okay this uh meeting is called to order annual notice of this meeting was provided to the home News Tribune The Star Ledger and the Highland Park planet on January 31st 2023 in addition notice of this meeting via Zoom was emailed to the home News Tribune The Star Ledger and the Highland Park planet on October 16th 2023 and was posted on the burrow website at www.hpborrow.com and on the bulletin board at Burrow Hall 221 South fth Avenue Highland Park New Jersey and has remained continuously posted as required by law fire exits are to the left to the right of the council chambers and please speak into the microphon December 14th 2023 Highland Park planning board um call Miss H Mr breter here Mr Chin here miss had hay here Mr ha here Mr leres here Mr Malay here Mr Pearlman here Mr Stern Cardel here Mr is dorfer here Mr Williams here Mr Lynch here Mr cenza here Mr K here so we just have one major item of business tonight and that's the preliminary investigation report of a non- condemnation area in need of Redevelopment downtown area track C expansion block 2202 Lots 1 13 19 31 37 38 and 39 and so I get whoever Chris you're going to be giving the report before we before we begin um I have a matter I need to put on the record okay so um so a matter on which I conferred with u with our councel Mr Thomas yesterday um I have a connection with um garden homes which is the conditional Redevelopment to be precise um I represent my Law Firm I'm lawyer now retired but I was a partner in The Firm Hill wall um my Law Firm represented several llc's um connected with garden homes specifically I represented in 2015 Duck Pond Associates which is was a single a single purpose LLC that owned property in West Windsor and I represent them for about a year a long tedious trial that those details we w't talk about um U my firm continued to represent DRC Pondel for another two years uh I ceased working for the firm see I ceased my full-time connection with the firm four four years ago and I ceased my any connection with the firm a year and a half ago the firm still does represent to LL single purpose llc's associated with Gard hes one in North Brunswick and one in Englewood clicks so I turn to council and request advice on whether I need to refuse myself I consulted us with Roger earlier today and my only question would be would would this pass representation almost eight years ago affect your ability to be partial to me no I have no loyalty we we uh check looked into this I we don't see being a conflict of interest I accept that that yeah Roger gave me a h up as well when he informed me I come to chair tonight so I thank you for bringing it forward and in the spirit of having an open meeting but you know I'll defer to the attorney and think we're good to go every you're ready Chris all right thank you yes we'll be presenting on TV monitor so if anyone's sitting further away board might be a little bit better to sit a bit closer to T sort of a test run see if it's worked if not perhaps in the future we bring back the projector screen so at the end of meeting just let us know if this was effective all right thank you uh members of the board as um indicated the record is a pre preliminary investigation Chris is your mic can you hear me yes sorry closer to the uh as indicated this a preliminary investigation study for a study of certain properties within the 200 block of r Avenue in terms of the agenda tonight we quickly go over the summary of basically why we doing this as well as the overview and the scope of the study a brief history or overview of the rment statute the study area context in terms of the background as well as the related Crux of the presentation which is the evaluation of these seven properties uh concluding with the conclusion of recommendations to what to do moving forward so in terms of context as indicated the seven properties are in the 200th block Southside of Aran Avenue zooming in you'll see that they are a little bit scattered Lots one 139 31 37 38 39 some are con with each other uh I'll explain why we chose those not we the why defal Council selected those properties for investigation uh for potential expansion of existing redo area that was established in 2005 so starting with a really summary this really started over 20 years ago in 2003 is noted in master plan uh they started to evaluate areas of downtown that were potentially useful for redevelopment and beginning in October 2004 I believe and concluding in June 2005 the Redevelopment designation was established for various properties in the downtown areas and see on this map this is from the 2005 plan showing which properties were designated uh as area needed Redevelopment and incorporated into that plan called downtown Redevelopment plan was adopted September of 2005 2016 as you recall when L came on board along with the bur administrative Terry H we engag in a process with the Bur Council uh with the help of CME to prepare a study determining whether or not the entirety of the or qualifies the area needed Rehabilitation and the ordinance was passed adopting that designation such as the entire Community is des as area Rehabilitation as several other communities throughout the state have done including nearby just three years ago 2019 we did a master planning effort including a strategic update to to the land use plan element uh which really focus on a lot of manners including several corridors including a downtown Corridor and really the theme of that was how we leverage Redevelopment recognizing the lack of activity in the downtown area whether through Redevelopment or just through infill development or that then past 10 15 years in 2021 this is really during the pandemic we prepared a r plan that also did a scatter sites invest plan designation really underneath utilizing the rehab designation and as you can see again more scattered sites but at the time it was more focused on properties that the burrow had uh some control over or at the time it's for track B for example The Logical location for a parking structure or some sort of parking strategy that would benefit Redevelopment of the other tracks and many of these tracks were actually already in the 2005 designated properties and 2005 plan so this is more a focus approach uh in 2001 21 and when that plan was uh adopted the burough engaged in RFP process to select conditional redevelopers for various tracks and in the are today 2023 performing a study determined whether additional properties would qualify as area in need of Redevelopment specific to track C and I I'll give a little back background as to why this particular study on this particular track on these slides next so just to give a little background illustration to what has happened since 2005 so talk about a 20 plus year period in purple with the light purple you'll see relative to track C that's 200 block of Avenue those that are properties that are designated as an area in need to Redevelopment in 2005 the hatched area in the center are the properties that are included in 21 2021 plan and during the process of the RFP and for the conditional Redevelopment selection the the thought of potentially expanding the Redevelopment area that in the darker purple was contemplated and here we are today with that presentation of of its findings so this this gets context of why those properties were selected as you recall on the prior slide why are they on the ends why is there nothing in the middle that's because the properties in the middle already are an area needed Rehabilitation and Redevelopment and this sort of fills out the block uh for a various reasons I'll get into the reasons why that was considered through the RFP process so as part of that RFP process within the past couple years um did want to state that the bur issued the RFP with specific expectations for the be area of each track so tracks a through D 2021 plan uh as part of the RFP um release the bur did allow respondents to propose development on adjacent properties outside of destinated areas and relative to track C the Burl did select 232 Ren Avenue LLC other words garden homes as a conditional redeveloper and their initial concept plan as presented to the bural council as Redevelopment entity did include additional properties as anticipated and called for in or allow for in the RFP release and the burough also decided that it was in the best interest of the community to consider the expanded portions and in order to do that in the best interest of potentially using the powers uh under the Redevelopment designation as opposed to just a rehab designation uh they did authorize a concept to expand R area to entally include the remainder of the block on Ren Avenue and to potentially facilitate better access to this potentially larger Redevelopment area at its meeting on February 21st 2023 the Bal Council adopted a resolution number 22371 which authorized and directed The planning board to conduct a study and I believe in in June this body the planning board uh did recognize the need for a licensed professional to prepare the study on behalf of the burrow and this is the culmination of that report reports on file hopefully you read all 70 Pages otherwise Post online for public consumption and this presentation is meant to give an overview of the findings as of 2013 the state legislature has required that whenever you do a resolution for a study have to indicate whether or not may use combination and you have to or M domain you have to declare it as as a condemnation Area commun Redevelopment study or the alternative is you're not going to use eminent domain you need to declare it or title it as a non-c combination development this resolution that was adopted in February by Council specifically called for non-c combination fa need Redevelopment it's just a technical matter regarding the scope of study I think you've seen a couple of these presentations before um and we've done this several times the past couple years I really