[0:54] just not everyone. Wouldn't they still be scoring from last year until the new?

[0:59] » Yeah. >> Right. So, just just Yeah. Evan would be

[1:03] the only one there who's gonna Evan, you're going to just sit tight.

[1:08] » You won't say present. Mr. Sharer

[1:11] » here. Counciloman Marsh >> here.

[1:14] » Mr. Barbara >> here.

[1:17] » Vice Chairman Dwan >> here.

[1:18] » Mr. Calfman >> here.

[1:21] » Mr. Panza >> here.

[1:23] » Chairman Belini >> here.

[1:26] » Uh and then we have two resolutions for approval. 300 Chestnut Road, Ridge Road.

[1:33] That's the BMW one. I don't know if anyone got a chance to take a look at

[1:36] their resolutions, but if they had any comments on it. Um and we have come to

[1:42] four five

[1:46] that's five and six. >> Yeah.

[1:49] » Right. So can we get a motion for 300 chest coverage?

[1:52] » Motion. >> Yeah. The only thing I I would say on

[1:54] that is I was told that there is a uh a redevelopment agreement between the barn

[2:03] right and and the redeveloper. Um, >> we're going to make this subject to

[2:08] » Yes, I would I would just make that the addition to the resolution subject to

[2:14] execution of that redeveloper agreement. I understand there was one that's either

[2:20] been signed or circulating. I think your uh redevelopment attorney uh you know

[2:26] worked on that reminds you but u yeah I think Wendy took care of that right. All

[2:32] right. So just I I don't know if it's executed yet by the landowner, but we're

[2:37] just going to make the resolution subjective. So

[2:39] » Okay. >> All right. So we can get a motion to

[2:42] pass the resolution as amended uh to include the agreement.

[2:46] » Motion to pass as amended. >> Second.

[2:50] » Roll call. >> Mr. Robert, what are these changes?

[2:56] » What changes? >> Well, what do they want to change?

[2:58] » What do you mean? >> All right. in the resolution.

[3:02] » No, no changes to the resolution. Just adding the developers agreement that is

[3:06] counterexecuted by the mayor and council.

[3:08] » That's the change that we're adding.

[3:13] » Yes. Subject to execution. That's an agree. It may have already been

[3:16] executed. I just couldn't confirm it for this meeting. U developer agreement with

[3:22] the municipality. The mayor and council negotiated with the land owner. So,

[3:26] we're going to make this resolution subject to that also being executed.

[3:36] » Motion second. >> Second.

[3:38] » Mr. Barb, >> yes.

[3:40] » Councilwoman Marsh. >> Yes.

[3:41] » Mr. Panto. >> Yes.

[3:42] » Mr. Calfman. >> Yes.

[3:44] » Vice Chairman Dwan. >> Yes.

[3:45] » Chairman Billy. >> Yes.

[3:48] » And then the next is 25 prospects. Rick

[3:52] » Cliff. >> That's the man.

[3:56] I don't think there's any >> no chance in that. I received an email

[4:00] from the attorneys for the applicant the job

[4:06] the question was injured. So let's do it as

[4:12] and Nikki you are absent on this right.

[4:18] » So can we get a motion? >> Motion please second.

[4:23] » Mr. Barbara. Yes, >> Mr. Coffman.

[4:25] » Yes, >> Mr. Panzo.

[4:27] » Yes, >> Vice Chairman. I'm sorry, Vice Chairman

[4:30] Dwan. >> Yes,

[4:31] » Chairman Breen. >> Yes.

[4:33] » And five is adequate, right? >> And next, we have our annual report,

[4:40] which we're going to submit to the mayor council.

[4:43] There's my report. Uh, this year I think we handled 18 applications if I'm not

[4:50] mistaken. um

[4:53] » couple of small ones, but mainly, you know, um some decent sized ones. So, I

[4:57] think we did a great job this year. I don't know if anyone has any comments or

[5:00] or any changes that they want to make to it or any inconsistencies or

[5:04] inaccuracies, but I think this is good to submit to the mayor and council for

[5:09] our annual report. >> Agreed.

[5:12] » Motion. >> Yeah. Before you do that, um it's also

[5:17] if after having heard all these applications, if the board has any

[5:20] recommendations, mayor council, uh I don't know that you

[5:26] have any or if any are needed, but if you do, this would be the time to do it.

[5:31] Uh I did notice some corrections, but that's okay. Uh

[5:38] » we uh the second one for 10 ster uh is swimming pool should be in the

[5:44] rear >> in the rear of the property.

[5:46] » Um and if constructed the improved it should be impervious coverage will be

[5:53] 36.2%.

[5:57] And on the next page

[6:03] » rely road

[6:07] second sentence a variance more it should be 7.3 ft

[6:13] for requested no variance or 11.4t authority. It's also requested for the

[6:19] patio on uh 11 and overdrive. It's a gross

[6:26] application. Then the second line we're 15% is the it

[6:33] should be the limit. The limit is 15%. U and also after we're 30% is required 30%

[6:42] is the limit. And then on the uh

[6:48] next page 15 road Anthony larger gross

[6:56] actually I would just add with that there was subdivision approval for that

[6:59] that was case there was the sliver if we remember

[7:06] so that was subdivision minor subdivision

[7:10] u and then the last one uh 300

[7:17] compos second sentence the applicant is proposing multif family

[7:26] » it

[7:30] need a motion to send us >> I can't

[7:36] » all in favor >> as amended

[7:48] minutes. December 16th, 2025.

