##VIDEO ID:XgVA9bQnsWc## good evening everybody adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meetings Act was provided through the posting mailing and filing of the annual notice of regular scheduled meetings of the Town Council on December 12th 2023 the notice was on that date posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building provided to the Westfield leader and the star and filed with the clerk of the town of Westfield Miss L you may I have a roll call Mayor brindle here council members hood here Daria here dagalo here kefir here Saunders here armento here contract here hey here please rise for invocation will be given councilman contract and then remain standing for the salute to the flag as we begin this meeting let us take a moment to appreciate the privilege and responsibility we have been given to serve our community let us seek the highest ideals of honesty integrity and compassion in our interactions and decisions May our differences Inspire dialogue rather than Division and may our shared goals unite Us in purpose let us move forward with Open Hearts and Minds committing to the well-being of all I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible andice Jim just a couple of quick updates uh for everybody um road paving even though it's November continues uh we had El Elizabethtown Gas is still trying to get some of the work done before year end uh so they just um last Thursday Friday when the public schools were closed they were able to Mill and pave uh Trinity Place Waterson Street and a good section of raway they were required to pave due to some infrastructure work there the striping of those streets will be actually uh redone uh I believe this Friday and they're currently working on a grid in the in Ward number two uh completing the second half of a grid they worked on the beginning of the year including streets like Benson Harding um um St Marks a few others over there hoping that the weather looks to be good so they should get that that grid finished um in the next two weeks as well so that'll then complete Paving for this year and then we'll look to move to next year one last thing about Paving we are go uh taking bids on Thursday for our one of our two State a jobs the Clover and Francis terrist job uh if bids come in well and we have uh a successful bidder we will look to award a contract uh for uh Paving uh at next meeting December 3rd and the weather holds that might be able to be done this year worst case will be transferred to the spring of 25 so um that's road paving uh leave collection continues uh leaves are Fallen fast uh it's uh lack of rain um leaves are falling faster than normal we did start earlier than normal uh and the guys are moving along very well the crews are moving along great um so again um stay in touch with the nixel get the leaves out there move your cars when you get a nixel for your street or area uh and uh you know try to avoid putting mums Bri uh leaves sorry mums sticks branches and pumpkins in the leaf piles um if if we get we we if we uh go to remove or take those to the Union County Center we'll be denied dropping off the leaves so you don't want contaminated piles and then lastly Memorial Park playground for those of you that are in that area over there taking longer than we expected we've had a couple pieces of equipment that had be uh reordered uh good news though we're going to see some progress next week the poured in place surface will be poured next week um and the fence will be right behind it and then the equipment that we need to be uh installed um that has not come in yet is being shipped out the end of the month and that'll be installed but that doesn't that does not affect the port and place surface so uh hopefully a matter of weeks away before we can actually finalize that project um there's some other pieces of the project too some new sidewalk has to be poured uh and some of the fixing of the Memorial Park bathroom doors but uh we're getting close to to a finished product so um that's it great thank you um before we get started unfortunately it's a beginning of very somber um some news I do want to take a moment to convey on behalf of the entire Town Council our deepest sympathy to the family of Brandon ginot a Westfield High School senior who was tragically killed last night in a car accident we're grateful to the high school administration and counseling team for providing additional support services for students and staff and our thoughts and prayers remain with Brandon's family and friends as they cope with this unimaginable loss so can you all just join me in a moment of silence please to remember Brandon thank you um and a propo we actually have a proclamation tonight for the incredible organization imagine um who has actually been at the schools and working with um families and students um to provide them the grief counseling that they all need so I'd like to bring up Lindsay shambach from the executive director of Imagine while we read this Proclamation so this is in um acknowledgement of National Children's grief Awareness Month whereas Mon and children's grief awareness day were created to bring attention to the needs of children who are grieving and the benefits they obtain through the support of others and whereas one in 13 children in New Jersey will experience the death of a parent or sibling by age 18 and whereas imagine a center for coping with loss was incorporated in October 2011 by Mary Robinson in philanthropist Dr Gerald Glasser and now headed by executive director Lindsay sham and whereas imagine has provided a space in our community for Children and Families experiencing the death or life-altering illness of a loved one since March 2012 and whereas imagine has furthered their mission from ensuring no child Grieves alone to Ure to ensuring no one Grieves Alone by providing grief Education and Training for schools Community organizations and businesses across the state of New Jersey and Beyond and whereas Governor Murphy signed into law the grief Bill s 3330 on January 4th allowing schools to teach children grades 8 through 12 about grief and loss and support structures to Aid in the grieving process and whereas recognizing that providing support for grieving children is essential for the future health of wellbeing of our children our families and Society now therefore be it resolved that the town of Westfield recognizes November as National Children's grief Awareness Month in partnership with imagine a center for coping with laws is part of our Collective efforts to ensure no child Grieves alone and thank you for all you do Lindsay it's so important so appropriate I Echo mayor brindle's statements for Brandon's family our hearts are with them and our organization is prepared to support them and everyone in our town I always start with just saying so much gratitude to the town of Westfield that imagine was born here it was in living rooms across this town that you created this beautiful space and that this space now serves 600 Children and Families from 85 different towns all born from the work and the Beautiful generosity of this group of people who know and understand what grieving children need and I feel so honored and privileged to be able to be there answer the phone respond to schools help leaders through these tragic tragic moments that none of us ever want to imagine um so thank you so much for your commitment uh thank you to this town for continuing to support us November 21st is children's grief awareness day and imagine is offering a free webinar to all part we have 250 people registered and the title of the webinar is how to talk to Children about death and dying and so we welcome anyone who's interested just to join and be a part of this community we're very grateful so thank you so much so in uh in other news um uh there's lots of new business happenings in town and today councilman Saunders and I joined Jim guild at the ribbon cutting ceremony for Apple monor school which offers infant toddler preschool kindergarten summer camp camp programs as well as certified outdoor classrooms for ages 6 weeks to 6 years old and we've discovered today they are almost fully booked even though they've actually been open for I think a little less than a month um they already have a waiting list for infants and toddlers which speaks to the desperate need for reputable and reliable child care options in our area um and apple joins the relocated Alpha Fit club and fully activating that space at the newly finished first phase of Westfield Crossing on South Avenue um and then on Saturday and I have members of the downtown Westfield Corporation here I want say thank you for all your work in supporting our businesses um the the w we welcome the new owners of specialty soccer store Pegasus Sporting Goods at 317 South Avenue West which is next door to Sharon Sherwin Williams and then tomorrow we'll be cutting the ribbon for Lux threads it's located in the former Ruby and Jenna location at 206 East Broad Street the woman's clothing store opened by a local Westfield mom and former sax buyer which I love when with our local residents uh opening businesses they'll offer high-end and affordable fashion for women of all ages and soon we'll be welcoming the baked Baked Bear the San Diego based Ice Cream Sandwich Shop when they opened their first North Jersey location in Westfield at the former C saholic location on Elm Street so there is a lot happening in Westfield um and I saw the sign for sweet green is up in the form of Farmhouse location we look forward to that opening early next year um regarding next year we have a lot of volunteer openings that we're searching to fill so the annual open call for volunteers to fill upcoming V vacancies on various boards commissions and committees will open later this week on our website and I hope everyone will consider submitting an application for areas of Interest the talent and eagerness of our residents to volunteer are always Westfield's biggest assets and we are really grateful for those who are willing to step up and devote their time and energy to benefit us all um I was speaking to the fire chief today and he wants to remind us all that there is a still a fire ban in place the little bit of rain we got didn't even uh come close to addressing the significant drought that we're under so the um there's njd fire ban on all public lands and private properties in all municipalities remains in place the band consists of all outdoor fires unless they're contained in elevated stove using propane natural glass or gas or electricity um no fire pits no bomb fires no wood or charcoal fires allowed Chief Del only today they are going to neighbors and putting out fire pits with a with a fire hose please don't make them do that um uh I think we all know how dry it is outside it only takes a spark so please just refrain from anything um that could candles just be anything could spark in this Tinder Box that we're in right now and no fireworks obviously so the ban will remain in effect until further notice um please please do do all you can to comply make sure your neighbors comply and hopefully and be pray for a lot of rain um whoever thought we'd be saying that right um tonight we have some important legislative items on the agenda a few of which I want to highlight um there are several not notable items from the finance policy committee two of which are resolutions to approve the insertion of special items of Revenue in the municipal budget one's for the 24 Greening Union County Grant in the amount of $6,000 which supplements our tree planning program for next year and the other is for the kids Recreation Grant and the amount of $45,000 to help fund an upgrade to the memorial our tennis courts um and lastly we have a public hearing and ordinance on second reading to amend the One Westfield Place Redevelopment plan following the planning board's unanimous finding last week that it remains consistent with the master plan and just a little background I know that's why many of you are here as covered in the presentations by our team of professionals at the last Town council meeting the project is being reduced by 25% it still delivers 57 million in Revenue to the town over 30 years that can support future budget needs and our lower taxes deliver significant public benefits including two pedestrian plazas and several traffic improvements and it supports what we've always said our key objectives and that's expanding and diversifying our tax base restoring downtown jobs and increasing daytime foot traffic improving pedestrian safety and traffic mitigation and advancing our affordable housing obligations while protecting the town from high Des density residential development um and once again to remind everybody this what we're voting on tonight this is simply an amendment to the existing Redevelopment plan it's not a replacement plan it's not a vote to revisit the entire project if the smaller amended plan does not pass the council the existing RDP for the larger plan that was approved and adopted in 2023 remains in place that's just a fact and that's how the Redevelopment process works Works regarding tonight's hearing Town planner Don samit and Redevelopment attorney Steve Millen will be available to answer any questions that arise as part of this process I will also take the opportunity to ensure that we correct any misinformation that has been shared um while I do appreciate that the some may have different points of view on this project Miss sharing misinformation does a terrible disservice to the public by undermining potential valid points of concern and uh today today's example of that I had a resident send me a letter yesterday outlining what his concerns were about One Westfield place and it included a lot of misperceptions about the project like I do with everybody that reaches out to me I offer to have a phone conversation so we can have a dialogue which I always find more fruitful than a back and forth Email exchange um and he and I spoke this afternoon and after addressing all his concerns which are fairly consistent with what we hear about traffic and so forth um there he he acknowledged that there's a lot of nuance in the decisions we make and it's very easy to have a social media talking point um but he he appreciated the Strategic thought that was behind a lot of these things and I said at the end um at you if you told me at this end of the conversation you still believed it wasn't the right thing to do I would totally respect that because at least I felt like he was making a decision that was based upon factual information so um so I just think in order for us to have a real dialogue with the community it's important that people have the facts and make and we have an obligation to share the facts and then let people draw conclusions based upon that so tonight's public hearing is how the legislative process is designed to work providing our community several weeks after the ordinance introduction to read the information contact their council members and attend tonight's meeting to ask questions of the council before the final vote while I was disheartened that our votes were split along party lines at the last meeting I remain grateful that we have the opportunity to hear from the public tonight as a result of that outcome and so just regarding tonight's process the public hearing which will be at the beginning of the meeting on the amended RDP ordinance is only for questions related specifically to the zoning amendments being voted on comments on any other aspects of the project whether it's uh parking or financials or anything like that should be reserved for the public comment portion later in the meeting um and if people come up and start talking about things unrelated to the amendment I'm going to ask you to sit down and come back for the public comment it's a really important part of the public record so that's why I'll be doing that it's also worth noting that the introduction and potential adoption of the Redevelopment agreement and all Financial components related to the proposed amendments that were initially going to be on tonight's agenda have been moved to subsequent meetings to allow the finance policy committee adequate time for review in the coming weeks the town will be posting extensive updated FAQs and information on the amendments to the Redevelopment agreement and financial agreements which will clarify the terms for the public and dispel any information that may be circulating a detailed Financial presentation will be shared with the public at a future meeting before the vote takes place so with that let's get to the agenda tonight miss lashi do we have any petitions or Communications yes m on November 11th at 8:53 p.m. the members of Town Council and I received communication from the Westfield Advocates regarding general or 224-4254 a copy of the email and attachments have been distributed to all council members uh are there any advertise hearings yes mayor we have an advertised hearing for General orance 202 24-24 in ordance adopting an amendment to the Lord and Taylor train station Redevelopment plan anyone wishing to be heard on General orance 20242 please come to the microphone state your name and address for the record this is the public hearing on the ordinance I just want you all to know so Courtney shell 511 Summit Avenue so regarding the Amendments um I saw there were significant changes to the South Avenue offices and parking um essentially instead of two Office Buildings it's going to be one office building and a big old parking garage so we're going to have two parking garages now and one office building um since this project was introduced I always question the cost benefit of building a wall of offices and buildings separating the South and North sides of town what are we getting in return for ruining the Aesthetics of the Town creating congestion increasing traffic moving computers to in to inconvenient parking and spending well over $30 million to build these parking garages to make room for these offices are we getting more weekday Shopper and commuting parking No in fact the parking is actually decreasing under the Amendments one westfi place is still not providing sufficient parking for his office employees and visitors and between 150 to 200 employees will have no place to park at those offices and will end up using Shopper parking downtown so what exactly are we getting as the town has repeatedly told us and as the mayor reiterated tonight we're buying foot traffic we were told that these offices were desirable to create downtown foot traffic because the town lost 2,000 employees during the pandemic from commercial tenants leaving so what's the dollar value of that foot traffic that we're spending $30 million to get with all the consultants and experts that the town has hired on this project they never had had an economic analysis of that aspect of the project instead they relied on a report that was bought and paid for by Street works and as a lawyer I think any lawyer knows you can pretty much buy somebody to say whatever you want them to say so the fact that the town didn't get its own independent report is very troubling to me um I don't even think the full report's available online I had to get it through an Oprah request there's only an executive summary that doesn't even address the actual spending downtown that's in the full report according to the report each and every office worker commutes to the offices in Westfield whether they're an executive or a janitor will spend almost $6,000 a year in Westfield during their lunch hour and after work multiply that by the projected 480 office workers at South Avenue under the Amendments and they would spend about 2.88 million a year downtown but what if the street works is wrong what if their report is not accurate if these office workers only spend 5,000 a year instead of 6,000 a year the spending benefit is only 2.4 million and if they only spend $4,500 a year then the spending benefit is already less than the cost of the annual Debt Service on the bonds to build all these parking garages and even if Street works is correct that the officer work workers will spend $6,000 a year they never factored in the loss from daily Shoppers office workers will be displacing weekday Shoppers by using between 150 Michelle I'm trying to understand while this is related to the Amendments if you want to come back at public comment and speak to that but this is this is your comment is should be specific to the zoning changes for the amendment that what you're addressing is financials and so forth not related to the amendment we're we're voting on tonight it's related to the why the Amendments should be approved if the Amendments don't make any sense how can you justify Amendment the amendment is a zoning this is a zoning amendment addressed to height bulk things like that what you're commenting on is related to more financials and economics which is not what's being voted on tonight so the amendment isn't changing the off the square footage of the offices I'm I'm not following your connection so you're saying you're saying it's the zoning Amendment so the zoning Amendment changes the square footage of the offices correct and your correct and your point is my point is if you're changing the square footage of the offices and you voted on those the original plan based upon the benefits to the town obviously you thought this was a great plan and you voted on it the Amendments change all that they reduce the office square footage correct correct okay so when you're reducing the office square footage don't you consider what the impact that has on the overall plan and and what you're getting from the benefit so I hear you saying we should actually keep the larger plan you like more office space honestly I didn't think that one was good either but you know what Financial benefit wise you probably are better off because to spend $30 million for reduced office space and reduced benefit who's who who benefits from that not the town honestly who's G who's going to benefit from that the town no so if you like I'll come back and I'll say it again during public comments anybody else on this amendment that's okay it's the way we like it I'm sorry microphone and state your name and address um uh Robert Parker I live at 3:30 Edgewood Avenue oh thany nice to meet you in person Robert yeah and so first of all you are correct whenever I write to you you respond you offer to um talk and I I appreciate that so this is pretty naive and I don't mean to said everybody going backwards but in a real short period of time so I appreciate you're trying to separate the dissatisfaction with the overall project which I think you can feel the tension versus the amendment can you help us understand why it was okay to do an amendment but not revisit the project now maybe that belongs in the second half but I'm trying to address the amendment itself does that make any sense yeah and I can address that um and you can stay up here if you want Robert I unless you don't want to so just to be clear about the amendment um so in the conversations when Street Works was going down the road with tenants for the Lord and Taylor Building um which they had moved had gotten fairly far down the road the tenants had made specific requests that they wanted some changes to the to the office to accommodate their tenant requirements which is a very common thing as you move in teny and they need specific certain specs in order to accommodate them so the conversation