you on? >> Okay, >> thanks. Good evening every Oh, good evening everybody and welcome to this regularly scheduled planning board meeting, April 23rd, 2026. Madam Secretary, can you please call
roll? >> Mr. Magarell >> here. >> Mr. Day >> here. >> Mrs. Parker >> here. Mr. Lily >> here. >> Mr. Kamui >> here. >> Mr. Presky >> here. >> Township manager Joe Sullivan >> here. >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy
>> present. >> Mayor Tambbero >> here. >> Vice Chair Heinman >> here. >> Chair Pearson >> here. >> Board attorney Miss Sarah >> here. >> Dr. Gonzalez >> here. >> Miss Tanwware >> here. >> Miss Meech >> here. >> All here. >> And you and me.
>> Can everybody please join me for the pledge of allegiance? To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. >> Madam secretary, can you read the open public meetings act? The notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied with respect to this meeting of the township of Verona 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 annual meeting notice. This information along with the meeting agenda was posted in the municipal building at least 48 hours preceding the start time of this meeting. The agenda
and meeting documents can be viewed online at the planning board's web page on the township's website. Please take notice that pursuant to NJ public law 2025 chapter 72, the complete text of each legal notice of the township of Verona, including all public entities
under the authority of the township may be obtained or viewed by the public on our official state registered web page veronj.org/legalpublic notices. 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 reducted from this recording.
Thank you. Um, at this time we can open to public participation for any matters not on the agenda. Seeing no members of the public willing wishing to speak, I close public
participation. We now move on to approval of meeting minutes. The approval of the minutes from the regular meeting March 26, 2026. Has everybody received a copy and had time to review? Yes. >> Would anybody if there are any min
ministerial changes, please let um our board secretary know. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. Mr. Freski makes the motion. Vice Chair Heinman
seconds. Roll call vote, please. >> [snorts] >> Okay. Um, >> Mr. Day, Mrs. Parker, and Mayor Tambbor, um, we're absent, so we'll not be voting. >> Okay. Everybody else who votes to approve, show hands. [laughter]
>> Any anyone abstain or not approve? Okay. All All people that were here, all attendees vote to approve. Um okay. Uh first matter is the resolution
memorializing re resolution uh 2026-17 updating the bylaws of the planning board. Does anybody have any questions? We incorporated all comments uh for Mr. Misau. We incorporated all comments and
filled out any of the blank spaces. Can I please therefore then get a motion to approve? >> Second. [clears throat] >> Second. >> Can Jim make a second? >> Is he not a voting? He can't tonight. Not tonight. No,
>> it's packed. >> Um, Mr. Mackoy seconds. Roll call vote. >> Mrs. Parker. I >> Mr. Lily. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kamudi. >> I >> Mr. Fresky.
>> Yes. >> Township man. Man manager Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Timuro. >> Vice Chair Heman. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. >> The motion passes. Um
and we'll uh get those final bylaws up on the website. um so that anyone from the public can can check them out. Uh master plan update. So we have a brief hearing to amend the OSRP, the open basin
recreation plan. Would you um please turn your mic on and introduce yourself to us? So my name is Barbara Heskins Davis. I'm vice president of programs at the Land Conservancy of New Jersey. Hi Kevin. um
and I am a licensed planner. I wrote your 2021 open space and recreation plan and um over the past year you have worked with our office to update what's called your recreation and open space inventory or your Rossi or Rosie. It's a
listing of all the parks and conservation areas owned by the municipality um that are held in perpetuity. You're doing this so that you can qualify for Green Acres funding. This is the final step. Um, amending your open space plan to include the
updated Rossi will ensure that there's no questions from Green Acres about what the municipality calls parks and open space. Your 2021 open space and recreation plan used your 2007 ROSSI.
Um, so your 2026 amendment includes the um updated ROSI which was executed in January of this year. It adds um just under 40 acres of parkland. Um many of these were identified in your 2021 open space and recreation plans at ones that
needed to be added to the Rossi. And then of course there were two properties that the municipality had acquired with the assistance of the land conservancy of New Jersey. So you'll now be eligible for reimbursement from the state of New Jersey for 50% of the cost of those
properties. So, I really congratulate the municipality on not only acquiring the lands for implementing the recommendations in your open space and recreation plan, but doing your due diligence to amend the plan to include the Rossi. This is especially important
because in just a short five more years, you're going to have to update this plan. and having your plan complete and the Rossi as part of it makes it that much easier for the next planner who then goes ahead and updates your open space plan. So with that, um, I'm happy
to answer any questions on the amended open space and recreation plan, I ask that for the purposes of green acres that after you've heard the presentation and asked any questions of me, that you open it up to the public to make sure that the public, if they have any, have
been had given the opportunity to ask questions and then you consider a vote to approve the amended plan. Thank you. >> Does anybody from the board have any questions, mayor? Just just one point. I appreciate the getting the language clarified here. The property that is
listed in here as um uh let's see now I can't see anything because I'm getting old. Um Pman Park has also been listed as Commerce Park on various different things. So from this point
forward we are going to solely refer to this as Pekman Park, Mr. Sullivan. So >> Oh yes. >> Okay. All right. So, just want to make sure uh that that's out there. So, I appreciate that clarification. That's the only thing that really jumped out at me. So, thank you. >> Good. Any other questions or comments?
>> Yeah, I just had a question about just in general green acres in the program. >> Yes. >> Are there any foreseeable or anticipated changes to the program itself, the criteria, um the objectives for Is that a loaded question? No, I
just I just get entertained by the Green Acres program. So, um no, right now we don't anticipate any regulatory or policy changes to the Green Acres program. What our office is working very hard on um and if you can assist in this
as it becomes more public is having green acres change their participation um match from 50% to 80%. We think that it'll um be a seismic change on the local level to have a greater participation of greenacres funding um
in land acquisition projects and it'll enable municipalities to further limited dollars to acquire open space. The state has um a large amount of money that they have um unspent. So organizations such
as ours are working very hard to lobby the state to increase their match from 50 to 80. So, I would say the biggest change that we're hoping for is that change in match funding. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for members [clears throat] of the board?