[7:57] » Any changes? Sarah, >> no.

[8:01] » Just one one built real quick. >> Go ahead.

[8:04] » So much better to hear than the other place. I'm so glad we moved it here.

[8:08] » Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't know if merit council needs to know that but compared

[8:11] to the senior center this is just I can hear people.

[8:14] » Yeah. >> So it was so bad over there.

[8:16] » Yeah. >> I know it was bigger but it was so bad.

[8:20] » So thank you. You're welcome. >> Um all right. So we gave it motion for

[8:26] the minutes. >> Motion

[8:28] » second. >> No.

[8:32] All in favor. >> Okay. So that's

[8:37] nice. Now we could do our swearing. >> Okay.

[8:43] » I'll do it together. >> Uh, is Jared via Zoom or no?

[8:46] » Yes, he is. >> Jared,

[8:48] » can you hear me? >> Can Can we hear and see you or not?

[8:52] » Can you hear me? >> I can hear you. Yeah.

[8:56] » Oh, I can hear me, too. >> Okay, good.

[8:59] » Nice when technology works. >> Um, how do you want to do this? You want

[9:04] us Walter read these or we just did it last time? It's

[9:10] » we can have money. I think >> actually

[9:15] remember years ago one of club members suggested club rather than asking

[9:22] the members to read. Okay. They just read the oath.

[9:29] » Okay. Perfect. >> Uh Jared, you you have a copy of the

[9:33] oath in front of you? >> I do.

[9:35] » Okay. We're all going to mumble on top of each other.

[9:39] » All right. Uh Evan, you have a copy? >> I do.

[9:42] » Okay, perfect. So, here we go. I Grotto Devenian do solemnly swear that I will

[9:48] support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Save,

[9:53] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Sim and to the governments

[9:57] established in the United States and in this state under the authority of the

[10:01] people and that I will faithfully, and partially, and justly perform all duties

[10:06] as a member of the land use board according to the best of my abilities.

[10:12] So help me. Jared, I think you're just going to need

[10:16] someone to notoriize yours. >> By burrow hall as soon

[10:20] » I think they can do it in Bur Hall if you want to bring it here or if you have

[10:23] someone. >> Yeah, I'll bring it by Burough Hall as

[10:26] soon as I get back.

[10:40] » Anyways, all right. Can we get those passed down?

[10:44] Welcome aboard Evan. Um everyone Evan leaz

[10:50] Lazarus.

[10:53] » Welcome to the board. >> Thank you.

[10:55] » We are board. >> Okay. So then we have election of

[10:58] officers. >> You want to do

[11:01] » we want do we want to make a motion for officers? You guys happy with how

[11:06] things ran last year with >> motion to keep the officer the same?

[11:11] Okay. So, we've got a motion for chairman to be corini vice chairman uh

[11:16] Sanjie >> second.

[11:20] » Second. >> Yep. Third and fourth.

[11:22] » All in favor? >> I

[11:24] done. >> Great job.

[11:27] » And board appointments. What we did is one

[11:30] » one resolution. I mean one. It's not a resolution. It's just a motion.

[11:34] » Yeah, we have to do more. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm just going to read

[11:36] off >> unless anybody wants to

[11:38] » um do you So, just so everyone knows, our attorney, uh Sal Princiato, after

[11:43] many years on the board, many years in the council, many years in town, is

[11:47] going to be retiring this year. Um do you want to say a few words?

[11:52] » I can if you >> I wouldn't mind.

[11:55] » You've never been short on words. >> Uh I'll quote a former mayor, uh Mayor

[12:00] Ke Bernie Keeper. Uh some of you may be fooled at that meeting. Um but he always

[12:06] said that that this board and actually the boards because it was zoning boards

[12:11] and planning boards separately uh are very important boards. You uh perform a

[12:16] very important function and you are the gatekeeper for the community and uh you

[12:23] determine character and the look of the town. And I think this year is another

[12:27] big example of it. 18 applications and even in the past years if you look

[12:32] around and you see all the development and how the town is is changing, but I

[12:37] uh I think you all do a terrific job. I can't say that I disagree with any of

[12:42] the decisions that the board made and I will say that very very frequently an

[12:48] applicant comes in here with an application. Uh and when they leave they

[12:53] have a better application approved than that would have been what she came in

[12:58] with. So uh and that's due to the process and the board and questions and

[13:02] also members of the public that very frequently uh raise important issues uh

[13:07] and questions. But um it's uh it's been a pleasure working with all of you uh

[13:14] and I do take an interest in the town as all of you do otherwise you wouldn't be

[13:19] here but uh thank you for your support over all the years. Um it was 19 years

[13:28] Well, we appreciate the service you've given to the town.

[13:30] » Well done, sir. >> Thank you very much.

[13:35] » So, we we've got a couple of um renewed and and some new. So, our board attorney

[13:40] this year will be Gary Jenn Antonio. Our board engineer will be Anthony Koros.

