the the um fix it justif. >> Yep. Thank you. Welcome everybody and happy new year to uh this January 22nd, 2026 regular planning board meeting. Um, if you're able to, can you join me and
rise for the >> to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam Secretary, can you please uh read
the open public meeting act and call roll? The notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied with respect to this meeting of the township of Verona's planning board which is being held in the ballroom of the Verona Community Center located at
880 Bloomfield Avenue, Verona. Specifically, the time and date were included in the public meeting notice. This information along with the meeting agenda was posted in the municipal building and sent to the official newspapers of the township, the Verona Grove Times and the Star Ledger at least
48 hours preceding the start time of this meeting. The agenda and public handouts for this meeting can be viewed online at www.veronj.org/planningboard. All meetings are recorded. Instructions on how to comment will be provided at
the appropriate time. Those wishing to speak during any public comment period should only provide their name and municipality. Street addresses are not required. Please be advised that should a member of the public choose to state their street address, it will not be redacted from this recording.
>> Mr. Day >> here. >> Um Mr. Mara. >> Oh, perfect. Here. >> Uh, Mrs. Parker >> here. >> Mr. Lily >> here. >> Mr. Heinman >> here.
>> Mr. Kimi >> here. >> Councilman Makavoy >> present. >> Township manro Sullivan. >> Mayor Tambbero >> here. >> Vice Chair Freshy. >> Chair Pearson here.
>> Mr. Msara >> here. Miss Meech >> here. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, uh, just as a checking off, uh, things on the agenda,
the oaths of office were administered by Mr. Misau before we began the meeting. Um, so that is also done. Uh item F, reorganization of the planning board elections. Uh nomination and election of
the chairperson. Can I get a nomination for chairperson? >> I nominate Miss Pearson. >> We have a nomination for me. Are there any further nominations? >> Okay, >> you need a second on that.
>> Oh yeah, >> I second. >> Mr. Lily seconds. Mr. Kamudi nominates. Are there any other nominations? Thank you. Um, okay. Can we get a roll call vote? Then we close close the nomination
process and now roll call vote. Yes. >> Um, Mr. Day, >> yes. >> Mr. Magarell, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Heman, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Kamudi.
>> Yes. >> Councilman Makavoy, >> abstain. >> Um, Mr. Mayor Tambero. >> Yes. >> And Chair Pearson. >> Yes.
Um, okay. Uh, chairperson. My Pearson was uh elected chairperson. Yeah. Uh, it's a little awkward. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, I I want to just point out one thing before we
move forward. If you leave your talkie on, only five people can have this turned on at once. It's one of those things. And you will get it. It may turn off on you mid-sentence. So, I'm just saying try to be aware to turn your mic off if
somebody if there's a bunch of other people about to talk. We are work we are in the process of installing a new system which will be very exciting. >> I've heard that >> and it might it might work. >> It might even work. >> Rich M is going to be the happiest guy alive when that happens.
>> Um okay. Uh moving on to the nomination and the election of vice chairperson. Um I would like to make a nomination of Jason Heindman to be vice chairperson. Can I get a second?
>> Second. Mayor Tambour seconds. Are there any further nominations for vice chair? Hearing none, the uh process is closed and we need a roll call vote for Mr. Heindman. >> Mr. Day,
>> yes. >> Mr. Magrell, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Heinman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kamudi, >> yes. Councilman Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tambbero.
>> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. >> All right. Mr. Heman, Vice Chair. >> Thank you everyone. Very much appreciated and I look forward to continue uh working hard for this board.
>> You got to move over two seats. >> It's the hop. Yeah. >> Um, at this moment in time, we need to go into a very brief executive session.
Um, so the room we we're going to ask for the room to be cleared >> uh for a brief executive session. >> Purpose of the executive session. >> Thank you. >> Purpose of the executive session is to discuss um a a potential contract and
the awarding of a contract. uh for the planner for this board. Um I have to ask him to turn the tape off for a moment. Just ask permission. Never asked
session executive session not. >> Yeah, >> correct. Yes. Just close the door. supper. >> I don't know what they can >> see for now.
>> No, it won't. um the camera to turn off. I don't know where you going. We need the camera turned off. Okay, thank you. Trying to see if we can get the Wi-Fi working.
Did you open the door for the new planner? >> So awful. >> No, it's just me. I'm awful. They had no idea. Oh my god. >> Okay. >> Oh my god.
>> You love me, but you mean to me. >> I'm sorry. I'll make it up to you. >> I was so happy. Jason, the vice chair. >> First order of we are. >> Yeah. Rich, >> how would we even know? >> We got to get a red light.
>> I know. >> On air. Be on air. >> You just came. >> I'm pretty sure if you turned it on before you left the mic. >> Oh, yeah. you were having issues with Microsoft >> exam right as we were talking on the
phone >> he's like I'm not getting your email >> are we on >> this is going to be a sloppy >> motion >> um I make a motion to reopen open session
>> second >> uh second committee >> in favor >> all in favor >> I >> Okay Um >> motion >> motion for the >> um no I'm going to start here. Um
we are now going to make our annual appointments. Um the first appointment is the appointment of Greg Misera as planning board attorney uh reflected in resolution 202601.
Is that correct? Okay. Um, oh yeah, right back here. Um, would anybody like to make a motion to >> I would like to make that motion to reappoint Mr. Misera as the planning board attorney. >> I'd like to I'd like to second that
motion from Mr. Miser. >> Second. >> Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Mr. Day, >> a happy yes. >> Mr. Magaril, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Heinman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Kamoodi, >> yes. >> Um, Councilman Mackoy, >> yes. >> Mayor Timbero, >> yes. >> And Chair Pearson, yes. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you all. It really is a a pleasure
and an honor to work for this board. Challenging at times, we always in a good way. So, appreciate it. >> We appreciate it. Um, resolution 20 2602, the appointment of Boswell as the planning board engineer. Can I get a motion?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Who Who said that? >> I >> Okay. Um, >> second. >> Second, >> Mr. Dave seconds. Vice Chair Heyman uh made the motion. >> Can we get a roll call vote, please?
>> Mr. Mr. Magarell, >> yes. >> Mr. Day, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Fineman, >> yes. >> Mr. Kamudi, >> yes. >> Councilman Makavoy, >> yes. >> Mayor Tambbero,
>> yes. >> And Chair Pearson, >> yes. >> Uh, motion passes. Boswell will be the planning board engineers. Resolution 20, sorry, >> resolution 20263, the appointment of the planning board planner. Um, uh, how do I
approach this? >> I'll make a motion to appoint, uh, H2M. >> I second that. >> And amending the draft resolution to incorporate things. >> Uh, Vice Chair Heinman makes the motion.
I make the second. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Mr. Magarell, >> yes. >> Mr. Day, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Heinman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Kamoodi, >> yes. >> Councilman Makavoy, >> yes. >> Mayor Tambbero, >> yes. >> Chair Pearson, >> yes. >> Um, we have resolution. Oh, the motion passes. >> Let me I'm sorry. Let me just thank everyone, please. Thank you everybody.
Uh I love working for this board and I hope to continue. Um thanks. Sorry Tim. >> Sorry. Um and resolution 20264 the appointment of Dolores Dei Carpinelli as
the planning board secretary. I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second by the mayor. Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Mr. Magrell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Day. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lily.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Heinman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kimuti. >> Yes. >> Councilman Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tambbero. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. Yes. Uh motion passes.
Welcome Dee again. Buckle up. Um and resolution 202605 will be on our next agenda. Um due to uh some
uh I guess outages today uh the completion of that and transmission just was halted. Um subcommittee update uh briefly Mr. Uh,
Vice Chair Heyman, do you want to update on where the master plan subcommittee is or do I want Jamie to do the update? >> Since Jamie's here, >> Jaime's here. I mean, I I think um >> let's get an update on on where stand
and anything that you need to fill in. I can >> Good evening, Madam Chair, vice chair, members of the board. um Jamie Blick, affordable housing council for the township of Verona and we've worked closely not only with the governing body
but with the subcommittee and this board which played a large role in how we move forward in resolving the challenges to the declaratory judgment action that was filed to obtain certification for the township for the fourth round for we've
now fully resolved all challenges that were filed. one was uh DHM2 that was resolved pretty much before uh but that just was a hangover. So we didn't have a lot to do with that um that that was resolved uh mostly on its own through
separate litigation uh that had gone forward as well. Now, that left us with 885 Bfield Avenue, which is a property we all know, 251 and a half Grove, which is another property we all know, and Fair Share House, etc. And there were
other properties at play, but those were the only ones that had filed challenges that remained that we had to to address and deal with. And the 885 has now been resolved with the settlement that and it'll be back before this board by way
of redevelopment with its 28 units uh total. And of those 28, there are four set aside. Three are affordable housing units and one is a three-bedroom which will uh function as a group homeown special needs residence uh with three
separate bedrooms. And just those units are all going to be for sale. They're not rentals. >> They're all for sale units, so they'll all be owned. Um and then the 251 Half
Grove, much like the 885 is also town homes and also for sale units. And um they started out that they were up at 140 units. uh you know it dropped or 180 units that dropped down to 140 that
dropped down to 125 and ultimately we ended up with 84 units. So we're at 84 units uh on that site with a 20% set aside which is 17 units and there's uh still some matters that are uh being tweaked out by way of uh garages and
things like that. uh something the fair share ants say on that we weren't necessarily concerned about by way of you know distribution of garages but they're working on that um and then that project much like 885 will also be back
before this board at some point um whe whether it be by through the redevelopment uh or it may simply be depending on how it goes forward it may come forward as a site plan application depending on what happens uh by the courts advisement on the declaratory
judgement action because there's a March 15 deadline and while we're working forward on the redevelopment side of things, we obviously don't want to pull a deadline. So, uh, you know, the court's opposed. So, that's, you know, we'll deal with that if it comes, but
one way or another, that project will be back before you as a board, uh, for the approvals of the building. and >> and the zoning ordinance also would come back because there would be even if it's not under readable law, there would have to be a zoning change that would come from the governing body that would be
obviously reviewed. >> Um, everybody in your packet and through email, you've been sent um a number of like one after another a couple of changed schedules.