>> At this time, then I will open to members of the public. If anybody has any questions on anything having to do with this matter in particular, please come to the mic. Seeing none, I will close public
participation. Um, and thank you so much for taking the time to come here and talk to us a little bit about the program. Um, at this time, I will entertain a resolution to adopt the plan
that was sent to you earlier this week or last week, put into our folders. Um, so we're adopting the plan and then afterwards we'll adopt the resolution memorializing the adoption. So I and I
I'll make a motion. I I'm sorry. >> No, no, go ahead. >> Did you make a motion? I >> I was about to, but you got me, so you're good. >> Okay. You want a second? >> I will second. Thank you. >> The mayor seconds. Can we have a roll call vote, please? >> Mrs. Parker? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lily? >> Yes. Mr. Kamudi, >> yes. >> Mr. Presky, >> yes. >> Township manager O Sullivan, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy, >> yes. >> Mayor Tambero, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Heman, >> yes. >> Chair Pearson, >> yes.
>> Um, the motion passes. At this time, I would like I will entertain a motion to um pass resolution 2026-18 adopting the amended open space and recreation plan. >> So moved. Mayor makes the motion. Can I
get a second? >> Second. >> Deputy uh I don't even know what to vice chair or deputy who [laughter] >> this guy um makes the second chair person. >> Yes. >> I think the numbers are reversed on this just so that we're
>> an actual document. Um it says 2026-9. >> Uhhuh. >> Our agenda has 18. >> Yeah. The agenda says >> it's just reversed with the con the >> I apologize. I wrote it as 19. >> So you're forgiving. Not a problem. >> Can you just change the top of that to
18 and change the top of the next one to 19 to stay consistent? Okay. Thank you. >> So this is going to be uh reverted to 202618. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary.
Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Uh Mrs. Parker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes. >> Mr. Kimmoody, >> yes. >> Mr. Fresky, >> yes. >> Town manager Joe Sullivan, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy, >> yes. >> Mayor Tim Burrow, >> yes.
>> Vice Chair Heman, >> yes. >> Chair Pearson, >> yes. >> Uh, the motion passes and thank you very much, Mrs. Parker, for seeing for catching that. >> Thank you. Um at this time we will um call upon our
planner Sanio to uh Do you want to do it from there? That's fine. Okay. Um >> can you all hear me? >> Hi. >> Hi. Can everyone hear me? >> Good evening everybody. Um so if you recall
um uh um what's it a month ago we heard um the redevelopment designation for 251 and a half [clears throat] group uh which the council accepted the board's recommendation and designated as a redevelopment area on April 6th and this
is a plan that has been prepared. Uh just a reminder that JMF properties was one of the objectors to our fourth round plan and we settled with the objector and this redevelopment plan has been prepared as per the settlement agreement. Um and uh as you know your
role here is advisory and obviously if there are any other comments any concerns anything you would like to convey to the uh governing body um it's well within your purview. Um I have also provided everybody with a memo. I uh
which basically um talks about what um uh the different goals and objectives this um this plan um uh meets uh the land the different various land views goals and most important it is uh uh
this redevelopment plan effectuates our um housing element and fair share plan which we had adopted on uh March 3rd. Uh for the sake of brevity, I don't want to get into the details. Uh but I'm uh the one thing I do want to talk is um I sent
this out to everybody a week ago almost and on Monday it was introduced before the governing body and our deputy mayors uh here and he had made this um excellent recommendation
um to ensure that there is um no um you know given the building height and the stories if it's a a gable uh roof that the attic space doesn't get converted into an habitable space. So uh
based upon that um I've modified um under 4.3 I added uh a section a small subsection saying that an attic space shall not be converted into a habitable habitable living space. There shall be
no fixed stairs to access the attic and no plumbing shall be extended onto the attic. So this way we ensure I and I shared it with our affordable housing attorney who was very clear uh was was uh satisfied with the language and I see
our uh board attorney shaking his head so I'm sure he's in agreement too. Um then this morning or yesterday um I got a call from uh the engineer for the developer and um if you look at section 4.7
uh you uh I basically spec said minimum setback from the property line 10 ft which really in my mind it was very clear it's from the front property line that's how you measure uh sign setbacks but he wanted some clarity uh and
specificity city. So he recommended that I write front property line uh which is basically what my intent was while writing that standard. Um I don't have a problem doing that but I wanted um the board to be aware that that was a a
change that was suggested by the engineer. I'm perfectly fine doing that. Yes ma'am. >> That's for signage. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Correct. Signage 4.7 uh uh subsection 5. Um so that is the only that those two
are the only changes I've made um based on obviously the feedback and uh I'm going to stop talking now and if there are any questions any changes any recommendations um happy to answer. >> I I have a couple questions. Um, sure.
>> First, with respect to section 4.3 sub paragraph 2, where it talks about laundry facilities and central air conditioning to be provided for each individual townhouse unit. >> And I wanted to know if there was an intent to include the stacked units in
that. >> Uh, yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Yes. >> So, I don't know if you want to >> do you want me to write stack? right stack just because um >> they're all almost all are stacked except there's one unit that is uh individual. Everything is stacked.
>> Oh, okay. >> So, they're all stacked. >> Okay. >> So, >> so I would I mean you could just take out townhouse and just put unit. >> Okay, perfect. I'll do it. Um, and then I had a question about the 4.5 parking
and loading and you know referring to the concept plan um on page 16 um you know where where the drive aisle and those parking spaces kind of come
out in a te. Um, is it possible to include a provision for an oversized parking space for uh loading or something just in case delivery goes down, how are they going to turn around? How are they going to
get out? >> I don't know if there's any thought into that. And if the developer >> has already addressed it, then we don't necessarily need to. they didn't go into those details but one of the things when I reviewed their concept plan which I as I mentioned uh
was a part of the settlement uh agreement one of the things when we were talking to them in December while we were in the process uh one of the things that I had specified was exactly you know when there's an Amazon delivery or any kind of delivery um they come in
they deliver how are they going to turn around so if you look at the two ends Um, how do I do uh let's let's call it the T, the end of the T. If you look at the one that's uh closer to uh the
residential areas and the one closer to the Pekman River, they have a small bumpout. >> Okay, >> which I think uh which I think would be uh sufficient to make a turn. And I think another thing going back um
you know when we actually when they come before us for a site plan and if we find any kind of issue with that then we could of course ask them to modify the site plan. >> That's it.
Chris, go ahead. >> S, I understand. Um, so after the last council meeting, a conversation came up about basements and I understand that the intention of developers not to have basements underneath. >> Yes, there will be no basements. I got an email confirming that. Uh, do you
want me to write no basements allowed? I'll be happy to write. >> I think that would be helpful. And just because, you know, some of the buildings will be in a flood zone, that would be helpful if we >> made sure we clarified the basements were not permitted. Okay, I will I will just uh >> and it also could potentially increase
the density if people turn basements into bedrooms and things like that. >> Uh parking issues, things like that. So, if you could write that in, I would appreciate it. >> I just did. Yeah, >> thank you very much. >> Good idea. No basement, no attab crawl spaces. It's got to be slam on
grade or >> when it's flood plane, typically that's what it's done. I mean, we didn't get into those details, but I did um after um Monday night, I did reach out to the engineer asking about the basement, and they said no basement.