[13:45] Our planner this year will be David Tro. Our traffic consultant will be Brian

[13:50] Tendola from Neglia. Our uh board redevelopment planner will be Francis

[13:54] Riner. And our board secretary will be Clarice now.

[14:00] » Aqualina. My apologies. So if we can get a motion for those appointments.

[14:05] » Second. >> All in favor?

[14:08] » I. >> Thank you very much. Thanks.

[14:11] » Pleasure. >> And we'll be reaching out to you for

[14:14] » Mr. J Antonio want me to.

[14:20] » Thank you. >> You want to take these back to my office

[14:21] and put my stamp on them? >> We don't need stamps.

[14:23] » Yeah. Okay,

[14:27] » put ESQ.

[14:40] » Yeah, >> I think this was closed.

[14:42] » Sorry, I don't understand. >> That's not me.

[14:48] » Story of my life. Yeah.

[14:59] Thank you.

[15:07] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[15:10] Pleasure to meet you. Thank you. Um I don't know if did did

[15:15] everyone take a look at the meeting dates for 26?

[15:20] Any conflicts?

[15:26] That's right.

[15:37] » Take it. >> Sorry.

[15:47] » How many meetings total we had last year? 15. Uh I think we had two special

[15:51] meetings. Was it two? >> Maybe three.

[15:54] » Yeah. Thanks. >> Yeah. As I said,

[15:56] » but from a a calendar, are there any conflicts that you guys see or can we

[16:01] get the calendar?

[16:09] » January 28th. >> We're like in the future.

[16:14] » That was a

[16:19] come back. >> Yeah, it's a nice pack of some sort.

[16:23] Should be

[16:29] » page page,

[16:36] » right? So, this obviously was the 27th.

[16:42] Okay. As long as there's no conflicts with holidays that we're aware of.

[16:46] So, can we get we get a motion to approve our calendar for 26?

[16:52] » All in favor? >> I

[16:54] » Okay, Mr. Riner, I believe you are on the desk.

[17:04] » So, we have the investigation to determine of an area in need um for 240

[17:11] 258 264 Broadway that Mr. Riner is going to give us a presentation on welcome.

[17:20] » Okay, chairman, members of the board, thank

[17:23] you for having me here this evening. I just wanted to take a second to

[17:28] thank S for all the help over the years and

[17:34] toutelage and and always uh reaching out and talking to me, making sure that I

[17:39] knew what was going on uh and and being able to ask and answer any questions on

[17:44] any upcoming meetings. So, I I really do appreciate everything you've done. It's

[17:48] been a pleasure working with you. I'm going to miss working with you. Yeah, I

[17:52] enjoyed working with you as as well and your responsiveness and and the job that

[17:56] you did. >> Thank you.

[17:59] » So, this evening I'm here to present a um investigation study for 240, 258, 264

[18:07] uh Broadway, which are block uh 26 2601 lots 15,6 and 17. You should all have uh

[18:16] receive a copy of of this plan. I'm going to go through a brief presentation

[18:22] uh and be able to answer any details if there are any questions regarding the

[18:26] specifics. Um the

[18:31] study was uh started through a resolution 25 uh-239 on September 15,

[18:37] 2025 where the uh mayor and council requested to uh conduct an investigation

[18:43] without condemnation. Uh meaning that there was no um no availability or or

[18:48] ability to condemn the property. It was without. So F planning uh prepared the

[18:53] investigation study which we're presenting tonight. We did uh multiple

[18:58] site visits and visual inspections of the properties. Uh we reviewed the

[19:02] zoning ordinance and master plan as well as as doing a photo inventory and taking

[19:07] pictures of the of the property, the buildings and the interior of the

[19:12] buildings uh which are all part of the report.

[19:15] As a part of this process, the planning board determines if each property meets

[19:19] statutory criteria and then provides recommendations uh to the to the uh

[19:24] mayor and council and the governing body designates by resolution. It's important

[19:29] to note so the board understands that if it's designated, if you do uh make a

[19:33] recommendation to designate it, there's no change to the zoning. Uh the

[19:37] designation does not allow new uses. It does not permit uses to um it it does

[19:42] allow uh permitted uses to remain and continue to operate and it gives the

[19:47] municipality uh greater control which is part of why mayor and councils move

[19:51] forward with this type of study. Just in terms of overall understanding

[19:57] of the three properties, all three properties have a significant grade

[20:01] change uh of approximately 100 ft from the rear of the property moving forward

[20:07] to Broadway. Uh the topography of all three sites make it difficult to be

[20:11] developed without a redevelopment designation. Uh in our opinion, two of

[20:16] the three properties are vacant and do not have any occupiable structures,

[20:20] although they have those two properties have remnants of prior structures on

[20:24] them. Those are laws 15 and 17. Two of the three properties um as I mentioned

[20:31] have the structures of walls, driveways, stairs, columns and or a tennis court uh

[20:35] which are all in a state of disrepair as will show in the photos. And all three

[20:39] properties are located within what we would uh in what the state would deem as

[20:43] within walking distance to the Woodcliff Lake train station of just under and

[20:48] just over 1,000 ft. So there are

[20:54] uh eight criteria that the state uh has in terms of being able to designate an

[20:59] air a property for an area in need of redevelopment. They're listed here A

[21:03] through H. Uh these are kind of summaries of what each one of them are.