with Street Works was and those changes were are reflected in the west zone changes today they wanted a they did they wanted a they wanted parking that was exclusive to the office workers um not that was combing with residential as it was originally um uh planned um I think it's very obvious that there are medical office tenants and the Lord and Taylor Building is a you know they very attractive to medical office the entire building medical office and many of them wanted an urgent care in there as a component of the larger medical office services they provided so when we were talking to them about making these smaller changes we had also got taken the opportunity to have Street Works speak to everyone on this Council including the four new council members and we said if we are making changes it would be a good opportunity to maybe revisit and take into account the feedback that came from those meetings to reflect maybe broader changes than quite frankly what street Works had even asked for and so the Amendments that you see are actually a reflection of larger changes that we asked for for than what they had originally sought because of the tenant requirements and that's where we are today Bob mcnamer 603 Lawrence Avenue um once again we've heard the mayor talk about a 25% reduction in this project and that's absolutely incorrect this amendment actually increases the entire scope of the project by 16% and it's obvious that that when you have initially 155,000 ft of above grade parking and you change it to 421,000 fet of above grade parking you're obviously going to increase the size of the buildings that's what's happened okay so I think we need to understand why we keep hearing about this reduction when it's actually a 16% increase that I'd like to know the answer of second as I mentioned at the last council meeting since round four of the affordable housing obligates new developments to be 20% affordable have you asked the developer to increase their percentage from 15% to 20% I would think that that would be a negotiable item that we can get on the table and I don't think it's that big a lift for the developer to do that and lastly I wanted to understand the process in the agreement there was supposed to be a Review Committee that would come to us and also tell us monthly where they stood with the leasing leasing opportunities and all of that and we've never heard that the Review Committee even exists that it was that they got monthly reports from Street Works I'd like to have an answer on that as well thank you so so don or Steve will you guys want to address those comments I can speak to the the 25% reduction scope of the project the Redevelopment plan regulates the allowable square footage of residential and non-residential space when you look at the concepts that were prepared by Street works and the existing set um are in the Redevelopment agreement right and then the proposed Concepts which we saw a bit of um your beting the end of October so the the square footage reduction in non-residential and residential space is a 25% reduction from the original concept to the concepts now so that number is accurate and I know I I think the the the statement I heard and and what I've read also is that well the the overall above grade Square footage of the buildings is U increasing right well you know the we have to look at as a planner I look at the scope of the project as being one that's related to intensity of development we look at the intensity of development we're looking at how much space is dedicated to those principal uses the office spaces the retail the residential it's that which drives parking demand it's that which drives um um other accessory uses that may be part of the site so when you look at scale there's you're not only looking at square footage you're looking at things like heights you are addressing massing of buildings from set with using setbacks from property lines step backs of upper stories allowable uh coverage percentages all these things help reduce the appearance of massing I think of um I actually thought of this this afternoon um remember being in school and in in science class we had this experiment and there was there were two glass beers right one was tall but it had a sort of a narrow base when compared to another Beaker or or flask which was shorter had a wider base and and the teacher asked well which one is bigger right and everyone said the taller one the taller one and the point I'm trying to make is that your appearance of massing and the scale of these buildings can and will I think in this case be different with an allowable reduced height but um uh shorter buildings perhaps more square footage overall above we haven't verified that but even so I think the provisions that are in place in this plan the Lesser Heights that are permitted are going to reduce the appearance of messing on this building and the allowable Square footages for residential and non-residential is going to reduce the intensity of of this development and that's what's being reduced by 25% that's what being reduced by 25% so reduction in parking demand and also a reduction in trips generated from the project fewer fewer office uh square footage um fewer trips from the site thank you so MR Salon I have a question so is Mr mn's statement true or false yeah I just like to know that so is it true okay so the the scope of the project when measured by the allowable residential and non-residential square footage reduces by 25% does the above grade massing of structures increase haven't verified the numbers even if it does right I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm I there's a you can do whatever you want to me or anybody up here but you will not disrespect our staff even even if it does what I'm saying is that there are specific standards in the plan that will mitigate any appearance of that massing and I think in particular with this amendment with the lower Heights we are not going to see that impact of scale or massing that we would under the original plan just along the mayor's lines of being honest and open when I hear 25% reduction in scope I think of 25% smaller everything so that's not true because it's maybe looks smaller because of it's lower and flatter but the amount of building space is not smaller is that correct because there's garages and building the amount of structure is not smaller I think overall the amount of building space including below grade and above grade will certainly be lower that's that's clear will above grade be different I I think it will be yes but I think a 25% reduction in scope is an accurate statement as a planner I'm looking primarily at that non-residential and residential space when I'm looking at the intensity of the development and what I would consider the scope of the project the parking serves those uses but still a structure but thank you for your comments I appreciate it thank you and I Steve do you address the Review Committee absolutely yes so the Review Committee was established just by the signing of the the the agreement the agreement itself says who was on the Review Committee a reminder that we haven't really gone far in the Review Committee or the construction phase at all because there was a lawsuit filed and force majour uh was was called on that if you look at article four of the Redevelopment agreement the monthly reporting that has been that was was commented on that doesn't start and Trigger until construction begins so the monthly reporting will happen once construction begins but that phase hasn't started yet uh with respect to the activities of the Review Committee there was some activity early on uh in connection not necessarily with the Redevelopment agreement but with the the P we call it the public improvements construction agreement where in Street Works was basically in charge of the the construction oversight of the public improvements town obviously has also hired an owner's representative to represent its interest but the Review Committee was tased with reviewing uh the responses to rfps for various design professionals and the Review Committee did serve that function um one of the comments that was made that was that the Review Committee has to report publicly and that that's not anywhere in the Redevelopment agreement they they the activities that they have done as administrative and that was set up that way intentionally but that's an RDA issue not an RDP issue anyway that is an RDA issue not an RDP issue got it correct thank you anybody else no hi everyone uh ed ki uh I live on Charles Street right around the corner uh from a lot of this development in fact it's much in our backyards okay and I not sure if what I'm going to address is specific to the amendment but uh I'm going to give it a try um I understand there's two more town homes that are planned to be on the uh North Avenue North Town House Development element of the uh project and I understand also that the pervious uh ground ratio is going to be decreased in that same Development Area okay uh the people on Charles Street in general uh are going to be impacted severely by the town homes okay and would appreciate as much pervious uh ground space screening as possible to mitigate you know the development in in that area uh so I hope we would discuss whether that element of the amendment is appropriate for this particular plot in the in the overall project um I also have a question I'm not sure if it's uh the the two additional Town Homes were expected to be uh developed in this area are now uh said to be optionally facing Clark Street I'd like to understand whether there is going to be Eris to Clark Street from these Town Homes okay and how we are addressing that traffic impact and whether all of the town homes in this particular area are going to have ESS into Clark Street and how that might uh impact traffic on Clark Street and the reason I'm concerned about it I I walk down Clark Street from Charles you know three times a week at least I see that it is a an issue today you know without increased traffic Crossing that Street between Charles Street and North Avenue it's about 500 feet there are eight egresses from uh Ferris Place North Avenue uh the uh the parking lot for the Y entrance and exit uh the uh Bank of America uh ATM entrance and exit um uh llo also is another another erress in into Clark Street it is a mess today okay and the concern is safety for our community our neighborhood for the kids coming from Rosevelt going downtown okay and for all of uh the children and and adults that are dropped off at at the uh cut in for the Y there it's it's very a lot of traffic and the people parking in the Y parking lot Crossing Clark Street to get into the Y it it it is a nightmare there and any additional traffic you know it's is going to be a a problem now the light that is proposed to be at North Avenue and Clark Street okay what impact where can we see the impact to Clark Street what's anticipated as far as the backup when that light is uh red okay are are people going to be routing down Charles Street to hit North Avenue beat that light okay when people are coming in from Faris place from uh sopia and the exit from the town uh homes that will be built uh Farris and North okay they're going to come into to Farris and go out onto Clark Street if that light is red how do they get out to Clark Street are they going to go right and then go down to Charles Street and to cut over to North Avenue where is the detail on any traffic study relative to this neighborhood that's what my concern is so I hope you can supply some answers thank you thank you hey than seriously can like no applause this evening please we want to keep the process moving I'm sorry no you do it's just I'm just saying let's just hold the Applause it doesn't matter just respectfully yeah go ahead yeah EXC somew oh yeah oh I'm sorry yes I'm sorry yeah you're absolutely right Mr correcty I'm so sorry um Don do you want to talk about why some of those changes to the tow houses were made specifically it was to protect like the two facing on Clark Street to address Mr and the traffic study yeah so as was stated the the requirements for a new traffic signal at Clark um and and North there'll have to be specific timing put into those the traffic experts know this better than I do but they'll have specific timing so that they'll have to be able to get in and out of Ferris and take into account driveways and all that Peak demands off peak demands will impact the traffic timing um so the other part of the question was was the the changes to the tow houses if I recall the reason those two tow houses were moved was actually so that the folks on Charles wouldn't have to be looking at the the the back of those the back well there was there was if I remember right yeah there was a at one point um there was a an ask to have Town Homes closer in the rear yard of the site if you will that would have been closer to the homes on Charles the town did not agree to that um the town want those Town Homes to um face onto Clark and not so that therefore there wouldn't be as large of an impact on the neighbors that uh have property Frontage on Charles that's right and can you talk about the um is it the setback next to Bank of America setback next of Bank of America is um uh defined in the plan I forget the exact number but the there were some minor changes to the setbacks to accommodate the 18 uh units on that site but the overall number of units doesn't change correct on uh Town housee units in the project correct can I can I ask a quick followup question on that um just for clarity because he asked a few questions there and I I just want to make sure I can reiterate one will there be a detailed traffic study with this new amendment that he can see how it impacts his neighborhood because I think that's what at the end of the day he's looking for yeah my understanding is that it's in the works and plus with North Avenue being at that point I guess it's a a County Road there will have to be um detailed traffic study prepared and submitted to the state as well or excuse me County I one that just I don't want to lose this Mr ky's question is a good one um on our website right now there uh kimly horn which is a company that street Works hires and our company wsp is our consultant that verifies everything that they do there are multiple detailed traffic analyses on our website since 20 2023 which have which directly addressed this area uh and uh the only real changes in this area on that side of the street is the shifting of the two units to the um to the across the L Taylor versus The Clark and uh and uh North uh intersection so there are detail information you want to go on there there's all sorts of fun stuff if you want to look at it calculations and so forth and part of the um uh proposal for traffic changes here is that the new traffic light not only a new traffic light but a complete redesign of that intersection which requires dot uh and County approval when I say re realignment or redesign that means uh you know further bump outs more pedestrian areas turning movement changes all to address wait time um queuing anything that may be from the Ingress erress of the new units or the existing traffic patterns on Ferris and Clark with the Y Bank of America and the realy company which is now going to be some new uh place there as well so that was all an analyzed and it's been on the website for quite a while so if you have Mr C if you want to look at that that's it's all there on the front page of the website so yes I'd say go ahead Steve I'm sorry yeah I just want to re Jim Jim said a lot of what I was going to say but uh to councilman so I just want to add as you've said mayor this is the zoning and I want to reiterate you and and the members of the public that when we talk about the Redevelopment agreement there is an obligation also in the r development plan that before the planning board hears this as a site plan that updated traffic study needs to be part of that as well and the Redevelopment agreement even goes further that requires a construction plan before construction begin to actually analyze how the impact of the construction activities are going to impact things like commuter parking and traffic flow and there has to be mitigation plans uh for just that phase as well so I just want to reiterate I have a question yeah course just sorry I don't usually do this but I just want I just want to add something um as you know the development is happening on both sides of Clark Street on property owned by Lord and Taylor so it is true uh that um there is an increase from just as an order of magnitude an increase of 16 to 18 units on the North Avenue side there's a decrease of uh 16 to 14 units on the Clark Street side so there is no increase overall correct that means also of course that the traffic won't increase overall logically speaking and of course when you're talking about even if it were to additional properties uh or units you can imagine and I'm not a traffic engineer either but the order of magnitude of the increase in uh traffic the the daily trip flows from one unit would be something like one two or three trips per day so just it's a good reminder it's thank you usage isn't Chang question going back to the traffic studies in general so you said Street Works funds a traffic study is there a study that's done independently I mean you can hire somebody to find the results you want as a math major you can take numbers and change it so do we hire somebody totally that's not invested in this to Independent tra to do an independent traffic study looking at egress and Ingress not just that area all of Westfield because there's units going everywhere and we've never seen anything that addresses everything yeah so the the town's professional team has never just taken what kimly horn and Street Works has proposed as as a given early on in this process the town retained John Federico and his team to be an independent for the townside analyst and I'm sure I can speak for everybody here that process was iterative and and a lot of revisions were made based on Mr Federico's analysis and so yes there there's no assumptions on on the town's part that they're correct without us doing our our double cheing and that was done five years ago or so no it's been done throughout the okay throughout the process thank you and when Kim Le horn updates their numbers then wsp and John federo will go back and look at those numbers again correct they work together yeah Don can you talk I'm sorry David I I just also wanted to ask a clarifying question which I think I know the answer to but in addition to the um intersection itself being adjusted because it's right now it's a very complicated intersection um the North and Clark intersection and Mr KY I have to apologize I went down Clark Street every day that I took my kids to the high school so I didn't have to wait at North because it was impossible to make a leftand turn from Clark onto North so um I just want to say that I think it'll will improve um once we are able to um get that intersection to adhere to standards particularly when the dot has to look at it because it's a County Road and because we'll now have the benefit of much higher technology um you know equipment at that intersection so we can set times to let traffic flow based on the time of day and based on Smart sensors for how many cars are in a queue and all those kinds of things so I definitely appreciate your current concerns because there are a lot of things going on in that that section and we are going to be adding new and different kinds of things but we did have a very significant department store that had a lot of traffic coming and going um hasn't been there for a few years but um this is if you go back to what the traffic was then and compare it to what the traffic will be in the future with this new development if we're adding these uh this technology into the mix and improvements to the intersection all of these things have been thought through and I um I'm surprised that councilman armento isn't aware of the wsp um traffic study because all of those things are have been on the website for since before we voted on this in February of 23 but I just want to I am watching this I you know I am your ward representative I drive those streets all the time and I have asked a lot of hard questions about whether this intersection will improve um and I actually think that you will see less traffic on Charles Street because it'll be a lot easier to go down and make turns at the bottom of clerk one one of the things I think I'm sorry go I'm I'm sorry only speaking from the microphone up here please so St yeah one of the things because I read one comment that I think needs to be clarified which is that I think there may be an assumption that the traffic improvements are being put into place to address the new developments which come into place there's really two levels right there's the traffic improvements which are obviously addressing the new development but it's really going above and beyond that and the and one of the things as the mayor said earlier on with which is you know all of the investment that this is allowing the town to do in the public Improvement realm part of that is traffic improvements to status quo it's not just to address the new development but to improve it beyond that uh which I think sometimes gets lost and I also just the the lights I think that people forget like they're all any new light is going to be a pedestrian Le light which means you know how you turn on The Pedestrian goes first before the light changes people forget how important that is so it's a huge huge safety measure and I do want to um just reiterate in terms of going back to the professionals we have our own Professionals for everything for traffic for planning for Bond counsel everything they are duplicative to what street Works does and I think when people say that we're not just taking their numbers we have our own professionals that are representing Us by the way the street Works ultimately we charge them for it out of an escro account so they are it is they are advocating for us they are to make sure that we are getting the numbers and stuff that we want not being handed To Us by a developer that's a really really important fact for everybody to know so um councilman contract just wanted councilman armental you asked about looking at traffic holistically I thought it might be helpful for Don to talk a little bit about doing the master plan process there was a full townwide assessment that was done from a traffic perspective in light of the projected changes that were coming and and I do think that helped inform a lot of the work you know because ww um John Federico was involved in that I think that's really important to know like this this the town has looked at traffic looked at circulation there's a whole component to the master plan around circulation you may not be aware of it because you weren't on the council but but I think that's important for the public to know I do want to also just make one comment about traffic from award three perspective we're the the traffic plans are not finalized right we're still at the very high level sort of plan side of things like I'm not comfortable with South Avenue I've told John feder Rico that Liz knows this as well that's still being looked at so so there's a lot of like what I hear is concerns about South Avenue that is not set in stone and as Linda said she's watching this intersection at