So, um, you see what's we were supposed to get to tonight and because Greg couldn't send it out, um, >> it's all Greg's fault. >> It's all Greg's fault. >> Nothing to do with the multi-billion dollar corporation. >> Right. Right. Um, so the town center
zone, um, which none of us have had an opportunity to review, I'm making a I think that we need to discuss having an open session and I suggested we do,
you know, a full board meeting, but obviously only focused on the town center zone on Zoom. I'm making that recommendation. um to do just a basically a work meeting
where Greg can um Greg and Sam and our zoning code official can parse through maybe even before that session to tweak this to get it as as I guess perfect as it should be. Um I'm
suggesting a Zoom meeting. We've done we've done them before for work meetings even though it's a whole open session meeting. >> Mayor, Madam Chair, can I suggest I mean it's obviously the chair's pleasure >> that perhaps it be a subcommittee
without a quorum since there won't be sand. I will be present Kathleen will be present and then if you have a subcommittee without a quorum it gives us more flexibility as to when we can meet. Um there'll be no notice requirements. >> Okay. And then the subcommittee can then report back to the board with
>> well with the finished >> with with the finished product prior to the next open meeting. >> That that would be fine. What subcommittee would that >> Well, you could appoint the ad hoc subcommittee right now. Right. >> Okay. Um I'm going to do that, but I'm going to first we're going to do the
subcommittees that I forgot to do. Um, >> so we don't have the town center zone fully tweaked, >> but that's part of this plan and an necessary part of the plan for completion. >> Yeah. Because what that does is it helps
make up for units that while we're able to cover the, you know, the RDP number, it'll help, you know, fair share, uh, give greater opportunity to potentially bring development to that area. uh to to help finish you know
towards the element but >> um you know not significant changes but as your chair said you know it's important to be done at time >> y >> and this was something that has been contemplated in the master plan >> for some time doing a resoning of the town center >> so
>> it was in the master plan and we were very close to discussion before the uh third round affordable housing regulations uh came about so um uh m uh mayor and uh deputy mayor were um had
done a presentation to them and then we waited and then the tweaks we made were based upon the special educator and her comments. So does anybody have any I mean you you see the schedule that we're working with
and all of the things that were supposed to get on the schedule. Um Sam, do you do you think that we will have this is interesting. So it looks like on the February 26
meeting, we have an area need of redevelopment investigation and a half. >> So you're not going to have a zone drafted before the 15th of March? >> Uh no, we we that's correct. So, are you going to ask for an extension for that
one property? >> Not as of now because I'm going through the court to obtain an extension. Is this going to the court to obtain an extension from the court on that March 15 date? Because we already have special meetings and we have everything lined
up, but we're not trying to get, you know, I don't want to make it too hectic for not only this board, the governing body, but all the professionals involved. So, I've already spoken with the law court judge or affordable housing judge, not I know it's
confusing, but there's a program judge, then there's a superior court judge. Ultimately, that's a judge that decides our case. I've spoken with the law for that judge and we're working and I've heard there's global there's discussion of doing a global extension for everyone
that's involved in the program all municipalities to extend that March 15 date by court order to April. So once they get back to me as to where they think it's going, then they'll tell me if we need to make our own individual application in advance or if there's
going to be a global order that comes out. So one way or the other it'll be extended through the declaratory judgement action to avoid another special meeting because otherwise we're not leaving great distance of time in
between meetings which is something I know not only boards like but the public likes because depending on what happens at the first meeting if they need time to adjust or consider or review anything rather than turn around you know days later with a special meeting. So the
question is uh right now on the schedule we are supposed to meet on March 3rd a special meeting >> as of today. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> My hope is to take that off place. >> Your hope is >> take that off the plate. So March 3rd we
clear up and then >> be able to do it sometime in April. >> You have another meeting. We do, but we're already I understand that, but we are already in discussion to have a site re a site plan on schedule for the March
26th meeting. A strong likelihood of that. >> So regardless of whether we're able to play it out till March 26th, we still may require a special hearing for the
master plan, the uh housing and fair share plan. We we may, but as of now, it's too early to really tell with certainty. Um, >> when do you think you're going to hear from the state? >> I would, if I had to venture an educated guess,
it would be uh by the first end of the first week of next month, following month of February. >> Okay. >> First week of February, you think? Okay. >> That's when I would base my application and that's what I expect to hear. What we could do with Hillrest is have them
notice for the third and then if we don't get the extension, we could do the housing element on the third. Bump them to the 26th. >> They are already on the 26th. We told them. >> Have they But have they noticed yet? Cuz if they haven't noticed, >> no, they're not even the guy didn't even
do the plans over yet. >> Then then let's tell them in a couple of weeks maybe we can shoot for the third. >> From March 3rd? >> Yeah. >> No way. >> You don't think they'll have it? >> No. >> Okay. And because it has to go to all the review committees too. It has to go
through a process back office process before >> well as my process move forward. I'll keep your council apprised and updated. >> Their council our board >> your board council. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We council. >> Yeah. And the master plan subcommittee.
he can, you know, discuss with uh you madam chair and anyone else he needs to or keep you up to date as well as to what's going on on that scheduling because if I find out obviously earlier then you will know earlier as well. >> Yeah. I mean all right I mean we'll we'll we have
another master plan subcommittee meeting >> February 6th. >> The 6th >> when February 6th. So by then hopefully you'll we'll have an idea of whether we >> can shift the schedule to give us a little more breathing room.
>> Um but for right now on the 19th we're hearing we're having a public hearing on that plan along with five other things. >> And that's the point is to get because that's I spoke with the planner earlier. There's so many moving parts and so many
plans that and so many moving parts that are on the same track, different tracks but same pathway, you know, to for the end result that we want to make sure that nothing uh gets overlooked, nothing gets from one to another. Uh you know, because we all know how it gets at the
end, uh when you start to to scramble if that's where you're at. So, we're trying to make sure that we have more than sufficient time to allow all our elected officials and our volunteer appointed officials to have the time they need to make sure they are able to digest what we do because don't forget we also have
this amended housing audit plan that's going to have to be you know reviewed, digested and you know in its entirety as well again when it comes back you know through this board. So, you know, it's a lot and we acknowledge that um you know, we're throwing a lot on this board. Um
and it's not, you know, normal course. Not that you don't always have a lot to do, but it's it's something that's not normal in the normal course. It's on applications. It's not, you know, members of the public coming to you. >> Well, >> so we understand that there's a lot and a lot of work, and we we want to make sure that we give you the time you need to do it
>> on a on a realistic level. the state set all the sewing up of all the loose ends for December and then told you tell people you have three months to figure it out and it's just ridiculous. >> It's it's horrific. >> I can't tell you who came up with this
schedule originally. >> It's it's terrible. >> I I have to hope it was the first iteration. They just didn't care rather than this is somehow better than what they was first contemplating. It's very it's a very tight schedule. It's a very difficult schedule when you know especially when you have elected
officials who are also professionals. You have board members who are also professionals that work in the field and they're working for towns other towns. It's it's a lot on a lot of people and uh you know it's where we're at now for the fourth round. So we'll be out of it
and then we can all cross our fingers and wait for y. Does anybody have any questions for Jamie regarding this? All right. Thank you so much, Jamie.