>> Um I do want to put forth that at least half of this property is in the Ruters flood zone, the plus 3 ft. So if there are no basements as we've just suggested to add in um cars it it's
habitable space that has to be 3 foot above >> correct >> the elevation. My question to you is that >> going to be implemented according to the units that will be in the plus 3t zone. I'm sorry.
>> The height the the higher building elevation and I don't mean the overall height. I'm talking about where the habitable space starts. Right. >> The car could be parked in a flood. Correct. It doesn't matter. It's about [laughter] the habitable space. So my
question is for the units that are inex existing in that area of the flood zone. I would like to know and I obviously it may not be able to be drafted into this but I think that you should discuss that with the engineer for the plan.
>> I I what was he what was his >> So I because I had the exact same question and one of the things that I just um had concerns about you know any kind of building in the flood plane riparian uh zone and all that fun stuff. So I had a conversation and the concept
plan in that concept plan they're actually showing a area. So the slide uh the property slopes downwards. So the southern part if you will of uh the property is at a much lower elevation than the northern part. Um so they had
said that they were um you know and I uh forgive me engineers uh the three in front of me but I'll uh in lay person's terms they'll do like a basin for the flood. Uh I I don't know how else to explain that. So um what I got from them
and I looked at the uh that none of the buildings will be in the uh in the outside of the flood zone. >> Well, you're talking about the FEMA flood zone. You're not referring to the Ruters plus three 1% which is >> the Rut which would be equal to the
flood zone by FEMA. So and we are being told by the DP [cough and clears throat] to take note of the Ruters flood zone not just take into account the old FEMA maps. So may I ask you what would would
you like me to augment uh anything in this or how would you like me to >> I think that you need to have a discussion with them. >> Okay. >> I mean maybe I'll ask our experts. Do do either of you know whether the NJ is
asking for these new elevations in fluial zones to be built at the 3T higher if they are um if they're shown to be in that fluial 1% rucker zone.
>> So it's it's actually mandatory then. >> Right. Okay. So let Okay. Okay. So, that being said, would you like me to add a sentence? Uh, I'll be happy to do that. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And and add that sentence um in the building height.
>> No, the building height won't change. What will change is the elevation of where the habitable space begins. >> Oh, I see. >> It will be 3 foot higher than say somebody that's closer to Grove Avenue. >> Okay. >> You know, would that be right? somebody
closer to Grove Avenue being far outside of that area. It's the ones that are closer to the Pacman River that are at risk. >> Correct. And I I'll be happy to add that, but I did just so that you know, I did have um extensive conversations
through for the through during the settlement process to avoid that. But I but it's it doesn't hurt to put in a sentence. >> Okay. I I would appreciate it. I can send you Please do. Okay.
Send something. I'll send it first to Alvaro and then I'll [laughter] >> Yeah. When you send it to Alvaro, CC me so that way I I just see if the language is okay. >> Okay. >> And this property grades off to the
south and but and to the same point the habitable space it'll all be at the same level, right? because despite the fact that the that the property um declines to the south, you would still want the habitable
>> space. And that's how they've designed it. >> And it's all one level, right? Correct. >> Correct. They're not. And they're putting that area completely with like um you know to collect the flood waters and keep keep the housing in a dry area
is how it was explained without >> do we have any historic any history on how often that area flooded and by how much? >> I couldn't find any history but like um you know we went by what the uh Rudgars uh mapping. So we have the red girls
mapping but I don't have the history of the site but but in any event whatever they do they have to be in compliance with the D regulations. >> So that you know even if you approve it right they still need the D approval for
those reasons the riperian zone as well as um uh being in a flood zone. >> Yes. Well, >> you know, Greg and I were just chitchatting about the elevations, the overall elevations of those buildings that they are required to
[snorts] build 3 ft higher elevation starting from square one the floor. Um, the question he had was then those buildings are going to be 48 ft tall. And so my question to you is can't the
can't those units be the ones without that third floor space? You know what I mean? Like just >> not going to be but they're remember height is measured at average grade of right average grade of the flip.
>> Right. So the average grade is going to be up three feet >> and we're looking at at the map it's almost the entire site. >> Yeah. Which again is a very very expensive proposition for the developer which if the developer didn't contemplate it that's going to be
>> surprise. Well, and the other thing too, um, because when the height was something, we were in discussion, um, uh, our, uh, co-al attorney and myself were in conversation with the engineer, um, two
weeks ago, 3 weeks ago. And, um, in that conversation, what I'd mentioned to them is typically buildings are, you know, 9 ft tops, 10 ft. It's a residential building. So three floors is 30. Why do
you need that extra 15? And that's exactly why he said that it they have to adjust it. Um so in any event, however they uh grade the site, it has to be a max of 45. So we're giving them extra 15
ft. Y that I mean >> so they're actually getting a little bit of leeway >> cuz I didn't see a specific definition for >> there is but are they measuring to the point or >> average
and basically whatever area that is enclosed uh the full perimeter of the building and at 10t intervals you're going from gray and she said they >> that becomes gray M madam chair if I can just just for clarity
>> the the height of a building is measured at every every 10 foot intervals around the exterior of the building >> they average that out >> correct >> and we I had the discussion with sand 45 ft I actually was talking about lowering it to 40 but this is why they're giving
them the extra 5T and this is may maybe why they requested it but 45 ft is an ample height >> for a twostory building even if you figure 10 foot per They still have another 10 foot roof elevation. >> Correct. >> And if they come close, they could change the pitch of the roof to drop it
from an eight or nine, which they're probably doing down to a six or seven pitch. >> That's perfect. >> This is like we're just going around in circles here. >> No, you're still adding They had 45 ft from grade. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> but three stories even if you're 10 foot per story here and you're not because on
town houses you're probably 9 foot because 8ft ceilings with >> I understand that. But you're still increasing the potential from the new grade >> and they've built that in already with the extra >> there's a site above the 3 foot that you're going to build building higher.
