas and
Avenue side. We're proposing one between uh the driveway and the adjacent neighbor, I think it's an Indian restaurant, and then one to the north of the driveway. And what we're contemplating for these trees would be an upright sergeant cherry tree. Other cherry trees in the area, they're going
to stay reasonably compact and narrow. I think they'll give us some nice uh verticality and some nice color in the springtime. So, giving that we are providing um street trees in really what I believe are the most reasonable locations and
really we're proposing four. Um I'd like to ask for a waiver or to modify the existing approval whichever we deem is appropriate to not require eight but to accept the four trees. Would you be willing if you got a waiver
on the trees, would you be willing to make the contribution to the environmental commission? That's up to the clients to decide. I believe it's $600 per tree, I believe. So, $ 650. 650.
So, the building was approved back in 078 whenever it was finished as is. So, the trees were never there. Um, and as you mentioned, it's a historic building from 100 years old, and there's really no way to ever complied with that
ordinance. The resolution required them. But the building was approved by that resolution I'm referring to. The building was the approval required in the conditions to put the street trees. It was a conditional approval. It wasn't it wavered in six. It was part of the
conditional approval. That's what I thought. They were not put in. So I understand what you're saying, but I just want to be clear that it's in the resolution that they would be installed. You really can't wave a condition of approval. You can have an you can have an excision or a modification.
Uh because essentially what you're doing is you're uh this is like a second bite of the apple because you you already had those conditions imposed. Uh you did not object to them at the time. This is a fairly established
approval. Um so it's not a situation where you can you can wait you can get a waiver now. you would you essentially the the nature of your application is a modification or an excision of the condition and that'll be up to the
board. Um is it my understand I mean let me ask another question if I may. Uh and Mr. Cole you can help me out in this regard. Were there other conditions of the previous approval that were not complied with?
Yes, I understand. But I just I want want your testimony on the record. No, I think most of the conditions, the landscaping, uh the street trees aren't there. I some of the street trees I think were planted, but that was 20 years ago essentially.
How did they get a Why did they get a CO? Yeah, I can't answer that. who monitors whether they put trees in resolution.
In ' 06, the engineer was the county engineer. I was the planner, not the engineer. Typically, the engineer makes sure the site improvements are done. Typically, like I'm going back older I'd get the less I remember, but didn't we
have a discussion about these summer service station sign on the front of the building? Yes. Yeah, that's a different issue, Rich. But that was the the ceramic sign on the top. Yeah. Yeah. But but back to the question is uh if I recall the resolution was from 06 was
amended a couple of times over the years I think 07 and 08 but the original amorosa the board was I couldn't find the signed plans and the problem was I couldn't find them because I didn't sign them. So it was the administrator found
the signed plans. They were at the administration building. So, uh, we're going back to technically it's the board engineer that usually ensures that the approval are being satisfied. If they're not, they come back to the board for whatever the board needs to do with
those conditions. So, tonight they're coming in, they want to put in four trees instead of eight $650. Um, I what I wanted to make clear is on the record, there's no practical way eight trees along the property frontage between the driveways and then the um
frontage of the building um you know where the prison buildings in very close proximity to the street on the north side of the building. Yeah. Since the application's in front of the board, the approvals the landscaping requirements doesn't sunset being that is supposed to
be maintaining this indefinitely. So when this application came up, I have to do a site inspection and just pick out. So there's not, if you look at the report, there's not like 18 million issues there. It's basically on the prior approvals. It goes back to the circulation. I'm sure we'll get to, but
the landscaping some overgrown and the street trees, you know, the emerald the green giants are there that is 30t tall. The landscaping was installed. Some of the stuff is a maintenance issue, but some of the street trees are missing. That's why it came up. So refresh my memory. Didn't we also approve the
subdivision for the single family homes? Yes. Yes. Yes. So that was part of the application that this the thing the building was reduced on the second version. It was three or four meetings on this, right? And the subdivision two
or three lots were were carved out. I do believe the applicant built the houses in question and the the building I think was somewhat reduced in size, reduced the intensity as part of the original application.
So that helps. That answers your question as well. It does. Okay. And that's the client's if they're we we really can't practically plant more than four. But you can pay for we can we can pay. Correct. You can still pay for the
other ones. question. I think that they're fully aware. Yes, that's fine. So, we'll plant four and pay for the four. There you go. Gina, so that addresses any that would address any further any outstanding conditions
that remain. Mr. Cole, uh, just pruning some of it's overgrown, but I have some more. Let me let me continue. There's some more stuff. I just want to make sure I I don't like to be pnikity, but you know, failure to failure to conform
with conditions is always an issue and especially over a period of time. So, the parking lot trees are the next item on on my list to discuss. So, per ordinance 102-88.c.4, Four, there should be provided at least
one shade tree for each five parking spaces exclusives of spaces within a building or parking deck. The shade tree shall be evenly distributed within the interior and around the perimeter of the parking area so as to provide shade to all parking areas.