try to use the same methodology of doing a really detailed report uh that's part and due because recent case law actually it's not recent case law G gallon versus Paul spor 2007 there was part of the findings of the Court was that the the study can't should not be using what's called a net opinion view of the presentation in other words it shouldn't be a windshield study I shouldn't be you should not be relying on the planner to state to Simply restate the statute with a criteria and say this property meets criteria and repeat it there needs to be a standard level of care to actually investigate the property report on its findings uh and the process I use I conduct inventory of the properties through mapping or view the records such as building permits zoning permits for approvals police fire uh records as well as DPW and Health Department Records if they're available review against the zoning map zoning ordinance and master plan and then obviously do to S Inspections uh in this case I was not able to get into all the properties in some cases actually refused access um so I was able to do some analysis of the physical conditions from the public RightWay and through the permit records and obviously it's part of that record finding and research put into a report indicating my findings and make recommendations and I try to be transparent with the process include a lot of photographs through why I made these findings instead just a wall of text saying believe me trust the government so try to use the photographs as a way to um illustrate the findings that were be find appropriate in terms of reel statute I'll try to be brief with this um heard this presentation before uh regarding the purpose of the statute purpose of the re local re development housing law is that it's planning and financial tool that grants local governments including municipalities uh various Redevelopment powers including the ability to initiate a process that could transform underutilize or poorly designed properties with the principal goal of promoting the physical development most conducive to the Social and economic Improvement of the state and its municipalities and as you seen in report uh several advantages doing a plan you could have more flexibility in zoning you could have designate certain uses to be permitted and strip away uses and underlying zoning that are not appropriate for visit area you can can do site specific plans to Target improvements you can do detailed development design standards some plans don't do that but in this case we we found that appropriate to require a higher standard level care which necessitates the need for detailed development and design standards including opportunities for standards that promote or require in this case sustainability Universal Design aspects uh features that can be preserved such as Open Spaces or build even building in some cases and of course uh this is a unique way to engage in public uh public private partnering uh really the pppp effort it's been done in many cases in Holland Park uh these are two projects have been recently completed uh going through from designation to the plan making site plan approval instruction and final cosos uh so these are two 31 River Road which is the Frederick 40 unit apartment building uh adjacent to a residential neighborhood consisting mostly single family homes designed STS were selected to ensure that the buildings didn't were compatible with the single family homes across the street and with regards to 137 139 Ron Avenue taking a one-story building with no parking lot site having off-site parking requirements and promoting a mixed use building in this case there were several plan amendments starting in I believe 2017 that started to really un un unravel some development potential on the property including the ability to put uh apartments on the ground floor in this case in the rear of the building which is appropriate for the site as well as locating off-site parking within a th000 feet of the site be honest this is actually a bad photo I want to update it for future reports um the Greek markets have done a great job as a new tenant in that building and of course you look even better when the two Street trees go in the front of the property oops computer with regards to the Redevelopment process I'm not going to bore you with all the details but it's a very detailed process for the investigation as well as upon designation of a rment area the preparation of a rment plan we are really on step four on the left side where we have the public hearing on the findings gone through this process many many times uh just within the past few years statutory requirements for investigation so they're pretty detailed and there's been recent case law that sort of restricts or Narrows the focus of how you can make a finding of a property to meet the criteria and to be clear a piece of property does not need to meet all the statutory criteria does not need to meet a through H must qualify it only need to meet one of them other than H so as long meets one of the the top seven criteria then it be deemed a na development and further to that point the should note that for purposes of the redund law it does not need to include properties that in itself qualifies a need redel or specifically um it's noted that the local R law does not require all properties located within a delineated area to be in need of Redevelopment but rather that a majority or generality of properties meet the criteria for determination in fact if you look at the definition of a Redevelopment area in the statute it is defined as a Redevelopment area that may include lands buildings or improvements which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health safety welfare but the inclusion of which is found necessary with or without change in their condition for the effective Redevelopment of the area of which they are part we call the section three CER because section three is where the definition of sections is the statute and further to that point the Redevelopment handbook second edition I believe they're working on the Third Edition states that the um reiterates that this section allows for the inclusion of properties that do not meet the statutory criteria but are essential to be included in a destination to effectively redevelop the area examples of this incl includes uh providing better access to the property simple things as even just infrastructure or utilities could be a viable use of it as well as property that could be determined to be critical to the areas successful Redevelopment so the common theme we use for using section three criteria are access whether that's pedestrian or vehicular as well as sometimes the squaring off an area which might uh lead to a better building form so going back to the stud area map in terms of the context taking together these properties put them all together less than one acre of land in most cases the land value exceeds the Improvement value in terms of the tax assessment really doesn't mean anything terms of the criteria but it does predict it may predict that those properties are right for redevelopment there are really two sites of interest on the New Jersey Environmental Management System as contained in a report uh one actually both pertain to site remediation efforts on 248 ran Avenue as well as 24 South thir Avenue otherwise in this area there are no Wetlands there's no highrisk flood Hazard areas and the properties are serviced by psng for gas electric and are they are located within a super service area soil type is pretty shallow with somewhat dense excessively drained soils just is for background purposes have really nothing to do with the statutory requirements but because shows that these properties U are not affected by environmental conditions other than those properties already remediated terms of land use the study area really the whole block for that matter is buried in use Office uses in Orange the green is sort of community use the light blue is the Reformed Church red retail and service businesses the really really light yellow are single family residential uses as I'll get into the into the presentation and just through the report you notice that uh called out that a lot of the properties in terms of Lane use do not conform to the underlying zoning and several lots are not conforming with respect to lot area with lot depth as well as the use terms of the master plan the as you recall in 2019 there's several Focus areas including the downtown area uh one common phrase we use often is that the online survey indicated that only 9% wanted to see the downtown area to remain the same uh the vision statement that we use for this particular Corridor the downtown area was that uh it was imperative to leverage reinvestment revitalization infill and Redevelopment to expand opportunities for mixed use development and support a walkable Community with a vibrant thriving down town that recognizes the challenges of eat H era among the feedback receiving receive about the downtown area uh they wanted many comments focus on creating mixed use development for higher density housing uh address a high number of vacant properties empty storefronts High turnover businesses that make the street skate unpleasant and they presented a sense of neglect there was a sense of a lack of proper mix and diversity retail activities and there were too many exposed parking lots that create gaps into the street as part of that effort of analyzing what be appropriate of a series of strategies were established in a downtown area including Custom Tailor infill rment planning expand a variety of active ground floor uses expand a downtown resident customer base and encourage really any level of upgrade and investment so that was sort of overview of why we're doing this and how we got to where we are so we're potentially expanding the rment area that was already designed in 2004 with this study that so that