Appreciate you. Um, and then uh briefly, we had a site plan subcommittee meeting uh yesterday. >> Tuesday. >> Oh, no. Wednesday. yesterday um for Hillrest and it was just basically
um really it was mostly our engineers doing a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of you know pointing out certain aspects of the plan that were lacking of you know whether it was you know something lacking as a mark on
the plan and that or details of uh certain dimensions or depths for their stormwater management. ment system >> inconsistencies, you know, missing calculations. So, it was it was a first pass without it having to come to the
full board and then working it out in the hearing and so it it I think it saved us a lot of time in the end. >> Yeah. >> Hopefully, >> so when they do come before us, it it should be a very smooth application. you know, won't be a Spectrum 360 where we're
>> no year. We're going back and forth for a year and they're revising things. So, we're our hope is that we get everything um cleaned up and resubmitted so that when they come before this board, it's just a very quick presentation.
um the professionals are satisfied that the things that they say are going to work will work as designed and it's really just the board being able to pro provide feedback um and scrutinize you know more uh the less technical details
that will can can potentially bog an application down. So I thought it was very helpful. >> I I definitely agree. Um so that went smoothly. Um, moving along, we have uh subcommittees uh that were established last year and
um I just want to go through briefly. Um, right now the architectural review board uh subcommittee is comprised and by the way in all of my time serving that site plan review committee meeting
was the very first one that had happened since I was on. Do you ever remember one before that? >> I do not. >> Okay. So, um I could probably guarantee that there's unless there's some kind of
facet moving forward of historic um districts that are going to be set up and there's some architectural details that they want to discuss um with our planner because they they talked about this in the master plan and it's
something on the horizon. hopefully you you probably won't be meeting for a particular building, but more a plan in zoning. Um, so right now myself and Tim are on there. We have at least two
openings because I could definitely take a step back from that one. I I don't mind doing that. So, does anybody does anybody have interest in the architectural review board? Really? Yeah.
>> All right. Dylan. >> Mhm. >> Anyone else have a flare for design maybe or >> No. Okay. Well, three. >> Stay on. >> I I'm staying on. Okay. So, right now we
have we still have an opening, but it's just the three of us now. Do you want to be on it? If you don't take it burden off your own four or I'm going to step in. >> All right. I'm I'm putting Jack on. And so take me off. Put Jack on. So it's
Tim, Dylan, Jack. Okay. Thank you. Um the site plan and subdivision committee right now is comprised of myself, Jesse, Lily, Jason, and there was an opening.
Um these might come in these might come in useful become useful during this very rush process. Um >> see us meeting at least four more times
in the next year, year and a half. Yeah. Yeah. Just to work the kinks out. I mean, I don't really see a problem with it. I >> just suggest Thank you. I was going to suggest anyone new on the board of the alternates, it takes practice looking at site plans and if you're not familiar
with it. So So >> that's a I mean it's a fair point. I think Mr. Day was uh is well practiced at that. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. I don't know. You're back. He was on the board of ed and he served on subcommittees on the board of
ed that uh probably buried him in sight plans. >> Yeah. >> So are you interested? Yes. >> Thank you. >> So Mr. Day and you want to stay, right? >> Yeah, I'll stay.
>> Jesse. Jesse, you want to stay? >> Yes. >> Okay. What were you going to say? If anybody would want to step down, I would be willing to stay on cycling because I have a background in cycling. >> You do. >> Is that a question? >> Is that news to you, Jess?
>> I mean, you do >> in the affirmative. Um, >> the second round that Jack, >> what do you prefer? >> He's very qualified. >> Jack does see things that he sees things. He sees people.
>> Um, I'm going to leave that up to you. We could decide at towards the end of the meeting if you want. All right. Landscape. Um, right now it's myself, uh, Dave Fresky, Tim Koody, and Julie. Does everybody want to stay?
>> Yeah, >> I'll step back because you guys have it really well covered. >> Um, okay. Tim is going to back out of landscape and environmental. Does anybody want to step for up for that?
There's an opening. I'll vote for that and then Mr. M can slide too. >> Okay, >> you got that. >> And uh finally the master master master plan implementation. Uh once this is done, we will be working
on a stormwater portion of the master plan, a municipal stormwater plan. We're waiting for the state to come out with a new template because the template that they offer now is from 2006 and um it's just a little old. We've been through
two new storm order management rules and a third one is on the horizon with the new real pack. So, uh we're waiting for them. Right now, it's myself, um Vice Chair Heinman, Kevin O. Sullivan and
mayor. Everybody sitting Pat. >> Okay. >> Committees are are set for now. >> Um >> and then the ad hoc committee for town
>> Okay. Thank you. Um um the creation of an ad hoc town center zone committee or zone review committee for this particular project. Um I would definitely like to be on that. I
I kind of I already nosed into it a couple of times. So are you >> I don't need to be on it. send my comments to you. Okay. >> We've discussed it already. >> We got it. We got it. Um Okay. Um it could be up to four members.
>> I can I can serve on it as it's just depending on the time. So, if it's going to be another like during the workday item, I would step back. But if we're going to be meeting in the afternoon, >> I think it's only going to be a one-time meeting. It's going to be what? No. Um I I I think I foresee
um an initial meeting then time for people to digest and then maybe and then a more substantive meeting you know before we come back to the board with the what we hope is a final recommendation final draft. So I I think
it would probably be two meetings, >> but they're going to be not widely spaced because we don't have time to play around, >> right? I think the first meeting though, you know, some brief discussion about what we're looking for, what we need to do, and then the second meeting would be
the the collaboration. Well, I would say the the first meeting should be like kind of an overview and give you your marching orders to work with these two >> and then bring us back a you know anything that needs to be tweaked which
hopefully it won't. So, mayor check for a second. So, that means I'll have to change my schedule to not have the introduction at the February 9th, right? But don't bother if we can get it done
if we can meet Monday or >> Okay. I don't know. >> But yeah, I think the plan is to stay on track for the 19th. >> Okay. Well, um I had it February 9th for introduction. >> Oh, with the for the council, right?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Cuz that's important. >> Yes. I mean, if it's I just will have to change those candidates in back. >> Okay. Well, first of all, I'm looking for members
besides myself and the mayor who um want to engage. This is zoning. It's like looking at our zoning code and kind of tweaking it and drafting it slightly differently to allow for
basically mixeduse development without so many restrictions as exist in other sections of town. >> You want to be Julie? >> And there is one more slot if anybody
wants >> the future of downtown Verona folks. volunteer. >> Jim, can you can you meet during the day >> via Zoom? >> Most days I'm fairly flexible, but a lot of
>> we meet through Zoom. So, >> all right. Thanks, Jim. Okay. Um, so the ad hoc committee is myself, the mayor, Julie, and Jim. And, um,
might as well do it. Oh, and through my phone office, I was getting text messages and they're going directly into my hearing aids. >> I'd be willing to switch with Mr. Day because he has experience with site
plans um for the committee that he just volunteered for. If that works better, >> you're loading up, aren't you? >> Well, I could, you know, I could take the one that you just volunteered and and you could take the um the site plan.
You're welcome to my spot on the the downtown if you want. >> Ridiculously. You first. >> Give Jesse my give Jesse my spot on the downtown. >> On the what? >> On the town center. >> All right. Um mayor's off. Jesse's on and
>> Jesse, are you stepping off of plan review? Um site plan review and you want Jim to take that? >> If he's willing to take it that I think that would be Mr. Fresh wants to join every committee today. >> Yeah. Um, he's on a landscape and architect
committee. >> Um, so >> I'm sorry, >> Madam Chair. I'm just looking at the timeline and I don't think I'm going to have a lot of availability honestly between now at the timeline. So, I'm actually going to step back. So, you both can be on it. I'm just looking at
my calendar and it's not going to work. So, >> what are you talking about? >> Was that >> the master plan? >> No, the uh the the town center. I'm going to pull back from that just looking at my schedule and the timeline. >> Can I just ask you something? >> I don't I don't want to load Mr. Day up.
He's sound like he had an interest in some. >> Okay. Right now on the architect on the AR sorry on the architectural it's >> Jack Dylan Tim. >> Tim Dylan Jack right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. On the site plan it's myself. It's Jim. It's Jack. It's Jason. Is that correct? On landscape, Tim stepped off. Jim Day stepped up. And on master plan, that
didn't change at all. On the ad hoc, it's me, Jim. >> No, Lily. Little >> me, Jesse, Jim, and Julie. >> Yes. Are you on the town center?
>> I I volunteered for the town center, but I was not I was not going to be in the site plan. >> But then >> Jesse just gave you his sight plan and then >> but I already put him on the
>> That's good. Jim, you can have my spot on the town center. >> Yes. >> Jim, you are. >> All right, Jim. Jim's on and the mayor's off. >> Yeah, I'm off. Jim's on. have this straight. >> I think so. >> Yes, >> because I'm I'm >> all good.
>> All right. Um, >> you're trying to figure out how to make a motion to remove this. >> All right. Um, someone's take got to turn your mic off. I'm going to turn your mic off. It's not working anymore. >> I have your mic.
Who's the next one? >> All right. Um, at this time I am going to um open public participation. If anybody from the public has any questions or comments that they'd like to make for anything
not on this agenda, um, please come to the mic, state your name and just your town or municipality. Okay, seeing none, I am going to close public participation. And um right now we're moving on to I
approval of meeting minutes. Uh everybody received a copy of the meeting minutes from December 4th, 2025. Um does anybody have any questions or comments on those? Any corrections that you might have?