The tree trees were planted when the project was completed. I reviewed historic air photos and visited the site to assemble an existing tree plan, aka what trees were planted as part of the original um construction. There are currently nine deciduous
trees. They're little leaf lynons that appear to have been planted as part of the project. And there are four other deciduous trees in the southwest corner of the property that predate the development. Two elms, one walnut, and what appears to be a dead ash. So, I'm
going to go over to the just share on the west side of the property over here. The large circles are the little leaf lions. The large circles with a circle in the center are the existing trees and then the circles with the spokes on
them. Those are the evergreen trees. So you can see there are one, two, three, four, five, six little leaf lynen trees that were planted as part of the project which I believe help satisfy the tree planting requirements within the parking lot. So six of these lynen trees are
around the perimeter of the parking lot area between the evergreen buffer to the west and the parking area. There's one in an island which is adjacent to the southeast corner of the parking lot. I'm sorry, southeast corner of the building and there's another one um in at the
southeast corner of the parking lot. There's um one dead Lyndon right here in this island and I'm proposing to replace that with again a colar Sergeant Cherry. I think that would be a better choice. So given the amount of ex existing trees
and the proximity to the parking lot, I believe that a good faith effort was made at complying with the ordinance and I respectfully ask that there's no more tree planting requirements within the site. You're saying you're you're going to replace the one dead tree, correct? And you have six trees and it's one per
five, so it's 30 parking spaces which covers it. And that was in place when the when the resolution was done in 06. So if you can there's six trees out there. He satisfies the shade tree as long as they're being maintained and replacing the dead one. That would
certainly address that point in my opinion. Okay. So question then in your memo where it cites there's only two trees which were you not counting certain ones because of the location? I must have missed it. He's he's saying he's out there looking at Lynland. The numbers
he's giving comply. Gotcha. No, I understand that. But I didn't know if you're you were counting not counting them because they were in different location. He's referring to he's saying there's six of us too. I don't disagree. I saw some dead trees. So I might have been looking at dead shrubs and dead trees and uh I didn't get the count
right. I the the original plan is correct in terms of one and five for the shade trees. If they're there, it it just goes away. That's the bottom line. He's saying they're there just to replace the one in the park. Just maintain what you have. If you have the trees which the board required which was
within your ordinance that you quoted was in ' 06. In my opinion, we're good. Yeah, we're good on that. Okay. So, the last uh issue of prior approval that we're going to discuss today is going to be the William Street
driveway and modification of the existing approval. The project was approved with oneway access from North Caston Avenue to the east headed west past the nine angle parking spaces and then to the other 21 parking spaces in
the two parking lots to the west of the building. The drive for the nine angled parking spaces can only be one way. The angled parking spaces won't work if somebody were to drive the other way. Um, the layout for the parking in the other two
parking lots is sufficient for two-way traffic. There's 18 foot parking spaces of 24 foot islands. That's standard and typical um from a site plan perspective. The oneway out driveway onto William Street is approximately 24 ft wide. I
think it's in the neighborhood of 23 feet, seven or eight inches. the standard width that could safely handle two-way traffic. It should be noted that the parking requirement for this site based upon the planner's review is 23 parking spaces and the
parking lots to the west um contain 21 of those 23 required parking spaces which nearly um can nearly accommodate all of the parking for the site. I just want to reaffirm that there will
not ever be the ability to have any eastbound traffic um along the angled parking on the south of the building. The William Street driveway access has been and is currently functioning as a two-way drive. I did uh a lot of
research on the um history of the project, aerial photos, etc., etc. I think that the oneway out arrow um went away somewhere around 2018 or 2019. There was no arrow for a while and now I
think there's two way arrows now. Okay. It is unlikely that the Yeah, we understand that the when they the guy came to repaint it, he put the two arrows down without instruction. That was a mistake. It wasn't designed to to change it. He just assumed it was two ways given the width at 24 ft and
unfortunately, you know, the usage by people. Um, it's unlikely that this driveway creates any additional traffic on William Street. Eastbound travelers um coming on William Street are already on William Street. If they're coming to the
site from the west, they would either enter into their driveway there or come around the block and come in on the North Gaston Avenue side. Given the left turn lane on the westbound side of Union Street, um there's a left turn arrow. So,
anybody that were coming to the site from the east out of traffic signal um would be in the left turn lane could very easily make a left turn and go on to the north um Geston Avenue exit. If somebody were traveling westbound and
didn't realize that that was their destination, the left turn in on that William Street driveway would be another option. If they didn't have that option, they would probably have to go. I've got a question. All right. Go ahead. We're having testimony on traffic from a guy that's not a traffic guy. And I just
asking cliff for you. Is that proper? Uh I have my Thank you. I have my concerns. Uh because you are not qualified as a traffic engineer. If you're merely reciting facts and not
expert opinion, you probably can do it. Though it I have my concerns as to whether you Well, I mean, I don't want to be the bad guy here again. U you know I'm not cons I'm if there are
traffic issues you really should have a traffic engineer who can who is qualified. I'm sorry but I mean I I you know clearly this application's had some previous uh you know has some history.