we could potentially improve access in potential building form with the additional lots to be clear re plan can still be created under the rehab designation used any Lots really the entire block if the burrow so choose uh but it was determined as I indicated earlier that it was the best interest to expand a study that way the properties as part of a future project for amended Redevelopment plan would be all under the Redevelopment statute it it's in a way it's easier to do a re plan if everything's all under the same designation otherwise there are some properties in rehab designation some properties in Redevelopment designation the financial agreements get kind of it's it's difficult to maneuver around those the splits so the bur is going through the effort to determine whether it's appropriate that these proper need be expanded into a larger area so I'm going to start on the bottom right corner and work my way clockwise so I'm going to start with block 2202 lot one this is 202 bar Avenue is at the northwest corner of the block uh lot one is a non-conforming lot with respect to lot area lot depth and presently contains non-conforming use because offices aren't committed in the ground floor on the ground floor in the CBD Zone any modification requires a use VAR property is the corner a lot under size conditions contains a two and half story frame building those obviously initially constructed as residence and was eventually converted to an office use uh this building has a nice front porch wrap around accessible ramp to a rear parking area uh when I did my record search found that subject to two board applications 1980 1994 in 1980 permission was saw from the zoning board to maintain a driveway that was built without permits and I think at that time you do something you ask for a fre can this later so the board granted approval to maintain a driveway despite the fact that driveway is too close to the Street intersection does not mean cod in 1994 the property received site plan approval to convert the residents into a office use uh with an undetermined second floor use uh the the free standing sign in the front yard received several variances mainly because the CBD Zone does not permit free St I'm G to interrupt you here for just a moment sure you've describe this as nonconforming that means it doesn't comply with the existing ordinates right um is it conforming to the variances I'm not sure you understand the question well when you get a variance yes in some sense for you the ordinance has changed you have a different set of Standards than in the ordinance this you you your report says this has gotten got approvals with variances I think the approval you're describing is the is is the use that you're describing is the use for which it got site plan approv for with variances is it in Conformity with those variances the site plan approval included go back to my history so they received Varian to convert the existing residency retail officers including automet retail so it's conforming to the approval okay so so it's not really non-conforming it's conforming to the standards that were established in in the variances by the standards with the board but any expansion really any change they might need to come in for further Varian but in its present form it's not really non-conforming it's it's coning to to to the to the the the standards to which it is subject yes it received approval to deviate from the standards upon review of other various records permits were uh regularly issued from the 1980s to 2000s including various sign permits for changes of O replacement the roof repair of the walkway however there's only been one permit issued in last 25 years relative to electrical and plumbing indicating that there may be deferred maintenance projects um within the building there have been a few police and fire calls but they mainly were related to uh fire alarms so that's the overview on the property so give a little feedback on the conditions I found at the site so we start with the parking area design so the present layout of the parking area is not conforming with respect to the zoning ordinance although it did receive approval at the time in 1980 to maintain it uh it is uh frankly still in a condition that's obsolete in terms of site plan best practices parking area lacks vehicular properly in properly designed vehicular access for Ingress and egress the uh defined parking spaces are not appropriate the accommodations for accessible parking are basically non-existent and ping amenities and buffering are also not to code the driveway that provides access to the rear yard is a very narrow and it's located in front yard and it's it's narrow and blocked by buffer Landscaping such that when you drive one way out of the parking lot towards the street first of all you're very close in intersection there's a reason why there's a set requirement on the street intersections uh there a tight turning radius a tightly wraps around the building and it's shielded by a very tall Shrubbery which is a violation of the Clear Sight triangle and it makes it difficult for vehicles to simultaneously uh enter and exit the site at the same time and which creates conflict with pedestrians on the sidewall frankly it's a it's a condition that's dangerous and as with recent case law this year if a planner or the board to assert that meet certain criteria examp in this example criteria D recent case law from this year indicates that you can't just make a finding of the belief that is has an improper layout fa to Arrangement or design but it also needs to show harm in this case I believe this layout is harmful to the community because of the violations of the Clear Sight triangle the inability for two cars to Traverse a site at the same time if this was still a house this would be appropriate you're not going to get the same amount of traffic back for but this is a office use that has appointments only and you can have conflicts of people coming in and out at the same time and you have the Upper Floor office use as well so there's a lot of in and out of the space and it could potentially be a hazard to pedestrians and people utilizing the parking spaces we also know that the parking area lacks adequate space to back out it's simply a square there's really no room to maneuver so they're banging into the site and onto other properties causing damage the parking lot also lacks accessible adaa parking space uh there was one approved through that site plan application 1994 but if you go to the site now it's no longer there there's no signage the striping is not there for the axis aisle and there's no striping for the space at all and the buffering is non-exist non-existent it's just a fence should be at least a width of several feet uh providing buffness the wheel stops are disjointed and the all these conditions um really show that there's insufficient space to really maneuver around the site and these conditions in my opinion result in driver confusion contribute to circulation patterns unsafe for motorists bicyclists and pedestrians the parking area itself shows significant signs of deterioration as you can see there those piles of um holes and the Flor there is H some settlement and depressions which contribute to ponding and the freeze Falla slipping hazards and unimproved Edge conditions allow for loose asphalt and trash to really accumulate throughout the perimeter of the site uh regarding Ada access to the building parking area um has sunken a bit such that the you need more than a quarter inch almost a half inch to step into the sidewalk and the just the concrete walkway lacks ballards uh for the first several feet so you're sort of in no man's land on that sidewalk as cars are whipping around the corner and you're taking the wheelchair tightly to the yard side of building with regards to Solid Waste and Recycling there's a lack of designated space and as there's no trash enclosure which is otherwise required for non-residential buildings uh the building the is generally in fair condition beginning to show signs of a deterioration water damage um oops s SL over so regarding the exterior to the building showing signs of deterioration the porch railing is missing B St fall through it's parent water damage and moderate deterioration several parts of the side including underneath the um bay windows and the foundation building the building interior is actually fairly good condition with respect to the first and second floor especially the second floor great nice space very clean no obvious problems um and but in the basement there's a fair amount of clutter and some deterioration of the S peeling paint water stains and possibility mold growth in various areas so while the exterior the building has conditions which are frankly fixable and the interior is in very good condition uh I find that the combination of the FAL arangement design of the parking area to be detrimental to the safety Health morals and Welfare of the community in accordance with criteria D of the local Reon housing law and additionally because of qual the property qualifies under D you can utilize criteria H which is a smart growth statute with regards to the next property this is the property next door on South 2 Avenue uh block 2202 lot 31 11 South second Avenue this property is a conforming lot but presently contains a non-conforming use because single family swelling is not permitted use in the CBD zone property is a Midlock lot adjacent to the corner lot impressing contains one and a half story three-bedroom dwelling it's managed by the Reformed Church of Holland Park as an affordable unit for special needs as noted in the housing element of their share plan uh Records show that consistent with the timing of the conversion of that dwelling to an affordable unit 20078 various permits were issue for accountable equipment and interior renovation uh they actually took a second floor edro and split into two smaller