Clark and North I'm definitely watching South Avenue right that's critical and and the entire team at Street works and internally knows plus the state and the county are involved so I just want the public to know that might what you might see or read on Facebook is not necessarily fact and not baked in and not the plan Board site plan review process is intended to do that before Don addresses your question I think Liz you Liz Jeff actually you hit exactly what I was going to say councilman contract I just wanted to indicate that we um as a town as the mayor said hire a professional team we have professionals but I think it's important to note what you just stated which is that we not only have our own professionals look out and double-checking numbers that are handed to us which is not exactly common practice in municipalities throughout the state usually they do take reports and they don't have whether it's a traffic or parking report or any of those things independent professionals hired to work on behalf of the town to double check all those numbers so we do have that but wsp in this case did our master plan they're familiar with the back traffic the future traffic TRS projected they've done all that work which means we have continuity of Professional Service and I think it's extremely valuable for Westfield in general not just this project but every single one to have our own independent consultant that's been with us for years and was part of the actual master plan research and product so thank you for bringing that out okay Mr sammon yeah councilman contract I think you asked a question about the background of traffic that's right it actually goes back to the master plan reexamination so that was adopted back in 2019 and we are working on that we had recently adopted affordable housing plan we are seeing development uh in and around downtown and with through the master plan reexamination we saw a desire to um to redevelop parts of downtown right and we also knew that affordable housing developments were starting to be planned and now we're seeing some of them come online so we knew that we needed to address that traffic growth along with the the land use side of things and we recommend the creation of the unified land use and circulation element of the master plan which is of course now adopted and it forms a foundation for for the Redevelopment plan that's uh before you or and the amendment that's before you I should say um and in that land use and circulation plan there was a holistic assessment of the development taking place in town and um its traffic impacts and that was a great foundation for the traffic work that's been going on here in town and and in the Redevelopment plan itself you'll see a lot of callbacks to the master plan circulation part of the land use circulation uh element so yeah so there's a long history to to traffic we've been looking at it for years it's not just because of this project or any one particular project very nice question sure so we Mr s quick question um we look at the traffic in Westfield obviously the surrounding towns are building different things just now I guess on a Springfield Avenue they um Mountainside knocked down a building and house and they're I supposedly building some kind of a I think senior I'm not sure some kind of apartments or something there um but multi multi residential facility do you work with the other towns and like does the traffic assessment take into consideration what's going on leading out of Westfield through Mountain Avenue all those apartments the answer is yes and maybe Jim want to talk about the grant is that I was thinking the count the two of you yes the towns do talk to each other but on that exact topic I want to mentioned um so uh both um T of Westfield itself uh and Union County uh with a partner of Elizabeth both appli for what's called ss4a grants um Safe Streets for all um County received that Grant last year we received our grant this year only other town in the county I think is Union that received it besides Elizabeth and Westfield um and so um that ss4a Grant the county is doing we're part of that uh Chief Balor and I attended a meeting a few weeks ago now for the kickoff meeting uh we'll be coming back to the Public Safety Committee and I'm making updates as as they make updates but that is looking at all traffic in the entire County taking into consideration developments uh particularly um the major corridors North and South Avenue which is a lot of development happening in all the communities um but um but it's actually um so we're involved in that study that's taking in count all that we have our own study then we're doing to be complimentary to that which will look at Town traffic above and beyond what we've already looked at um so it's just important to note that that's ongoing continuing and part of and just to clarify to your point which is a good one the the county it's the county that would be looking at it holistically and that Grant goes from it's the route 28 quarter from Elizabeth to planfield and so that's really and then what Jim said we then feed into that on all the on the other streets um and I and I do think it's important to note I mean traffic is a big concern for everybody I mean I was telling someone today we all driv in the same traffic you do I live right off of North Avenue I'm close to the North Avenue Central Avenue intersection so um there's times I can't pull out of my Main Street onto North Avenue because of the traffic so it's not that we're sitting here oblivious to the traffic impact we all feel it and experience it but we also have to deal with the realities of being in Westfield where we're bifurcated by two State highways Central Avenue which is drives people between the Parkway and Route 22 and the question is I think this is what the County they're not going to come back and say oh don't build anymore or don't grow anymore don't invest anymore what they're going to say is we need significant infrastructure improvements to better mitigate and uh the traffic impact and improve traffic flow so that's really you you're not going to stop traffic you're not and even if we decided okay we're not going to do one more thing because there's too much traffic I can tell you what everybody around us will be doing that and that traffic is flowing through Westfield so the worst thing we could do is stick our head in the sand and say let's don't do anything because we don't want any more traffic and then Meanwhile we're not getting any of the rable benefits or any of the other benefits that could actually pay for infrastructure to make it better for all of us and that really is the focus needs to be on traffic mitigation and infrastructure improvements and that's what the county is going to do that's what the that's what the town is going to do and that's quite frankly what One Westfield place is also intended to do not just dealing with traffic for the future but dealing with the mess that we we all sit in today mayor Mas ask question I'm sorry if you um well let me just say something we're still we're still on the amendment RDP so if you have a question no no we have to follow a process if you want to come back and speak to the amendment or you can wait for public comment so yeah just a a quick question on the hold period there was a question asked last meeting about how long um you know we're going into a relationship potentially with a partner and I understand that the uh contract can't necessarily be assigned to another developer or someone else to build it out with it at our consent but I'd like to rest assured that if we're going into business with a partner that there's a minimum hold period that they're part of this so what is that minimum hold period how does that look and can they flip this in a year from now or three years from now how does that look no so there there there's two phases of control over both both ownership of the property their property now and eventually at some point if if this goes through then the South project or the South and North areas not the whole Lots but the areas that are under contract is be sold to them um so there's two phases the first phase is during construction of any of the components during that no transfers can be made either of the property or the project outside of the consent of of the council so that's that's the first phase so they couldn't flip this any a year unless you guys all agreed with who they're flipping it to okay and that flipping is not just outright if it they want to sell their membership interest if they want to sell uh control 51% any of that requires Council consent after the projects are complete there's a little bit less control that because they've completed their obligations under the Redevelopment agreement they did what they said they were going to do but as long as they will still be under a financial agreement that that being the pilot for any of those components there is still a level of transfer control that this Council has um it's sort of shifts from a a more discretionary um role where you you would have more control to a situation where you're just making sure that who they're transferring to it checks all the professional boxes uh but you would still during the complete duration of that 30-year pilot or however long they they keep it have control over their transfers I've got one as well I might as well get you while you're up here sure so let's just say we get to the point where we're at that uh phase where we have quote unquote less control they come to us and they say we can't go ahead and fill the space as we'd like to have filled filled it are we held hostage to go ahead and make changes to our ordinances to allow for them to go ahead and make a profit so that we can go ahead and get paid well that phase only comes after the buildings are all completed after all our public improvements that are tied to that particular phase are completed after they have started the pilot which is as we've talked about last time and this is again about the zoning so I don't want to get too much into it but if this if if the negotiations go through as suggested they will have a minimum tie to our debt service all of that will already happened um before your scenario comes into play where they're not be able to lease and they want to change it so in that scenario they'd be coming to us and saying we want to change what we've already built which means either adaptively reuse what we already built or tear it down um so I wouldn't characterize it as being held hostage you would have that complete control to make those decisions what time what time frame would that approximately happen in each component has a different phase of or when they're supposed to start construction when so when they're supposed to get approval from the planning board then when they're supposed to get approvals from the state and the county and all those other governmental agencies then when they're supposed to commence construction then when they're supposed to complete construction each component has its own uh schedule if this amendment goes through then we're going to have to negotiate an amendment to the Redevelopment agreement as well um which would then come back back before you and there'd be a new schedule assigned to that but as I mentioned before the schedules that are currently in the RDA right now are all told because of the lawsuit that was filed thank you got it quick question yeah we have is this we are jumping ahead on fight do you have do you have an amendment question yes I do have okay because we are going to have a whole another thing on financials so appreciate the answer I'm sure you do sort of I'm just trying finan it's on the amendment because the amount that the town receives is less I just want to clarify you mentioned it's 157 million I was under the impression the net is 100 million is that what's the net to the town over 30 years so you're subtracting the cost of the debt right which pay for the public improvements so the consideration in total would be the 150 some OD number because it'll be the the cash in the revenue but also the value of the public improvements made and that's if they hit their all their parameters is that correct well no under the the new proposal they would be obligated to pay no less than The Debt Service uh no less than The Debt Service correct okay okay so let's move on to Amendment questions um any more comments from the public related to the amendment Den Sherwood 642 handford place I think this is an appropriate question I'm not sure um if you could answer why they um reduced the sidewalk in front of Lorden Taylor from 25 fet to 15 and why we are going to now have 10 um parallel parking spaces on North Avenue in front of LA and Taylor I think that was I was just wondering why they were doing that um because to me it sounds like it would impede traffic with people parallel parking I could be wrong but I was just wondering why that was a change and then also um why we talked about Boulevard being beautiful they had like the big numbers on the buildings near Boulevard so that you could come up Boulevard come straight through to the train tracks and it would be beautiful and now now when I was looking at it you go up to South Avenue you have to make a leftand turn and now the entrance into the south side is a Bend so on um the boulevard it be like a wall it wouldn't be Boulevard straight through so I guess if someone could answer those two questions that'd be great thanks thank you Don yeah thanks M Sherwood so yes so the there is no parallel parking that would be on South Avenue itself it would be it would excuse me on North Avenue it would be in front of the Lord and Taylor Building much like exists today where there's a row of parking right in front of the building but not on the on the public Street um for uh the boulevard um you were never able to drive from Boulevard the street onto okay yeah so so that Boulevard um extension has shifted over but it's it's also gotten wider I forget the exact number of feet but it's gotten wider 25 to 40 it may be um so you have a wider opening if you will more space between the two buildings that are proposed there and Don is that the vision for that like if you're ever in New York City and you cut from one street to another through buildings and there tends to be kind of this almost like a we can get a cavern this kind of feel like a park kind of thing that's like the I think the that's what the reasons it went to 40 ft so it can create that parklike experience between right right and so maybe I have a question for Don Don would you mind because I don't think it was answered you may not have the answer which is fine but I had the same question uh M Sherwood did which was you know why were these things done and I think the one thing she mentioned was uh sidewalk width being reduced from 25 ft to 15 ft at on North Avenue uh west of prospect so you may not know why they did it so that was to number one can you confirm that that is the case and I read it too in the amend I can't remember the number but there is now the allowance for some parking in front of the um uh Lord and Taylor building itself not on North Avenue the building so that that changed the dimensions there in front of the building so the sidewalk width may have narrowed a bit is it okay so that may have just did that all right um was that yeah yeah it does I just that's a pretty big that's 10 foot production though right like I mean 15 ft is still pretty wide sidewalk though it's bigger than anything we have downtown yeah I think it might even it's C certainly in line with what the Landy circulation plan recommends got it okay thanks uh I'm pretty sure this is uh pertains to the amendment um it was something mayor brindle that you had posted this pertains to the amendment you wrote important part of the plans for the North Side Plaza oh Carrie Murphy 502 cotting Road um so we have the important part of the plans for the north side Plaza it fixes the horribly dangerous intersection at North and Elm to make it safer for cars and pedestrians um which of course is wonderful but my question I guess is for you um you said that it would otherwise I guess notice how one of the most dangerous intersections in town at North and Elm is being fixed with this plan to make it safe for cars and pedestrians you said it would otherwise be hard uh hard to get the change done um it would be difficult but it wouldn't be impossible right especially if you as the mayor are suggesting that it's horribly dangerous um to me it's begging the question that if the town of Westfield knows it's in horribly dangerous and has been for years why are we waiting for this amendment the One Westfield Place development to fix it um could this not have been addressed in Prior years with our taxpayer dollars rather than keeping a horribly dangerous intersection in place are we now town that relies on these developers and the pilot program dollars to fix our problems are we living by these pilot programs if so why and why is this related to the amendment yes it is it is I'm waiting uh okay well I'm getting to it I wait for you you can wait as well we should need to reply on uh we should not need to rely on pilot programs to fix our problems which you yourself had said was horribly dangerous and it has been for years I'm actually pretty stunned that you said that you've known it was dangerous and didn't make any effort to try and fix it um I don't know why we're jeopardizing the safety of the town for this until the developer comes and fixes it I find it to be a great part of the amendment but do we have to wait until the developer you know moves forward with their plan to fix something that we already know is a problem in our town and causes safety on a daily safety issues on a daily basis so thank you to One Westfield plays for getting the job done where we should be doing it may I make a couple comments um actually Miss Murphy I'm glad you're here tonight because you're often asking a lot of questions about traffic studies holistic traffic studies um and so I hope a lot of the questions that you've been asking us have been are clear when Mr G came to the mic and talked about the Union County study that's being done and all the work that's been done the layering of the traffic studies that we do how those um traffic studies are approached um so I I hope it's more clear to you because I know you ask that question often um so I can have Mr gild come back to the mic and talk about how we do traffic studies because so if this isn't supposed to be a back and forth Mrs Murphy um you ask some questions and I'm going to answer them and so so okay if that's the case then I'll ask Mr go to rep repeat what he said a few minutes ago okay okay let me let me just um just again I think everyone heard me before we're part of a county study that looks at holistically of the towns but one other thing about the intersection of Elman north um been doing this job a long time um it's not that we haven't looked at intersection before um it's a state controlled intersection section not a town control intersection not a county control intersection a state control intersection there actually have been some minor improvements made there believe it or not um the states uh responded to our request over the time but to do a what is required here to really truly fix it is a redesign of the entire intersection and part of the one well SOI Place project allowed us to explore that and make it part of this plan as something the town needed to make the public improvements mean matter one last thing to say and back to the Clark and North discussion before um a lot of or a handful of the traffic improvements that are in this plan streetworks do not want to do okay the Town forced them to include them in the plan as a public give back for this project in big picture because basically the town wanted these public improvements besides the plazas that we know about traffic improvements was part of that Elma North Clarken North Prospect and Broad to name a couple um South Avenue same thing and the traffic study information that is done while there's been traffic studies done for the first plan and they're all online they've been there for a long long time when they get to the planning More Level and they go in front a site plan all those details with all the county and state DOT feedback which could change things and and make them even better all those requirements are upon Street Works to do on our behalf with our professionals overlooking it making sure that they come out right for us so I can just tell you that North and Elm is very frustrating to me being around for a long time but this plan allows us to do something there which is significant not just putting new traffic l in physically changing how the intersection operates which is significant correct yes Todd you have a question okay problem thanks yeah I think it's worth just pointing out one other thing which is you know I sit on the finance committee with councilman councilwoman ha good as well as uh kefir and and dagalo you know we literally invest about $ million a year in this town right which is what our current taxpayer base can support some of these intersection changes themselves cost in the millions of dollars that is the reason why you know the 10 the the improvements of the 10 intersections the public improvements that that uh you know uh as part of this project are so important you know to the town and the incremental revenues that this project develops it enables us to do things that really in our current current sort of taxpayer funded budget primarily taxpayer funded we can't unless taxes are going to go up probably above the 2% that nobody's in favor of and I'm surely not either so I think it's really important to understand that you know $3 billion paves roads and does some small you know other projects minor traffic improvements drainage projects some Field improvements it doesn't fundamentally fix intersections and I think that's the challenge guys right so when the town has an opportunity to pursue a project like this that drives 150 million of income revenues $42 million of public improvements that is basically paid for by this project and the developer who's backstopping it to me those are really valuable benefits that the public shouldn't shouldn't sort of uh ignore sor well no no you can come back at public comment we're still in so we're I'm sorry I'm okay go ahead I only this time Miss sh only this time told me my comments were a relevant before this is a specific question since they're answering questions they usually don't do that um well this is a public hearing versus public comment it's different so my question is so one westfi place came apparently came over the summer and asked certain changes that are reflected in the Amendments and the town said that they took that opportunity and obviously significant The Leverage they had to make changes to address some of the residents concerns because there was no written submission by one westfi place I'd like to know specifically what part of the amendments were requested by One Westfield Place versus what did the town negotiate as far as changes so in other words was this amendment reflect exactly what One Westfield Place wanted or you said you came back and asked for certain things what things did you ask for that were included in the Amendments that one Westfield place did not request I thought I answered that already but I'll happy to repeat it um what they had