[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?