So they might they're not necessarily >> and again that whole discussion >> necessarily builds. >> No, they'll add three foot a block, >> right? >> So the garages may be three foot lower and they may they may then need crawl
spaces below the areas. We were talking slab. We were talking slab. >> Yeah. But if they they may then have to turn around and have crawl spaces because they have to make up for that >> because we had said slab. So it's not going to be slab on a grade. >> They probably if they in those areas they probably will not.
>> I think that's something that should be >> Got it. Now I see where your confusion is. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So there's maybe >> So you're suggesting that there should be two types of building. One that is
>> No. 100% slab on grade. >> Well, no. I I don't think we should specify whether they do slab or crawl space because either way, it doesn't matter. Uh if they have need a crawl space in an area, they use a crawl space. If they can get away with a slab, they're going to do it because it's less expensive to build. >> And and I think the building height
because this has been vetted quite a bit and a lot of thought has been given. So that 45 foot is basically I I had originally written as deputy mayor said at 40 ft. Um I had written at 40 feet thinking you get typically two and a
half stories are 35 and actual buildings are 30 foot high. So I thought okay give extra 5t but we had this discussion and that's where we came at 45. They were asking even higher but we negotiated down to 45. >> 45 ft to what?
>> From what >> or to what? from the finished grid >> to the ridge >> measured around the full parameter of the building and at 10 ft intervals to the building's highest point of a sloped roof. >> So why would you give them more height
instead of less if they don't why would you allow 45 ft if one they say they don't need it? No, they had asked for 50 ft or 55 and we brought it down to um I had written 40
and then we settled on 45. >> I mean that's not anybody else from the board have any questions? Seeing none, I will open to public to ask any questions of the planner on this particular redevelopment plan for 251
and a half Grove Avenue. Seeing none, I close public participation on this matter. Um, if there are no further questions from the board, no further discussion from the board, um, we can entertain a motion to
adopt the redevelopment plan for 251 and a half Grove Avenue. Um, and find that it is not actually we're not adopting anything. We're just finding it not inconsistent with the master plan
>> with the recommendations that >> you you vocalized. [laughter] >> So, um I guess I'll make a motion to um find that the redevelopment plan is not inconsistent with the master plan
and make the recommendations as discussed concerning um modifications to the provision with laundry. um removing the town home requirement. Um Mayor Makavoy's suggestion to uh prohibit
basement and then um Chair Pearson's suggestion regarding um the additional flood hazard language. >> Sure. >> Yes, >> I will email. [laughter] >> I know. I know.
>> So that's my motion. >> No addict. No habit. >> Well, that's already written in, >> right? That's already written in. I'll second the I'll second the motion. >> Mayor Moy seconds. Can we please get a roll call vote? Mayor, deputy, whatever. [laughter]
>> I called you Mr. before also. So, >> we'll give you all three. He was deputy a few minutes ago. Sorry. >> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes. Mr. Lily. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kamoodi? >> No. >> Mr. Fresky?
>> Yes. >> Township manager Sullivan? Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tim Burrow. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heman. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. >> The motion passes. Um, now we I will
entertain a motion to adopt resolution 2026-9, which is going to be changed by you from 18 to 19. Um, finding the redevelopment plan for 251 12 Grove Avenue. uh meeting certain criteria not to be
inconsistent with the master plan. >> Just as a point of order, >> those that >> meeting those things has nothing to do with our consistency review tonight. Those were the area need of redevelopment criteria and they're
really not part of this the language of this the title of this resolution. >> I think that was probably carry over agenda. So, it's it's actually just finding the redevelopment plan itself not inconsistent with the master plan um with
the same additional language that was uh vocalized a few moments ago that we'll get from the record, but if you want me to say it. We're changing the stacking language. We're talking about the
something with the laundry. We are not going to have basements or attics. and we are um and some of the language requiring potential for a plus three elevation due to it being in the Ruckers
plus three zone. Can I get a motion to adopt this resolution? >> I'll make a motion to adopt the uh memorializing resolution as amended. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Lily.
>> Discussion. Any dis any further discussion? Um, >> yeah. >> No, I just have a point of discussion. I'm just a little concerned about voting on the resolution when I haven't seen the >> a resolution in your
>> No, but I haven't seen the change version that reflects our our changes. So, >> we we can't make the changes. You make the changes at the council level. We're recommending them. We we just moved the resolution. >> We have to revise those changes. So, we
need to revise the resolution before we vote on it. >> Okay. I'm going to pull the resolution. Mr. Misara, would you um with the language that was vocalized a few moments ago, would you be able to change that and we can memorialize it at the next meeting?
>> We could do it one of two ways. Um the statute only requires that the planning board make the determination about whether there is inconsistency and then the planning board if the board chooses can make recommendations. So,
>> so if the board pleases, we can do this resolution and then we can um separately draft something with the with the proposed with the proposed recommendations and that way this can if there is an urgency to get this to go
forward, then we could do that >> and then supplement by making recommendations separately >> in a memo. Do you have a >> I I don't have an objection to that. I mean, my recommendation was going to be that we recess briefly, have Greg type
the changes and distribute them by email if we had to. It's a quick change, but if we want to do it that way, I'm fine with that as well. >> I think uh the drafting of a brief memo to be sent to uh the township clerk and >> then we'll do a resolution at the next
meeting >> bidding on that. >> Okay, >> that's fine. So right now we're just finding no inconsistency. >> The language is staying out of it. >> S >> um we have to submit it to the board and
I had you know um >> S turn your mic on. >> Uhhuh. >> Oh we we have to sub upload it to the uh e courts. Right. So we had I think we had intended to do it after the May 18th
council meeting. So um there are the resolution uh can be adopted today as Greg said in in case of a memo I can write that memo because I have the language here and send it to uh Jen
Kieran uh in time for the May 18th. So that way we are not delayed and we submit everything to e quotes on time. >> You okay with that? >> Yeah, >> everyone's okay with that. Um Sam, >> did Jamie ever tell you what the if the
date was extended or when this is all due? Is the council hearing is at May 4th? >> If if I if I recall um again don't quote me, but my my understanding is there was no uh date per se given May 15th. Uh but
there was an understanding that everything will be you know uploaded uh by before the end of uh May. Okay. I just didn't know if the council was going to hear this on second reading at their May 4th meeting or their later May
meeting. I had sent an email to uh Jamie uh Jamie Kevin basically requesting that it >> Huh. >> the the date for the second hearing. >> Yes. to be on May 18th I because I'm out
of the country and if there are any questions I'll be present to answer them. >> Okay. Um so right now we are just once again putting forth the resolution as written uh with no amendments to it and
we will uh at our next meeting have a memorialization of the memo that we're going to be sending Jen Kieran or that you are going to be sending J. So that will be done at the next meeting. >> No, >> the memo has to be sent to her tomorrow morning. >> Correct.