asked for was in the on the west Zone on the Lord and Taylor Building what tenants that they had spoken to that were interested did not want to co-mingle their office parking with the resident presential parking which was contemplated in the former agreement so they needed to have a standalone parking that supported their office building exclusively that was the main thing which is why we took out the the comingled parking in the residential side and put it behind um the 20 some units I think that are going to screen the garage that was that and an urgent care that is what they requested we're the ones that then came back and said okay let's take a look at the um at some of the other concerns related to Traffic um that we've heard height density particularly on the southide and we also wanted to accelerate the public improvements to the Southside so that they the Southside didn't have to wait until the very end of the project to start getting the benefit of some of these traffic improvements and pedestrian and the p and and the and the green space so that was that was how that was out and that those comments were um there those suggestions were done in response to what they heard in an April meeting from these Council people and from what we have heard from the public so that's was so it was a the collective the collective we I think and the and the public so and mayor I'll also add to the things that we got in the negotiation is the back stop to the principal and interest payments on the bonds okay should probably come first um yes that and we'll address that at length in the financial conversation because that was critical so somebody else yes Rich pusi 233 Charles Street with reference to the North Avenue phase of the project the number of tow houses has increased from 16 to 18 in order to fit the two additional tow houses prvious surface coverage has been reduced from 35 to 25% and the minimum yard setback at block 252 lot 15 has been reduced to 5 feet now just for reference that door that everyone walked through right there is 3 feet wide so 5 feet on a setback now I've attended many planning board meetings over the years and have sat and watched as homeowners have had to make concessions on proposed construction simply because they were short on the setback by as little as 6 in so I asked why now should we allow this developer to increase the number of units from 16 18 at the expense of a 5 foot yard setback a setback which would have been previously unheard of in the past in Westfield by simply reducing the number of units back to the originally proposed 16 the setback issue goes away the age restriction has been removed from these tow houses which were previously approved for flat occupied roofs when a comment that objected in the past to the flat roofs was offered the response was that these were age restricted units and that visions of a younger louder livelier and more precarious Cloud were unwarranted while now the age restriction is proposed to be removed so in addition to issues associated with the invasion of privacy of Charles Street residents the inevitable noise and safety issues are now even more of a concern if this developer needs to remove age restrictions in order to be able to rent these tow houses as a minimum he should be asked to build these town houses to match the character of the surrounding neighborhood none and I repeat none of the residential homes on Charles Street or Clark Street have flat roofs and I just wanted to remind you that the removal of the age restriction also introduces an an additional potential burden on our schools and introduces more potential vehicular traffic Mr Jordine presented something a little earlier about a swap of two from one side to two from the other side well that's not really true because we're removing the age restriction on the one side and if you just read through your own proposal the number of parking spots allotted has gone up from like one and a half to like two and a quarter so there will be more traffic at that intersection it's not a one for one swap one last comment regarding the North Avenue North phase of the project relates to an existing sore easement there's no mention of it anywhere in any of the documentation provided to the town's residents however a 10-ft sore easement does in fact exist in Block 252 lot 14 based on the conceptual Rend ings that are available on the town's website it would appear to sore easement will be buried under the proposed town houses with reference to the Lord and Taylor Building phase of the project the revised Redevelopment plan now proposes a parking structure no authoritative study to assess the impact of such a parking structure has been presented at a minimum some type of formal professional investigation into the impact of this parking structure should be mandated parking GES and the Lord and Taylor Sub Zone were not an issue when the original de development plan was proposed and approved but now with the addition of these parking garages they're now an integral part of this project they're an integral part of the construction the financing the scheduling and the phasing all of that is going to change including the need for changes to the bond because of these parking structures your own people said that at the last Town council meeting these parking structures are going to change the character of the way this construction gets done so H&B themselves said that there was there was really no professional data to back up the feasibility and practicality of these garages they did their own little internal one for one I find it hard to believe that we're sitting here talking about parking studies that are ongo are going to be coming in the future that are ongoing and yet we're we're sitting here and you expect us to buy into this concept of a new parking garage right there on North a it's it's like unfathomable I I I I I don't understand how you can do that maybe someone can explain to me how that works seeing as these parking garages are going to change the whole character of how this project gets built thank you anybody wna um yeah just the one issue about the impervious surfaces with respect to it's it's a small issue in the overall context but as you know mayor sitting on the planning board um it's an important concern of our town and many other towns around us and a lot of these issues like impervious coverage can be dealt with at the site plant phase by requiring uh you know impervious pavers and that sort of thing but I I do want to note with respect to that in uh particular increase from 25% to U I'm sorry from 35% to 25% in terms of pervious surfaces right now on that lot uh which is the Western Lord and Taylor lot it's roughly 40,000 square ft 100% of that lot is now impervious so we are actually reducing the impervious the the perious surf surface on that lot if they build to the maximum of 14,000 by 14,000 square feet if it stays the same it would be 10,000 square ft so this is a minor change but it's a change of 4,000 feet in pervious surface and again if the planning board decides it wants to deal with that issue by requiring the developer to make pervious pavers and that sort of thing they can do so but 100% of the lot right now is impervious thank you for that and I also just um just going back to site plan and the planning board they're the ones that will also be dealing with the um uh finalizing the athetics and so forth I mean it'll be in a Redevelopment agreement but I think they'll be weighing in on that um regarding the students the entire One Westfield project the entire One Westfield project is projected to deliver 14 students um it's uh it's with since 170 of the units are over 55 and this has been validated by the school's own demographer um when they just did the projected study so it's five from the North Avenue um uh apartments and it's nine from the tow houses and by the way these are using standard Russ best practice standardized Ruckers projections um and we line them up against I'm I'll get to you um we line them up against current projections and they're right on the money so um considering the students uh Westfield school district has lost 412 students since 2014 um that I I speak to them regularly there's absolutely zero concern by the schools about the impact on any of this development on enrollment um and the irony is about your concern about the parking spots and stuff one of the reasons that the we required them to put more parking spots by time the town houses so that people would not park in the street and it was meant to be an accommodation to the neighbors and the reason those two tow houses were moved again so that it would be less obtrusive to the neighbors so that would I just say that to be let you know that that is always a full consideration of the things that of the things that have negotiated um and uh and just yeah as a reminder that the and the parking may I might be missing your point but you're talking about the construction process perhaps but the parking hasn't changed from the um uh the par it's a matter how the parking is being delivered versus uh the number of spaces that are changing so when you mention about impact and so forth it's no different than what it was in the original plan and it's very certain that any of the parking on the west Zone and the and the South zone for that matter is all screened like the ones on the on the Lord and Taylor is screened with residential in front of and the residential is actually higher than the garage so you won't even see a garage from the street you won't even know it's there so there'll be nothing that's going to impact they're talking the Aesthetics of the town in that regard so mayor can I just ask you a question about this school study um does that take into account like that there's a large number of because I understand if there's these 55 and plus 55 and over residents you can run a study to figure out how many people are going to yeah um come to the schools but does it take into account the number of residents in Westfield that are 55 and over that own a house that then go and buy those apartments and now a x amount 50 I don't know how many houses then become available in in W and so if you go back and read the uh because we met with the demographer uh for the schools they just released their school projections um and we had a zoom call with the guy himself to talk about it so yes and it's um more of the more of the new the development residential development is Driving School enrollment than apartments and I keep I told you I keep a spreadsheet of every single unit of everything that's built and I ask the schools to give me every year the number of school age students that are being delivered by that by those by those units and they I may I look compare it to what the Rucker's projections are and they're right on the money um so yes it's uh and I you can ask the schools they are not concerned about enrollment impact of one Westville place or quite frankly any of the existing or proposed development got it can I ask the experts one more question sure um I'm I hear some concerns and I guess when I search the news on Hudson Bay's financial situation and again this is about the amendment and not about our financials but when we agreed to the initial agreement to now a lot has changed I believe in their financials and in the economy so when they came back to the amendment do we what like what type of reverse due diligence was done did we get access to their financials and how they've changed like now versus when they proposed it like was there any reverse due diligence done outside of just the plan actually on the partner themselves well the a lot of I mean obviously originally as you mentioned there's a lot of due diligence I know the mayor yourself you spoke to other Mayors where they've done projects and things like that and Council woman have good especially I know really dug into their financials um in terms of what types of debt they have in terms of outstanding loans when they come do and things like that so yeah that's always been a part of the analysis uh maybe I missed a was it part of when they came back to the amendment right we're relooking at this thing did we ask for updated financials like it's we I'm I assume we looked at this when this project started but this is multiple years later later so did we look at did we ask for updates of those due diligence items that we initially asked for before we said let's go ahead with this amend so when so when that phase comes when the financial phase comes before you you're going to have Mr Jessup here from the bond Council as well as naso capital advisers do a new stud their financials I'm sorry I just want to so we'll talk about their financial fin well to the extent that it's reflected in the amendment and and and relevant to the amendment if that's your question well yeah I think I'm with you on this I'm little go ahead yeah my question is like they came back to the drawing board and said we want to change this and that has a few question marks open in the air and my initial question would say okay well do they want to change this for financial reasons do they want to change this because they're listening to Residents and my first question would be are they in financial trouble so I quickly did a Google Search and it seemed like it's not looking great but I don't know so my first question to them before this amendment comes in place would be like can I see updated financials because it's been four years since we've seen them before we go into negotiation can we just see updated financials that we haven't seen in four years so are you saying that we didn't get updated financials or that that's coming I'm TR like I'm not concerned about the town's financials I'm concerned about their financials which is yeah now I I Now understand your point the answer that I can give you right now is no for the Redevelopment plan phase where we are right now I have not asked for it I don't know if anybody else in the town would you agree that the the partner that we I guess like the anytime we're going to restructure a deal multiple years later with the inkland like listen I know they're saying they listened to the to the residents and we can agree to to disagree on that one anyone can Google Search and say that there's a little bit of financial trouble here with any commercial real estate developer it didn't spur anyone here to ask a question hey should we ask for some reverse due diligence and just see how they are financially before we just agree to this fire alarm that they're setting off well again my opinion the changes to the finan and again I know we're talking financials but I want to address your question the changes that have been proposed that will eventually come before this Council if we get that far are more protective to the town so it wasn't that they were coming to us and asking to loosen any Financial um obligations that they had or create more risk on the town in fact I think the professional team has agreed that what they're asking for and what they're agreeing to now is helping reduce the risk to the town yeah so the op so so no I I don't think the question has been asked do we have that concern that we have to go down that road because what the changes are are actually helping the town's Financial Risk I I I see that I guess with any amount of llc's and the amount of money that they have they'll beat us in any lawsuit no matter what so like they can be protected as much as they want the truth is they hold all the power I guess like it just Rings fire alarm it rings bells to me that why are they coming to us to make these changes a developer that wants to make a bunch of money they might be in financial trouble It just strikes me as odd as we wouldn't ask them for their financial I don't I I don't and I respect that I don't necessarily agree because the changes that were requested were all planning based based on their perspective tenant Which is far enough along that they are willing to make this request and pay all of us to analyze that and and make changes for planning purposes the financial changes came from us trying to improve the town's perspective not from them offering those sorts of things so the changes that they came to us with were not hey we want to do X Y and Z to make the project cheaper in that case I would certainly follow that that thought process it was we want to get this a tenant in there whoever they are and these are the requests they made and you heard Mr Adams last time two weeks ago say in addition they're they're working with potential uh residential partner who's also weighed in on on some of those things so the requests that were made didn't really to me and Matt mattess is not here because this isn't a financial public hearing and if he was I'm sure he'd give further comment um but to me they didn't ring that we needed to reanalyze those sorts of things but with respect to now that the the proposed pilot is changing the proposed bonds are changing the revenues are changing as well as the public Improvement costs are changing um certainly there's analysis that will go into that and be a presentation to them to to you all when the financials come up so you don't think their costs are decreasing on this project I certainly do but that wasn't I but so I'm sorry can I just interject can we like we're getting way off track this will absolutely be a conversation for the finance committee and I think it's definitely worthwh having in the public I I I I understand but I think that um I mean again what we're addressing tonight is specific to this amendment and it doesn't even involve this agreement Street Works isn't even engaged in this particular V uh uh ordinance that we're voting on tonight so I'm sorry like um anybody else yes no so what's that I thought I thought I answered all of them oh I'm sorry the five foot setback you asked me about the oh I'm sorry I took poor notes I'm sorry I took poor notes yeah the sewer easement yeah yeah the sewer easement yeah okay the the the the bit about 16 to 18 18 going back to 16 because of the 5 foot setback okay had nothing to do I'm sorry got it had nothing to do with impervious surface I want to thank Mr Jardine for reminding us all that the the existing parking lot is 100% versus what we're going to get is going to be got it so the the Tom I didn't I didn't realize that you were you were a civil engineer as well as a tror I I don't I can't speak to the Sewer easement Don do you know about the sewer easement Jim do you know anybody know about the SE anybody know about the sewer easement yes okay so so we got the SE reement I'm sorry I was asking to to address it uh and um the flat roofs the the flat roofs I said will be addressed at site plan review with the planning board I did address that so uh um yes I think the remaining questions the setback the setback to the Residential Properties that front on Charles uh don't change the setbacks from Charles correct I think he's referring to the one on the bank of Bank of America Bank of America changes no the other Bob's old house Bob n's house doesn't uh doesn't change Bob n's house is lot 15 15 foot there's a greater setback of 15t foot in that table on the plan so I'd use the 15ot it's 15t the one you're referencing is 15 foot I know exactly hey uh don don if you go to page 40 of the uh plan y um I think this is maybe what you're referring to on page 40 of the plan it talks about a setback of minimum yard being reduced from 12T to 5 foot that might be yeah page 40 so the building setbacks principal structure table is that what we're looking at I think so yeah yeah so the one two the fourth row in that table minimum yard is measured from block 2502 blocks 2 3 and 15 it's 15t I can tell you the version I read had a had a setback being reduced from 12T to 5 foot um yeah there's so there may be two listed in there I will always go with the maximum more restrictive requirement okay and the sewer do you know about the sewer easement sewer easement is there and I believe there's a break between the town home buildings I'm not sure if it lines up exact with the S eement but if the engineer says you can't build over the easement you can't build over the easement and that would be permanent structures things like parking uh Lots surface parking lots may be permitted um but there would be have to be some sort of agreement that if the entity responsible for maintaining that needs to get in there and do the work they're going to do it and uh they're going to need access thank okay okay any other questions comments uh good evening Bob Saunders 97 barchester um I'm got to tell you I like most of this project but I also have some some concerns I'd like to ask about three of them regarding the application today I was surprised to just learn that the actual size of the aggregate building regardless of what the components are might not be 25% smaller but might in fact be 16% larger I'm wondering if anyone here is also surprised by that if someone is surprised by it I'm not sure how you can vote on it without knowing that answer your expert didn't even know that answer or consider it to me Size Matters I think that's a very big concern for most people and however this the project is used the size Matters how I'm not sure how you can vote on something not knowing if it's 25% % smaller or 16% bigger that seems Reckless to me and a violation of your fiduciary duty to the people that you're representing so my question is how would you defend voting on something that you don't know what you're voting on question two if in fact project one proposal one is small than proposal two and if you liked project one and if project one brings in more Revenue it would only seem reasonable that everybody here based on what the mayor said we're voting on this if it doesn't go through then we we're stuck with the bigger one it would seem to me people against the project would vote no and people for the project would vote no they would go for the smaller building that the originally lik that generated more Revenue so I'm not sure how knowing those factors and especially without knowing the size if one's bigger or one's smaller why anyone would vote Yes to this I would vote no to get the original smaller project my third question is about the traffic study look I'm an accountant people ask for my advice all the time they say Bob I want to make sure you know what you're doing what's 2 plus two I think everyone knows the answer what would you like it to be I've lived in town 50 years I've probably heard a thousand traffic studies our project is going to reduce traffic every single time yet what do you guys do at virtually every meeting we need another four-way stop we need another light traffic how do you put together every traffic study in the past saying it's going to get better and we know it hasn't it's only gotten worse but now suddenly this traffic study is right that makes no sense to me how do we rely on this traffic study so again my three questions are how would you defend yourself from voting on something that you don't know one of the most important attributes are why wouldn't you vote no if this first project is small ER more profitable and you liked it and number three what makes this project this traffic study any different than the hundreds others who that obviously haven't been correct thank you well I will um uh just talking about the traffic for a minute we've never said this is reducing traffic we said it's going to improve traffic flow and there's a difference