rooms uh and they replaced all the wiring in the building however no permits been issued since that time uh from 2018 2023 representing a 5e period there have been 30 police and fire calls however I noted that not all calls may be associated with incidents on the property itself because the police records include uh traffic incidents in front of the property so when I disregard those units a half of them we found that there were various calls associated with ambulance calls behavioral mental health crisis civil matters disputes harassing uh and several welfare checks and really four incidents of theft regarding the property itself there we go so the rear yard area does not really have full use the proper that is the tenant of the house doesn't have full usage of property more accurate way saying proportion of re guards been fence off and serves as a playground area that's managed by the church um including a all play area really nothing wrong with that um the solid ways of recycling is lacking because you see the trash can sort of left out in the open at least the time inspection when I went back the second time it was out in the front yard area again um that but I wouldn't call that as a condition that warrants me any criteria the building exterior is actually generally pretty good condition as with the case with the conversion 2008 modifications renovations to the interior exterior were done there was some overgrowth and paint shipping but nothing substantial there were some missing and broken slots uh relative to the Windows system the front porch and the front stairway lacks of Landing um and seemed to be in a condition that wasn't as when you step on it it's a sinking sagging anding the building interior is generally in fair condition uh somewhat limited circulation as the hallways and the stairways are very narrow as it's a old home there's also limited space between the as you see in the photo between the range and the kitchen sort of obsolete layout and there's really no space for the refrigerator as located in a th room instead and there is at least one Outlet being used really being Daisy chained to power other um appliances smaller appliances there was also a couple Outlets U exposed without protect the cover but that can be easily fixed by putting cover on um with regards to the second floor the minor the bathroom had some deterioration because it was leaking um and as you s see in the kitchen below it there's the water damage from the big giant hole in the ceiling and water damage on floor but when I was there with the manager of the building they were in process of repairing those damages and it's really for those reasons that I found that while there are various security conditions to rid property it does not appear that they rise to the level of criteria a for example however it's my opinion the property does qualify as a non- combination area development under the section three criteria as we discussed before the recall the definition may include properties that are not of themselves detrimental to health and safety but may be useful for a an effective development of a rment area in this case given the property's proximity to sou Second Avenue and adjacent to the the corner lot that's been designated for I feel is meets the criteria d uh this including the property into the already designated property don't here will allow for appropriate access point from sou as of right now the current Redevelopment area only has access from Magnolia so you can imagine future Redevelopment have only one access point for magolia which is a mostly residential street a lot more traffic generation is there's a need to consider a secondary access point and that includes both vehicular and pedestrian movements throughout the block uh this additional access point would relieve pressure from that only access point and providing additional access access point other than R Anatomy further really promotes the goals and objectives of master plan because the other option is just put a couple driveways in I think we all agree that's not an option so we need to look at options where can we get access to these rment areas from the side streets and not rely solely on existing mechol street so combining lot 31 with LP one also encourages for a design element that could be incorporated into a larger because if you only included lot one they a very narrow lot and it's difficult to use a building form with appropriate parking behind it so when you combine lot this lot with block one it's appropriate to expand area to South Second Avenue basically squaring off that access point move on to the third lot this is lot 2202 Lot 37 also known as 242 Ren Avenue the twostory building with a two and a half story home behind it mixed use property excuse me the Lot 37 is non-conforming with respect to lot area and lot width and presently contains a non-conforming use since apartments are not permitted on the ground floor in the CBD there's a residential use in the back of the building on ground floor the property is a midblock lot on the other side of the corner that we were just referring to Lots 131 it contains a two story build building in front of a 2 and half story frame dwelling doesn't have a driveway doesn't have a garage all parking is offsite the rear yard area is actually very well maintained it contains a Fen in pool area at least observed from the neighboring property this is the property that was refused access so I was not able to get into the building or even on to the site so almost all the photos you can see are from the public RightWay or you know looking cranny from another property where I was given access to uh with regards to the use as you see Sal ENB is on the ground floor actually a very attractive storefront that's one of the nicest storefronts in town the second floor does not have Windows which is an odd condition does not meet the design standards of the burrow multiple and as you as I described in report that multiple building typology is actually pretty common in h park where you have a commercial building in front of a house uh this is one of those situations uh and it's really indicative of the early development Avenue uh in the case of this slot the single family dwelling was rain and converted into two APS one's on the ground floor which is not conforming as well as another apartment on the second floor and there's a two-story building up front with the commercial use on the ground floor and another partment the second FL when I reviewed the records there was permits were regularly issued in 1970s and 80s however there's been a number of concerns raised by hazardous conditions from 1989 to mid90s which more or less has been address uh since that time permits have been issued pretty regularly for renovations including for Salon Envy back in 2000 meaning env's been here for over 20 years uh other improvements in 2008 as well as 2014 and however there does not be to appear any mechanical permits since the late 1990s over a 5year period view of the police and fire record uh there have been 24 police and fire calls although half of them are related to attract uh with regards to the property as I indicated I could not get into the property but I noticed that the reard area really serves the residential use that's to form a home being converted to a the are areas in good condition as a overr pool and while the gate and fence system surround the pool was not self closing self-latching which would be a violation of both zoning and construction codes it is noted that the uh ladder flips up so that prevents children more unsupervised unwanted entry into pool typically doesn't a concern uh especially the gates wide open kids to walk from the street into theer a little bit of concern but the gate um has to be closed manually otherwise the building exterior is actually pretty good condition particularly the storefront has discussed and there's no access to interior uh given that with a lack of information I did not find this property met the criteria however it is directly adjacent to the 2004 designated area and is also adjacent to on the other side of the building on the left side uh of properties yet to be discussed on this presentation but that were found to be an area need Redevelopment for different reasons and it would behoove the burrow not to consider this lot as area need of Redevelopment under the section three criteria because if you don't interpret this property as airing need you will have basically a donut hold between the 2004 designated properties as well as to be determined properties on the other side so it's for that reason I felt it was appropriate that um the property be considered for redevelopment under the section three criteria because the property in itself does not meet the criteria but it would be appropriate to merge it as part of a larger R heing so moving on to the next property this is at the corner lot uh tax records indicates BL 222 lot 38 also known as 246 baren Avenue it's actually three properties well three businesses associated with the site uh 246 Ren Avenue is the the for of make me take me space uh 248 Bren Avenue is a kit uh restaurant space and then on side street on South Third of Lady number eight according to my records yes 8 South Third Avenue is the uh part tax business which is an awful space so lot 30 is not performing which respect to lot area and lot width again another nonconforming lot with respect to the size and it contains a non-conforming use given that offices are not permitted on the ground floor in the cpg zone that's specific to the Holland Park tax business the property is a cornal rot it's located on the south side of bar Avenue throughout 27 and the west side of South Third really where the town tables was out property presently contains a one story building split into the three stor funds and um yes so there was a small parking lot driveway on the rear the building it's accessible on the side