>> With our resolution of finding of no inconsistency. >> Then at our next meeting, we'll memorialize the memo. >> Do we have >> Do we have to memorize? >> I don't think so. >> It's an action. It can't I mean it can never hurt to have a resolution
memorializing the [laughter] action. I mean it doesn't have to be, but there's no reason not to be. >> All right. Especially because it relates to an ongoing litigation. >> He's like doing more work. >> I know. Well, and he could do it to he could do it 15 minutes before our our
next meeting. [laughter] >> I'm sorry. >> Is the um but we we still will be here uh hearing uh have a presentation at the second me um on May 18 for the second hearing. Right. Okay. All right. Okay.
So basically, I will entertain a motion to just pass resolution 2026 finding the redevelopment plan for 251 and a half not inconsistent with the master plan. Can I get a motion? >> So moved.
>> Mr. Heman makes uh sorry, Vice Chair Heyman makes the motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Mayor seconds. >> No, that was Mr. Russell. [laughter] [clears throat] Waiting for Mr. >> I. Yeah. Okay.
Can I get a roll call vote, please? >> Mrs. Parker? >> Yes. Mr. Lily? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kimuti? >> Council question before I vote. I assume >> you you're not eligible. >> No. Thank you. Then that's what I want
to know. I'll stayain. Why? >> Because he voted. >> Okay. Right. I want to know do I can vote no on this for consistency or do I abstain? Okay. >> Any lawyer will do. >> You [laughter] You're not eligible. So, >> thank you, >> Mr. Freski.
>> Yes. >> Attention manager Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tim Burrow. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Heman. >> Yes. >> Chair Pearson. >> Yes. Motion passes. Um, all right.
Uh, we have no, we're not going into that. Uh so at this time does anybody want to take a two-minut break because we're going to start uh the hearing again for the carrying of application
uh 20 2601 383 Bloomfield Avenue block 708 lot 1. Does anybody need or require five minutes? Okay, good. Um would you please evening again for the record. My name is Lisa John Bosam with the law firm keys a shahinian and jantomasi on behalf of the
applicant. As the board is aware, the applicant previously attended and presented at the board's regular meeting in March. At that point in time, we presented our civil engineer, our traffic engineer as well as our architect um based on comments made by
the board to address certain issues raised with the application. We did carry to tonight's meeting. Since that time, there has been a lot of dialogue back and forth with the board's engineering office. Um we believe that we have now satisfied the requirements or requests related to storm water and
we submitted other reports and materials related to the application. We do have our professionals here present uh as well you know obviously uh Paul Anderson our civil engineer if you'd like us to run through anything related to the revised materials. Um but but otherwise
we we think that we are now in compliance. Yes. Paul Good evening. >> Just Paul, need you to be sworn in again or Paul, do you understand you remain under oath? >> You're still under your licenses are still current, correct? >> They are.
>> Thank you. Okay, Paul, since the last time that we were here, we submitted um several revised reports and plans to the board. Can you um run through the updates that were made to your storm water report?
>> I can. The primary change to the storm water was to add a recharge component to to it. What we did is we took one leg of our regular uh detention system and made it a forest pipe and and routed the
basin that way uh and had the results come out positively. We worked back and forth with the board's drainage engineer to verify that we did everything appropriately. Um we now have uh that system. But in
terms of the overall things that we've changed, uh first thing we did, uh we revised the height of the retaining wall. So we no longer need a variance. Everything is 4T or under or under 4T. So there's no variance required for
retaining wall height. Uh we did submit the geotechnical report by sore testing and the amendment. So that addressed that concern that the board uh wanted. We uh changed the labeling of our uh
future storm from 2050 to 2100. Uh we verified with the board's engineer that the rainfall distrib was a type D instead of type three as I indicated last time which is the appropriate
hydroraph to be used in this instance. Uh we did change the gravel layer up to the top of the 48 in pipe where it's uh where it's the borest pipe. Um we let's see
we uh we did uh a modification in our hypercapat application where we did not allow infiltration to go up uh because it's compacted area as requested by the board's engineer and that did not uh
result in any change. Uh we modeled the impervious and impervious separately um distinctly separately. Um and let's see we did a groundwater bounding analysis on the section or the system
that uh was added to allow recharge and we found that it uh it did not impact either the drainage system itself. It didn't mound high enough to back flow into the system and it didn't mound out far enough to impact any of the
neighboring properties. It goes back to uh the seasonal high groundwater level uh prior to it leaving the property. Um we did a drain time calculation uh which we included in the drainage report also
32 hours. So it is faster than the 72-hour maximum that's permitted. And uh we did incorporate the soil testing report which was previously submitted at the rear portion of the uh of our uh uh
stormware management report. And lastly, we did update our low impact development checklist and included that also in the storm order management report. Um thank you Paul. I have no further questions.
>> Thank you. Alvaro, would you like to make any comments or any conclusions on this? >> They comply with everything we requested. >> Okay. And sing. >> Yeah, they comply with everything.
>> Okay. Um, board questions. >> It sounds like there was an improvement in the dreams from your interactions. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. I would say yes because you're adding recharge and that was something that
>> the site seemed capable of doing >> um due the sand. Can I >> I have a couple of questions. Um can you tell us because of the recharge how much volume will be kept out of the municipal
system? Granted that we don't have a sandy type of storm where we just have like, you know, ridiculous flooding conditions, a hundred-year storm, but typically speaking, how much water are we going to have infiltrating on site
volumewise versus running off the site? >> Well, I do know that the volume for the 100-year future storm was around 1675 cubic feet. So, that would all be recharged into the ground. But what you'll find is in [clears throat] lesser
storms uh you will have almost all of the water going into the ground. >> Okay. >> So, but uh you know I don't have an actual number on on those. I'd have to go back and compute them. >> I'm just I'm thrilled that you were able to accommodate that. I really am very happy about that. I just think it's good
for the whole it's good for everyone. Um, I have one technical question, just a question because I read all of your reports and I just want to make sure that there won't be a problem. Will the removal of some of the sandy soils and
the replacement with the compacted fill in order to stabilize the building uh foundation. um act to or actively undermine the recharge on the site even though it's only in that
small area if you're facing the site on the right side. That's where the HDP is, right? So my question is the request to add the um the stone to to be compacted
in order to have a good solid surface to build a building foundation on. Will that ever will that at all inter like interrupt the recharge? Will that become sort of a fighting problem because you're removing the sandy soil and
you're putting compacted stone down >> depends on the are you asking >> I don't know who I'm asking you >> here [laughter] >> I just want to make sure that >> I can respond I mean I want to hear so the system is offset from the building the compacted soil will be
under the foundation of the of of the building itself not under the in and around the storm water system. Okay, >> stormwater system will leave it uncompacted uh soil in its native condition. >> Anyone else? Um yeah, one quick other
question. You wrote that you're um you're going to have a green roof. >> Not really. >> Very small. So, I just [clears throat] look that there's a planting area on the architectural plan. >> My question is, is it compliant with it? Is it not really a fully green roof or
is it just a a planting area on the roof? >> It's more of a planting area. >> It's not a green roof. I just want >> It's a small It's a very small section. >> Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. Um, I wasn't here at the last meeting, but in listening to the all the testimony, um,
the meeting is I have a quick question about the garbage pickup arrangements. >> Um, it says before 7:00, but, um, is there I know you have to comply with regular ordinances, so I'm assuming that means it's not going to be at 2:00 a.m.