and I'll just reiterate what we what I said earlier is that the opportunity to improve make improvements at 10 intersections pretty much simultaneously within a couple years is not is not possible in a TR standard municipality and right now if you go and prove put in one traffic light but don't make improvements elsewhere you don't really see a material benefit from that because we all know one traffic light impacts the other so with the technology of the lights at these 10 improvements at these 10 intersections it improves traffic flow by being able to have cameras on the lights that will detect if somebody is actually at an intersection if Nots there it's green if someone's there it stops so the traffic flow in the morning during school period is going to be different than the traffic flow maybe at 11: in the morning on a weekday so we're not saying it's going to reduce traffic we're going to say we finally are going to have the ability to improve infrastructure to actually improve traffic flow and you are right traffic traffic is terrible today and guess what that's not going to change the only and it's definitely not going to improve if we don't make investments necessary to mitigate it so this is no one is saying it's reducing traffic the traffic study that we've done ad nauseum basically says if you do these improvements to the intersection what will it do to improve traffic flow and that's a big material difference and regarding the buildings you know I think it's kind of I'm amused quite frankly that you and it's smaller or bigger or so forth this is what it does and I don't agree with the assessment on the 25 and the 16 because there's there's there's parking you include and there's parking you don't you can actually make it say as you have done what you want but I do believe what this does is what we've heard all along and you know what is we want to reduce height we've done that we want to reduce traffic and the way you do that is by reducing activated space and we've done that so you can say twist the words and say oh it's a smaller project and it's bigger and whatever you want but fundamentally IT addresses specifically the things that we heard from residents and that was height bulk and traffic uh John Marcos 543 Arlington Avenue there's been a lot of opposition to owp for lots of good reasons many more than just size the thing has many flaws first of all the Amendments don't go far enough the Amendments should go be revised so that they reduce the size even more people don't like the size of the project the Amendments don't go far enough second of all the process is flawed it is hard to believe that people would vote for this amended plan or for the uh uh the re the agreement without full financials full vetting full disclosure traffic studies and parking studies you're putting the cart before the horse you um the public needs information and you need information to make informed decisions there's no good reason to rush this through these are important issues and will change the town and this needs to be done in a deliberate process with full information and not traffic studies six months from now or 12 months from now and financials that haven't been disclosed finally the town leaders have the obligations to comply with the results of the recent decisive elections the voters clearly and loudly Express their opposition to owp over development urbanization and mandated projects by the state people want projects to be done on a bipartisan basis so they're done properly and not on a one- party basis we deserve better than this project we have always deserved better than this project this project has been flawed from the very beginning too much too big too Urban and just wrong for the town thanks for much anybody else yes oh all righten I'm sorry St your name again Morgan O'Brien 438 St Marks Avenue Westfield New Jersey just following up from the questions that have been asked before and and I just needed some clarity you've stated that you renegotiated with Street works or Hudson Bay to create let's say this smaller project so why is it that it must be approved this early is there an overriding Statute in New Jersey that says because you did this this has to be done this rapidly just as the prior speaker said you know why isn't more deliberation done on this project which I know some of the council people wish would happen so is it that you believe or whoever it is who negotiated with Street works or Hudson Bay that you have to get the approval or you lose credibility with Hudson Bay and and you've got to move the project forward what's the motivation what is creating the need to accelerate the vote an interested tenant that's what's driving the request from Street Works who's an interested tenant the tenant that Hudson Bas Street works is talking to for their property in the west Zone yeah so you are you guys are motivated to push this through more rapidly is that what you're saying yes okay so that's all I needed to understand okay so you don't believe that because this is a significant change you know a document of 185 Pages was dropped to the public today at 5:00 p.m. or at least I saw which doc was that which document are you talking about the the proposed plan project oh that was a drop was three weeks ago redlined the redlined you can get through in a half an hour 185 Pages yeah but there's very few let not how long it takes him to read the doc the do the document has been available to the public for two years or longer I don't know Don when was the RDP originally approved the RDP was originally approved when document no no when was the I'm sorry I'm asking Mr salmon a question I know I only saw it three hours ago go ahead right so the only changes that are being made to that document Mr O'Brien are the red lines um okay okay and it's it's very easy to go through and review the red lines it there weren't significant changes to the document it is a long document I agree but it's been out there for a long time um and the red lines have been available for more than three weeks for more than three weeks okay all right my neglect okay so it is the town itself that is motivated and wants to get this yes completed right because this project H even reduced in size has the ability to deliver 156 million do to us over 30 years we'll talk about that in the second session I guess correct um well your talk about financials can be reviewed you can come back and talk about financials in the second part if you'd like or you can wait till that presentation to the council in in subsequent months weeks well there's plenty of material there thank you but the project has been delayed for a year already due to lawsuits and now we have a tenant and I think it would um benefit the developer to be able to talk to a real live tenant um an Advan that process and they can't continue discussions with a tenant with zoning that doesn't adhere to what they need on the property so that that's my answer to your question okay so then the council members that don't agree with the acceleration it's a vote we'll find out who we'll find out how the council is going to vote in a couple of minutes I guess yeah okay thank you and panuski 233 Charles Street um I'm very concerned about the tow houses my first question is whose idea is it to make him not age restricted the town whose idea was it to make them not non- AG restricted oh it's not okay who's I idea was it to make those tow houses non-age restricted that was part of the negotiation of our team of professionals so was it your idea was it one Westville places because they my issue is now flat roofs with children on them it doesn't make sense to me it really doesn't teenagers toddlers they're not going to be adult there's not going to be adults supervising them if there's rooftop access this is our chance for Gable roofs which would go so much better with our neighborhood and another question is where is this traffic study on the website that one West what it's one Westfield place and then there's where is the town's traffic study maybe you could point that out on the if you if you'd like I I can send it to you tomorrow okay thank you that would be great and the dog park it doesn't belong in a neighborhood there's no neighborhood dog parks they're all in parks in this area if there's a dog park it's in a park it doesn't belong in single family and single family and the tow houses it doesn't belong there maybe you should move it to the town green it doesn't belong there and I don't think you should rubber stamp these revisions without NE negotiating better deal for the residents of Westfield thank you thank you ma'am if you could send me your send an email to me so that I can respond to you because I don't have your email address mine's on the website anybody else no sorry you can come a public comment sorry hi Michael banado 18 Carol Road Westfield New Jersey um I think what I've been hearing and I wasn't really going to say anything tonight that's a perfect example people have questions needs to be a dialogue it can't be somebody coming up here and just saying hey this is the part of the amendment what I don't like about the amendment and I spoke to councilman contract when I was vly opposed to it to begin with things aren't really going to change we voted yes and that's this it's this is the way it's going to be and I look at the red lines 3 weeks isn't a lot of time by the way I know you could read through it quickly but to redigested on two years ago and try and come back the bottom line is all the people here were concerned two years ago the bottom line for this amendment if we can make changes let's make even more changes the South Avenue street I I tried figuring out if there's cars still going to be there or not there was proposal for cars when I went to the W One Westfield play site there's supposed to be parking you're going to go from two lanes to one lane there is that still part of it I couldn't figure it out tonight or the other day when I was looking at this so that's one so it should be a dialogue it should be here's what we're talking about when they talk about setbacks if they're really that concern it needs to be a dialogue so here's my questions one why can't we make this more of a dialogue for this amendment if they are amending it councilman contract two years ago you told me it's not never going to get amended and I said every single real estate cuz I was in real estate for years and I'm still in real estate a little bit every single contract gets amended over and over and over and I said so the next time we come to this board and they present their financials and where they're going and they shrink it because the at the time Co and Commercial Real Estate and I'm purposely looking at you because you said straight out to me never going to change well it is changing so let's look and re really look at it again and look at all the concerned individuals for this amendment and really reduce it really make an impact for the future for the benefit of the Town including look at Hudson Bay's financials including at the overall financials because my big issue at the time with the pilot payment of blue of other taxes would be that the tenants the retail tenants that are there are getting a benefit over the current tenants that are in town because most leases are triple net leases which means somebody who's been in a business in the center of town for four years is paying their landlord the taxes there in Westfield yet somebody brand new that's coming in is paying less in real estate taxes there's something wrong with this whole equation so with this amendment this is our opportunity to really revisit it and three weeks isn't a lot of time for the for the redlines so my second question is why can't we delay it and have a true Dialogue on the amendment and look at all the pieces including the financials thank you yeah no not yet J Let Me 773 Clark Street I just have I need two points of clarification uh I think you answered it but I'm not sure on the office building change on the South Avenue side did did Town request it or did Street Works request it the the town requested that okay if you what happens to this um with this ordinance tonight if you don't like the uh financials when they're done well we've done I mean you saw a financial presentation two weeks ago we've done enough of the due diligence to understand I mean our professionals you have to negotiate a deal that's going to make sense right so the all the larger financials to make sure that the pilot stays the same and the G and the money and we can pay and the bonding and the back in other words you have all that information well I think just not willing to share it no no that's no that's not what I said s i I said there is another level of diligence that basically reaffirms all the assumptions that our first layer professional has made that's what's being done right now so to come up with so come up with the $156 million proposed pilot amount somebody had to figure out what the rents were going to be correct project them so you have all that information not yet I mean we do that's what but it not will to share it yet not yet it will shared but by the way this is a com what are your comments about the amendment this you're talking financials what are your comments about the amendment I didn't want to but the amendment directly impacts the financials because of the rents that are going to be proposed and well when we have the financial conversation you should come back and raise those concerns I'm sure you will thank you I just got a comment for me uh nothing particularly profound to say in this particular case um I still do not like the way South a is being situated I still do not like the height of the buildings and I sound like the cat and hat I I miss that you still like what the do not like the height of the building the height um and like I said I I sound like the Cat in the Hat the I do not like list um what I am confused about is the perception portion of this conversation um if I put on a dark suit in the morning it does not make me weigh less though it may make me look thinner um I think the size is what the size is uh the density is pretty much the same if not larger so I don't quite get the visual concept because it looks smaller and it is smaller so I do have a big problem with that um there are other things that I will talk about I guess probably more Finance related um but as far as Aesthetics uh construction size traffic these are all still worries for me uh in the third world and on the Southside and I can't understand quite yet what I'm voting for either way tonight because it seems like it could be voting for the exact same thing either way I don't know we'll see so are there any other comments from the public answer my question about oh um oh about the I'm sorry remind me Michael what it was the one that I really am concerned about is the parking that going to be closing one lth oh about the what they call the traffic diet yeah yeah I think that's that is definitely contemplated I mean it was recommended in the master plan um and that's really what drove that is because trying to reduce the speed of traffic as you all know we've had issues in terms of the crossover to Boulevard so anything that you can do to reduce the the speed of traffic is a good thing so that was recommended by the master plan and that's why it's reflected in in this plan um so I'm sorry Jim's got to just to enhance that a little bit um that's correct and and uh it's still being looked at by the do because the other thing that councilman's contracts brought up as well for War 3 is uh what we don't want is queuing correct making a left onto Boulevard and having it and someone can't pass by them so that's another thing so the dot because that's a state actually that's a County Road in that area but it affects the State Road on on the on the uh further down the line both St state do and County are looking at that and that's part of the due diligence is happening down the traffic ST which will be reviewed by our professional and then obviously if it gets that far in front of the planning board for site plan approval but I hear you Michael we don't want to create unintended consequences of that and that will be I know I'm not supposed to question but then the point was that time was those parkes were added in order to make the number of parking spaces equiv so is there a way that the amount of parking spes that on the still it could be configured I think the biggest concern honestly who might be impacted from that is the retail especially the existing South Avenue businesses and that is that that is absolutely a consideration in terms of how we do it we're very well aware of that so but but I don't think those parking spaces are the commuter parkings replaced one to one so those those 10 or so spaces on South are not they're not affecting the replacement I mean I have grave concerns about changing South Avenue going west to from two lanes to one I mean I had a separate meeting with with John federo from wsp I'm very worried about the queuing and I'm glad the state's looking at it because I think they share those concerns we don't want to do that because that could create understanding bigger issues okay so um with that uh this hearing is closed and councilman contract please move for the adoption of General ordinance number 202 24-24 uh thank you mayor uh i' would like to move for the adoption of General ordinance number 20 24-24 an ordinance adopting an amendment to the lordon Taylor train station Redevelopment plan may I have a second second I councilman Healey any discussion councilman Hy there are many ways to skin a cat at the present time there is a plan that's been approved by the council and moved forward that's one way to skin a cat now there's another way to skin a cat and it's a slight reduction in the actual occupied space not the parking spaces not the parking decks but the actual residential or commercial space 25% reduction that's not in dispute let's not pretend it is uh councilman uh swers I wrote I I mean I read his letter saying why don't we put a request out for proposal on the South Avenue side that's another way to skin a cat I appreciate that as as many comments have made there's many different ways to go go through this and if you pull out one little sland here and a little the whole thing goes down I connect this uh project to Our obligation to have meaningful housing diversity that will allow our zoning ordinance to be enforcable and constitutional that's a really critical thing a lot of municipalities are putting their heads in the sand on this and I get the emails believe me I've seen the emails overwhelmingly I get the impression that what people are concerned about when they object to this one Westfield plan is we don't like these new apartment buildings we don't like what we see on North Avenue and South Avenue we don't like that those were part of Westfield's effort to meet our obligations to have an enforceable zoning code they were started under an excellent mayor who served the longest mayor term in Westfield history Andy skitzki with the assistance of a councilman uh Jim first who realized that we were Westfield was sitting ducks to builders remedy lawsuits that could go and break up any single family neighborhood uh in Westfield and that's what we don't want to do we want a zoning ordinance that's enforcable the one Westfield plan overall plan really helps us do this and show that we have have a true plan that we won't get busted by Builders remedy lawsuits to me the opposition that I've heard is so reminiscent of the no Shop Right game that was played in the 1990s when I actually was on the council the lawn signs went up no shop right and unfortunately the majority party used improperly the zoning ordinance to deny them even though shopright had zero variances they even tried to come to the Town Council and changed the Zone while shopright was in process of applying in the in the planning before the planning board they gave shopright 60 they had shopright do 64 hearings and then they denied that is to say the planning board of Westfield denied an application on the railroad tracks uh that had no variances shopright took an appeal and then Garwood stepped in and said we'd W we'd welcome you please come to Garwood so move the site 200 yards and now the Garwood shop right exists Westfield has lost millions of dollars in tax revenue because of shortsightedness and it's one of the biggest mistakes uh that very honest coun people and Mayors made uh in my observation in town so again yard sides uh and and stirring up things that's that's fine that's democracy but in the long run you have to you have to take a look at the long run we need an enforcable zoning plan which West One Westfield plan is part of that now the opponents to the plan they've already got a lawsuit going they lost at the trial level they're going it I don't want to second guess what the appell division does uh I've certainly been wrong about what the appell division does in my own cases uh maybe maybe that'll win and if that and if that does win if it does win we're back to square one there's no plan there's back to Lord and Taylor getting to do whatever they want on their property assuming gets approved um and you know do I think it's going to win I don't think it's going to win but in addition to that effort to stop the One Westfield plan they they still want the Town Council to uh delay continue I know what a filibuster is I've been around I know what a filibuster is the the effort to say we need more time it's a filibuster to stop the progress of this happening now uh when I served on This Town Council uh for 11 years a long time ago in the 1980s and 1990s we didn't have such a thing as social media um and is a new development for me so I'm getting H hit with emails today social media says here's here's here's the email he's got put put put so now you can email me so uh that's that's a new thing and it's also that what's new about it is the misinformation the information uh overload what Steve Bannon that great convicted criminal said calls uh flood the zone and that's what's being happened flood the zone is being flooded of information misinformation often disinformation uh I have this question who in Westfield has lost property values in the last five years none Westfield continues to be a vibrant plan the One Westfield plan has been in existence uh for now a number of years we're making a slight uh proposed amendment to reduce the occupied Space by 25% uh who's lost prop property values I just keep being astounded and by the way the mayor's been here for seven years who's lost property values while she's been mayor and some of the other council members so uh for all those Reasons I'm I'm supportive of the amendment I was supportive of the first plan this is this is a slight change alteration I'm in favor do we just no I was going to say just got yeah I I'm just going to say a couple things just because it's getting late I think it's just what I I've gotten a couple of emails I didn't hear from a lot of w 3 residents frankly it kind of reminds me of where we were you know a year and a half ago where it was you know half in favor half not it's basically what it's been um I think what I've told every single one is you know we need to focus on what the choice is in front of the council and not the wh ifs the choice in front of us tonight is do we like the revisions to the amended plan or not to me I think lowering building Heights reducing