So I mean let's get it right. Okay. I just like I said I was just discussing the traffic as a planner from a planning perspective traffic counts. Right. You can testify as a fact witness, but you can't opine. The board would be directed to disregard any such
opinions. Okay. So, we can put a pin in the driveway for now. I think that's a smart move to go to the sign. So, the last uh item for discussion today would be the tenant directory
sign. And this is a variance or the variances that we're here for tonight. The main thrust of this application is a tenant directory sign which is located on the parapet on the east side of east facade of the building facing North Gaston Avenue. The
proposed sign is 4T by 10 ft which is 40 square ft and is mounted 19 ft 6 in off the ground. The sign will serve as a tenant directory with each tenant listed on the sign. As there are currently four tenants, there are four tenants listed
on the sign. The building retail center has a unique orientation and layout that affects retailer visibility. In a typical retail center, the building is set back from the street with parking in front and good retailer sign visibility.
Given the site layout with the building at the William Street rightway and the parking main entrance behind the building, the ant tenants have good street visibility and the internal tenants less so. The signs on the William Street canopy and the windows are marginally effective. This tenant
sign is is designed to improve tenant visibility. This explains the need for the sign. Just want to now just explain a couple options or a couple of description of the sign. The proposed sign is an internal internally illuminated box sign
with a light white translucent face and sixinch red letters. We are proposing that the light source be dimable LED so light levels can be reviewed and adjusted to the satisfaction of the board engineer or another burrow designate.
The hours of sign illumination will be from dusk till 11:00 p.m. The pizzeria is the latest open business on site and I think every day except for Friday and Saturday they're closed at 10:30. So Friday and Saturday would be 11. So, we
chose 11 o'clock as the time to shut the sign off. The sign will be constructed and installed to meet all applicable building codes and burrow requirements. The sign requires relief as follow um from ordinance section 102-119B.
Wall sign location. The sign may not extend above the eaves or the bottom of the building roof. The sign is located on the parapit does not extend above the parapit but is above the bottom of the building roof and the eaves
102-119B wall sign projection. The maximum projection of 8 in from the wall it is mounted on the sign that we have proposed is mounted 12 in off the wall. Um it's a 4 inch deviation in my mind's
eye. This is a pretty minimal ask for that. U we have section 102-119F wall signs. One wall sign is permitted per business per wall. The Delta Smoke Shop has a current sign on the lower
roof and they are also listed on the uh tenant directory sign. 102-119F wall sign size only one dimension either vertical or horizontal shall be permitted in the B4 zone to exceed 2
feet. The sign proposed is 4T by 10 ft or 40 square ft and it is greater than 2 feet in both um dimensions. And the last one is 102-119F with wall sign square footage. Display
surface area of the sign shall not exceed one square foot for each lineal foot of wall in the B4 zone. We have 51 lineal feet of wall along North Gon Avenue. We're permitted to have 51 square feet of sign. The proposed tenant
directory sign is 40 square feet and the existing Delta smoke shop sign is 32 square feet. Before I get into the variance proofs, would anybody like to discuss or ask any questions about anything? Anybody from the board have any questions of Mr.