or 3:00 a.m., something like that. They will all the ordinances I've only prior to seven was was the ordinance that we were meeting >> but [clears throat] I don't you know it can be arranged to be any reasonable hour.
>> So we have we have quiet time which normally I believe in the ordinance is between 11 and 7. Um I know our own town pickup I think is between 5:30 it would start. So in other um
in other approvals they have actually said after 7 so that it doesn't disturb residential. So my suggestion is that you definitely just don't put in before 7 because that opens it up to 2:00 in the morning is that you um put in a time
frame. It uh to be perfectly honest it does not matter to the applicant what time the garbage is picked up. I believe that there was a comment in one of the review letters that it would be before 7. Um, whatever the town code requirement is,
they will comply with. >> Does anybody you're our zoning code official? Do you have a suggestion to to for modification of that? You you would either go with what the town's refuge pickup is, which starts anywhere from
5:30 to 7:00, or you would say that it has to start after 7 so that it doesn't disturb the residential around. >> I would suggest because you mentioned the town that it be consistent with the town's refuge schedule.
>> Right. >> It already would have to be, right? That doesn't go away. So, I'm not I just wanted to clarify. I don't want to over complicate. I just wanted to clarify. >> So, we're going to leave it as is. Does anybody have an issue with that or does anybody
>> I I would still then put if you're going to to you should still put a something in it so that it doesn't start at 2 a.m. It should be considered. >> It should be the the ordinance doesn't state that it that the town one is at
5:30, but that is I believe when the town one >> and people don't love the 5:30 pickup anyway, but um just as a thought. >> So just specify it's not codified. It's just the town has its own practice. Let's just put 5 a.m.
>> It will not be before 5:00 a.m. Yes, we can agree to that. >> 5 a.m. >> Can we? No, nothing before 58. >> Agreed. [snorts] >> Do we have to say by 7? I don't I mean who's going to bother them if they if the guy gets there at 8?
>> Okay. So, nothing. Okay. >> Yes. >> Nothing before 5:00 a.m. Does that suffice for everyone? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Any other any other questions? >> I have one other thing. And I also was
not at the last meeting. Um not necessarily for the engineer, but in previous um approvals by this board, they had put in a consideration of no units shall be short-term rentals such as Airbnb, but not limited to Airbnb by
management owners or lees. Um [clears throat] I have I don't know if the applicant has an issue with that or not. However, I believe that there that would be a town code ordinance that would be adopted rather than implementation by the planning board. But
>> we've put that condition in on multiple other affordable housing um developments and developments that have 15 units of affordable and you know and the rest of
them are luxury units. So we have put that in. And >> can you say the condition again? No units shall be short-term rentals such as Airbnb but not limited to Airbnb by management owners or leies.
>> Do you want to take five minutes? Do you want to take 10, three minutes to >> just one minute I think? except after >> or 5 seconds. We agree to that condition. >> Okay. So, can you forward that to Greg?
>> Greg's typing away. Are there any Well, obviously you guys got this um resolution late today, you know, or maybe haven't really get a chance to know where we're not going. I
just want to see if there's any other comments from the board or any other questions >> from the last meeting. I feel great that the engineers are satisfied and that they came back so quickly to to meet that. >> Yeah, >> that was great. Thank you. >> I mean, one of the I I know that I
probably ticked a lot of people off in this room the other night. Great. But one of the most important things that we do as a planning board is pass. When we review major site plans, one of the most important things that we can do is
review the storm water and make sure that it's compliant that [music] our two fabulous experts from Boswell Engineering have found everything that they need see everything that they need to see and they tell us so and that it
comports to all the rules and regulations of Verona and the state. So, you know, we we had to go through it and as angry as people might be there there really shouldn't be that. I'm I'm doing we're doing our job as a board.
>> We respect that and we appreciate the collaboration uh with with Boswell and with the board and we're happy that we could be here so quickly tonight to hopefully finish the application. >> Can I just ask for um to expound on what Kathleen said? She first she says no
unit shall be used for short-term rentals. So are we just trying to prevent the Airbnb or are we trying to like not allow anything less than 6 months or something like that? Because
how do you define short-term rental unless we define it? What has been is there any consistency with other >> Well, I think in many many instances and many landlords do this and and leases it would be a
>> You said you wrote that by the way. [laughter] >> I didn't write that. >> You did? >> No, cuz >> I wouldn't have written that [laughter] um for 6 months. Um, you know, a lot of commercial leases or multif family
leases prevent less than 6 months as a as a rental. Um, it's also short short-term alo. Also, state law has a distinction between 180day rentals and then fullyear rentals under, you know, tenant practices.