traffic on the South Side reducing sort of the massing on the west Zone against the neighborhood the decrease in occupied square footage that that my colleague to my right said I think those are all benefits to the town right it makes the plan better right no plan's perfect I said it before year and a half ago that plan wasn't perfect but it was in the town's best interest to protect the and strin strengthen the economic Vitality of our downtown by bringing foot traffic in um 7day a week demand which we we desperately need I actually think this plan has probably helped support the huge Resurgence and new businesses we've seen in our downtown over the last few years that when we ran seven years ago or eight years ago whatever uh we were talking about vacancies I haven't heard that word in a long time in this town and there's a reason for it right you know this plan brings a ton of extra money to this town that we desperately need to make the improvements that we want to make sitting on the finance committee and we don't want your taxes to go up I'm proud of our tax record our rate of increase is about 50% below the prior Administration right that's meaningful to you and I hear a lot about that right so the $42 million I think that's the right number of capital of improvements that this project fully funds and Street Works back stops so it's virtually free to the town it's incredibly meaningful so it's not just the 10 intersections it's the greens on both sides right you know it's the garages right that does that does provide incremental parking at night and on weekends uh so I I think this plan is better it's not perfect I do agree with the mayor and I said it a year and a half ago uh that it does bring extra traffic but the reality is if you want to support the down town you have to accept more traffic right because we are still a Car- driven economy this plant supports more biking more pedest more walking the reality is West fielders like to drive it's probably not going to don't interrupt please so um that's why I'm supporting it uh I do think it's in the town's best interest I think this plan is better it's not perfect and I already said earlier I'm going to continue to fight for improvements to it particularly along the South Avenue Corridor uh but that's why I'm putting us sorry councilman I just wanted to finish that's fine uh I'll go ahead and go so I believe it's become more apparent that the new council members here their requests for a smaller project probably came to fruition I don't necessarily believe that you like this project more or that you would have wanted to change the previous project to be smaller I'm just calling you out on that I just don't see how it's possible otherwise you wouldn't have voted yes the first time you would have pushed for something smaller and you didn't do that in front of the public and the residents I also believe that HBC is insufficiently backed to complete the project at the original size and I'm not so sure they can complete it at this size at the very least I feel that it's disingenuous to claim that those that voted for the project at the original size and hold it as a threat to us and you claim you like both projects so playing both sides I think is a problem or to say that we would go back to the original plans and that would be a reasonable step I don't think anybody is going to go ahead and agree with that if anybody's checked today's news Sachs canceled their New York City lighting uh it makes you question why the people that partner which with HBC who own Sachs potentially do not want to go ahead and front the money to go ahead and make that happen they are not paying vendors there are a list of problems where they're not actually taking care of maintenance on their buildings I think it's plausible potentially probable that we will see this going forward these are some of the reasons while I will why I will vote no tonight I respect all of the other decisions I believe that there's a tie of love for the town on behalf of both sides I think we all want essentially what's best for the town I don't think the size definitely on South side should be what it is and I really do question the validity of the financials in the end but that will come the next time we meet I do still have questions thank you should I go next by the way the saxs h holid display is always sponsored by somebody so it's not out of hbc's pocket just so you know by someone like say MasterCard who would go ahead and give them the millions of dollars to go ahead typically typically sponsored by but somewhere there's a pain not happening and that's my problem just can I take I take mayor um so I guess uh before we go ahead and vote T I just want to give a few comments and I'll keep it short considering I've said the same thing a few times um to me this will all be about the process again we're arguing building Heights where F feet lower usable space not usable space I just like want to reiterate the same point I've reiterated 100 times we've done we did more of a process with more rfps for a snack stand than we did for $400 million of a massive development in our town now I want to get to the point of I had a lot of residents ask me this like what would it take for me to say yes to to vote Yes for this and there are a few things that would it that would take for me to say yes to this because I do like parts of this I'll go with the first I'll go with the first personal ask we got to stop insulting the intelligence of the council and the residents that this is a that this is a because you listen to the residents and we negotiate together this is a purely financial decision and I just want to stop insulting people by having that conversation the two other concrete things we could do is we could do a full RFP process and we could give more than three weeks for people to read the document go through it get their questions answered I don't know if we have to open a full preview Center I think someone a few weeks ago said open up a room here and talk about it I think those would be good so I want to end I guess with this I'm willing to say yes to this because I like parts of it and I would ask as councilman Healey said um there's multiple ways to skin a cat well I have a way to skin the cat where we could all vote together if you're willing to postpone this vote and give us a chance to run a full RFP process I don't know how long it takes to or six months and HBC comes back as the best one I'm willing to vote Yes so if you're willing to skin that cat with me councilman Healey you have my second I'm willing to postpone this I'm willing to run the RFP and if they come back the winner we can break bread together and do this across party lines so that's my offer and that's how I'm willing to vote Yes uh yeah so I got a couple things to say before the vote um first I want to remind everyone how we got here um in April we did meet with uh Street works we gave them a lot of feedback I asked them directly as Doug straight to his face are you still planning on going ahead with the commercial office space as planned in light of the new market conditions he said yes then when he came here on October 22nd I reminded him of that conversation and I said well when did you change your mind I asked you in April if you were going to go forward and you changed your mind what happened he said well in June that in June they came back and said to the town they wanted to reach do the deal so point one street Works came to us because they can't do the deal as planned full stop fact all right they came to us to renegotiate I was surprised to learn today from the mayor that she thinks the impetus was the Lord and tenant I'm sorry Lord and Taylor tenant having certain demands and I don't doubt her I'm sure it's true um but it is also true that they could not get commercial tenants for that 200,000 ft of office SP and that's common sense folks cuz I got news for you if they could they would have they're not going to say oh really your town doesn't like that and we got we got all 200,000 anchor tenants for for all for decades for 200,000 foot office space no so my point in making that making this point the reason I say that is because they came to us and wanted to renegotiate a deal that we had Inked that's leverage for us I would have squeezed them harder I'll just say it like that in my my perfect world we would have got a lot more out of them and when we talk about skinning the cat I'll give you the layers of skin that I just can't deal with on my cat are that 55t Tower Parking Garage on the North Zone and the 65t tall building on the south side to me those are things I just can't get over so when we talk about what we can deal with I can't deal with that that's just me people are different but that's that's where I would have pushed and I would have you know called their buff and made them re redo the deal um we didn't have that option what the council has here today before them today is to take it or leave a proposition that's the fact so all these things that you've talked about whether they're true or not we can't do anything about it we don't have a line item veto to say you know what I want that 5 foot to go back to 12 foot on the offset for the sidewalk it's just not how it works so with a take it or leave it proposition like this I got to leave it so I'm leaving this cat with the skin on its back or whatever analogy we want to use I got to leave it I want to point out a couple other things though what we are getting with this amended project is a heck of a lot more parking above ground so before it was underground why is that happening is a cost cutting measure and I I challenge anybody to tell me that there's a different reason for it to be happening so aesthetic wise to me that's also a net negative in the amendment parking above ground is ugly all right put aside the fact that we have the parking garages on the the the parking garage that's going to go up on the North Corridor especially it's going to empty out into the busiest Corridor in town North and Central I am not going to park there when I commute to New York I'm going to an now ride my bike people can do what they want but that's just me now the other parking that's going on the South Avenue I just think it's an i sword and that's all above ground now there something to think about traffic is what it is uh you know and and councilman contract councilman have good councilwoman have good rather you guys are 100% right and and these guys work hard by the way my colleagues here the two of them I know them well from the finance committee and when they say they're going to stay on top of the traffic I believe them and they will the only problem is once we Greenlight this project we're nippling around the edges right we're polishing the decks of the Titanic once you inject all these people coming in from the commercial office space from the the the Quicky Med place by Lord and Taylor people coming in and out there's only so much we're going to be able to do so I'll be there every step of the way to try to mitigate it but it really is just that it's mitigation um so I just want to point that out now a couple points points that were also brought up affordable housing we're getting a total of 40 units by my calculation if I'm wrong Donal correct me uh 34 units on the Lord and Taylor spot and I guess an additional six units by the north uh Zone um and which is good and we're going to need it because we got about 300 397 units we have to do over the next 10 years so this is good I just want to point out though that we're getting no units from the South Avenue development that's all commercial so we didn't need to do that part to get additional affordable housing units so just something to think about and uh councilman H is a th% right this is a serious business and we really have to take it seriously we want to get ahead of it and we don't want Builders uh remedies lawsuits on our town There's no way um but you could also make the point that maybe if we're going to skin our cat now now that we know what the obligation is moving forward over the next 10 years we can holistically look at a plan to really deal with it because one thing that's off the table now is that South Avenue parking lot right because that's all commercial so moving forward we know there's not going to be affordable housing over there just just an observation um so finally I just want to say something this is just for me to um to constituents like David um I got a lot of emails and I'd say just like him is probably split down the middle in terms of pro and con I also like you uh notice got a lot of emails from people outside my ward that's great I love hearing from everybody um so I I want everyone to know I responded to everyone I think uh and people who were told me hey we want you to know that we are in favor of this I hear you and I fully understand that I don't have some ownership of opinion here on what I think the entire town wants I understand the town split on this I heard you I take into consideration and I hope you understand that um for people who thought that I just vote on political grounds I know a couple people made that uh observation I can only show I can only prove to you through my actions my words what I what I what I believe in what I can do but keep in mind I like the other new members on Council did run on a campaign Against One Westfield place and we got elected because of it so please don't be too surprised at some of the things we're saying this is what we're here for um so finally I'll just say I think everyone knows how the vote's going to shake out and just because the people who are against it don't have the votes doesn't mean we don't have our voices so we're going to continue to question and challenge every step of the way and that only benefits the town in the the project overall okay thanks first the councilman hap good I want to clarify something uh I did review the 2023 traffic study you had indicated last month that there would be an updated traffic study when we met I'm still waiting for that so I just want to clarify that I did review the old traffic study I'm looking for the new traffic study councilman hilly I appreciate your experience uh in the town of Westfield but I think comparing shoppr right to One Westfield place is very in congruent and as councilman uh kefir mentioned the Southside uh provides office space not affordable housing so I think it's important that we realize that as councilman Keir said we were elected last year we were elected by democrats Republicans and independents not because of our party affiliation because this town was very upset with one Westfield place and the project when I was sitting on that side I sat and listened to many residents provide many good reasons why we should not pursue this project or why it should be amended the Town Council that time ignored everybody it was rubber stamped just like this is going to be rubber stamped it was rubber stamped to the planning board but this is not a party issue it's not Republican or Democrat it's people who are for reasonable Redevelopment and we're not saying no Redevelopment reasonable Redevelopment versus overdevelopment and and there's an opinion there you can think this one Westfield place is is reasonable we a lot of us think it's not reasonable so I think you know it's not a it's not a republican Democrat issue it's it's a it's a West Feld issue unfortunately there is a lot of people in town that are very upset about this I received a lot of emails I would say the majority of them were telling me vote no on this that people were very upset about this whole project even though this is an amendment they're still upset about the whole project I still I think as uh one of the other councilman said it was disingenuous and it's insulting to tell me that this project was changed because you were listening to the town residents if you were listening to the residents a year and a half ago when there was a a 20 300 person survey when people sat here for hours saying they were unhappy with this and your response was well we've gotten some email support of of the project that's when the change should have occurred it definitely was financial and I would agree with councilman um dagalo that that's the only reason why it was done you can tell me otherwise but I don't believe that also I would ask the mayor she mentioned in February of this past year that they were talking about changing it well why wasn't the Town Council informed of this at all is this not a Town Council that should know what's going on that meeting and I will vly disagree with the mayor was not intended to provide give us an opportunity to provide changes to One Westfield place we were being told what One Westfield place was that's what I was told I wasn't told that my input had any effect and his councilman keeper said the the effect the changed didn't occurred of June so our meeting definitely had no effect so and if there was to have an effect why wasn't there a follow-up meeting the mayor continues to say let the experts do it but no they're not elected we are elected we should have the ability to have input we represent you guys I was elected to represent you guys and I have girls every whoever but my residents I was I was represent I was elected to represent my constituents and this is what I'm going to do um I was elected because I was against One Westfield place I'm against this amendment it did give us this amendment gave us an opportunity to relook at the whole project why can't we just just relook the whole project I know we have to rush it through or you're going to rush it through because there's a tenant why can't we look at the other aspects of it I think the majority of us you know the Lord and Taylor site is not so bad we're not so adamantly against the Lord and Taylor site it's the 65 foot office building on the southide street parking lot that's ridiculous it's changing the whole aspect of town three parking you know multiple parking garages the traffic and you're right so the traffic's going to get worse no matter what you're going to mitigate it you're still having more cars so there's still going to be more traffic parking is worse you're taking the spots by the Christmas tree and moving them so the one area where there's parking that people can walk into the town is gone now so you have to walk all the way to the end of uh by Central and North you have to park on the Southside uh train station parking lot that's ridiculous you were taking away areas that access the town you know very closely the other thing is you're not you're not help on the weekends if you look at those parking lots they're relatively empty so you can park there so you don't need a parking garage there uh you know I think this is changing the whole con the whole aspect of Westfield again we're not against everything we're against part of it and this was the chance you could have sat down with us and we could have looked at this process and had a transparent open discussion but you did not allow this so I vot I'm voting no against for this because it's ridiculous all right so um I know we've all been here a while it's after 11:30 according to that clock uh so uh just a bit of a story of how we got here uh and it will mention the elephant in the room uh so watching the Strategic foresight other towns have shown our Administration realized early on that inertia was not a blueprint for maintaining a vibrant downtown so during our first term we set an intention to inject vitality and attract business to Westfield now we know that other towns have had spectacular success boosting their economies and invigorating local stores and restaurants by attracting both new customers and encouraging residents to shop locally Westfield despite its beautiful downtown was losing business to other places who saw the opportunity to create an attractive appealing downtown of Their Own own meanwhile our largest store and tax base Lord and Taylor closed this created a vacuum of space that would be difficult to fill with quaint unique storefronts instead because of the costs associated with this property there was significant risk of the property being sold to a big box store it also seemed unlikely that customers traveling into these large retailers would drive business to the existing local businesses and it seemed far more likely to pull revenue from them this is not what anyone wants for Westfield the owners of Lord and Taylor had an outstanding record of beautifying towns just like ours the council collaborated tirelessly with them to plan a future for Westfield that was as impressive and attractive as our past streetworks focused on maintaining the character and matching the charm while designing a plan to enhance revenue for them and for us throughout the planning we solicited input from our most important stakeholders our residents the feedback from our neighbors and the New Town Council Members was that first design was a bit too much that feedback was subsequently taken under advisement and many many adjustments have been made to the street Works plan specifically based on those ideas and suggestions however as we have heard during our last Town council meeting and even now it was apparently not good enough even after a substantial compromise our colleagues shifted the goalposts despite the understanding that a no vote means a return to the larger project design now you might wonder why after these duly elected leaders received exactly what they wanted they would refuse to accept the plans they wanted it's not puzzling if you analyze motive this is the elephant in the room it is easier to criticize than to govern it is easier to destroy than build bipartisanship has been replaced by intractable loyalty benefiting this party is more important it seems than benefiting the town it's at this point I want to share something that I came across last week when a government focuses on its core responsibilities and delivers on them quickly efficiently and with a laser focus on making sure people can go about their lives as normal your constituents reward that you don't need a Grand Vision you just need to execute so if and when this project proceeds and we maintain a vibrant downtown which attracts businesses Shoppers diners and revenue I ask everyone to remember who envisioned this who championed this who included the input from all stakeholders to promote this and then who pretended to work in unity towards Westfield's success only to impede its execution even after getting the changes they claim to want fellow Town Council Members we have an opportunity for enormous economic success success let's work together to achieve this thank you i' I'd like to just say a couple of things um one of the reasons that I ran for This Town Council more than seven years ago was um because there I I felt like I could add something to this Council from the financial work that I've done whole career um working on a lot of um projects around the world not that dissimilar to this Redevelopment project um I've spent a lot of time on this project um leading up to the approval that happen in February of 23 there um it has been a fully evaluated project we've got as Mike said we've gotten feedback along the way this is an opportunity of enormous Financial opportunity for this town to bring new ratables in bring significant new Revenue dollars in and significant investment in things that we cannot afford without projects like this I'm I'm a realist about this um you know we can sit up here and