Conway's presentation? Not now. Okay. Okay. So, for the variance proof, the first thing I'll talk about is a positive criteria. We believe that the requested variance can be approved as either C1 or C2 variances or a combination thereof
where the shallow depth of the property combined with the location and configuration of the lawfully existing structure creates a hardship in improving the signage and tenant visibility without the need for variance relief. um NJ
405D-70C2 also known as the flexible C variance. I think that can also apply where the plan with the variance proposed represent a better planning alternative than a conforming one. Municipal board is empowered to grant a variance under seed 2 or an applicant application or appeal.
purposes of the MLU will be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and the benefits outweigh the detriments of the 17 purposes of the act. We feel the application advances at least two of them. Um 2 A, which would
be to encourage municipal action to guide appropriate use of development of lands in a matter that will promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. I think that the sign promotes safety by the um It's a clear
sign, clear, concise sign to aid the driver and and potential customers in helping to find the building and advances the general welfare. Proposal calls for improvements to help bolster the economic vitality of an existing
resale center and the tenants within. This will continue to provide tax benefits to the community, provide jobs and services to the community. This is consistent with the goals of the master plan. Um also uh 2G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a v
variety of agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial use and open space both public and private according to the respective environmental requirements and ordered needs of all New Jersey citizens. Again, the continuing improvement of a permitted use in the B4 zone which meets
the goals and objective of the municipal land use law. So the negative criteria, no variance or other relief can be granted without showing that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The proposed sign does not negatively affect the adjoining
properties. It's on the east side of the building and faces commercial properties. The sign is a tenant directory sign and only lists the building tenants. There's no such substantial detriment to the public good. Would you please speak up? I'm sorry.
And so far as the intent and purposes for the master plan, the site is in the B2 neighborhood business residential district and is a continu continuing permitted use. The retail center has been operational for almost 20 years. The application proposes the
installation of a new tenant directory sign to identify the building tenants. application is consistent with the master plan goals and objectives as well as a Gaston Avenue redevelopment plan specifically in maintaining um in quotes commercial retail along North Gaston
Avenue, increasing property values and tax revenues by providing development that enhances burough economic vitality and serves the needs of the community by supporting the retail and supports the uh support the adjoining residential neighborhoods by encouraging boutique
retailers to open within a short distance to these neighborhoods. The application poses no detriment or impairment to the NA master plan or zoning ordinance. In closing, we are seeking board relief from um the street trees, as we discussed, to plant for and
provide um compensation for for the tree fund. We talked about the existing on-site trees in the parking lot, how they're compliant with the prior approval. Um the driveway will be um discussed at a future date and the variance for the
signs um we just talked about. That concludes my testimony and I'm happy to discuss anything further. If the board has any questions, anyone from the audience have any questions of the um Mr. Conway?
Please come up. State your name. Please identify yourself on the record, please. I'm Meg Andrews. Uh, Walnut Street in Somerville. Been here 19 years and I live around the, um, corner from this development. Um, quick question. Was he
supposed to be sworn in? He was. He was. I did swear him in. Okay. Okay. We There was a question. Okay. Oh, was he sworn in? He's a lawyer. He's sworn in by oath. I'm sorry. back to my um
the are you aware that the no stopping and standing sign that was in front of the building on the Williams side street um was taken down the same time that the one-way sign for the parking lot on William Street.
I thought we were carrying the circulation items. Well, he's referring to he his testimony was regarding the sign in the landscaping and the applicant agreed to carry the
circulation comment to a further time because until a traffic engineer was going to testify that is correct. Okay, then I guess isn't that a city sign anyways? I I don't correct. That was my point. The city sign came down the same exact time as the oneway sign in front
of Primo. So, you witnessed the people taking it down? I noticed the signs disappeared at the same time. We're gone. I drive it pretty much every single day. I have pictures spanning years. I have a lot of evidence here
actually. Was that reported? Several times. It took a long time. Yeah. Why don't and then because the police and the burrow kept going back and forth as to whose responsibility was what and
then finally it was determined that the no stopping sign was the police. The one way was whoever tries to make the owners follow the rules. If the sign needs to go back up, we can contact Rodney.
Correct. and and can we get some um cones until the matters heard. It's been this for over a year and they've known it. Okay. This company stating it can't go both ways. It's a traffic hazard and
I'm happy to leave some information for everybody out there, including you guys. Thank you. Contact DPW on that. I have one more question just for the record. I assume it's not typical for a company to make changes
against the agreement, the resolution prior to asking for the waiver. What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand your question. They the change was made and they didn't fix it
and then they asked for a w and then the town said, "Hey, you're not allowed to do this." And then they said, "Oh, we're going to ask for a waiver when we ask for the sign." And what what specifically for the sign? Only thing I asked for a waiver for was the the trees.