[21:07] We have uh highlighted uh and bolded the three that we're going to be using and

[21:12] identifying tonight in in terms of in the report. They are C, D, and H.

[21:19] Uh and then additionally, if if a property does not meet one of those

[21:24] criteria, that property may be included in a in a designation if that property

[21:30] is found to be necessary for the redevelopment of the area as a whole,

[21:36] regardless of whether or not that property meets any one of the eight

[21:39] statutory criteria. Criteria C, I won't read it, but this

[21:45] basically talks about uh I won't read the whole thing into the record, but

[21:48] it's in the document. Uh criteria C basically talks about unimproved vacant

[21:53] land that has remained uh for a period of of at least 10 years

[21:58] and that um by the nature of topography or the soil is unlikely to be developed

[22:04] through the instrumentality of private cabin.

[22:07] Criteria D essentially represents buildings or improvements which are

[22:12] dilapidated, obsolescence, uh overcrowded, have a faulty arrangement

[22:16] of design, uh or lack of ventilation, light, sanitary facilities and that are

[22:22] detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare of the community. It's

[22:26] important to note in D that uh where the word or is and where the word and and

[22:31] is. So or meaning uh that the improvements uh by reason of

[22:36] dilapitation or obsolescence or overcrowding. It doesn't have to be all

[22:39] of them. It only has to be one of them, but it does need to include health,

[22:43] safety, uh or or moral welfare to the community that's detrimental.

[22:49] And H is is more of a smart growth um criteria and it basically talks about

[22:56] being in close proximity to uh public transportation. So, uh, again, as I

[23:03] mentioned, all these three properties are located within and just over and

[23:07] just under 1,000 ft from the, um, from the train station.

[23:12] When we do a a a redevelopment designation, we do them by individual

[23:16] property, whereas a rehab designation is done by an area as a whole. So, it's

[23:22] important for the board to be able to determine whether or not each one of

[23:25] these properties by themselves meet the criteria. And if they feel one of them

[23:29] doesn't, uh, then that then they can use that article 3, which says it's

[23:34] necessary for the, uh, for the redevelopment as a whole. And I'll

[23:38] explain how that works in in one of them. The first property we're looking

[23:42] at is uh, block 2601, lot 15, which is the largest of the three properties

[23:48] identified in the map on the right. Uh the existing zoning is R15. Property has

[23:53] been vacant uh since 2012. Uh and there are aerials that show when that when

[24:00] that single family house was actually constructed and when it was torn down

[24:03] and was demolished in 2012. So that entire piece of property is is vacant

[24:08] and meets criteria C because it's been vacant for more than 10 years. And

[24:13] because there is a significant grade change, both of those items are

[24:17] identified as a part of criteria C. In addition, as I indicated, there are uh

[24:22] remnants of walls, driveways uh that are in a state of disrepair. And these are

[24:27] the images located within the report. Uh this is page 10 of the report. Uh and

[24:33] goes through and shows how some of the areas show roads. figure or image five

[24:38] on the bottom left shows the actual old driveway again that's falling apart.

[24:44] You can see uh on image number eight and nine and 10 uh and 11 that is a

[24:51] retaining wall at the right of way. There are weak holes through it. So

[24:55] there is drainage going directly from the property onto the public right

[24:58] ofway. again um these these remnant walls and driveways are are not in any

[25:06] condition um that uh is usable at the moment. So in addition uh the property

[25:12] lacks cohesive development in terms of it being an oversized parcel versus uh

[25:17] what is uh commonly the size of parcels for residential and an R15 zone. uh it's

[25:24] located within walking distance of train station which meets criteria H and in

[25:29] addition the the redevelopment of this property and the and the next step which

[25:33] would be a redevelopment plan would advance the burough's fair share housing

[25:36] obligation in that this property would would add to the need for u meeting the

[25:43] burrow's fourth round housing obligation. So for those reasons we

[25:47] believe that um lot 15 uh meets criteria CD and H

[25:54] block 2601 lot 16 which is a small uh lot in the middle here. Uh we have

[26:01] indicated that we believe this property meets criteria D and H. And and in

[26:06] addition, we believe that if for some reason anybody doesn't believe that uh

[26:11] lot 16 is uh meets those criteria, that property is clearly necessary for the

[26:18] redevelopment of lots 15 and 17 because it is located centrally to the overall

[26:24] area. So we believe that it meets both criteria, but also meets the article 3

[26:30] in being necessary. It is a single family home on an undersized lot. It has

[26:35] a significant grade change. There is uh for those of you who are aware of it, a

[26:40] very dangerous parking condition due to the grade change. The driveway is off of

[26:44] Broadway and then there are large retaining walls. So, a vehicle has to

[26:49] pull in and out of that driveway at the gradeway and then walk up a set of

[26:54] stairs to get to the house elevation. Now,

[26:57] this is not uncommon for single family houses and single family neighborhoods