fight about what happened and when and why and how we're going to go forward with it but at the end of the day we have a developer who is under contract to do a deal with us has asked for some um reductions in what was originally proposed um you look at the you know what were um presented to us are the net impacts of it and it still makes a ton of sense to me um we will never have $156 million of Revenue um coming in over 30 years in addition to the new sequencing the new public improvements all of those things that will not happen through a new RFP to go out to um put up for bid a parel of land on the on South Avenue it it won't I know that people want to believe that something like that can happen there's no magical um new project that's going to appear on South Avenue because we go out to RFP we're um approving tonight the CH the changes in the Redevelopment plan we will spend time over the next couple of weeks looking at the financial information that will come in from our financial advisor that we don't have yet to affirm what we have been presented by streetworks the new plan will result in and we will continue to talk about this um but this is an opportunity for Westfield to revitalize the downtown to bring new dollars in to make sure that um the development that is going to happen um happens inside of Westfield in the way in a controlled fashion um that it happens in a way that we want to have it happen um otherwise we let the development to Jim's point about the shop right happen next door where they get the ratables and we get the traffic and no traffic improvements to handle the increased traffic thank you and I'm tired as all of you are so I'm not going to take up too much time but there's a few things I do it's really important that I call out members of the downtown Westville Corporation who are here um these are residents and business owners who have put their Blood Sweat and Tears in our downtown and they're here because they're supportive of this project because they know what it's going to mean to their livelihoods to our residents into their businesses in particular I want to thank chairman Jeff kersen bomb who has really been instrumental and I think the leading the um the dwc board and Samantha horning who's our executive director and the whole team that's here with them so um what I was elected all I heard about was why aren't we doing what Cranford is doing all the time time C remember well not why aren't we doing what Cranford is doing why aren't we doing for it's all I heard about and there was a spirit of Halloween store in our downtown at the time and if any of you guys have been to Cranford you'll notice there are five and six-story buildings in Cranford and there's a parking garage and so we are now proposing something that actually is akin to what people were begging for in Cranford and now every saying oh it's too much and can you name a municipality in the state I haven't found one yet of our size that does not have a parking garage for its commuters I know tons that are smaller than our Summit I think has three Cranford has one mouin has one Ridgewood has one they all have commuter it's ridiculous that we are still using the inefficiency of flat surface parking lots to dri drive that solution for c for residents it's crazy it actually only 11% of our actually residents ask for a parking permit that means all of us who are non-commuters are subsidized ing the lack of benefit that we're not getting from parking lots so it's just important how we think about it is there a way that we can solve our parking problem and deliver benefits for the entire Community um and I do want to say something about um Linda's comment about the RFP she's absolutely right I just want to be very clear what streetworks is buying from us is not the entire South Avenue parking lot the parking lots are not for sale a small portion of the parking lot where their bus their buildings sit is what's set for sale everything around it including the parking behind it the everything still belongs to the town so good luck doing an RFP selling off two little square Footprints of the parking lot and telling them that actually residential isn't allowed because residential is really where they make the money and I on that note I do find it amusing when they say they weren't listened to specifically the feedback that street Works heard from your meeting was that they did not want residential on South Side flat out full stop so it's kind of funny to hear now saying oh now with affordable housing maybe we should be doing residential on the southide that is news to all of us um and all I can say and I'm not I'm just going to reiterate what everybody else said we started seven years ago to take control of our development because we are tired of these oneoff things that were not part of a larger plan and the ability to take the Lord and Taylor property and marry it with Municipal property to put us in the driver's seat of the outcome is exactly what we've been trying to do all along so I are there lots of things that we could point out about this yes I do think that when people focus on the process is a bit cowardly because because that's behind us as opposed to figuring out what it is we need to be doing right now for the community so clearly I'm going to support this I'm disappointed once again that it's going to be on a uh obviously a partisan vote but with that mayor can we continue discussion here or is it ending um I think it's ending we're taking a vote so it's I I mean go for it it is late and we still have it's all right it's a big it's an important thing I can stay here all night um listen I I I think you keep saying this like partisan down party lines like I made an offer that I there's something that's holding me back and if we're willing to go work with each other you're so definitive that like no other person is going to put an offer I don't know how you could be so definitive and if you know that you like you're you're coming off as like you are a real estate expert with a with a crystal ball that no one here has you can't be so definitive as you're saying with the RFP so my ask one more time is if we want to work together we want to work across party l we want to all work together and you're so disappointed sorry what did you say no it's not it's fine it's fine go ahead I think she said I was so rude or something no no go ahead continue okay um if we want to work across party lines like you're you're saying we should do and you're so definitively right why don't you make me eat the cat and let's put this up for an RFP and in 3 or six months when it's over if they have the best bid I will vote for it that is my offer to every single one of you if we're willing to just do that RFP and you might be right we might get new votes and I may look like an idiot up here but um that is my offer to all of us to go do it well appreciate it it feels a bit gimmicky and it's also a very long process very long process and the whole reason that we are combining those parking lots with the Lord and tailor property is because together they are greater than the individual sum of the parts so we've spent three years plus working on a plan that we're all comfortable with no no you guys are comfortable with don't say we I well okay and we're about to take a vote on but councilman that's not the choice we have tonight right so the answer to your question is no because that's not the choice I said this I don't know if you were listening that's not the choice that we have tonight all right I'm sorry but that's not the choice no we we always have a choice they're at the table negotiating desperate with no money what are you talking about Choice listen all right I'm going to go okay so I will uh councilman contract please I did I forgot we did that so please call the role Miss lashi council members have good we did get a second yes you yes Daria yes dagala no Keir no sers no armento a less bad project is still a bad project no contract yes Hy yes mayor brle yes and this motion is carried um does anyone need a break or should we keep going we good keep going okay just want to make sure Noone has to make a break okay um and listen if anyone has to get up and leave we don't we will not be insulted if people are moving um may I have a motion to approve the minutes from the Town Council conference discussion all in favor yes do we want to just wait I am let's just vote on going to wait I offer so I take a motion to a I mean not to five minute break what are we doing yes sure yes second all in favor say yes we had to vote on that to back Tom hold good e TR con okay armento ping Dr armento Dr armento where is he hey Doc Dr armento okay doc trying to get back to order where are okay we wait we are starting on the minutes and by the way during the break I was reminded by our professionals to I misspoke about the elimination of the building on the southide it was we had made the determination to eliminate the residential component of the southide but it wasn't necessarily something that we initiated so just want to be on the record for that um okay so may I have a motion to approve the minutes for the Town Council conference regular meetings of October 22nd 2024 second move by Council Saunders second second second by Council hap good any discuss all in favor yes this motion is carried now it's time for open discussion by citizens anyone may come up to the microphone and speak to the Council on any subject on which we have jurisdiction please state your name and address for the record and limit your comments to 5 minutes please so I'm Marvin gon I live at 725 St Marks Avenue I'm probably the only member of The Institute of Transportation engineers in this room and um last year I had some Com or in February 20 23 I reviewed all of the past kimley horn reports but so reading the uh impact of the amended plan it said that they found a 36 to 40% Southside traffic impact reduction so my question was was that based on a new tra uh kimle horn traffic impact study so I wanted to find out and I went to the Westfield website and I looked under the FAQs and the list of reports what I found was the only FAQ that referred to a traffic study was Kim ley's 1220 2022 study and then the only the next mention was their February uh 20203 updated study so it doesn't look to me like kimley horn has done a revised traffic study based on the amended plan but I'm asking the question have they and was that the basis of of this 36 to 40% Southside traffic uh reduction traffic impact reduction that's one question the other question is since there's a reduction in um in development size is there going to be a reduction in the proposed traffic mitigation projects as part of the amended plan that's the third question fourth question is in February 2023 I spoke to the council and I expressed my concern about the parking garage on the North side at North Avenue in central because the driveway which was a right eastbound right turn in right turnout driveway was 50 ft from the uh stop line at the intersection of North Avenue and Central now New Jersey administrative code 16 colon 47-38 K3 says and I'm quoting the corner clearance distance shall be as follows a minimum of 100 ft 30.5 M for all driveways in the vicinity of signalized intersections so that proposed eastbound right turn in right turnout driveway would be closer to the intersection than the existing Verizon store driveway it's very close but it it's 50 feet shorter than New Jersey C so my question is has this proposed driveway location for that proposed parking garage on rout route New Jersey 28 North Avenue has it been approved by New Jersey DOT and then finally could any money saved by the amended plan be used to be build a pedestrian overpass from the proposed North Avenue parking garage upper level to the eastbound platform of the West Westfield train station I commuted from the north side of town to the Westfield train station for about 50 years and uh we always parked on the South Side asking North Side residents who are commuters to drive to that parking garage go up to the top floor come all the way down walk all the way through and go through the tunnel and come up it's pretty uh they're going to miss some trains doing that so those are my questions and comments thank you um M uh let me just try and uh so is Don still here oh on ha I say your name and you appear but you didn't hear the question so um and I'll try to answer I might not get them right Mr Gerson was asking about um is there a new traffic impact study on the amended plan and how do we come up with a 36 to 40% reduction it's my understanding I'll say this and you correct me if I get it wrong is that that reduction was made to be commensurate with the reduction in trip generation from the loss from the elimination of the one office building um but I think there's a followup did did I get that right no that's my understanding what you just said yeah okay I don't know that there's more to which was confirmed so it's it's I'm sorry we have all people different pieces information and that reduction uh at this point um the tis is still being finalized but that reduction has been confirmed by our consultant wsp of 36 to 40% okay so I did and then Jen don't go away yet so um you asked um no spite of the reduction in traffic one of the things we insisted upon is that all the traffic mitigation measures remain so there's no reduction in traffic mitigation as part of the reduction in amendments um and there the you you're absolutely right the do does it is required for the north uh garage I don't know I don't remember where that is you yeah so um the driveway right now actually is 95 ft from the intersection not 50 still doesn't meet the 100% um 100 ft requirement uh right now the design that is not finalized with the designs call for right right in only um so there is no right turn out and the uh deck design calls for um uh egress out of the deck along the back of the parking lot which does not change that goes behind the buildings and uh our parking consultant has been looking at a design for an e uh an egress uh on Central Avenue which the county is looking at as well right turn only right right turn only yes um and the last thing about pedestrian bridge um while there was initial looks at pedestrian bridge over the line actually there was some discussion of beautifying The Underpass tunnel but there has been some discussion about a pedestrian bridge over not the same place Mr Gerson is talking about but a pedestrian bridge from the what's now the Lorden Taylor property uh over the uh the the the traffic circle area not not on the other side on lordon Taylor side of that to get pedestrians from the new development to the um North Side um train station there we've been talking to Street Works about that for many many years about a grant opportunity there as well but were you talking about an over the track yes so over the track under yeah yeah I we had talked to New Jersey Transit about an over the track option and it just wasn't doable but the one thing that was one yes um the one thing that was discussed was creating um an element that you could go directly from the garage to the platform and so you could walk you know if you're coming out you could go right into the garage so um but you know you know New Jersey Transit well so there is one in so yeah I'm they looked I can promise you it's been reviewed because we all thought it was a great idea so thank you for your comments yes Melissa Rogers 1415 Boon Avenue um I've lived here for 23 years and I've had uh three daughters in the education system and I support the Westfield one place project why uh first of all parking lots are ugly and they don't pay taxes and the impermeable surface thing is a big deal we need to worry about that our grown children and our senior citizens need the affordable housing in our community I'm proud that we are one of the few towns in Union County that met the targets required by the state Cranford has both old and new apartment buildings uh people the residents in these apartment buildings are supporting a thriving downtown fourth a 25% reduction in size is a huge concession uh to years of public comment in my opinion it's time to stop delaying and go forward I ask my specific Representatives Mr domagala and Mr contract and all the rest of you please approve the I wanted you to approve the amendment I didn't understand how the process works just keep it going forward please facilitate this just get it done I mean after all this time it's just it's time just do it thank you marela nooy 678 Shadow La drive I'm not here longer than Mr Healey but I've been in Redfield for 47 years same house and um for many many years um the Southside was considered did the wrong side of the tracks and that's sort of dissipated pretty much over the last 10 years with all the new construction that's going on on the north on the south side but now I feel as if we're being um second citizens again with a huge parking garage and a commercial building uh I just feel like it's ugly and what's going to attract people to the Southside shopping nothing nothing I just I don't know it just seems to be ugly and it doesn't seem to be the comparison to what the north side train station is going to look like to the Southside is is night and day and I think it's not fair to the Southside we've been abused for many many years um thank you Marilyn also thank you for your advocacy for trains because she she was one of the early ran Valley Line and I'll just say um I appreciate your perspective but I couldn't disagree more because there is currently no green space on the south side it's an asphalt parking lot um the souths side we were insisted on getting a pedestrian a beautiful pedestrian Plaza that would be the equivalent of the north side the whole intention is to make sure that there's some equivalency you talk about the garage but it's all going to be lined with retail and the issue with they call camouflage exactly um and the issue with they the problem on the south side with the business bus and you can talk to the business owners on South Avenue they call it um a desert when you when people want to shop they want to see activation on both sides of the street it's it's well documented that when you have one side that's just flat in this case an asphalt parking lot that's not an environment where people want to go and pedestrians want to stroll so when you're talking about a building in a garage lined with retail with beautiful wide sidewalks and trees and a 40 foot wide um like uh Oasis will between the two buildings that's going to be amazing for Southside residents not to mention a big priority was creating better connections between the North and South Side um so right now nobody really wants to walk through an asphalt parking lot but now there'll be something uh that really enhances the experience that make people want to be there we and we and and you know um Street works is committed to putting their liquor license on the south side which can activate several restaurants within their own office building there currently is no liquor license within the central business district on the south side so I couldn't disagree more with your assessment if anything we were so adamant about ensuring that the southide would finally be able to get the love and investment that the north side has enjoyed for a long time I hope so yes and I and I think that's what we'll see we're committed to that so hello again Morgan O'Brien 438 St Marks Avenue in Westfield um just I I guess I just make a request on the numbers that uh people refrain from talking about the $153 million because that's a marketing number that's not a real Financial number that's over 30 years so in year 30 a million dollars is worth a $1.98 so it's not you know while it can support the debt I'll agree with that that's very good that's excellent all right supporting of of the uh uh debt funding but it's not a real number because anything past 10 is very subject to a lot of things going on and as as we heard here um uh Hudson Bay went private back in 20120 all right so you can't see their numbers but anyone can sort of find out okay what are the retail properties they own how are they doing how are they doing versus Amazon and you know uh they're probably hurting if if at a certain point in time um you know those businesses represent 50 60% of the revenue guess what they're in trouble so worth thinking about all right but okay um and then you know to mention Michael dardia to mention big box going in there also that doesn't follow there's no big boxes that are building you know brick and mortar that doesn't exist anymore Walmart's whole strategy is to compete against Amazon they're not building brick and mortar in these areas it's just not happening you can look it up all right so there are risks the 153 million is not guaranteed all right there's no guarantees but it would be better not to market the 153 million that's that's my my opinion thank you Michael banado 18 Carol Road um the amount that he just said about the pilot payment in L of other taxes is a negotiated settlement and I heard Linda say councilman H could a million times talk about the 157 million I've done an analysis if we turned the tow houses and did development and we did appraisals based on today's real estate market we would do better without a pilot just based on my calculations of assessed values in the town so start there then the Southside uh that we talk about I'm in favor of the garage I was in favor of the garage 30 I've lived in West whe my whole life so based on everybody here I think I might even have you Mr hey beat because I'm here 62 years okay close though I'm here 6 2 years my whole life um so I was 100% for the garage I was 100% for shop right go going into Westfield so it's not that I'm against development I'm against and it's I'm I'm for a garage on the southide as long as it's done correctly my whole issue is and my phone unfortunately just died and I had this statistic is there's places right now that have commercial development that over the last 5 years have had to take that con commercial development when back to their towns or cities and said you know what this commercial development's not working out anymore so we got to turn it into residential we're going to have a lead balloon there because of the fact we've decided to go down this path and I know you guys voted for the amendment tonight but I just like the last time I really thought there needed to be more due diligence looked into about the commercial on the souths side about the uh parking spaces on the Southside and I don't know how on the south side every single day where my house is people park there supposed to be 2-hour parking the reason why they either couldn't get a spot in the train station or they didn't even apply for the permit and they park there I'm not going to call and get it enforced because they're residents of the Town most of them are going to be residents as a matter of fact I know a couple of them that live on the Southside that park in front of my house on on there my point being is is that I think there needs to be more due diligence here I like the RFP idea I liked it the last time when we talked about it it felt like we're giving Hudson Bay everything that they've asked for and in this amendment they came around and I didn't have a lot of time the re redacted piece the not redacted the redline pieces of the of the proposal but it just feels like once again we're flying through this process the last