What? They they are asking for a waiver to I believe that's what it's called to change what was originally the one-way exit out of there on to William and B. Sorry, I just lost my train of
thought. Can you ask? Yeah, I understand what you're saying. They're asking for an amendment to the site plan. The change was made and they been aware of it for over a year and still everybody's allowed to come in and out
and the police are called if it was required and we haven't amended it. Just put the signs back up. As I recall as I recalled our hearing application. They presented that traffic plan. That was not our idea. And we
approved what they presented. That's that's not what No, that's not accurate. I have the notes in the minutes from all back then. They they presented a traffic plan to this board that we saw was one way, right? Yeah.
And that's it was their plan. We didn't tell them to do it. They said they were going to do it. That's not I mean I can I'll show you the stuff after if you want. It was very clear that the board really wanted to make sure that that flow went one way.
Yes. Whether or not whose idea it was it was clear the board it doesn't matter. I know what you're saying. We approved the plan. That's what you know. Yeah. He doesn't recollect that this was a require like that he asked for the oneway plan. This was a board requirement. It was a requirement at the end of the hearing but I think
the design came from them. the the design we approve, right? The design was by Ed Dick. Yeah. That was the that was the engineer for your your Okay, that's not so And the angle parking there was no choice other than make it one way and
the idea was it was we we struggled with the storefront issue. So the idea was one way to lower the intensity on William Street. That was the that's what's in the resolution. Does that make sense? Like, yes. Yeah,
because I have Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions or comments on Mr. Conway's um appearance board? Mr. Calre, you have anyone else? No.
Someone like to move close the public portion of this application. I'll move it. Move. Second. Second. All in favor? Ward. What's your pleasure? I've got concerns. Number one, we're
going to put off the traffic issue, but I think we need some expert to use the word, somebody under pressure to give us the traffic conditions. But I'd also like to have the police reports on that intersection
going back whatever time is appropriate just to see what the accidents are, what caused them that there's always been accidents on that corner. That's nothing new, but I think we should get the history and that's available through a police department, right? And I think they should present traffic testimony
and then we may have to deal figure out how to deal with it. That be up to Mike to figure out what we do. But I think because of that intersection, we should know more about it. You know, I've actually responded to accidents on a corners familiar with
the changing of the traffic pattern has me concerned, you know, and I think that's an issue for code enforcement, not for us. I can confir I concur with uh the last comment made by Mr. O'Neal. I uh Mr. Chairman, I I have concerns
uh I mean, is this is the board ready to take any action on this application? And I don't get the feeling that it's, you know, that that there I get the feeling there's still some material information out there and that the board may not be voting on what, you know, all
the information it needs. I just want to express my concern in that regard. Looks like we have something that was approved and subsequently changed with board approval. Yes, we
need to go back to that. Uh, I'd like to add that I had some comments about Emerald Aberati that the trees are 30 feet tall, the shrubs. I I didn't bring it up and I don't think it was appropriate for Brian because that's property maintenance to maintain the landscaping. I don't think it's an
actionable item for the board here. If you install the landscaping, you have to maintain it. So, I that's why I just we didn't discuss the maintenance of the landscaping because I don't think it's a board issue. It's a property maintenance issue.
You understand that? Warden, what's your pleasure? Here's what I'm thinking. If they want to conclude their their application tonight, I'm prepared to vote on it. But if they want to if they want to have a continuence, I'm okay with that, too. But I don't think we had a complete hearing based upon what I've heard. I
can't be in favor of it. Need more information. Anyone else feel that way? I would agree with that. Um, I would go further to say I think this sign is horrible. I mean,
it's just a hot mess. And I think it it I'd like to see a different design. I'd like to see it on the ground, you know, like a wooden sign or something on the ground. I This is just awful. Pardon me? Like the property across the street.
Yeah. I and and I als and I'm not a designer. I'm not a graphic designer, but I'm just thinking your letters are six inches tall, which is about maybe like that. And how I I don't know how they're going to be visible across
Gaston Avenue at the traffic light. 6-inch tall letters aren't going to give you a lot of vision. I mean, those letters, I don't know how high how were how high are those, but if we're voting on this tonight, I'm voting no on this
sign. It's awful. I would like to hear more if I can so that if we come back with a revised sign. Well, first of all, you know, I to me to me it it just doesn't enhance the building. I mean, you've got a beige
building and maybe this is maybe this is girly. You've got a beige building with green trim. Now you're putting up red letters that are six inches tall on a white sign. I I mean it just
it it just looks awful. And I think you would be better served if you put it on the ground. Our ground mounted like a wooden sign. I mean other places do that. You would need a variance because you already have one sign. Correct.