>> So, are you saying that you how how do you suppose we should define it? Well, I think I think we could we could do both. No unit shall be used uh for rental purposes of less than six-month term. That that I think satisfies, you know,
satisfies everything. >> Could I could I offer three months maybe as >> I mean that's up to you. >> I think our objective is to stop this home sharing type thing, >> right? Okay. >> I think three months and >> obviously none of that will occur with the affordable units whatsoever because
those are very >> regulated. oversight. And >> Madam Chair, if I can just finish my my thought. >> I'm sorry. >> Um I think that if what we're trying to do is prevent those type of things, 3 months is fine. That would be I'm just trying to think of what like a vacation
period would be or something like that. [clears throat] 3 months would be a >> So I've written no unit shall be used for rentals for a term of of of less than 3 months. >> Okay. >> Any objection? just does that not I don't even know if that's a possibility like a month-to-month lease lease that
still is you know >> but that's an ongoing thing that that's just an agreement that the owner of a property decides to do an ear lease or a monthto-month lease >> I don't think that that month in >> that doesn't denote or mean that it's a short-term rental
>> okay not to be a dead horse here but why go to three months why don't we just keep that to six months I don't see why >> I If I I think if somebody is looking for I think one of the visions of this being a community oriented building in my opinion is that if somebody's looking
for housing maybe just for a few months after they sell their house if the [clears throat] building has an opening they're looking for something while they purchase another house or they move to another state giving 3 months would be appropriate if it's good for the landlord. But if all we're trying to do
is stop the very short-term rentals we don't have an interest in stopping rentals that are more than than 3 months. And I think 3 months is even a conservative figure at that point. >> Okay, I agree. >> Uh, personally, I renovated my house. We moved into the Annim office for 4 months and then we were able to move back in
and that was >> very helpful. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't want to limit them or, you know, the town for these kind of things. It's a it's a transient style or short-term rentals that we want. >> Madam Chair, if I could just make some general comments. Sure. Appropriate.
>> Well, I haven't opened the public yet. So if you're opining over this or discussing >> I can I can wait >> please. If there are no further comments or questions for this applicant this engineer rather I'm going to open to
public for the engineer questions. Any questions of the engineer from the public? Seeing none. Thank you. Um, if there's no further discussion on this
until we go into deliberation and we can make as much discussion as we want, I would like to open >> I have one other point. >> Sure. I'm sorry. >> Was there going to be signage detail or was that >> Can you >> Is that deferred or
>> No, it's not deferred. I don't I think it was recommended by Sarine to get >> What did you recommend? >> I believe they did provide a signage detail on their architectural plan. Yeah. And it was reviewed. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. And comply. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Sorry. >> So that's that's not a condition then. Correct. >> Okay. >> It is or is not? >> It's not. Nope. >> Okay. Uh so are there any further sort of hanging tags on this?
>> And if not I will open uh to public comment on this application. So, if you have a comment to make on this application in general or please come to the mic, state your name and um your municipality
and you'll have four minutes. >> I will take four minutes. >> Okay. >> Bob Prout. I'm a resident and while it's kind of disturbing to see the garden center leave, my family started our business in 1924
and moved to the present location in 52, right around the time when the Pelos moved in as well. We've been business neighbors as well as friends for over 70 years and
going through four generations. It's kind of disturbing when you see a business like this go out because towns like Verona need while this isn't a boutiquey type of business, they need businesses that have diversity. We don't
need any more nail salons or pizzeras and this gave the the town a little bit of diversity that we're kind of losing at this point in time. That all being said, between my wife and I, we own most of the property on the frontage across
the street going back to Claremont Avenue. If anybody's going to object at what we see, we're the ones that that have the property across the street. We have no problems at all with the application. Uh
we trust that the Pelos family who's been in town for many years isn't going to screw the town by putting up something adverse to what should be in town. Uh so we we are wholeheartedly in agreement with this whole application. I
do have a question. I was at the meeting last month and the uh at times it's kind of like watching a pingpong match and when it came up to signage, are you talking about the signage on the building or on the parking
spaces? I agree entirely that by closing up the driveways, they're taking three more. They're making three more spaces and those three spaces should be included in the inventory of the parking that of the overall building. But at
some point last month, they were talking about having those spaces dedicated by signage out front, and that I do not agree with. >> I think he shot that down. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> so we're good. Thank [laughter] you. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Crab. Any other members of the public like to make a statement or comment? Seeing none, u we will close public comment. Um
so the application is deemed complete. It's closed. Um wait, you'd like to make your closing argument? >> Yeah, >> just very briefly. We spent a lot of time here, but uh we do think this is the a very exciting opportunity for both the township as well as the Feloso
family. As you just heard, longtime business owners, residents, pillars of the community. Uh as I stated at the the opening of the meeting, the Felos do intend to maintain space within the first floor of the commercial space here. This is an opportunity to
reinvigorate the corner of Bloomfield Avenue and Park Avenue with active ground floor retail bringing in new uses but maintaining the the Flosso Family Hillrest Farms uh place there as well as providing new uh housing opportunities with the residential units above for
people that want to downsize or move to Riverona. Uh provided, you know, temporary housing if necessary uh for more than 3 months. Uh uh with that though uh with the only 33 units they are providing 11 eligible affordable
housing tax credits. Uh again this goes to uh the FOS family themselves and being good uh community stewards. This application is a fully conforming application but for small uh design waiverss and variances. We believe this
is an exciting project. We hope you feel the same and we ask that you respectfully look favorably upon the application. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Tombasta. Um, it I mean, just to opine, it's a beautiful building that the architect
did an unbelievably beautiful job on that building and it's going to fit so well into Verona. So, um, but I digress. Uh, >> go, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Just some brief comments. Um,
I was also not at the last meeting, but I did certify that I watched the the three-hour experience, and that was uh I'll leave that as an experience um for sure. But, um, I just wanted to note that I think that this application is
well thought out, attractive, and community oriented. Um, and I thank the Flosso family for putting forth an application that really thought about the needs of the community um, and the needs of Verona. Unfortunately, some other applications and having my time on
the township council, we have had some acrimonious um, and sometimes very difficult negotiations with developers. Uh, and that obviously was not present here. So I I thank you for really offering a model development to this
town that is so desperately needed in order to communicate standards for other developers. So I look forward to uh voting yes on this application and I thank you for your commitment to providing a a very adoptable plan. Thank you.
Um um just just as an aside, I just want to add one other variance that I mentioned to you a few moments ago. Um just in regard to um 7.3 fences, I just don't
want any problems down the line. We said that we wanted that rough iron fence to be put up. It is six feet. It is in the front yard. Um, so the
Sorry, I have to find it. >> So there'd be two variances for that. >> Yeah. I'm so sorry. But >> 150-7.3 >> It is a 7.3 >> and then there's another one. Yeah, 7.3 ft.
>> No, that's not in the front yard. >> In the front yard, the height of a fence may be 3 ft. >> 3 ft. >> So, this will be in the front yard and six. And we're going to leave that >> 3 ft and 10 ft from the front.
>> Okay. Variance from section 157.3 of the code with which provides fences shall not be installed within No, that's not >> that's the one for the side. >> It's 7.3B. >> Okay. >> I just can't.