street uh there are several Street trees which both of which are within the Avenue South Third public rights ways and the property directly abuts that portion of the uh as indicated the town tables which was uh critical during the um Poco 19 pandemic the building contains three store fonts and IED you so I'm go skip to the record summary so the permit have been regularly issued for the last 50 years for these properties uh there been oil tank removals as well as installation chical equipment has been replaced in the timely matter uh 1980 major renovation project for a corner confectionary at the corner store including fa Renovations and streetcape improvements it's a relatively goodlook building uh 1997 the trio gifts uh incl Renovations as part of fa grant program and a review of the police fire records call show that there only been three minor incidents um on the property as far as the conditions on property you'll note that there's while there's no off street parking area there is a small curb cut that allows for access to this app parent shared driveway between this property and the property to the South uh and what happens because of that curb cut is cars often Park in the public RightWay blocking a sidewalk and you can tell uh not only is that not permitted but also because of the overgrowth of the plantings on either side there no there's a violation of Clear Sight triangle when you're trying to use that for vehicular parking and this creates a dangerous conditions for pedestrians on the sidewalk as well as for motorists in the street uh therefore the driveway really no look longer functions as such and a cro cut remains which so this invites uh this condition which I observed more than one occasion in additional they want note that these conditions may result as I indicated earlier similar that it results in driver confusion and contribut to a circulation pattern that is unsafe and dangerous uh with regards to Solid Waste and Recycling there's a bunch of cans all lined up without a dumpster uh so while there is a dedicated space there's no enclosure of provided which again it's common for in our residential uses both in terms of magic practices as well as the uh there's several barrels that s disarray and water sit situated on top of standing water which may create a breeding ground and Spees Additionally the stairway you can see uh against the building follow the attractive chain link fence you look into it being used as a dump the oil tank uh thrown at the bottom and at the bottom there appear to be various trash litter debris and a water heater again uh and there also appear to be running water at the which was concerning uh which is deteriorating the sidewalk condition and uh at the bottom of the stairway and there's Pest management issues and damage and other hazards related to that with regard to the exterior ability meaning the per fa you'll note that they're generally poor a fair condition showing moderate deficiencies including horizontal and vertical displacement uh the brick in several cases bulging out and in certain cases it's been patched incorrectly uh and however several portions remain in the state of disrepair uh which would require significant reconstruction um there's significant water staining throughout the brick facade particularly at the top of the metal coping system which does not appear to be properly fastened to the wall system there missing flashing and other mechanical elements missing which keeps it open so there's infiltration of water going into the coping and Pest management issues with regard and I also did note that there's at least one broken window in a storefront system which is related to the H par taxi business and regarding the building interior the building really varied from fair to good condition obviously the space on uh related to the make me take me is in a condition where it's pending um renovation work the corner store appear to be in very good condition however there was really no access to the backup house area so I didn't have opportunity to see what the kitchen look like uh with regard to the office space there was some clutter and really poor circulation inside the space and I found a mattress in one of off the spaces against the swort window which is not a conforming condition of presence violation with regard to the basement found significant amount of food uh storage areas in the basement which is concerning especially when you have the running water and the trash conditions at the bottom of the stairwell and there was poor circulation throughout the basement between the three spaces so it's it's for these reasons I find that the property is substandard unsafe obsolescent and and really leads to conducive to UNH wholesome living or working in this case working conditions in accordance to criteria a and with a combination of the dilapidated condition for to the per faade broken windows and to the U driveway condition especially I find that this to be a faulty Arrangement design and is detrimental to the Ware community in cordance of criteria D and because it means those to also means criteria H for smart property number four block 2202 lot 3910 South Third Avenue this is the speak Music Conservatory building with an apartment on the second floor lot 39 is a nonconforming lot respected lot area and lot depth but does permit permitted uses in the CBD Z it's Midlock lot and presently contains a two story building the apartment and the ground floor office space uh record search showed that in 1993 application to the planning board this body approved a waiver site plan for a change of use from travel agency to psychologist office and since then there been various per issues for major renovation work 1985 1993 2010 2014 so the is regularly issued for the past few years and police and fire calls only showed three minor incidents back uh with regards to the conditions of the property I was able to get inside the first floor space but I was asked not to take photographs so I did not take any photographs of the Interior focus on the exterior and I did not get access to the for par the parking area design similar to other conditions uh as you can see the layout is not conforming with respect to his own ordinance and frankly best management practices in ver design uh the parking area lacks adequately designed vehicular Ingress ESS in this case you just have four parking spaces directly across from the street so in order to back out of the parking lot you have to go into the street which is a dangerous condition for pedestrian especially when you can't see that spaces next to each other so there have blind spots and you have overgrowth on the left side which is a violation of the Clear Sight triangle uh so this is a dangerous condition for vehicles in and out of the spaces uh which again require backing out into the public sidewalk in the street additionally there was a a vehicle parked in one of the parking spaces directly adjacent to the public sidewalk uh this would again be show that parking is hampered by poor visibility cre another potential unsafe conditions for passage by by the sidewalk uh in this condition the parking space is directly next to the building so the building itself creates a sight issue if those parking spaces were removed you might be able to eliminate the site issue but that means losing parking spaces and a require site plan to do so so that this property in a way is sort of hamstrung by the site plan because it's required to have parking but the parking layout is simply d uh additionally uh let's see one of the parking spaces is marked as accessible however there's no striping there's no way for a wheel someone in wheelchair to get in and out of space unless they go into a space that hopefully doesn't have a car in it on the left side and on the right side you have trash cans way so there's no way for someone to get in and out of a car they need a wheelchair so it's not compliant with Ada standards um the parking area also just like on lot one lacks sufficient buffering around all the sides and the protective measures between the parking area and building such as Ballard you would think that be this close to the building be Ballard and what not protecting the building um but that those conditions exist all these conditions taken together result in dver confusion and contribute to a pattern that's unsafe for motorist pus and pedestrians with regards to the solid waste as you can see again recycling is there's no trfic closure provided it's just played against the building directly visible from the street appropriate uh you can see sometimes that they damage the gutter which is causing uh infiltration problems into Foundation at that corner uh the building ex Ste otherwise is actually in pretty good condition there's no major deficiency sound unlike the other building uh I did not observe any deferred maintenance projects and uh other than minor staining on the birade uh with regards to the building interior as I said IND on the first Flor for speak Music Conservatory is actually very good condition but in the basement didn't observe uh fortunately I can't show the photographs because there weren't any uh there was some water damage in the basement especially at the corners which is not unusual U but there did appear to be some mold or at least a history or presence of that that condition so with respect to mainly the park and layout design a find property engagement design obiously and it's detrimental to the welfare community in accordance with criteria second to last this is a unique property block 2202 lot 13 24 South 3rd Avenue it is a conforming lot but presently contains nonconforming uses given a d Center is not a permitted use in a PO Zone and apartments are not permitted to be on the ground floor in a PO Zone in this case the building up front is a converted residents into Infinite mines daycare probably the name um and it contains a four family well four apartment