I think what Roberto is referring to is doing something that enhances the building. Yes, it's the gateway to the community and a 4x10 box sign I'm getting the feeling the board doesn't find it to be steadily attractive. So maybe pin
letters, back letting brass, something lower, something that pops a little bit and gets the message across and helps the tenants but yet enhances the attractiveness to the building. Thank you, Mike. Yeah. Right. I mean,
yeah, I I I get a little carried away. I mean, I I appreciate the need for the signage um especially for the retailers who cannot be seen from the street. Um but I think the execution might be a little bit uh off for that for the
building. And again, I appreciate the building being redone 20 years ago because it's uh it used to be abandoned. So, I appreciate that it was that it is an active building now. Um, but I do have some similar issues about how the
um the retailers are um projected onto the street. Uh I think a sign I again I I appreciate the need for the sign, but I'm not sure if this signs the one. I also have just in the my capacity as the board's attorney,
I have concerns about the fact that there were uh conditions of approval of previous resolution that weren't complied with. I mean, it would be something quite candidly, you know, I'm not sure that the board I
I want I want the applicant to be able to certify or confirm that all conditions of the previous resolutions have been uh complied with and if not, why not? And that doesn't necessarily mean that's acceptable. Uh because I
always it's a danger signal when I see that in a report that a 20-year-old approval does still has conditions that aren't complied with. Um it's just my professional opinion is as the board attorney, my job is to
protect you and um I think uh remember that the burden is on the applicant to get the relief requested, not on the board. What other ones you referring to? Uh, I believe what's in Mr. I believe
what's in Mr. Cole's report. I mean, you you you might have communicated with us before this, so we had some idea. Cliff, I'm sorry. I think there were two items that are still open right now. The are there are there any are there any others?
Are there any others? Mr. Cole, I think it's the landscaping and the street. Uh it's there was a sign at the proposed location. There was a Delasio sign that was supposed to be maintained and it it didn't happen during construction, but
I'm not saying that was a condition. It was it was in the minutes, but you won't see as a condition. So I'm I'm not going to say that was a condition. It's just the landscaping that needs to be addressed. The street trees and then the issue with the driveway and the and it's the property in the maintenance which is
I'm treating that as separately just toain the shrubs. Yes. Uh I think it would make great sense to ask for a continuous to rethink the sign. What I'm hearing from the board is uh they would they understand the need for a sign. They want something that pops and
they're not saying you can't have a sign because it's a variance. They're saying if there's a need is do something that makes sense that helps the tenants out that help enhances the building, enhances the intersection and that meets the statute. Okay. So
there the board's not saying because it's a variance you can't even think about it. What the board is saying let's do something that addresses the need and addresses the community at a as a large. That's what I'm hearing. Is that Yes, I'm listening. I think that's what
you're Yeah, Mike. I I think elephant in the room though is that the changing of the traffic pattern and just go ahead and do it. And I don't care if somebody shows up and paints an arrow by mistake. You correct that mistake. That was changed. And whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, I'm not prepared to sit here
and say, but it was changed. You know, just arbitrarily as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not a happy camper about that. That's got to be resolved. In order to resolve it, we have to have traffic engineering and I want accident history. I want to know what's going on down there.
I agree. Well, and now actually we do have a witness if you would allow me to call her up. She's the Okay. She's late. Sorry, but I understand that it doesn't appear that you were fully ready to go. I guess I I I hate to be
that blunt, but uh because there's so many questions and some of it has to do with with information that's not provided. So, uh I I I don't know what else to say. I don't know what else to say in my capacity,
but that's kind of my approach. On the point of the need, I think I heard some members of the board note that the visibility of the tenants is limited. So, I felt like Dev was already recognized by at least some of you. And anybody that drives by the building could tell that it's not exactly the most normal
shaped retail center. You can't testify, sir. It was I mean, I'm sorry. As I say, just this would seem to me that you might have been Well, I I think I've said everything I'm going to I can say. I don't think the board is saying that the
sign's not needed, right? I think we recognize the sign could go there. I think we probably look for a little redesign more historic in nature or aesthetically pleasing. Something a little creative like pin lining, back lighting, not just a 4x10 box sign. Uh
the problem with the box signs in the burrow is they become an isore in 10 years and then we have the first amendment on what the contents are. So if you have pin letters something attractive if that needs to change then we're not dealing with a box sign.
So I'm just throwing one idea out. I understand recess planning backlight lighting um something that makes enhances the building and addresses the need considerations of traffic safety. Yeah. Which is why you fundamentally have
signage. What do you want to do as far as proceeding with any of the approvals? Can we split the trees off at least and finish that or split the application what you need to do is withdraw it or
ask for a continuence. Okay, we'll ask for a continuence. Come back with a revised plan. I think the board been giving you the marching orders. I think you just need to finetune it. Understood. Plus the things that Mr. O'Neal needs.