point I wanted to make and David I talked to you about this the last time the parking lot for the YMCA the where the tow houses there's 14 of them now instead of 16 there needed to be negotiation with the why because they are being used and what you told me back then was oh that's locked every day well I still drive by there and that parking lot's half full so when those tow houses get built there what are we going to do with the parking and I've heard the people talking about the streets that are next to Clark Street and stuff like that I'm one of those people that does everything I can when I'm coming down Clark Street from work I avoid turning uh turning that way to get into the center of town so there's a lot that needs to be done a lot of un answered questions and I heard what the the partisan lines are I don't think they're partisan lines I think one side thinks that it's development at all cost I think the other side saying wait a second let's slow down and think about this just a little bit I wish the amendment hadn't gone through tonight because I wish there was more time for dialogue back and forth I've said that from the beginning and um the pizza run didn't happen this year I didn't realiz I put this on because I went for a run tonight and I had this on unfortunately it was not sweaty now but it was before from 20 2012 the town's a great town and uh what worries me is once something like this is done it's going to be too too big I think the parking garage is really really needed because I agree with you 100% about the desert on the southide I grew up on the southide I grew up a block and a half from there when there was Roots there when there was um Dukes there all those great stores they're gone but now they've been replaced with some cool places too the acting out uh uh Victoria I forget the name of the French cafe cakes there's a new uh little Spanish type Market there excellent so it's coming around and by the way they're coming around because I speak to them all the time because of the apartments that are there that are driving foot traffic to the storage just so you know I don't disagree with so you're not hearing me disagree with those kind of development I'm not I'm not I've actually said that for the benefit of everybody else so so I'm not disagreeing with that kind of development what I am disagreeing with I was worried really about the queuing on South Avenue we talked about that I'm worried about the parking lot parking situation by Clark Street where the YMCA people overflow goes because I used to go to DW I don't anymore but I used to go all the time so those are the things that I I'm over my time all right you are out of time let me just say one thing because I heard you say um you're worried about the commercial and they're not going to get it it might turn into residential okay so we have protections for that they can't do that I don't they can't do that without getting Council approval and the other thing that's new in this amendment that wasn't before we increase the requirement for tency before they can even break ground so before they can break ground on that commercial office they have to get to they have to have 75% of that office leas or else they can't do it and so we've built in those protections that's that's one that we got better this time when we did the first one for the same same reassurance but the beauty is the way the deal is structured in terms of the timing let's just say they can't get the tency right that comes after all these other public improvements have been built so that including the southide because what we were worried about let's just say that came to fruition the old plan didn't allow the the Southside to have any benefits if that happened we've now accelerated so for whatever reason if that didn't happen there would be a beautiful public Plaza lots of Street skate improvements so the south is going to benefit regardless good so thank you good evening mayor brindle members of the council Sharon Stockwell 100 Nelson place um I'm very happy that you passed the amendment tonight thank you very much for doing that as a 23-year resident of Ward one district one I live right there in that particular neighborhood at the Y um I'm sorry that some of my neighbors have left early CU I really did want to speak to them um but I am very supportive of this project I was supportive of the very first project and I'm very um supportive of this one as well although I will miss some of the elements of the larger project I do think that this is a very good project one of the things that I like about this is that this whole area is looked at in a macro way in the past all all of the different projects and any of the other proposed um projects or businesses that have been proposed in the ward one district one area have always been kind of peac meal everything's always been individualized nothing was ever connected as a whole one of the things that I know that Linda and I've been talking about over the last seven years was some kind of a comprehensive traffic um Road calming kind of techniques because we have had problems in the past with speeding and with the traffic backups and everything so I'm very happy to know that we're using smart technology to be able to integrate that into everything um I think it'll be an improvement the other thing that I wanted to bring up to the um four new council members is are you familiar with and have you ever visited blueback Square which is up in Hartford Connecticut that is the other project that is very similar to this one Westfield place my family lives next door in Farmington Connecticut so and that was a street Works project that is a street Works project and so they are around the corner from blueback Square so this is an area that I know that I have been to and that I frequented um quite a bit with them I have a sister-in-law that has a sister that recently moved and she purchased a house right near blueback Square because she wanted to be able to walk and not take her car so if any of you have have had the opportunity to go and see it um I really think you should or if you want to Google it and take a look at it um online I really think you should take a look at it it is a very similar project to what we're talking about here and it's beautifully done and in fact I'm a little bit jealous because one of the things that they have in their project that we don't have is they have a grocery store in their project and there would be nothing more than I would like to see than a new grocery store or something to replace Stop and Shop because um that is quite an eyesore and I am right there on the next block and that is something that is just going from bad to worse so you know um I think that this is a great opportunity and I also think it's a Once in lifetime opportunity I imagine that there are other towns in this area that would have jumped at the opportunity to have someone come to them and say I want to partner with you I want to bring this to your town I want to work with you on developing you know your public spaces our properties and to integrate this as a whole because when you do that then you're able to get more done rather than just do things one at a time piece mail so thank you again for passing tonight uh John Marcos 543 Arlington Avenue um I would say that the commuters and their families continue to be major losers under owp plans the garage spaces are less convenient more time consuming less safe more expensive for commuters more costly for the town and less Suburban um they claim that it's a one for one parking replacement but that's misleading because garage spaces shared spaces and distance spaces are lower quality than the current surface parking spaces and there's a very long waiting list how many Suburban towns are giving up there at Suburban uh surface parking the number of uh spaces is inadequate for current needs and grossly inadequate for future needs the proposed traffic patterns for the closes and the garages and the main streets are inadequate and unsafe for commuter drivers other drivers and pedestrians all of those cars and are being funneled into two small areas um pedestrian walkways have been reduced and are inadequate um town has the obligation to avoid creating dangerous conditions and and to avoid creating liability issues um the town plans have reduced waiting areas for cars and for pedestrians and um there are fewer entrances and exits for both commuter cars and shopping cars and I would add finally that um I would say that most residents and Merchants and visitors do not want to give up the convenient North Plaza surface lot um spaces and they don't want to give up the historic Christmas tree which is uh important for the the town anyway thanks very much thank you um I I didn't quite understand why you said parking wasn't going to be replaced fully when it Absolut is going to be replaced one to one and just let me make a give you a few data points on the parking with the train so uh we monitor our parking regularly and I get um daily I get regular information from New Jersey Transit and I've now asked them to break it out for me by day even during today just as just a couple weeks ago even during Wednesday which is the peak commuting time from Westfield boardings on Wednesdays are down 20 to 40% at the peak time preco and so there's a reason why our Lots look full on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday they are not full on Monday and they are not full four days of the week and the Waton lot is Never full so what you're finding is our largest town asset which is our parking lots are completely underutilized in terms of delivering benefits to ta taxpayers so I would say by actually replacing the commuter parking one to one when boarding information boardings are down 20 to 40% today than they were preo we are de facto increasing capacity the opportunity is in terms of how we need to be smarter about how we allocate it we need to look at maybe doing Dynamic pricing for dailies there's lots of things that we need to do that to make sure that our current spaces whether it's a flat lot or a garage are better and more effectively utilized that could benefit more commuters but I don't agree with you that there's actually um we need more commuter parking I think we need to be more efficient about how we're allocating our commuter parking based upon board ridership Trends today now so well the way and I'll and I don't usually take comments from the back but the waiting list is also something that has to be Revisited based upon current trends and I think one of the things this council did recently was invested in parking technology to allow people to buy online to invest in better tracking those types of things are going to help us in terms of better manage a parking system that will be better they'll be more efficient and better more access for everyone so and hopefully should reduce the list too I mean honestly the Waton lot never fall ever and so that's crazy that we have a lot like that in that adjacent Y and it's empty most of the time so yeah okay people people parked there before covid and people buy parking passes permits there so okay so all right I'm sorry who was next so all right Denise Sherwood 642 Hanford place a year half a year and a half ago week after week residents came to this Podium and raised very important and valid concerns about the assumptions and lack of data to support One Westfield Place parking analysis traffic analysis demand for office space in Westfield occupancy and lease rates revenue and pilot distributions they were mocked condescended and ignored here we are 18 months later and the entire Southside parking lot portion is being Modified by the deers uh with reduced office space and an above background parking garage what's not clear to me today this is the question I wasn't allowed to ask before it came up in the meeting that there was an April meeting and then somehow I think they came back to you in June and topology and lots of conversations went on um and it was said that what was driving it was that you have a tenant so that's what's pushing this so fast you have a tenant and that's for the Lord and Taylor spot right the tenant that's you can't answer it yet okay it seems like there's some tenant that's coming I'm assuming it's the um Urgent Care tenant that's going in the Lord and Taylor building so what in the world does that have to do with the Southside lot you're talking about one ten for North Avenue why did the plan change and why did they reduce the scope of the project for South a it seems to me they're probably in financial trouble they can't get a commercial tenant and they couldn't get a tenant to fill two commercial buildings it had nothing to do with us because they would have listened to the residents a year and a half ago so something changed with their financials that they're reducing the scope on South Avenue um a second thing is it seems that it's we we really don't have a plan about what we want on the South Side um um councilwoman have good you had said are we going to get more um occupants other than food is there going to be anything other than food and the man got up here and said yes we have 10,000 employees in retail we um HBC is aligned with um sacs sacks fth Avenue I'm sure we can put in um anything other than food and then mayor brindle you said wait wait we have um the liquor license is now going to the Southside lot and the beauty of it is with one license we could have three restaurants and bars as long as they're adjacent it can be on one uh one license so I'm like okay do we want non food or do we want food you know in bars so well which is it so I'm I'm questioning on the retail side on South Avenue just how many uh stores or businesses can there be if we're looking at three bars and restaurants how like how much space is that taking up and we talk about um a 48 foot garage on South Avenue but it's only going to have if I understand correctly one story possibly two of retail in front of it so to me we're still going to be looking at a big huge garage and the garage is going to be really long now the length of the garage is bigger than what would have been the length of the commercial office building um so uh let's see what else do I have here um we talk about lowering building Heights however lowering most building Heights by 15 to to 30 feet um in both Laur and Taylor and the Southside Parcels that still leaves us with four out of five buildings that are still 55 to 65 ft tall not including the rooftop Mechanicals which can add another 15 to 20 ft um and as far as parking goes there's still a there's still a waiting list for parking so if somebody buys a parking ticket they want to know that okay I have you know 25 minutes to get from my house to catch the train they don't want it on any any given day be looking at some kind of app and saying well where's my um parking lot going to be they they want to have a parking pass and know that they have a spot they don't want to I don't think go by um on a day-to-day basis wondering whether they have a lot like are you going to over is your plan to oversell and give everybody there won't be any waiting list and we'll just assume that because some days the lot's empty and some days it's not that they'll have a spot to park I don't know understand that so thank you Bob mcnamer 603 Lawrence Avenue um have a couple of comments the first of which is uh as someone had suggested uh to go and see West Hartford and that development go ahead what you'll see is three-story residential there that's what they have that's what we've always preached should should happen in Westfield the rest of that development quite frankly is an outdoor shopping center I wanted to also address the uh the parking and the parking capacity uh mayor I can't disagree with you more uh we have actually with the plan lost 90 spaces if you look carefully at th's report that they issued on uh February 13 2003 23 I'm sorry in it it has as primary strategies that they're counting 30 spaces behind Barons they already exist they're also counting um uh parking spaces on Orchard and Elm those also exist already and then behind or next to Holy Trinity Church the woodston lot again has 25 spaces that already exist so I disagree with you the new plan is short by 90 spaces you can't count existing spaces and say that's part of your primary strategy and lastly from the town's own website a master plan governs and and dictates zoning uh from Mr trlc who's the plan board attorney seconded by chair Michael Ash actually stated prior to a vote last week that the master plan is not zoning I think a town attorney who doesn't know what our master plan is shouldn't represent us and I think it's an embarrassment that he would state that before a vote when it's absolutely incorrect do you going to reset the clock or I'll take thank you Carla bonach 603 Lawrence Avenue representing Westfield Advocates we will reiterate our previous marks to remarks to the council at first reading two weeks ago and to the planning board just last week the amended Lord and Taylor train station Redevelopment plan AKA 1 Westfield place project and its impacts are inconsistent with the holistic Community Vision goals and objectives articulated in the Town Master Plan and the amended owp plan still does not sufficiently mitigate the major neighborhood impacts including traffic volumes building massing and neighborhood character the amended plan has a substantive additional impacts that are worse than the original owp plan one greater building passing above grade with consequential reduction of open space two there are now three new parking garages above grade for commercial tenants essentially due to the elimination of below grade parking that makes five above grade parking garages along with the previous two commuter parking garages unbelievable these changes cannot be reasonably dismissed as insignificant impacts to the community the council shouldn't have advanced this vote on the amended Redevelopment plan there hasn't been a reasonable opportunity to fully and fairly review the plan or it's potential community and financial impacts although some of you seem to know quite a lot about the financial impacts that the rest of us don't seem to know about and you should have done all this pursuant to the Redevelopment law Westfield Advocates provided a 43 page memo to the planning board last last week outl outlining how the amended owp plan has potentially greater impacts and also Still Remains inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Baseline 2019 master plan whatever other differences of opinion regarding this owp development I'm sure the prospect of three new above grade parking garages each up to about 48 feet tall was not substantively raised explored documented for Community input as part of the town's master plan the town's train station public Lots approximately seven acres of land are probably the town's most significant asset to essentially back into an overall program that fits with hbc's latest developer proforma is not a reasonable choice in the best interest of Westfield we rhetorically ask again who from the general Community actually asked for a development of this scale 14 acres of mixed juice development half of which sits on fully utilized revenu producing public property even though you discount the 11% of us who moved here because we could commute to New York City we have not even addressed what happens when the developers proformas continue to change as actual design construction and leasing sales begin or even as development rights might even be transferred the town does not need to take to unnecessarily take on development risk and be at the developers Mercy to acques with future amendments to be sure Westfield Advocates is primarily concerned with the towns and this council's choices for publicly owned train St train station lots I'm going to run out of time um we do believe that we should be addressing infrastructure issues and needs and then attracting the types of development uses massing aesthetic quality that fits in well with Westfield's decidedly residential Suburban character we should look at benchmarks like Cranford Summit Daran Madison Fairfield Connecticut that preserve their downtowns rather than destroy them with supersized buildings functionally deficient um infrastructure and ruin the quality of their neighborhoods I will say since you voted that we have shared with you our reply brief that's filed with the Superior Court the pellet division we are serious about this lawsuit it describes the legal grounds for opposing the first plan the revised plan and both plans fail to meet the legal requirements of New Jersey statutes that apply to create a valid Redevelopment plan thank you very much anybody else okay hearing none um I close this portion of the meeting and move to bills and claims Council and hap good thank you mayor I'd like to move bills and claims in the amount of 540 my mic gone sorry um thank you mayor I'd like to move bills and claims in the amount of 54637 73 may I have a second second councilman Daria all in favor yes oos this motion is carried next on the agenda is reports of standing committees be of the finance policy committee CC and have good thank you again mayor I have nine resolutions eight of which I'd like to move as a package the first a resolution authorizing the CFO to refund Recreation Department fees the second resolution authorizing the CFO to draw a warrant for jog licenses for October 2024 third a resolution authorizing the CFO to draw warrant for the board of adjustment escrow monies four a resolution authorizing the CFO to draw warrant for overpaid taxes for 2024 five a resolution authorizing the assigned assignment of a municipal lean six a resolution to approve insertion of special item of Revenue in the municipal budget for the receipt of a 2024 Greening Greening County Grant um and seven a resolution to approve insertion of a special item of Revenue in the municipal budget for the 2024 kids Recreation Memorial Park tennis courts Grant may I have a second second my Council and contract any discussion all in favor yes opposed this motion is Carri and I'd also like to move a resolution authorizing the CFO to make a budget transfer may I have a second second second by counc armento any discussion good follow the r council members have good yes tardia yes dagala yes keeper yes Saunders yes contract yes yes this motion is carried next is Public Safety Transportation parking committee councilman dardia thank you mayor I would like to move General ordinance number 2024-25 on first reading an ordinance to amend the code of the town of Westfield chapter 13 you have a second second by councilman contract any discussion please call the role Council memb H yes guardan yes yes yes Saunders yes Aro yes yesy yes mayor yes this motion has carried next his Public Works committee councilman Healey uh I'd like to move three resolutions as a package one a change order for uh and final payment for Summit Avenue at Elmer Street a change order for uh authorizing various streets Street improvements and a final payment and a resolution to submit an award extension uh pertaining to Clover Street and Francis tariffs improvements to the uh New Jersey DOT we have a second second second by Council dagala any discussion all in favor yesos this motion is carried may I have a motion to adjourn yes motion so move second we Council ha good uh all in favor oose this motion to carry this meeting is a Jour good night everybody