units at the back of the building as well as a small playground and a stone the record search shows that in 1995 an application for site plan was approved to convert the house into a daycare center for yellow brick road which has since moved across the street uh resolution indicates existing property contain a single family house and a twostory four family uh it was noted that there was no access between the two buildings so the current daycare does not speak to the four family they are separated so they have their own points of access uh and upon various records been a number of issu permits issued 1996 2007 and recently 22 where we did know that there was a lack of electrical and plumbing permits associated with the apartments in the past 25 years given four units you would expect to be some repairs done or permits needed um typically every 10 15 years for each unit so this may indicate that there's different maintenance I was not able to get into the building on this property but I was able to utilize and peruse the outside property uh with regard to the driveway and parking area the driveway is along the left side of the property has access to re is appropriate it's actually one of rare cases where the parking area is an appropriate location however the driveway is encumbered by a Stairway that provides access to the for family so if you step down from the four Apartments onto a landing which by the way doesn't exist you're standing in the middle of a tri very dangerous condition uh there's no walkway from the public sidewalk to the residence which I I think in downtown conditions that's not unusual you sometimes walk down a grav a driveway to a unit uh that's not unusual but the fact that the entry Landing AB buts actually juts into the driveway that represents a dangerous condition uh the present layout paring are in the re is generally performing but does not appear to have maintaining for several years the wheel stop that were on the property has shifted and subing into the ground so they H serve their purpose uh the delineation between the edit of parking area and fence has really weathered away which results in um the fencing and adjacent proper no longer have that protected measure so cars the fence they're in the neighbor's yard uh adjacent to the accessible parking space is a playground area for the daycare center en closed by 5 tall chain L fence uh this fence because of a tight Amber visibility a Clear Sight triangle and that also creates a dangerous condition uh for residents employees walking in a driveway and parking area um and similar to the others with respect to driveway and parking lot design I find that these conditions result driv of confusion and contribute to a circulation pattern as unsafe see so with regards to the driveway and parking area conditions the driveway and paid portion shows significant signs of deterioration there's supression settlement uh depression leading to slipping Hazard mosquito breeding Pest management issues track broken missing pavement uh additionally portions of the driveway slops towards the building so see there's water damage uh visible from at the building the ground level as well into the ground level Apartments this allows for water and debris accumulating the various Corners the building and they cause damage to ration finally the root systems of trees are dislodging parts of the driveway which allow the loose houseold debr to collect various parts that face the building the accessory structure and rear a lot um an apparent outdoor storage area both of which place of a couple parking spaces which may not be permitted and it's noted in report that this may be a violation of the site planine approval and apartment requirements um in addition the ground floor support of the accessory structure is a spere disrepair more than likely Pest management issues associated with the exposed Foundation solid ways recycling is lacking does not exist with regard to the building exterior it does show signs of ation really in a minor to moderate scale U mainly on the sides of the two story frame building and throughout the TU block as far of the house you can see the scalp siding is in the state of disrepair the fcia soften window shutters are show significant water damage and wood Rock there branches in the breed that not clear from roof as for the two story building the block building in the rear various portions including the support columns in the face of the second level of balconies paint chipping and water damage uh the second for soet starting to sink and this separation may cause for water infiltration deeper into the building and may further exacerbate the issues with regarding facade uh in Additionally the stairway that provides access to the second level apartment actually block various Windows which is not a standard may represent substan and as it indicated it's not able to get to inside not withstanding that the substandard conditions of the access into the building need the stay stairwell uh find that this conducive to un wholesome living environment criteria a and the for arrangement design of the landing parking area and lack protective measures are may represent a dangerous condition for motorists U the driveway as well as for residents who live on the site finally with the house 225 molia Street Lot number 19 block 22 I was permitted access onto the lot but not inside the building so and I also did not out of respect to the property owners I did not take pictures of the exterior the lot just from the front of the building which as you can see is quite lovly and maintain a good condition so Lot 19 is a conforming lot and contains a conforming rare as you can tell on this s dwellings are committed in R zone property is a Midlock lot and located on the north side of Magnolia Street is directly adjacent to the stub entry into the burrow owned um forace Market had a couple comments on here so when I reviewed the record summary building permits and whatnot various permits been issued over the past 30 years so it's clear that property is well maintained and I did not observe go back slide this is one slide to building interior exterior was well maintained with Lush Landscaping U did not find anything that suggest that this proper qualified gu however I did note that with regards to the proximity of the site next to the step entry to the rear of the existing reel area which provides access to the form Church it may be appropriate to include this lot into the Redevelopment area because the current stub street is about 50 ft wide and the intended design to have a drrive pile 24 ft parking spaces 18 ft and appropriate buffers pursu into the ordinance about five or 10 feet wide the lot that provides access to the rear form church is insufficient so you have these conditions where the driveway is too narrow you have the fence right against the parking area this is damaged car is hitting to it the bumper is not sufficient wheel stuffs move so this property it would be beneficial to include this property to improve access into the rear of the reform church lot which is part of the area4 namely because with that additional lot width it can improve access into the site wider driveway entry appropriate 24t Dimension parking on both sides and the appropriate buffers to the residences on either side of it and that represents finally represents the conclusion of my investigation as a summary we found three properties that did not did not meet the criteria but utilizing the section three criteria we find that they would be appropriate for providing additional access from the side street and that's not a condition that's unusual F when they did the 2005 plan you can see that not withstanding the rment plan concept at time see the Blue Line heading towards South Third there was at a time where the burrow was contemplating access to the side street now with the 2021 plan was focus on a narrower focus of this plan area more refined plan approach the I think you can make reasonable assertation and my opinion that it would be more appropriate to get access from South Second through lot 31 for more squared off portion be area the in 2005 the burrow had contemplated access from we go back I've gone back sorry the burrow had contemplated access from South Third and that may still be viable across the two lots which is Lot 37 and lot 38 which is part of our study for tonight however it may be more appropriate given that the burough is pursuing a town table's permanent closure that that access not be vehicular perhaps pedestrian and the same thing could be gained from lot 13 as well and of course Lot 19 would be appropriate for a more appropriate entry and more parking because I think as we discovered during the U planning process more parking is needed for the church and I think whatever plan that we do incorporates a parking approach that satisfies the church as well as public parking for the retail establishments on this block so there's a variety of reasons by the section three criteria would be appropriate for those um and I will say I think we had this discussion when the planning board was contemplating why are we doing this why are we expanding this so and the reason was it may potentially be more better access to rment area there is certainly a conundrum with the rment statute where you have the sort of C before the horse in this case as you know the process is do the designation first as meet the criteria and then you can do the plan but the section three criteria says you could include lands that don't qualify as an area need in Redevelopment on its own but may be useful for the Redevelopment of the are area so the question asked is well what's the plan look like why do we need it in a way that's the challenge that us planners have is sort of have to take a I call it a leap of faith but in this case we do have a red plan from 2005 which contemplates access from side streets and we have a concept plan that which