[27:00] on single family neighborhood roads. It is, however, very uncommon on Broadway,

[27:06] which is a large road of higher speeds. And so, in looking at single family

[27:11] homes up and down Broadway, there was only one other property that I was able

[27:15] to find on Broadway that was a single family home that had this condition. So

[27:19] our position is that although it's it's common for a single family house to have

[27:23] a car back up into a road, it is uncommon for it to do so on a road of

[27:27] this size and of this speed. So we believe that backing out creates a

[27:32] dangerous condition which is uh which is within the criteria D. Uh there is also

[27:38] a deteriorated garage uh where the roof is falling apart. You can see some of

[27:42] the pictures uh that I'm showing you here. Uh the driveway is located at

[27:47] image three in the middle and image four in the middle. So you can see that those

[27:51] are at the grade of Broadway requiring vehicles and unable to turn around.

[27:56] Garage is deteriorated. Roof is falling apart. Uh, in addition, this property

[28:01] meets what um the the American um the planning association would say is in

[28:10] need of um and represents a land improvement ratio lower than what uh is

[28:16] common. So, so this is a 38:1 ratio, meaning that the the home value

[28:24] to the land value is less than 1:2. So typically if a home value was worth

[28:30] 250,000 the the land should be worth 500,000 at

[28:34] max and that's a one to two. Anything less than that planning association says

[28:39] is a property that is ripe for development and redevelopment because

[28:42] the value of the improvements are less than what they should be in common

[28:48] properties. So we believe for that it also meet uh meets criteria D. Again

[28:54] located uh within walking distance to the train station which meets criteria

[28:58] H. Again advances the burough's fair share housing uh obligation. Again we

[29:03] believe that this is a a a lack of cohesive development pattern with the

[29:07] other two properties. Uh and given the location of this property in context to

[29:12] lots 15 and 17, we believe it clearly meets criteria or article 3, which is

[29:17] that even if it were not to be deemed to be um meet the criteria that it is

[29:23] necessary for the redevelopment of the properties as a whole.

[29:28] More pictures of the garage. Uh you can see the roof deteriorated. Um you can

[29:33] actually see the roof caving in on image uh 13 top left. um all of that. And then

[29:39] the front of the house itself is on image 17, 264 Broadway, lot 17, the most

[29:48] northernmost property of the three. Uh it's our opinion that this property

[29:53] meets criteria D and H. The property uh no longer has a single

[29:59] family home on it. Uh it was demolished in 2020, but has been occupied since

[30:04] 2013. So technically it does not meet criteria C in that there was a building

[30:10] on that property uh in 2020 which is less than 10 years

[30:15] » unoccupied since 2013 >> but it's been unoccupied since 2013. So

[30:20] so by the letter of law we did not say that it meets criteria C although one

[30:24] could argue that it should meet that criteria. There is a significant grade

[30:28] change as with all the properties from uh right page right to page left to

[30:35] Broadway. There are remnants of of single family uh home including stairs,

[30:41] walls, fences, posts, tennis courts, all which are in a state of disrepair. The

[30:46] images to the right show different years uh in which the house was located and

[30:51] then uh and then had had since been removed. Some of the photos you can see

[30:56] image two the ex existing stairs from Broadway going all the way up to the

[31:00] top. Uh you can see the driveway on image three which is middle left.

[31:06] And then you can see on uh image seven again driveway. Images nine and 10 show

[31:13] the former tennis court location at the top. And image eight is where the actual

[31:18] single family house was located at the top of the property.

[31:22] properties located within walking distance to the train which which in our

[31:25] opinion meets criteria H. This property along with the other two advances the

[31:29] bureau's fair share housing obligation and again this property is oversized and

[31:34] therefore shows a lack of cohesive development pattern along Broadway.

[31:38] In summary, it's our opinion that the report that we have uh provided to you

[31:43] uh allows for the designation of lots 15, 16, and 17 through criteria C, D,

[31:48] and H, and that all lots are within walking distance of the train station.

[31:52] All lots have a significant grade change that creates difficulties in

[31:55] redevelopment of the properties. The redevelopment of the properties would

[31:59] advance the burough's fair share housing obligation. Lot 15 has been vacant for

[32:03] over 10 years. Lot 16 is under size, has a dangerous parking condition, and a

[32:07] garage that's in a state of repair. And lot 17 is vacant and and has remnant

[32:12] improvements that are in state of disrepair as well. And with that, I'd be

[32:16] happy to answer any questions. >> Yeah. What are we doing with the

[32:21] developers for 240? >> So, uh the the developer of 240 is still

[32:27] involved with this process and has asked the mayor and council to consider a

[32:32] designation with an additional property included. Part of the the conversation

[32:37] about that would be the next step which is the redevelopment plan. And the goal

[32:42] being that uh a redevelopment plan would allow for uh a better development

[32:49] pattern than what was approved by the board. In other words, there were there

[32:55] was a lot of uh comments made by the public about concerns about distances

[33:00] from walls to property lines, distances from buildings to property lines. And so

[33:05] the the conversation as a part of this process has been how can we uh create a

[33:11] better pattern of development adjacent to the existing single family homes to

[33:16] alleviate some of those concerns the public had. So, uh, a request to

[33:20] designate this property was made. These properties was made by the developer,