If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for any member that was here at that meeting. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> And um
any members that have to abstain, please put your hand up. Okay, those three have to abstain. The rest of the members that were here and present for the fourth just show of
hands. Okay, everybody else votes I I think. Okay. Um Okay, at this time now we are going to move into um a consistency determination
uh for amendments to ordinances. Uh first 150-7.13A mechanical equipment. Everybody has that has received a copy of the
changes that Mr. Msara added. I have to open this a second. Oh. Oh, thank you. You have it. >> I move that the >> Well, let me just ask if there's any
questions on it or any concerns because I think Greg did a really good job at making very clear a difference between swimming pool equipment and mechanical equipment and the placement of each on
um prop residential properties. Does anybody have any questions or comments? >> I just had a question about they said no generator shall be permitted within a within a sideyard. How do you define a sideyard? >> It's a setback. >> A sideyard setback. >> The setback of a sideyard. It should say
sideyard setback. >> Doesn't say back. >> Can you site that? Where is it? >> It's uh item 157.13 item B. >> It should say setback. Okay. >> Isn't it actually just sideyard?
>> Correct. It is >> side. >> Oh, no. >> Why is it side? >> That's right. It is a sideyard. >> Wait, that was a little generator. >> Oh, no, no, no. You can't put a generator side. >> Too loud for the neighbors. >> Gotcha.
>> Or the front yard. >> Should we change that? >> Do you want to add that? >> That's the current ordinance. >> This is the current ordinance. That's a >> ordinance only only says sideyard. So it doesn't say so you can put mechanical equipment. You can put generator in the
front yard as long as it meets the uh setback of the front yard. >> No, let's not add that in. >> Well, we can't. This isn't This was already passed by the governing body. This is a consistency determination. >> No, I don't think the governing body saw
this. Yeah. >> No, we did. We >> You did. Oh, you right. You did. We did we send >> I'm wondering if you should add >> so so we can send back recommendations >> recommended right >> so adding also restricted in the front yard >> right >> so we're restricting mechanical
equipment from the front yard >> generators generators shall only be permitted in the rear yard >> but we're okay with um mechanical equipment meaning air conditioning units those in the front yard because we don't say they can't in
the front yard. This is when you have a corner lot, you have two front yards and it's correct. >> But to put it, but when you have when it's a corner lot and they're going to put a unit in the front yard, then there
is a different um setback. Usually they they usually can't make it. Usually it's a they have to come in for a variance for it. >> What do you think about that? like what's the crack? >> I mean, I think it should be consistent
that we just restricted. So, >> even if it's a corner lot, it would go in the effective yard, >> right? That's why you have the definition of a corner lot, >> right? >> I believe in the ordinance, doesn't it say a corner lot has two front yards and
two sides? >> No, it's it's two front yards. >> Yeah. And then the more narrow front yard, the opposite of that is the rear yard.
>> So you'll have two fronts, one side and one rear. >> You only have one side. >> You only have one side. >> So we should just say the generators generator strolling shall be permitted only in the rear yard >> rather than rather than rather than not
only the rear. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Now, what did we Okay. We can set that back. The council can push that on the second reading. >> Yeah. >> With revisions. >> It's ministerial >> ish. Well, it's ish. It's not
>> there's an isolation. >> It's ish. >> Okay. >> Um, were there any other that Great question. Jim's the can of worm opener tonight. Um, okay. Um,
>> I'm on the generator committee. >> Um, how about uh 150? Let me see that 7.5 permanent and portable swimming pools. >> Oh, hold on. We have to we have to >> Oh, >> we have to recommend this one before we move on to the next one.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I will move that we find this not inconsistent with the master plan and that we forward our recommendation on 150-7.13D >> to the township council uh for inclusion
in the final ordinance >> second. Can I get a U >> voices? >> Really? >> Yeah. >> Voice vote. All members got agree. I >> I >> I >> Anybody
disapprove? >> Any abstensions? Okay, unanimous. Okay, moving on. Thank you, mayor. Uh moving on to 150-7.5 permanent and portable swimming pools.
This um basically made us more consistent with the electrical sub code, right? um where mechanical equipment related to a pool only. That type of equipment has to be further away from the pool than we
had in our zoning code. Okay. Any questions or comments on uh the updates to that section? If not, I'll make a motion to
find the newly worded ordinance 150-7.5 A through F not inconsistent with the master plan. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Day.
Uh all members that approve >> I >> I >> anyone disapprove any abstensions? Unanimous. >> Okay. Uh thank you. >> Shout out to council for using the word
opportunities. >> This is why he gets reappointed every year. >> Why he gets the big drops? Um, next we are going to turn the sorry, we're going to turn the meeting over to Sam from H2M
to discuss, uh, the redevelopment plan for 320 Bloomfield Avenue. So, uh, good evening everyone. Um, just a reminder that we were supposed to discuss this in, uh, December 2024 and that didn't
happen. But um what I sent to you was the same copy. There are few uh obviously new board members, but um uh this uh redevelopment plan is at the corner of Church Street and uh Bloomfield Avenue, which is Verona
Aluminum and that office building uh which is um the inter it's got that interior uh design use which is next to the uh public parking lot and close to the uh fire squad as well. So anyway, um
this uh is a mixeduse development which is basically addressing our affordable housing needs and uh originally there was a developer who was interested and um long story short um this addresses our affordable housing needs. It's going
to provide two units which were part of our um affordable housing plan and um this uh this review also I've also introduced um not introduced but provided a memo basically talking about
how this uh particular plan uh forwards our master plan goals. uh it's consistent with the 2022 master plan and uh most importantly it will effectuate our housing element and fair share plan which is mandated by the state. So
that's it and I'm ready to take questions if any >> um anybody have any questions in particular? Just a comment saying thank you. This is is good. I think it's everything that
has been uh discussed over uh over the years. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you, >> Sam. Just a couple of questions. It says that um this may contain a shared kitchen except for ghost kitchen or
virtual kitchen. And I appreciate that you said that. But if you go down to prohibited uses in this redevelopment area, should you put ghost kitchen or virtual kitchen in that section? Um what
I had done is because in the uses um we are uh saying except ghost or virtual. I'm not going to I I 4.3 it I'm just referring to that section of the ordinance. So, so in other words is um
you know a shared kitchen is permitted but you cannot have a ghost kitchen or virtual kitchen. So it's it's very clear. So instead of like then don't have this that and the other other prohibited use what I've done is referenced the actual section of the
ordinance. So uh bottom line is there's no confusion. So, if somebody wants a shared kitchen, don't have a virtual kitchen or a um or a ghost kitchen, but uh the prohibited uses are Yes. >> Well, well, I mean, my point is is that
you're not you're prohibited from having a ghost kitchen. And I'll just say from what I understand, >> a shared kitchen is like a catering site. Um where you know, you load all your delicious foods into a van and you bring them to somebody's home or to wherever the party is going to be.
Whereas a ghost kitchen is more like a takeout restaurant. >> That's correct. >> Um basically like you know somebody who decides to make every Tuesday it's taco night and Wednesday it's fried chicken night and people are going to be coming
to your site to just pick up to go dinners. So that's not allowed. And I'm just wondering if it should just be listed in the prohibited uses. Um, so we'll have to if if that's your recommendation, we'll have to, you know,
uh, send that to the governing body. I'm sure that that's not what is planned there, but, you know, um, it's just a question because it >> um, so that's one thing. Yes. Uh,
I did have a question regarding the traffic pattern that would be coming into this. It would come through the oneway Church Street, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> There would be no more driveway. >> No.
>> Okay. And um where does the building end in the back of the lot where there's only a 10-ft buffer? I want to know if the building goes past the existing buildings that are there
into that back area. It it does not. So, um, what I could do, and if that's your recommendation, I can include a concept plan basically showing the parking to the rear, building to the front because I think you have a very valid point. Um,
it would just make more sense uh, doing that. I could do a generic uh, plan. >> I could even like maybe just like the um, just box massing with the maximum envelopes. That would be helpful. >> That that would help. I would definitely do that. And the only reason I bring
this up is because if there was a building that was in that back area there, I would really want a 15 ft buffer. >> Correct. >> But if it's going to be cars parts, >> I can live with a reduced buffer right
there. But back this backs into residential homes, single families, and I'm very particular about upholding as much buffering as possible. Um I understand that in this particular case um their parking has been reduced due to
their location on Bloomfield Avenue. So um but anyway >> that can be done. >> And the fence I want either a solid wood or like a well-made fence. I don't want chain link.
>> Yeah. >> That's just gross. I I I believe I don't recall I believe we had done that but I'll check because I personally also don't like that or a vinyl privacy fencing. It it should be a solid
>> solid wood fence or a vinyl. >> I would prefer that high quality. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> I mean I I personally prefer vinyl because it's easy to maintain. >> Um but if you want me to also put wood, I'll definitely put that. I would
honestly >> put vinyl in over wood. The wood fences go into disrepair pretty quickly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Solid vinyl, >> right? Vinyl. >> Yep. >> And the sixt high. >> The only other uh thing is on page 34 where it talks about infrastructure. I
don't know the condition of any of the pipes coming out of that site hooking into the municipal systems, but um I just sort of want to remind
the council and mayor that maybe some scopes should be done on this particular property. It's It's been there a long time and as you mentioned and showed us a couple years ago that it
was in pretty severe disrepair at the time. So maybe we want to look at to make sure that their connections into our system aren't going to screw our system up, scope some lines, that kind of thing. >> Jack is chair of the scope committee.