>> Yeah. If you're on um page two of the whereas it's the one two3 where it says um variance from section 150-7.3 of the code which provides census shall not exceed 6 ft in height. I think it should be 3 ft in height in a
front yard. The applicant proposes to repurpose an existing row iron fence along Park Avenue. The fence height is six feet and the posts are seven feet in height. >> That's one. But now >> I have to >> we're also going into the into the front yard. So you need one variant for over
six feet >> and then it's a separate ordinance section >> that doesn't allow it within the front yard. It can only be 3 ft, >> but we already said that we want >> the fence to be placed there. So >> right, so it's 150 there 7.3B. Fencing
[clears throat] shall not exceed 6 ft in any yard up to the front facade of the principal structure where said fencing shall not exceed 3 ft. >> So we're just adding that into the variance section. >> Right. >> Thank you. Um,
Saraphine, did you have any comments or suggestions for any of the conditions of approval that Mr. Mera drop? >> Um, I did take a quick look at all the conditions. Um, the ones that I wanted
to be added, they're already in there. the one regarding the structural stability analysis for the retaining wall, the existing wall along Park Avenue. So, that condition is already in there. So, all good. >> So, as far as you're concerned, this should suffice. This suffices to you and
any for you, Alber? >> No, they comply with everything. >> Okay. >> You have any comments or Yeah. >> I do. >> Any suggestions? >> Albero or me? >> I'm not talking to you. Oh, [laughter] we're looking down. >> I don't have suggestions. I just had a
quick comment that to I wanted to echo what the mayor had said that this was I'll call it model project. It was a pleasure to work from concept through site plan application and I do think that this is a model project that we can put before other developers that come to
this board and throughout the town. So, I look forward to also voting yes on this. >> There you go. Okay. Uh I would like to uh also thank this group of individuals uh for how they presented this project.
Uh the design of the project is stellar. Uh I think this is the way Verona should be building projects. Uh I'm very happy that you included retail space in this. Uh it's a corner that uh you don't want another apartment complex. Uh and it it
breaks it up and I'm very happy as to what Mr. Trout said that uh the family business is staying in Verona. Uh it's been there for quite a long time. It will be missed, but I'm very happy that it is staying as part of this property.
Uh I will also echo what you have just heard but it's very important that you know when we hear even from our experts uh on the way the communication went back and forth and we came to this day and on the final decision day there
really weren't any not that many problems uh with this whole process and that's because of the individuals involved here over there and over there as well. So, I thank you for your time. I thank you for your patience bringing
it back. Uh, I will echo what uh Dylan said that it's Thank you for answering all our questions. We have a lot of projects coming down the road this year. We have to be detailed on everything. We do not want to set a precedent that's a bad precedent. And having others come in
and say, "Well, you did it for them. You should do it for us." So, I I appreciate your time and I appreciate your patience on this and I look forward to also voting yes on this project. >> Anyone else down there want to put their two cents in?
>> I'll add two cents. Um just to say I think as initially this area coming for redevelopment I believe I might have been uh dissenting if not uh like Mr. proud said, you know, really difficult
to let go of. What I saw as a space that just has, you know, it's a it's a it's a pillar of the charm of of of this town. But [clears throat] I'm ending up here as probably one of the most pleasing yes votes that I've ever um um approved
here. So that's quite a long way from where I was to what it can be. And >> deserves an applause. >> Yeah. [laughter] So, so I just thank you all and it shows your love for the community and your love for your craft, everyone. So, thank you. >> This is my fourth meeting this week.
>> He [laughter] loves it. >> Are there Yeah. So, let me ask Mr. Miss Sarah, are there any clarifications that you would like to [clears throat] make from any changes from the draft that everybody got? >> Yes, there was there was supposed to be
an omission which I omitted here now about the parking spaces on Bloomfield Avenue. So, I struck that just the it had to do with plowing, which private plers can't plow Bloomfield Avenue. >> Right. >> Right. So, I don't know whether your version had that little it was a
parenthetical that was supposed to come out. >> Oh, okay. I I don't think so. [laughter] >> Okay. And then I um I just added the um language with regard to the um fence and we added the two conditions
um which were um the last two which were no trash or recyclable pickup shall occur prior to 5:00 a.m. and no units shall be used for rentals for a term of less than 3 months. and and the resolution that was circulated to the
board, did it pick up those last minute uh edits that that we had? Okay. If necessary. Okay. >> If necessary. The the um the TWWA um council does not think that it's that it'll be necessary that it'll be required. So, we added if necessary
language to the condition. >> Right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That was a recommendation made by the engineers. So, yeah. So, >> understood. If required, we we'll certainly get it. Yes. Okay. And that was with the uh BWSCE as well >> if necessary.
>> If necessary. >> Okay. Um so those two things were just being tweaked with an if necessary. >> Are there any further comments on >> the resolution? Okay. First, we are
voting what? Voting. Um I'll make a motion to approve this application. >> Second. >> The mayor seconds. Can we get a roll call vote, please? >> Mrs. Parker, >> yes. >> Mr. Lily, >> yes.
>> Mr. Kamudi, >> yes. >> Mr. Freshy, >> yes. >> Township manager O' Sullivan, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor Makavoy, >> yes. >> Mayor [snorts] Tambero, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Heman, >> yes. >> Chair Pearson, >> yes.
>> [applause] >> Now, um, as per the resolution that Greg created and just amended, can I get a motion to move, um, um, resolution 2026-20, it's actually on this side of the um,
application, oh, approving preliminary and final site plan for fourstory mixeduse building at 383 Bloomfield Avenue with 33 residential units with ancillary amenity space and improvements. >> So moved second mayor Makavoy makes a
motion. >> Oh boy. Miss Parker second. >> Can you They're fighting over second. Um can you please uh [clears throat] roll vote on that? >> Mrs. Parker. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lily. Yes, >> Mr. Kimuti. >> Yes, >> Mr. Presky. >> Yes, >> Pendro Sullivan. >> Yes, >> Deputy Mayor Mackoy. >> Yes, >> Mayor Tim Burrow. >> Yes, >> Vice Chair Heman. >> Yes. >> And Cher Pearson. >> Yes.
>> Uh, the motion passes and um I want to thank Greg for finishing this and getting your resolution in your hands. >> Sarah, we appreciate the board. We appreciate all your time and all your
comments. Truly, it has been a collaborative process and we do appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. [laughter] >> We don't. Yeah, that's it. >> I thank you. >> Thank you.
right there.