[33:25] mayor and council, uh, have agreed to to walk through that process. And a

[33:30] redevelopment plan will then put in place zoning that creates uh, greater

[33:35] uh, design standards and buffers than what was previously approved on just lot

[33:41] 15. Now, the development will include lot 16 and 17, which did not come before

[33:46] this board, but that's why they're doing this. They have a site plan approval

[33:51] that is that is in place and um but they're asking to be able to to move

[33:59] forward with this process. >> How many additional units, housing units

[34:03] would be included in >> I don't have that in front of me. What I

[34:06] will tell you is is that is that the redevelopment plan that would be the

[34:10] next step uh would in would identify how many

[34:15] units would be permitted on all three sites. I don't I don't have off the top

[34:19] of my head what the number was on on just uh 15. So I don't know the answer

[34:24] per se. It will be more obviously because there's additional property

[34:28] included. Um but that will be part of a redevelopment plan which would be the

[34:32] zoning side of of this uh process.

[34:41] Is lot 16 vacant now? >> Lot 16 uh has the single family house

[34:47] and is occupied. >> Is that the same owner of the 16 and 17?

[34:53] » I I it's my understanding that uh that property owner owns 16 and 17. That the

[34:59] developer is under contract with 15 16 and 17, but that the owner that lives in

[35:04] 16 also owns 17. It's my understanding.

[35:09] I mean, from a designation point of view, I think all three lots are

[35:12] certainly in agreement. >> That's our recommendation. Yes.

[35:16] » And I think the mayor and council has tasked us with preliminary just just

[35:21] getting this report to see if it is. Uh and then the next step if if we approve

[35:27] this, this goes back to the mayor and council.

[35:30] » So it would go back to the mayor and counsel. Mayor and council by resolution

[35:34] would then designate it and if they're if they want the next step,

[35:39] I have no reason to believe they won't take the next step, but it's not they

[35:42] don't have to take the next step, but I have no reason to believe they won't.

[35:45] The next step would be that they would then refer a redevelopment plan back to

[35:50] the planning board. We would come here, make a presentation of that

[35:53] redevelopment plan. The board's role would be to determine whether or not the

[35:56] redevelopment plan was consistent with the burough's master plan. You would

[36:00] then send a recommendation back to the mayor council which would which could

[36:03] then adopt it by ordinance.

[36:09] » Not neither the neither the authorizing resolution nor this hearing include

[36:13] eminent domain power as >> no eminent domain power. If if eminent

[36:17] domain became a part of the process, we would actually have to come back here

[36:20] and represent this or a different study, a new study with eminent domain. It

[36:25] would have to be >> the mayor and council would have

[36:27] » they would have to do a resolution first. Yeah. So there's no no

[36:31] possibility of that. >> And that's actually important because

[36:33] the approving resolution to come here specifically said that it needed to be

[36:37] announced to the public that this would be one without um no possible

[36:41] condemnation. >> Yes.

[36:42] » The development area. So clear to the public that this is not a condemnation.

[36:46] » That's right. That's right. >> Uh so did you say that the um owner of

[36:51] lots of lot I mean sorry of lot 15 is under contract to purchase the other two

[36:57] properties. So, it's my understanding that the that the contract purchaser for

[37:01] 15 has a contract of purchase 16 and 17. >> So, they do not own it yet.

[37:07] » I do not know if they own it. Uh, commonly developers do don't own it.

[37:13] They they have it under contract and once they get their approvals, then they

[37:18] have to close. But, but commonly developers don't own the property until

[37:21] they get approvals. >> Right. But they got approvals in 2024

[37:25] before >> Yeah. So, I don't know if if the if the

[37:28] developer owns lot 15 or not, >> though they're still moving along under

[37:31] pending >> they could be. I I don't know the

[37:34] answer. I it's my understanding they are under contract with 16 and 17

[37:38] » units properties.

[37:44] » So, any any questions pertaining to the actual report that Bran has presented to

[37:49] us? >> I just have a question and I don't know

[37:52] if you guys can hear me. Yeah, >> thank you. So, you know, you said that

[37:57] you didn't know how many units uh can be slated for there, but how do we know

[38:01] that this can help with our fair share housing uh which is what you stated a

[38:05] couple times, but if we don't know how many units are slated or could be slated

[38:09] for that property? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the this process that

[38:13] the board is asked to do tonight is is, you know, one piece of it. That piece is

[38:19] det is to determine and make a recommendation back to the mayor and

[38:22] council if you believe that we have proven through this report and our

[38:26] recommendation is that the properties meet the the criteria.

[38:31] That's the that's the kind of the end of the the requirements of the board this

[38:36] evening and I understand why everybody wants the next question. What I'll say

[38:41] is that we are working with the mayor and council and we're working uh and

[38:45] having communication with the developer about what the project would would be in

[38:52] terms of the redevelopment plan. And that would include

[38:56] making sure there are improvements to the site plan application that was

[39:01] approved by this board in terms of the distance from the road and the distance

[39:05] from the walls and distance from the building to the property lines. and that

[39:08] there will be more units and there will be more affordable units. And so

[39:12] therefore, I can say as a part of this plan that the redevelopment of this site

[39:16] will certainly go towards the the affordable housing requirement and it

[39:21] will actually improve the the burough's position with affordable housing by

[39:26] making sure that there are more units that are in the next iteration of the

[39:30] plan.