I would say that uh a building of this size replacing the building that was there, they're going to have to replace the sewer lines and and water lines coming in on the site >> and they'll pay for everything that goes out to the street. >> Yes. >> Okay, good.
>> That's all I had. Thank you so much. >> I had a question, S. And uh I appreciate that in the bulk standards you have both a minimum and a maximum front yard set back to kind of maintain that downtown feel. I had a question. Um, what's that measured from? Is that measure being
measured from the curb line, the property line, which So, >> so it's going to be 8 to 10 ft behind the sidewalk. >> So, there'll be additional buffering >> and and the goal with that too is uh back then when there was a potential developer was basically
>> we've always had this concern about storm water management um to have like a green infrastructure and all that. Uh that was the idea unless I mean if you if you think it's not clear I can add a sentence to that effect. >> Yeah. >> I I have I I believe I've written about
having landscaping. >> No just cuz in that section on that block you know you have Henry's and then Stacy's and then across Church Street um you know that building is right up on the curb line. So, I don't know how the
board feels if it >> side uh I'm sorry to interrupt. That side is where the parking lot is going to be. So, um the building is actually going to be between um the public parking and Henry's. So, that's the that's pretty much what the footprint is
going to be. So, I think what would make sense now that I'm listening to your comments is including that concept. uh like just a brief concept. They have provided us uh with the concept and I don't think I saw them including that
without getting into details. >> S turn your mic on. Come on. >> And again, I'd like the board's feedback on that. How they would want to see that massing if they want it more consistent with the other buildings that are right up on the line or if they want the building pushed back farther and if we
want the flexibility depending on what the design is. So maybe having that minimum be a little bit smaller while keeping the maximum at 10. So maybe having it two and 10. >> That way there's more flexibility depending on what the design is. >> We I think we do have the zero lot
lines. Uh but this is in etc I think. But if you So you do I do a minimum zero. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. I'm looking at here at the table cuz it says eight minimum. >> You're doing 8 to 10, right? >> It's Yeah, it's 8 to 10 right now. But
maybe we go zero or one 2 ft. >> The reason I had eight I'm um was because I wanted some landscaping. If you look at if you look at site it's so it's so uh dead. >> So 8 ft is enough to put in like even
planters or like what I had asked at that time to the developer was try and put in some rain uh rain um rain water like rain gardens. So that's why that was the idea for 8 to 10 ft. >> You wanted to um lessen
>> I wanted to I wanted to give the flexibility so that would be a smaller setback if they wanted to line the buildings up with the existing buildings that are neighboring. >> So it's more of a traditional okay >> you know early 20s downtown rather than have it
set back. >> I I understand. >> So you have that gap but >> 2020s or 1920s >> 1920s. Sorry. >> Yeah. memory is actually particularly >> Jason I don't have a problem right my thought process was this to be able to
and live in that area because you see you know Henry's is absolutely Henry's is right on the property line and most of those are zero lawn but I think >> I think this is in the etc zone I think >> it is etc
>> etc that was the other thought process too that it's not like right in the downtown so My my feeling on that would be that is a very as you said dead area over there. It's kind of unattractive in some ways. Having a little
>> buffer for sure would be helpful because remember this building is going to be uh three stories. So it's going to be right up in your face whereas all the other buildings are max 2. So this will be a little more imposing than uh than
Henry's. And then the building to the uh to the west is a one-story >> building as well that what used to the bartending school. So that three-story building is going to be a little bit more in your face. So I would say I I I live next to here for 10 years. Um or in
honesty on this property for 10 years. But um I would I think that >> you know maybe you know five or six feet we could limit it back to >> five. Yeah. five to 10, but we still have that buffer. >> I agree. Yeah, give them flexibility. But
>> so do five and then just and you know what I I I'm thinking of adding I I thought I wrote that but I probably didn't is basically you know put an asterisk and in that just say um this area shall be landscaped or or at a
minimum planters to end live in the area. I want to make a a couple of points in support of this one is bit by and I'm thinking even what's across the street you know plot by plot we'll end up making Bloomfield Avenue a gully if we
if we just have everything at zero or very tight and particularly coming down Bloomfield Avenue heading west you know this is on the hill and they're just knowing that there is that's three stories that is at least what's planned
Mhm. >> So if it's set back, there's actually the way it is now when you come down the hill, you actually can look across the valley and see the the ridge, which is very pleasant. Um uh for anyone driving through and us
living in the town. So if that building is up front and up tall, it's going to it's going to cut into that view. And I would say that is at a detriment. So, you know, as as far back in the landscape, I think that adds some variation here and there.
And um so either where it is or I with due respect, um I think the whole idea is basically a and live in that area, right? uh B because it is um just all
impervious surface to create more interest like green space. So that was two and three um you know I I want to give perspective that like Henry when we looked at um first floor with two floors
above residential we also compared with like how tall Henry's is how tall so it it seems imposing but when in actuality residential buildings are at a lower height >> you know your clear height it's like max
10 ft it's usually 9 ft so >> Shan And going back to the setbacks, >> whatever feat you decide and the board prefers, not up to me, um I think if you could make it clear that it's from >> the property >> from the pedestrian sidewalk back
>> curve. >> Well, that's a crate. It's from the curb. >> It's not from the curb. It's from the property line. >> Property line. >> Where's the property line? >> Where is the property line? >> The property line. >> Does it go to Bloomfield Avenue or does it go to the sidewalk? I don't know if it's the right side. I think it goes to the side.
>> Well, we think >> so. >> Because I have the survey. I just want to take a look at it >> just to make sure because to make sure it's not >> Okay. >> If if the property line goes to the goes to the street and the sidewalk is a rightway, then there's going to be no buffer. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's a good point.
>> Yeah. >> I think I have the survey. >> I just uh give me a second. >> Deputy Mayor. >> Yeah. While you're looking, I just want to add to Mr. Kamud's comments. I I do agree because when we look next door,
it's really we're talking about the only two properties that are right on Blue Hill Avenue as far as the buildings go between Stacy's and Henry's. If we look at a broader sense of this, we have the a paved parking lot next door. So, any amount extra of greenery put in front of
this building, I'll go the next block. You have the one building on the corner, but after that you have the condo development. They have a large front yard. You have the liquor store. They have a nice sidewalk and green area in the front that they maintain very well.
We have Proud Funeral Home right next door to that that has a beautiful front yard. And I think it adds to the area when you just walking and you see a little greenery. So the I I I I like the 8 to 10. And I I remember that when I read through it and I was very happy
that you put something like that in and especially as we talked we have a three-story building. It's going to overpower the sidewalk area in the street. >> Yeah, that's f as long as there's a requirement of landscaping. What I don't see is >> a paid area.
>> Totally agree. Yeah. >> I just looked at the survey. Um it's it's a good 10 ft from the sidewalk. >> Um And you guys >> from the curb you mean? >> Yeah. It's it's it's not uh the property
line doesn't extend uh to the I'm just going to show it to you. Okay. Since you're asking this question, this is a property line. This is the for you know so it's like over 10 ft. >> Okay. So it's from the it's within the
property line. >> Yeah. >> Great. Okay. >> So you have Oh, that's just the current. story. I have a concept and I I could use it. It's just that um everybody this is the story.
>> Can we Can I see it? I trust I trust you, Sam. >> Okay. >> So, the building step back a little bit already, >> right? So, so long as >> so long as um
that extra space is is required landscaping. >> Yeah, we'll want to put that in there. >> I I think it's submitted cross >> because I saw something about uh landscape 10oot landscape buffer between residential. >> Yeah, that's in the back. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, this was this was the whole idea landscape. >> I think it we'll we'll check and see. >> So, >> bless you. Bless you. >> You're talking about a buffer requirement. >> No, no, we there is a buffer requirement. >> No, we're putting it we're putting it
along the front. >> No, I understand what you said you thought was in there. It's not. I'm just curious what you're looking for. >> The um I thought I put that that it'll be landscape, >> but I don't and I have to uh check. I didn't look at it.