I can share is that the concept plan as per the RFP does consider additional properties so with those two Concept in mind both in 2005 contemplating additional access even if it's just pedestrian and with the concept of the that was filed for the RFP response it is appropriate to consider additional properties even though you don't see the plan in front of you um so again that's a challenge that I have to convince the board why you need those slots even know you don't have a plan in mind um but based on the proximity of the existing designated area on South Second it is appropriate to get that side street access particular and prove access to the rear uh for the entire lot without having to rely solely on rear lot and frankly I I can see uh given the potential closure of South Third that would be appropriate for not for vular Access you don't want yeah we don't want cars there so it would be appropriate for potentially pedestrian access and which provide pedestrian access and to some degree vehicular access across the site without having to rely only on Magnolia which would be benefit to the community especially the residential neighbors there as well as to not be forced to putting driveways back in Ren Avenue which as a master plan as a goal not to permit in fact we're trying to close driveways it will be complete 180 if we decided oh well we need a second access point let's just go through R that's that's not unated so that concludes my presentation uh and welcome questions okay um Chris uh does anyone have a need to take a break or anything like that before we go on to the questions just if not we'll just B right into it I I'll just start with a few short ones uh two short ones um basically what would the impact be of this uh designation non- condemnation designation to Property Owners existing Property Owners especially those that um maybe don't want to develop their property or sell their property and that's one question the second was um does fire access have anything to do because I found the oh Salon Envy uh thing even though it's conforming just scares me that you know how do you get back to that apartment building behind there with any sort of vehicle so those that were those were my two questions thank you y so I'll start with the first one so in the case of a non-c comination area me development that does not permit the burrow to utilize domain to take property and I think it's pretty clear that we're trying to engage in a process where when we even when the property is designated as area needed Redevelopment as part of the rment plan effort still do a plan that involves that proper but in the end the selected redeveloper has to engage in an arms length agreement to purchase the property the burrow is not forcing that on the current property owners to participate they do not have to participate in this process but I just just to follow up just it doesn't impact let's say the value of the property it had in in that it has this designation of in need of Redevelopment I I don't believe so um but okay I'm I'm sure that might come up it might come up believe second think uh fire access both I guess for both The Salon Envy property and for the apartments behind the daycare center seems very iffy yes so I think it falls under the section three criteria which contains to includes things infrastructure utilities and access and access is not a singular form it's just vehic access it can include fire access can include pedestrian access or bicycle access so I think including those properties would improve fire access and it doesn't have to just be Salon it could be from the south second SES Rea so I have a question that uh sort of P back off the question um with regard to how this Des ation affects homeowners so an individual property owner um whose property has been designated non- combination in the Redevelopment area does this restrict or put any restrictions on that property owner should they want to alter their own property do they now have to go through a different process than they would any other resident who's not in the Redevelopment area that's a good question uh so with respect to the design it has no impct on Z or what they can do with they can proceed as usual as if it never existed this would never the only way that would be impactful is if we did a plan that restricts them but I think it's clear I think we talked about it briefly at a council meeting regarding Cleveland Avenue we've always been expressing we do not want to restrict a single family homeowner and that is and be my recommendation when we do a plan that we don't restrict existing single family doing in fact most cases and pl I've done elsewhere other communities where well if it does involve a lot with single P draing that they are provided the ability to do the same thing they have in but if they are sold and brought into a development project then different STS would be basically we would pull in the existing single P dwelling first of all as a permitted use and let them do the same thing happen if they choose to sell then they can participate what new property on in a different project when you say if they choose to sell if uh Redevelopment partner hasn't been identified and that single family homeowner wants to sell their home just for whatever reason they want to sell their home are they free to sell their home to anyone on the open market or is it just being designated to be purchased by Pro they can do they want I think in this case if anything it might give the conditional R developer the ability okay I have the authority to bring this property in but they still have to come to an agreement to buy the property that assisting property owner is not obligated to participate meaning sell or be part of this project they can sell to anyone they want and I I had another question that was separate from this so um in the sort of investigatory process for you're going in and looking at a number of different properties that presented this evening there were a number of conditions on properties that you found that were pretty conserving um specifically to me the property that is the that was formerly the kit bubble tea shop that is now a new bubble te shop has undergone a very beautiful Renovations um any of the sort of deteriorating conditions that you found in the buildings are any of the owners um being tasked with making those remedying any of those conditions as part of this process no the my main purpose is to mainly focus on what I've observed and rep um unless I'm told otherwise I don't think this process was intended to get people in the gotcha moment and make them the violation of various ordinances it's just what I observed that whatever the bur chooses to do with it it's up to them um that that's that's kind of the approach I take with all other things this is I'm not here to catch and doing something wrong just observe just question um about renters uh both commercial and residential renters there are a number of them in in the proposed expansion of the comination reg area um how does how does uh relocation or relocation assistance um play out in a non- condemnation um designation versus a condemnation designation if at all in other words when you draft to Redevelopment plan uh and uh a developer is negotiating with one of the property owners uh do renters get assistance if they have to beated so to be fair I don't know know the answer that question but from what I understand Council free feel free to correct me if I'm wrong um but anytime there's a active business or an active renter or even property owner in their own home there has to be a way to it's called a workable relocation plan and implies both businesses and or residences um we put in all rment plans required to by Statute the process they have to follow to allow foration as to whether there's assistance through that program I'm not aware good question I'll get back to you on that uh it's also in a way it's a little bit more critical that the accordly units that exists in this case this is the special needs unit 31 it's de restricted so if the burrow or to engage in the process with it revelop that wants to use that property they will have to deal with that deep restriction I to lift it find another unit somewhere else whether it's in the property or somewhere else to preserve that affordable so there's even more steps to be taking regarding that's a good question uh yeah my question was related to that D restricted affordability control um do you know if uh if there's a replacement um let's say that that property is redeveloped would a replacement property uh pick up on wherever the uh existing property is along that 30-year restriction or would start to clock a new on a new 30 years good question I don't know to answer but I I would I would recommend that the burrow would start a new 30-year clock so I think there's been recent case law where the burrow municipality has authority to extend the controls after expiration of the 30 years and many cases some towns are doing 50 years restrictions um it's a good question I don't know the answer but I I would recommend that you restart the clock and Equitable unit the three B special needs that unit needs to be somewhere else that's on top of relocation assistance because it may not be the same family all right so in either case uh there would be no net loss of affordable housing units because we would find a replacement if this unit were this property were redeveloped in that scenario yes um I do not know if it's required by Statute but I think good planning would require that and I would make sure that's done and of course that this is not um related to the destination this is we're looking ahead to the plan y so it's not really related to destination but it is something that's on the lines of this particular project can a property or uh request not be included in the designation can you reject being having your property be a part of it I believe the process