[39:34] » Jared, does that answer your questions? >> That was perfect. Thank you.

[39:43] » So I I'm I know that the next step is obviously it goes back um and then

[39:47] there'll be a redevelopment plan and a vision. Is do you want to share at all

[39:51] what any thoughts you have about? So, what I will say is that you're going to

[39:55] have to get another site plan application that's going to come before

[39:58] this board on lot 15 which you which you already approved and it will now include

[40:05] lot 15 16 and 17. I will say that that the that what we're working through

[40:11] again aside from this meeting what we're working through are are similar amount

[40:17] of density similar types of units similar types of architecture and I

[40:22] would say that what we're what my job is to make sure that the improvements in

[40:28] terms of impacts to the adjacent neighbors are better are significantly

[40:34] better than what what was originally came through. So that so we're trying to

[40:39] appease I think the governing body is attempting to make sure that that this

[40:43] process allows them to get a better project built and less impact on some of

[40:47] the neighbors. >> Fran, do you remember the the size of

[40:50] the two additional lots that that we're talking about here 17 and 15?

[40:58] I do that the you know the yeah the problem is and and this has been a you

[41:04] know when I go on to the GIS database it says 16 and 17 are close in size and

[41:09] they're clearly not. So I I you know we do have them listed in here as acreage

[41:14] of.3 acres and and >> I think they're both listed as.3.

[41:19] » Yeah, I know. And they're clearly not the same.

[41:20] » They don't look as big. Uh but that's the all the data that we had was the was

[41:26] the GIS database that showed it. >> Right.

[41:30] » Yeah. I mean the other the other site is nearly 5 acres.

[41:33] » Yeah. 4.9 or something like that.

[41:39] » Probably just over an acre altogether. Okay.

[41:41] » I think it's I think it's a little over six acres total.

[41:44] » Oh, right. So it's probably about an acre. Um Okay.

[41:49] » I'll say that when we come in for the redevelopment plan, we'll have that.

[41:51] Yeah, we'll have a site plan. We'll have we'll have that information

[41:54] » answered later. >> I mean, I I think the report clearly

[41:58] defines an area any um if anyone has any other questions for

[42:06] Fran. Do we need to open to the public for discussion on this before we vote?

[42:12] » Motion to open to the public. >> Second.

[42:15] » All in favor? I does anyone in the public have any questions or comments

[42:20] regarding Fran's testimony?

[42:25] » Okay. Motion to close to the public. >> Second.

[42:28] » All in favor?

[42:32] » All right. So, I mean, I think that we should present this plan to the mayor

[42:36] and council as drafted. Um, and I think Fran did an excellent job on

[42:42] the uh on the test and proving that these lots are definitely in an area

[42:47] they need. >> I have a I can't believe that the mayor

[42:51] and council actually thinks adding more houses to this town after what happened

[42:58] last year and the amount of houses that we got started. It's I I can't believe

[43:04] that that plan is right here now. We don't need more house.

[43:12] That's right.

[43:19] » As far as the presentation,

[43:23] » yeah, >> think those are areas in need or

[43:27] those three months. I mean, when we were on the council, I

[43:31] remember discussing uh potentially getting the entire area reszoned or not

[43:39] not res but declared an area. >> Isn't a developer for students who comes

[43:44] in, he sees a couple of pieces of property, wants to put together, that's

[43:48] usually the way it's done. But we're doing the work for a developer right

[43:53] here. I I I don't get it. I I really don't.

[43:58] I mean designating an area in need of redevelopment is a tool that

[44:02] municipalities have that allows them to have much um more guidance is is that

[44:08] the right word friend rather than control or

[44:11] » I would say that the that the so I'm in I'm in a number of

[44:16] municipalities and I think I think there I don't think municipalities are happy

[44:20] with all of the residential development that's happening and most of it in the

[44:25] state of New Jersey where they're unhappy it's happening because of to the

[44:28] affordable housing requirements. Right? So, I don't I don't I don't know that

[44:32] the mayor and council would say we'd love the idea of having all these

[44:35] residential units. The problem is is the state has mandated that municipalities,

[44:40] each municipality provide affordable housing as a legal requirement and the

[44:45] burrow of Cliff Lake was given a number of units that it has to produce and and

[44:51] it has to provide what's called a realistic development potential of those

[44:55] number of units. And so municipalities that might not want multif family

[45:00] residential are having to to do that because if they don't, they open

[45:05] themselves up to builder remedy suits and litigation where whatever number of

[45:10] units you thought was too much is significantly more than that. And there

[45:14] are example after example in the state of

[45:18] New Jersey. The worst one I can think of is Anglewood Cliffs where they built

[45:21] 1,200 residential units where >> they were only asking I think for 4 or

[45:25] 500 >> where where they wanted 4 or 500 the

[45:28] town said no they they neglected the the fair share housing requirements and the

[45:34] developer built came in with a builder remedy suit and the construction of