>> Yeah, >> the landscape rubber you put in there was against residential. >> There was landscape. Could you tell me sand what in the back there where the parking lot is? What is that distance between the parking lot and is it 10 foot >> uh
>> between the parking lot and the residential? Cuz a little blurry in the plan that I actually >> it definitely is. They have to have a 10ft buffer. Correct. on the uh east side of the property there there is a 10-ft buffer
to the east >> um where where the residents chilled areas are and then there's a check uh there's a 5ft buffer near the church >> right >> that's a semi-public use >> yeah but let me see yeah it's 10 ft
>> so so getting back to the front is it is it going to be 8 5 to 10 or 8 >> we'll keep it 8 to 10 to 10 We have to mandate that there be landscaping in that area, >> right? I totally agree. Good call. >> Actually, I lie. The concept that was
submitted to us, it was 5 foot, but I put in 10 ft. >> It was five. I thought so. It was a little blurry, though. >> So, let me ask you this. Can if there's a concept plan with the total number of parking spots that they need,
are they going to be able to move them to the west slightly? >> It's a very it's a it's a tight site. >> Well, I need a 10-ft buffer against those homes. I'm not going below that. >> Right. So we'll have to then they'll
have to if this if a developer comes to you they'll have to engineer it in such a way that there's 10 foot and I've pushed back for a 10 foot. >> Yes please. >> No I had um I just don't have that. So, what I could do is um give you like a
bubble a bubble diagram like you know I'll um put this on a on a like a tracing paper on top of an aerial and just sketch it out. Okay. >> Because right now we don't have anybody with a survey or what have you.
>> Madam chair. >> Yeah. >> Uh the reason I brought that up in the plan that I had >> it looked like five foot. So the reason I brought that up was that I know somewhere I don't know exactly where but I when I read it you were talking about
uh compact car spaces which are smaller that they are what two foot shorter. So my suggestion or that my thought would be they can put them along that side. >> Correct. >> And we can maybe add two foot. So we're now we're at seven and then maybe shift the whole parking lot forward.
>> There are different ways we could do it. Um one of the things is compact which is 2 feet. Um the concept I have it shows 22 ft. We could make a oneway you know like less than 22 there many ways.
There's enough space there because we did that for Hillrest. We gave them a 10% compact for that same reason that you have multiple choices. Um and there are many people who have small cars. Right. So
I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. >> Um, so any questions? >> You're disappointing me, Tim? >> Um, stand the uh we have the new board now. So, the uh planning board on the
first page has to get updated. >> I'm sorry. >> The plan Sorry, >> the planning board um roster on the uh second page. >> Oh, no. >> Yes, that definitely will get uh And I I guess I do suggest if you want
to prohibit ghost kitchens or virtual kitchens, which are basically, you know, like makeshift takeout joints, that um it should be listed under the prohibited just for clarity. Just so that he knows.
One other question, are there two principal uses that would be allowed on the first level? More than one, should I say? because >> have that conversation um for right >> well I'm asking in this particular building because I mean what if he's
able to split put the you know it could be like a center hall entry and there could be a store or a a retail or whatever service on either side of the center there's plenty of room so my question is is
there more than one principal use allowed on the first level? >> Yes. Does it specify that? >> I wrote um N. If you look on page 19N, any combination of of the about listed uses. Now, you think you you would like
me to be more clear than that? >> Page 19. Okay. No, I I guess if you're saying that they could have combined uses, then that's inclusive of more than one. Okay. Thank you.
I just had a quick question and pardon me being new to the board. Who actually owns these properties? I was curious. I was trying to find it actually in there. >> He wants to know who owns this property. >> Who LLC? >> Uh, it's an LLC.
>> It's an LLC. >> It's owned by uh it's public >> John Mackoy. >> John Mackoy and I believe there's a partner involved, but it's a public record. >> Okay. Yeah, I think it's correct. >> It might be Paggley and Achie. >> They had come in, Jim. Um, they had
asked that this property be studied. >> Okay. >> Um, uh, to be an area to be declared an area need of redevelopment. They specifically requested that the board do that and the board decided that it was an area needed of redevelopment. Um, so that was probably 18 months ago or
sometime. >> Very good. Thank you, >> Son. While I have the mic on, if we can go back where you said any combination of the above listed uses. >> Um, just stylistic. I'm not like you have all the permitted
uses and then N is any combination. Just maybe move N as a separate sentence before number two. Like the permitted uses Shelby Kim. >> Okay. >> I mean, that's just, you know, >> and now >> minor editing since you're editing. That's all. And Kathleen's going to
freak out because she's going to say, "So, is it going to be like a restaurant nail salon in one spot?" >> Okay, here's what I'm going to do. >> I'm going to use and what's the, you know, what's the language that we approve
>> and I'll put that >> I do not want you on the screen now. We're not looking at >> Okay, here's what I'm going to write. >> Two or more principal uses. may be permitted. That's it. Instead of any combination,
I'll just write uh two or more principal uses may be permitted. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It's better. >> But that doesn't solve, >> right? >> It doesn't solve. >> I know. >> So, what does it know? So my >> is it two principal uses in one building
that have their own separate entities or is it one business that you can combine any one of those two into and have your nails done while you're eating a hot dog, right? You know >> the bodega with the Jamaican >> that's a bad idea actually. And there's
cards over here. Well, what I wrote and what I had written in the draft of the TC zone, um, nothing contained herein shall prohibit two or more principal uses on a singular site in the TC zone. >> That's perfect.
>> So, it still doesn't solve your problem, but I think the board is >> I think we need to know if there's a wall in between. >> Well, I think I think what the board is saying is that they think that that's okay. >> No, I don't I don't >> selling hot dogs. No, I don't think that's okay. >> Here's what I'm going to
>> Here's what I'm going to suggest is what we want is the downtown revitalized. If there's a good deal in the nail salon and there there are there are people who are interested in that business, why stop that, right? If somebody wants
to put in a massage parlor with a tattoo salon, that's a problem. But no, something that would just activate our downtown. I think it's a great idea, >> right? >> What? >> No. I mean, I'm I'm pulling the board.
Do you think that the hot dog nail salon should move forward or I mean, I'm I'm being, you know, obviously I'm kind of throwing two things that don't >> remember the place on the avenue. Um it it was a coffee bar in a
um in a clothing salon. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Boutique with a coffee bar. >> Yeah. So >> up at the top right across from you really >> trend trend. Trend. >> So that's something I think that's you know so you have to try to distinguish between
>> I don't mind that at all. I I think like you know Kathleen's issue is that something that just can be cap captured by Department of Health regulations rather than the zoning. >> We we are now licensing uh
>> nail salons and massage parlor. >> Yeah. Then >> I can't imagine. >> Let's just keep it flexible. >> Yeah. >> Do you want So do you want to leave it as is? >> All right. the board had >> I want to chime in and say it's the structure that interests me not what
goes on in it like >> okay >> I mean you know to some extent like it's it's does it reflect does the physical structure reflect not so much >> it'll change from time to time so >> shall I uh do you want me to talk about
like having storefront like to you know storefront windows or something like to activate you know very similar to what I wrote for interest. I would add that sentence >> where what are you talking what show me >> you're saying about how the building
will be right so all I'm asking is to answer what uh Tim uh mentioned was uh to talk about like having storefront to activate that's what you were talking about right >> and and I think that's covered on what
is this page 28 >> PDF page 28 28 page 26 of the document where you talk about the um penistration pen windows. >> Yeah, the lighting. >> So, we're good. >> So, I think that that
>> I think you did really well on that part for sure. >> Like that's totally done. Okay. >> All right. I thought I didn't do it. So, >> all right. >> So, then we're keeping n um instead of n just do it as a separate sentence. I
think so. >> Okay. >> With that uh the lang the sentence >> the language. Okay. So any combination of the above listed uses um may be permitted. >> Nothing. >> Oh nothing shall
>> nothing contained herein shall prohibit two or more principal uses on a singular site. >> Okay. things two things at the same time because principal >> well that's true
define principal use the principle is a >> wait you define princip you redefine principal use >> no there's a principle there's a principal use >> so what the mayor was suggesting is there can only be one principal use but
this language says nothing prevents So princip it's murky inherent to a mixeduse building right principal use is a mixed use >> right >> but I mean I was talking on the retail side on the on the first floor
>> do you think do you think that it should be added to the prohibition for those kitchen >> yes no I think that's a that's a >> yeah I mean I'm making a recommendation to simply add an A and a B under the
prohibitions. The A could be the ghost kitchen. The B could be the rest of the code. That should be a prohibition. Just so that that doesn't >> You're talking about 4.3, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Just to make it perfectly clear.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's page page 20. A A go equals kitchen. >> Yeah. 4.3. >> So we're allowed a shared kitchen. >> Yeah. Shared kitchens like
>> Okay. But in the definition of shared kitchen, the last line says such a space shall not be used as a ghost ghost kitchen or virtual kitchen. So she has it in there. >> Yeah, I do. >> Yes, I know that. >> Okay. >> It's okay if we mention a couple. >> It doesn't matter. It's really not a big
deal. I'll just write host kitchen and the virtual kitchen. >> Okay. Anything else? >> I move that we send this back to the governing body with our recommendations and advise the governing body that with
our recommendations, this uh redevelopment plan is not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Second. >> Mr. uh I'm sorry, Vice Chair Heinman seconds. Can we get a roll call vote, please?