It depends on how long it's going to take. We'll meet twice a month. We're booked through the first week of August. So our next available meeting date would be August 20th. Yeah. The backlog is down to less
than six weeks. So, 20th or 27th? The 20th. 20th. Okay. So, does that require a renoticing or That's a question for our attorney, not Why don't we leave it there and see when you're ready and see what the timing is
and then you can talk with Cliff to leave it openended to see how long it takes. Is that on the noticing? I think under the circumstances it might be appropriate that they renotice. Okay. Okay,
considering we have at least one or more parties in interests have already appeared to express their concerns. I mean there might be others. And in the continuence, Cliff, they're going to have to wave the time to act then. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Yes, they would. So
time in mind, Cliff, on how long that should be or Let's see. The next hearing would be the 20th of August. I think we should probably do it like through maybe October 1st. Okay. Why aren't we setting their schedule? They
don't know what they're doing. They have they don't give us a waiver of time. That I understand. But but the problem is we don't want to default approval. I agree with that. But why don't we just they have to they have to give some correspondence, right, Cliff? On that is
correct. They need the consent on the record and they need a letter confirming it. Or or we can kill it. Or you could vote. Yes, you could dismiss it without prejudice. And that way we have all the time in the world. So do they. Right. Right.
I mean, I won't I I want I don't want to mislead the board. It does appear that there's some, you know, unresolved issues that need to be addressed. And I everything I'm hearing from the board membership points to that. I I you're hearing us right. I think
that's why I'm saying why don't we dismiss it and let them apply when they appropriately can. Otherwise, we're going to end up with extensions and all we're going to get caught up in a web again again. I think we can dismiss it. So, anybody else's agreement with that?
I think we have open issues though. I don't think we can without the application without means you would which means you would still be able to reapply frankly correct everything that we've discussed reapply and the board would
certainly be in a position to more comprehensively adjudicate your application And that puts us off the clock. Yes. No, I do not want us to be in it. We've had too much of that lately. Really? Too
much of that lately. I don't want Yes. I have a second. Second. Second. Any any other discussion? Roll call, please. Chairman Adair, yes. Ed Alllet, yes. Robera Carpinets, yes. Morgan McGlaughlin, yes. Rich O'Neal,
yes. Brian Vadimsky, yes. John Flores, yes. Eric Alvarez. Yes. So the application is dismissed without prejudice. Thank you. Or denied without prejudice. Pardon me. Thank you.
Okay. We have um discussion. Anything you want to talk about? Anything particular? Just real quick before we talked about this, there's going to be a presentation the planning board for Gateway East Main Street next Wednesday if anybody's
interested on uh that's a big development. It's a concept plan for concept. That's uh Meadow Street, East Maine to Vets. It's it's about six or seven parcels from I call it the piano
store, uh Pops sandwich, the ice cream place, the old pizza hut, and the old junkyard that looks like grass on Middle Street, and I used to be the old Griffith Electric, which is now a landscaping business on Meadow Street.
It entitles the whole area. And I think I'm dating myself. I'm talking about names that haven't been around for 20 years. Yeah. What's the piano store? I remember Griff Griffith Electric. Piano store is the fourstory white building that has restaurants and it used to be
used to sell and maintain Sister Brothers literally. Sister Brothers. There you go. Yeah. It used to be owned by Eric Lie and now it's owned by Dapio and it is known around town as the piano building because it for the piano
pianomith used to be there. When's that meeting? next Wednesday and it'll be live on YouTube. So, it's a couple I'm sorry, meetings here next Wednesday if anybody's interested. It's I do believe it's four, five, six stories, something
like that. A parking deck and a couple couple hundred apartments or something with a lot of retail right in the foot. Yeah. So, it's in front of the It does. Will there be a marina? So, that's going to be next if anybody's interested in
that. Okay. Yes, the parking deck and everything's elevated so it won't it's out of the flood flood. Yeah. Noah said the same thing. Other than that, the fair share plan was submitted
to the DCA filed. So the burrow has a the housing element and the fair share plan is done as done as it can be. We met the deadlines. The bureau met the deadlines which the end of June. We went up uh we're participating in round four.
So 27 or 24 it's uh it's 22 units for prospective need and the present need is uh which is a rehab. So rehab is 27 units of rehab. No, not yet. Not yet.
I Ryan, right? Have you reached out to you at all? I have not heard anything. We had discussed encouraging demolition and limited work to to get mowing and moving. And I haven't seen anything on
that application. I'm sure we're all chopping the bit to keep it moving, but uh the ball's in their court and it's been radio silence on that front. Yeah. I'm disappointed.