[45:38] over,200 units is already hap it's happening right now. It's they're under

[45:41] construction. So, I don't think that towns and I and I don't I'm not going to

[45:47] speak for this mayor and council, but I don't think towns in general want all of

[45:51] this development. I think that the state, the courts and fair share has

[45:56] required it to happen. And the only thing a town can do is protect itself in

[46:01] the best way that it can. One of the mayors that I spoke to, you know, that I

[46:05] that I work with said something I thought was was interesting in terms of

[46:09] we're going to take the best worstc case scenario that we can, which is we're

[46:14] going to protect ourselves. We're going to give ourselves immunity and we're

[46:17] going to do it in the least way that impacts us. And so I think that I would

[46:21] say that that's why mayor and councils do that. I'm not saying that's why this

[46:24] one does it, but that's how I've seen other mayor and counsel.

[46:27] » I could tell you that's why this mayor and council did it. I mean, if you look,

[46:31] you don't have to go so far up to Englewood. If you look right over at our

[46:35] neighbors, anybody who's right next to the old Sony property will tell you that

[46:39] that's about, what is it, like 27 units per acre, they were given, that's not

[46:44] even what they went in and asked for. They were then given a 30 foot variance.

[46:49] So that if you are standing in our rear the rear yard is 30

[46:54] » I mean it is exactly 30 ft because we have measured to make sure but it looks

[46:58] like it's right on top of it. So when we're given a choice between you know

[47:03] making the best of a situation that we don't have a lot of control over. We've

[47:07] taken the position that it is in our town's best interest to do what we can

[47:12] to have a say in what the developments are, to work with developers to create

[47:16] something that is reflective of the other um properties within the town and

[47:21] that we don't get slammed with too much, that we're not penalized. I mean, Montil

[47:25] right now has their lawsuit and they're they're they haven't settled with Fair

[47:29] Share and they're looking at the KPMG building and Fair Share wants to put 27

[47:34] units per acre on that property also. So I mean these are not these aren't

[47:38] speculative things. We know for a fact that we either work nicely and create

[47:43] something that everyone feels good about or we get something like the Sony

[47:47] project in our in our town which we did not feel was acceptable.

[47:52] » And I believe this municipality's last builder's remedy lawsuit may remember it

[47:58] » um is where you live. >> Correct. Rather 94

[48:03] » right? >> Yeah.

[48:04] » Right. Um, so I think the mayor and council's taken a position to try to

[48:09] stay out of a builder's remedy because what they're looking for would be in the

[48:14] neighborhood of four to five times what uh we could probably negotiate or what

[48:18] they could probably negotiate, you know, and and designating an area in

[48:23] need of redevelopment, which was the start of this conversation, allows the

[48:26] mayor council to have, you know, um, a little more guidance on the end product

[48:32] than, um, um basically us having to rubber stamp a builder's remedy lawsuit,

[48:39] you know, and I think for this presentation, these three lots certainly

[48:42] qualify. Um so I'd make I'd make a recommendation that we we pass this up

[48:47] to motion.

[48:50] » That's a motion from Jerry. >> Second.

[48:53] » Second from Evan. >> Roll call, please.

[48:56] » Councilwoman Marsh. >> Yes.

[48:58] » Mr. Barbara, >> yes.

[48:59] » Mr. Coffman, >> yes.

[49:01] » Mr. Lazerowitz. >> Yes.

[49:03] » Mr. Sharer, >> yes.

[49:04] » Mr. Panza, >> no.

[49:06] » Vice Chairman Dwan. >> Yes.

[49:08] » Chairman Beljini. >> Yes.

[49:12] » Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Roner, do you you um like any of the summaries or

[49:17] anything like that that we all have, but could you just make sure that Corvis has

[49:19] a copy of the presentation for today? >> Oh, well, I'll send it to Appreciate it.

[49:23] Thank you. >> Great job. Thanks for the big

[49:26] » Thank you very much. And then I think we just have a open, you know, any uh any

[49:31] board discussion >> or any any new business

[49:36] » before we open to the public. Not that there's any public here, but

[49:39] » in case the public's opening is going to put the presentation up on

[49:44] our website, >> right?

[49:47] Ridiculous. >> So, um

[49:51] » I don't think we have any any any board discussion that we want to go over

[49:54] before we start this year. other than welcoming Evan.

[50:00] » Yeah. Well, welcome. Thank you. >> And Jared, I'm sorry Jared. Out of

[50:04] sight, out of mind. >> No big deal.

[50:07] » But it's nice to have the technology when it works.

[50:11] » Um, any new business that we have to worry about or talk about? Do we have

[50:14] any applications coming in that you know of or anything? No. Okay. And we have to

[50:21] open to public just as a formality because there's nobody here.

[50:24] » Motion to open to public. Any sort of comment?

[50:27] » Second. >> Second.

[50:29] » All in favor? >> I.

[50:31] » Anyone from the public have any comment? >> No. Okay. Motion to close the public.

[50:36] » Second. >> Okay. Who's going to be the first?

[50:44] » All in favor? >> Thank you guys.

[50:54] » Yeah. to relax. Is this earth?

1/28/26 Land Use Meeting

Transcript