So, we need to have Oh, I'm sorry. We're We're taking a vote on this. Should we not do that? >> I just wanted to say something before you take your vote. >> Um I was going to suggest that um typically we do a resolution. It's a read and consistency. I can write a
memo. Exactly. >> Um so I can send it to them and they can have it on the agenda and then Is that >> Yeah. Yeah. be my guest. >> So, no, I'm sorry. I know you're gonna drop. >> Yeah. So, it could just be a basic resolution and then exhibit A can be Sans's memo,
>> right? >> So, then you're going to handle the basic we'll take and I'll take care of it. >> Okay. Um so at this point the mayor has made a motion to uh adopt the you know ask the council to consider and adopt
the uh recommendations and has not found this inconsistent with the master plan. Mr. Vice Chair Heinman seconds and now roll call vote please. >> I'll get
>> Mr. Day. Yes, >> Mr. Magarell. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes, >> Mr. Lily. >> Yes, >> Mr. Heinman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kamoody. >> Yes, >> Councilman Makavoy. >> Yes, >> Mayor Tambero.
>> Yes, >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. The motion passes. And at this time we're going to move on to new business if we that that's at the subcommittee of
um new business is um Sam is going to continue and discuss the study of the area needed green development investigation for 420 Avenue. Thank you. Um so I'm everybody
has a copy of the red and investigation. What I'm going to do is uh just give a brief overview especially for the new board members. Um so next slide please. So um what we are
we what we are tasked to do the board is um investigate whether the uh particular property which is the rich field regions uh meets the criteria for an area need of redevelopment and this is governed by
the local development and housing. It's very specific in what uh the governing bodies has to do and what the planning bodies has to do. Uh next slide please. So why do we do redevelopment? Um
redevelopment stimulates changes economic development. We uh it gives us an ability a better control over the property than conventional zoning. um and it offers incentives uh makes us
negotiate develop priorities etc etc. Um by next slide please. So by resolution since 2013 any kind of red weapon action um the township has to specify whether it would be a condemnation redevelopment
or a non-condemnation. Um, of course, uh, Verona Township, uh, council, um, is very much in favor of, uh, non- condemnation. What that means is that it has to be voluntary with the
property owner and developers and no eminent domain and if there's an interested developer, they would need to talk to the property owners. Um, next slide, please. So I'm going to explain the redevelopment process. Okay. So by
statutes the first thing is the township council has to authorize the planning board by resolution to conduct the area in need of redevelopment for specific properties. The township um uh passed a resolution um
uh and you know we I think I have the date wrong. It's 20. No, no, it's 2022. I'm sorry. And then the planning board conducts the study uh to determine if the area meets the statutory criteria.
So my report is that study which is written exactly as per the um redevelopment law. And we are at the third the current step where this um meeting was noticed and um I'm required
to present the findings to you um and then you make a recommendation to the governing body or the council to either designate uh or not designate uh what happened this
oh uh designate or not designate >> uh the re Uh the area the redevelopment area this is techn sorry um I apologize it's okay I'll do it
okay great um so so let me just quickly um so we're here right so after tonight uh the township council would either accept accept your recommendation or reject it. And if the
council if should you decide that this does satisfy the criteria and if the council accepts it then it designates the area uh redevelopment area. Um the redevelopment is a three-step
process. We are in uh phase one which is um conducting um conducting the study. The phase two is once the governing body designates it, we can prepare a redevelopment plan. And
then the third phase is work with the developer or property owners. And this is all mandated by the state statutes. So we are in phase one as I mentioned. Um where's the study area? Everybody knows I'll go through this slide
quickly. Um it is along Bloomfield Avenue. It's the Richfield Regency. Um and it has frontage along Bloomfield and Claremont. Um so that's then it's if you look at the land uses
that's a commercial property. It's the banquet hall but it's surrounded by all whatever is in red is uh non-residential com commercial uses and uh it has multifamily single family. So the oranges are uh multifamily, the yellows
are single family residences. Um now the re weapon statutes uh basically specify what the criteria is. Number one is substandard buildings. If they're buildings that are boarded up or
um deteriorating um you know like houses boarded up or that's criterion A. Um it's a buildings that cannot be inhabited by people. Um criterion B is basically commercial
industrial buildings that are completely abandoned. They're vacant. They've fallen into disrepair. Um criterion C is uh public or vacant unimproved land. Criterion D is areas that have buildings
as well as parking lots that um are dilapidated. they're not as concurrent engineering standards, overcrowded, faulty arrangement, etc., etc. Uh um criterion E is areas that have
conditions of title ownership. Um title um criterion F is areas that have been destroyed by fire or any kind of natural um hazard and um you know it's like 5 acres or more land. Uh criterion G is um
areas that are designated uh as a New Jersey urban enterprise zone. um which obviously this is not and H um is a criteria which basically is smart any area that uh satisfies smart growth
planning which this particular area does but it is um uh this criteria has to always be used in uh in tandem with an uh A2G any of those criterias um we also have to look at whether it's
um consistent with a master plan which this is. Um we identified the Bloomfield Avenue corridor as an area as an area that needed revitalization and uh this particular site is part of that. Um we
also look at whether uh it's consistent with how the state envisions our area to be. And as I'd mentioned um smart growth area, this is part of PA1. It's a a metropolitan planning area. Uh the the
emphasis of the state is preserve your open space, but any area that is in part of the metropolitan area uh is ripe for redevelopment. Um so what we did was um you know we
analyzed the study area. Um so the new board members the old board members are well aware um almost two years ago what they um what um the governing body had done is all the properties along the
entirety of Bloomfield Avenue they had designated that as an area of rehabilitation. uh rehabilitation is uh something simpler than redevelopment you know but that's as per the redevelopment statutes
and um so it it's part of the rehabilitation area that was identified by the governing body that's number one number two it's located on a main corridor and it's within our town center
zone so um this uh basically also this uh redevelopment designation and any kind of redevelopment plan will forward the township's goal for like you know our planning goals as well as satisfy
our affordable housing requirement. So um so this is a part of that. Um it's also interesting because um this redevelopment also wants to ensure that there's
uh adequate public um transit and this is along the route uh 29 bus line that goes to New York's uh Port Authority as well as 105 which is at the corn side which is walking distance really. So you
know it's uh well connected if you will. Now um the statutes are very clear on what one must do to do a read weapon investigation. So we follow that to the tea. So we looked at our um tax assessor
records, accident uh reports if any code violations. Um we look at master plan uh documents which I just described. And we also are required to do a field visit and um we did that during the holiday
season Christmas Eve and a few days prior to that. Um, and this is this is Richfield Regency as everybody knows. And if you look at it from the street, it you would say, well, it doesn't look
bad, but it actually does meet criterion D. And here's why. Criterion D as I mentioned earlier you look at it focuses on the building and the site improvements and it just addresses how the site functions in terms of the
layout and uh properties that meet this criterion are being used in a manner which is inconsistent with modern land use engineering standards etc etc and I actually included a few pictures um a
lot of them are, you know, included in in the actual study. I have um at least 10 to 20 pages dedicated to it which goes into the into great detail and um I'm just going to summarize all of these
just hit the main uh high points. So, um, you know, if if you look at this, uh, building from, uh, Bloomfield, it it it it's not attractive because of the BL, uh, blank facade, but it doesn't look like it needs repairs. But as you
go into the building and into the site is where you start seeing things. um you know because the there's a canopy, there's a brick um uh brick um aisle, it looks attractive, but um we discovered
as we were um into the site a lot of um I would say conditions of deterioration uh with um lack of adequate parking um and uh the parking lot wasn't uh maintained at all.
So I have included pictures of all of that potholes and um what we noticed is there were to the rear of the building along Claremont there are uh sheds that are attached to the building which had actually high voltage and uh high
voltage equipment. So it's not a very safe condition. Um and uh we also noticed um uh you know if you look at this particular picture it's like there the building juts out so it's like an L-shaped building and it just divides it
into two parking areas and uh there's a narrow driveway and just multiple points of access which are not very conducive to very safe driving conditions. Most importantly, um there is not adequate off street parking and currently um they
use the empty parking lot uh on uh on the other side of Claremont. So um so that uh you know and then the these are just closeups of like a trash compactor is out in the open. This is like a
dilapidated fence which is covering a lot of the storage uh space. And if you look at the actual building the rear side and and the uh I would say south uh southwest you know there's a lean to roof uh which is covering the storage
area. This is all the top two pictures and it just is um you know in a state of disrepair. It's uh falling apart. We saw just um storage just stashed uh stacked up to the ceiling. Um if you look at all
the pictures to the uh right um there is no proper um uh areas for loading and in a no parking sign there was we saw van park which is obviously you know there's inadequate um uh inadequate uh area for
parking and loading etc etc and then as we went into the building uh you know and I everything is in this report but if you look at what basement. It just is um it's it's again um you know like there's this um I don't
know the there's a doorway connecting this area and there's a skate wheel conveyor uh resting on it. So it takes the uh items uh like on buckets. It's it's resting on buckets and it's used to
uh take um items indoors from a stairway that leads to the outside of the building. Um uh you know the bottom bottom uh right and middle are uh >> just freezers that are from the 1960s
that's not really working. um you know the uh walls there the owner had met with uh H2M and they were talking about having a lot of um issues with like flatting because a portion a good
portion is uh below grade. Um so these are the storage areas um and just overall a deterioration in in that area. If we go and look at the walls, you can see it's um just falling
apart. Um if we go up to there because of it's a one-story building, but because of the way the uh side site slopes um the first floor uh to the rear becomes like a second floor and you know you can
clearly see water damage uh in these pictures. There's more information obviously in the report um but um I just tried to summarize it in here. So uh based on based on the condition of the
parking based on the uh lack of adequate parking circulation issues uh based on uh just the overall lack of maintenance and the building deteriorating um we feel that you know it successfully
satisfies criterion D because it rep represents an obsolete uh layout deletious land uses is this lack of storm water management. Um so um uh it's so that's why it satisfies criterion D
and um because it's located within a metropolitan planning PA1 area um it uh it also satisfies criterion H because um this is designated by the state as a
preferred um area for redevelopment to accommodate growth and development. Um and then um it's my professional um my professional opinion that uh this uh
definitely uh meets the criteria and I would recommend the planning board to designate this as a non- condemnation area need to >> Thank you. Thank you Sam. Um any questions?