Uh that it Mike, that's all for the soap box. I know no one wants to hear my soap box. Last year I'd asked the board if there's any pet projects about squeezing the thing out of the tube discuss or have discussed as we took a the leadership
role in redefining or rewriting the P zone. I know there's other things that we want to take a look at because next year or maybe at the end of this year the uh planning board is going to be looking at the the master
plan and the um zoning ordinance and I know with the P zone we we took care of the use allowing it but we didn't do anything with the um uh bulk variances like impervious coverage and things like that. So I
think we need to take a deeper dive on I'd like to take a look at the um zoning on the north side of Second Street because even though it's nothing but homes there from Center Street down to um Bridge,
it's an a business district. So, somebody could come in there, knock down a couple homes, and put a car wash or something there. So, I'd like to take a look at their zoning to change that from business to residential as it is across the street. I'd also take like to take a
look at the um P zone on the corner of East Maine and um South Gaston where Todd Deutsch had come before us with the plan for the um Brownstones. I'd like to
just uh take that R change it from P to R3. Uh one other is Davenport Street. Uh you're rich. You're you're not even old enough to remember Field. Samuel Davenport owned all that property from
High Street all the way down to the high school. All small lots like where my church is and the properties on each side. We would require 15 ft. We have 8 ft between the the three properties. So
everything there is substandard 28 by and 30 foot by 100 foot lots. Anything they do requires a van because it's an expansive and non-conforming use. I'm looking at recommending that we change the width of the lots and the size of
the lots to conform with what's already there instead of every time you want to put a deck or something up, you got to get a variance. And you know, with a lot of those cases, the cost of the variance in the application is more than the project.
It is. Um, and I know you want to talk about F. You want to review our F requirements. So, I'd like to start working on that when our schedule. Um, yeah, there there was talk maybe this fall having a joint meeting with the
planning board to a workshop. Yes, that was the that was there was talk on the planning board to reach out and see everybody's availability uh this fall sometime hopefully when our volume of backlog is
yes it's starting is addressed so yeah it looks that's what Ryan was saying that it looks like we so that's all I have anybody else have anything yeah I retired so I have more time for meetings We're not have more meetings.
If you're retired, you can go sn I'll do that. Right from right from the office in the cemetery. Rich that chair right down there. You can come. I'll bring my coffee and I'll sit there. Okay. I will teach you all you need to
know about subterranean low-income housing. Anything else to come before the board? Uh just a question. I know um at the state level they have started talking about ADUs, accessory dwelling units
uh which would allow a single family property to have a secondary unit on the property. Is that something that the town is looking into in any way? We can we can discuss that with the joint meeting, the workshop meeting. Um it's
not in the fair share plan simply because if you do it under the COA reg not COA but it's round four whatever it's all right we all understand round four the applicant generally the
own property owner loses control of who's in the accessory unit because it's on a list in the lottery so you don't know who's going to be renting the ADU so to keep control that was not in the fair share plan. It's something
absolutely I think the planning board is kicked around and it's something that should be there's some I think there's some traction some applications here but it's not it's not in the fair share sh on the burough ordinance should that
happen. That answers your question. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. I think we kind of are looking at that even our last meeting we approved that house to be built at South Gaston and Fair View where all your gasoline from your car is dripping but I mean that was
a small car a small house and small lot and it's going to work and so I think our thoughts are in the right direction. The idea has been kicked around is the detached garages in town. Some of these detached garages are rather large in
some areas that maybe that's suitable for an ADU and uh it was basically put on the back burner because no one wanted to address that in the fair share plans. Focus on that because of the control issues. John, that makes
sense. Yeah, we could address the fair share which the plan does in compliance with round four affordable housing. That's correct. However, ADU is something that keep that you know who's on your property and you have some say about who's going to be renting
the ADU. It's be handled locally should want to proceed that production. We should examine it. Look, you got to remember that some of these carriage houses around town that can be turned into dwelling units could become a problem with absentee landlords. True.
No, that's a good point. That's why it needs to be thoroughly vetted. Uh there is a concern in town and I I think it's justified that the taxes that to work with people retiring place especially aging that to carry these
taxes that maybe you know some of these out of the box ideas need to happen to help the residents out. Yeah. Why' you point to me when you talk about retiring? You brought it up. Well, you look great. You're 18 years.
I'm just talking to you because you bought it out. As we used to say, when you get through my age, someone like to move forj? I move. Move and second. All in favor? I