>> Um I had a couple of questions. >> Sure. Um, you know, again, fantastic report, very comprehensive, um, documenting the condition and some of the issues that pose public safety and health risks. And there was a lot of
documentation about what looked to me like long-standing water damage. U, but there was no mention in the report about the potential for mold. And I know you you're not allowed to do invasive testing or investigation, but is that type of water damage indicative of a
risk of mold infestation? >> It it it could potentially be, but it's beyond the scope of >> Yeah, you can't really get up into >> and I'm not going into criterion. uh if I were doing criterion A I definitely would have gone into details done a
structural analysis because when we went on site and said oh it easily meets because by as you know and you do plenty of this season you you have to meet at least one >> so when you see what's evident visually uh the building is falling apart to the
rear to the front it looks fine but there was more pictures which I didn't include in this because uh but more pictures which actually show signs of water damage. If you look on page 39 and 40, they're the actual banquet hall
spaces. And um you know, Liza actually went on site and took pictures and she said, you know, it's hard to put that because the space was dark, but you know, it was so clear like uneven tiles and things like that. So, you know,
>> yeah, it and again going back to you know, some of the storage conditions and floor tiles missing. I mean, was there any safety concern for the workers in there? >> I I don't believe so. Would you like to answer it?
>> I I from my my understanding like most of the issues are from like the lack of organization and the fact that the building hasn't been maintained. Um there was a lot of like the loading area that you saw with like the um conveyor belts was really like makeshift. It was
literally resting on top of buckets. So there's a I would say there's a bit of concern from the fact that it is very unorthodox the way they're maintaining property. Um another concern is the way they stored materials particularly right outside of the service entrance to the
rear. Um it's I don't know if you guys saw those u metal canisters but they are like CO2 canisters um for um the soda guns. >> Yeah. Is that being stored or was that >> Those were those were active ones right by the service entrance.
>> It's right near Yes. I'm sorry. Um >> and they I think it's mentioned in the um >> in the report >> in the report as well that they have received a citation for that. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I did see a lot of documented citations. >> You know, just to
>> Yeah, it's not going to happen. Just to hop on what you're discussing right now, I would actually say that it meets a because if you look at the end of your report in the addendum, it's all the violations and it makes for a very
unsafe workplace. Um I I don't I think it meets A and D and obviously H. >> Just a my my unprofessional opinion. >> No, I I know it's a point I've taken. Um
I when I like to when I write these reports right there are times where I've actually uh said it satisfies criterion uh E at that time I have with me somebody who's done an structural analysis it has to be comprehensive sometimes when you try to put in too
many criteria you it loses the impact the way the the driteria the way it's been described it perfectly meets everything uh in the statute with the a um I wasn't comfortable writing a a
report, you know. Yes, you're right. Uh it looks like it does, but it doesn't meet all the different um standards that I have to provide in an evidence. >> You would need additional consultants to kind of back that. >> I gota >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> And then um you mentioned the parking lot across the street from Claremont. that's uh the that's utilized for their valet um activity. So, it's the same ownership. Um but I saw in the the
identification of the site that parcel was not included. >> No, it's not. We're just doing for this particular parcel. >> Okay. But since it is, you know, one use, one ownership, do you think that's something that should be included as part under criterion
uh three? not criteria, but under section three, it's part of the same property that should be included in the designation. >> Um I I don't think we need that for effective redevelopment. Section three, you're talking about section three,
right? I don't believe uh we do. Um I think this uh site by itself uh is I think adequate like sometimes we do have like if there are properties in that area that we think okay this would be part of section
uh three excuse me I don't believe that's the case. It's just this particular pro uh lot that we were assigned to do and I think it's um it meets his purpose. So if we're, you know, if if this were to be designated as an area need and a redevelopment plan
was crafted, it would be limited just to the Richfield site itself. >> That is correct. >> So any sort of >> um density calculation or any type of offsite or off streetet parking requirements, it would just be limited
to that rich site and it would not include the parking lot. I mean there it wouldn't and uh the township you know right now I I I I I don't I think the township is in the process of discussing you know with with
the developer we at this point what our task is this particular site >> this is a I mean that was my first question is do they own that because obviously they can park over there I've seen when there's events where
well-dressed people are walking across. But it brings to mind like if that is at least not included in the area of redevelopment. I don't know. There could be another three-story building goes up there where they sell that separately. >> I don't believe so. I don't believe so.
>> Or or you know something. >> They can't just go and like it's in a single family zone. that they have to do something to meet with with the um meet >> they could put a house there. >> They could put a house there. All I'm
saying at this point um is that um the the goal is that whatever redevelopment happens should be able to be contained within uh this site including the parking, >> right? But it's it does and the park because I All right, let's take this
further that parking let's say we're building something and you know we want to um I don't know a footprint that's right but there's not enough parking then that could be included in in as a way of say uh you know mitigating some
of the parking issues in that area. >> Well, at this point we're just talking about you know those are the those are very good questions. uh Mr. Kamui but those are the ones we would discuss um you know when there's the redevelopment
plan and we do a review like I did for 320 that's where all those questions at this point um I think the only thing I can talk about is whether it meets the criteria and it's um and you know >> you're tasked with study
okay but but that's interesting so but so because it's a thorough plan and I think because it aligns with our master plan and I because I think there's so much I think beneficial at stake that makes me very skeptical here and I'm like so I I want to like make this
ironclad just >> it will no I it that we all study >> it's just a study plan >> it's no I know it's not the plan I'm saying for to meet criteria D >> right >> I want to just I'm going to I want to like
just put it through its deepest paces here if you if you don't mind because again when I feel like oh I really want to just push this and not talk about it much I'm like no I want to talk about it like if this owner didn't want to sell and they cleaned up all these things do you feel these are superficial or are
they structural the issues you found >> no the issues are pretty deep they're not superficial if they were superficial I would never write this report >> you know and uh very frankly um this meets we are assigned
the board and myself as a board planner was assigned to look whether it meets the statutory criteria. So going back to Miss Pearson's point that she felt it it would meet A2 and I'm saying that because I'm assigned to do it as per you
know New Jersey professional planner the strongest case I have is for the D criteria for all the points I just mentioned >> and let's just say it was in you know not the shape it's in better shape inside. I still because when I look at this I I agree with the and you know I
want to say I I agree with this but the it's the absolute layout or this combination are those like do you agree I think it's page 39 >> like it this can only be one thing a banquet hall right like it can only be
like it has very limited use to me it's meeting D because it is it's it you know obsolete is tough but I think it's more the where is it a faulty arrangement is what what I see as the big problem. >> It's both. It's both. It's the
obsolescence of the use and the building and the way uh this is and it's a faulty arrangement because I did show you about the driveway which is um it's I measured it. It's barely 12 ft which is one way.
>> So, all right. >> Yep. I don't want to be convenient on the on the vote so I was just putting it through its paces. Thank you so much. >> Of course. Appreciate. >> Any other questions or comments for Sam? >> Okay. Then, um, that being the case,
uh, I'll make a motion to find this. Oh, do we members of public? >> Oh, yes. Okay. Before I do that, do any members of Thank you. Do any members of the public have any questions or
comments on this before we take a vote? Seeing none, I'm going to close public session. And now I will make a motion to find this uh study
for 420 Bloomfield Avenue. Um that we find that this is >> an we recommend to the council that this be uh determined as an area need of
redevelopment. Can I get a second, please? >> Second. >> Second. Um Mr. Lily seconds. >> Based on what criteria? >> Based on criteria D and H. Yeah, that has to go in there. >> It helps.
>> Yeah. >> And a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Day, >> yes. >> Mr. Magarell, >> yes. >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Kamoodi, >> yes.
>> Um, Council Makavoy, >> yes. Thank you. Mayor Tambbor, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Heinman, >> yes. >> And Chair Pearson, >> yes. >> The motion passes. The unanimous vote.
>> Motion to uh >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Fine. >> Second. >> Is there any if there's no new business or >> Second? >> All right. We're closed. The store is closed. I'm not discussing the town center. Just
give a brief. >> I have a lightsaber. window.