is that's part of the noticing procedure they have to notify all neighbors and if once the bur Council takes action based on whatever the recommendations the planning board taks they have 45 days to appeal typically I'm not familiar with the results of that are or general procedures following that but they do have the ability to appeal So based on tonight's proceedings the borrow will notify all the property owners that were involved in tonight's presentation that they can appeal and object to their property being part of the Redevelopment area just just be clear not tonight when the B Council takes action okay that's when the clock would start not tonight doesn't start the clock not until the B Council takes AC and and and and they can't they once the BR Council includes them in the area there in they can challenge the legality of that decision but it's not a voluntary thing there's no op out they're either in or out and if they're and if they're in they can they can chall they can go to court challenge legality yeah and to the sense there are two methods of public notice obviously a public hearing for tonight to notify that there's a study being presented uh if the planning board makes a recommendation to designate certain properties that area need if Council takes that same action or takes a different approach or use different properties let's say you don't AG certain properties they still do it uh when they make that designation they also have to notify the public and I believe that notice has to include the procedures of the have the opportunity to have any of the owners in the these new properties have any sh interest I I'm not aware um I'm not sure if you're have information about the dialogue between the conditional the developer and some of these property in fact the conditional reveler already owns one of these slots slot number one right so the conditional redeveloper owns Lot number one right now and I believe that are in um the conditional redeveloper is in in has been in ongoing regular talks with the reform church which owns lot 31 and so that has been on the the the discussion uh as well um I'm I I I I don't want to I'm not 100% sure but I think that there's also La 19 team conditional redeveloper may have a an interest in the others I don't believe that he does yeah when we contacted them regarding the process we want to engage in a dialogue Terry H assisted me with getting contact with the property owners where you had contact and you know obviously when I first contact him like what is this are you're taking my profit know to explain the process it takes a while just get Comfort level some case it give few access I would say to answer your question more clearly we have contact AR of the process but I I'm not privy to any conversations I have a quick question did you say that developers have interest in Lot 19 as in so I I I want to sorry I want to be very clear I I we should check that I believe that the property the the conditional redeveloper has an interest in 19 but I I don't know that for sure I do know that he that on one and 31 there is on 19 I think that there is but I think we should double check that to make sure that I I know more about that not I'm not sure those are proper considerations for the board in this proceeding we were really just looking at question that should it designated just TR Dan I kind of the the flip side of that question do we know if any of these property owners have expressed a desire to not be included at all again not that that's necessarily something we need to consider but just in terms of background information for what we're doing I I will say that there's some concerns about it from certain Property Owners but I can't I don't want to put words in their own mouth and say they're not interested that's so I I can answer that question I can answer the question from um the burough Council has not been made aware of that from anybody coming directly to us I've got a couple questions um oh you you mentioned in the report that there's one of these properties is that would be eligible to be included in the national uh register of of of historic sites do you know which one of those properties it is uh that's slot number one 202 Ry okay um the information I found I to be honest with I'm not sure it was complete I did check the data minor State website and it was shown as a potentially contributing list actually no sorry it was on a 2003 master plan I don't know if it actually designated um I want to understand the process a little bit um in your report you indicated that the plan will establish new zoning standards for whatever properties are included in the area and those zoning standards will supersede the existing zoning they will replace they're not supplemental you won't have an opportunity to choose the existing zoning or the the new standards the new standards will supersede the existing zoning is that right uh they can there's two options you can do superseding zoning or overlay zoning okay well but you see I thought you understood in that you represented in this report that Highland Park was going to that they will be superseded is that not true if I said that that was an error okay well let me just play out the the scenario let's I actually think that that's how Highland Park has done it in the past but I'm not sure yes but let's let's suppose that that's true could you make sure you're speaking in the microne foran we hear you but other Sor let's just my understanding is that how that is how Highland Park has done things in the past that they have been they adopt the plan the plan sets new standards those now are the standards you can't say instead of using the standards in the plan I like the old Zone instead I'll just do what in the old let's just play out that as as a hypothetical scenario so we have here a number of properties that are potentially driveways Ingress and egress and presumbly the new plan would specify that some or all of them are potentially driveways and that's what they can be used for would the consequence be that if you're a property owner say of the the Magnolia Street property um the most obvious choice um that looking down the road the only thing you're going to be able to use that property for is part of the drial surely that has an impact on the value of property uh you know when when the next person comes along and they say oh what can I what will I be able to use the property for in the future a d a driveway yes uh that's a good question uh that's under the assumption that that property is part of the plan and we do superseding zoning that would not allow a house to be there or rebuilt and this is part of we're sort of jumping ahead to the planning but in this hypothetical scenario I would recommend to the rment council uh sorry the burough Council as R entity to make sure that doesn't happen I think in my case for proper planning we should allow the house to remain there's nothing wrong with the house but if the property owner want is willing to sell to the conditional redeveloper there will be an option to put a driveway in um that that's my sense I think we should preserve the home if it wants to be preserved but if it's part of a plan that's presented by the re developer as permitted by zoning in this case in a way that lot would have overlay zoning I would say that would allow the house remain but if they wanted to they could put a driveway in I I don't think it would be appropriate to mandate that it can only be a driveway which in that case it may have impact on value well it has another kind of impact too if you're if you're the owner of that property and you look ahead and you say I'm destined to sell this property to somebody for use as a driveway is doesn't that inhibit you from making long-term Investments well again that's assuming we say in the re plan super seeding zoning that you can't expand the house um in a way you're you're sort of doing eminent domain through zoning I think that's a process we want to avoid yeah see it just seems to me that you know I'm I'm very skeptical of the claim that that the inclusion in the Redevelopment area has no impact on value I actually think it has a significant impact on value and I think it has an impact in two ways one is we just both talked about one is um it's going to have an impact on what the what the future permitted uses are and therefore when you go to sell it your prospective buyer is going to look around and say what can I what can I do with this maybe I'm not going to be able to to use it for for for the purpose you've been using it um uh and that's going to have an impact at least is an impediment to to to to free transfer the property the other concern I have is we have the potential to create light in places where there aren't because people say uh it doesn't make sense for me to make economic Investments on properties that are not destined to be used for use for that purpose and which I may or may not recover the benefit of those Investments when I'm selling under these constrained constrained circumstances I agree with you 100% which is why I think when we are in a re planning stage when we're writing the Zoning for it at least for me personally I would want to avoid that situation from happening which is why I made a recommendation and doing it on Cleveland Avenue where we say existing homes shall be permitted use they may do expansions they don't have to put a driveway in that's between the property owner and the potential well in this case the conditional redeveloper we can't force them to do that we could but I don't think it's in the interest of the burrow to do that there's nothing wrong with the home it would be useful for expansion but we're not forcing that process to happen thank you related question kind of following up on that is that in terms of the decision that we're making tonight in terms of designating these or adding these properties to the Redevelopment area um so I feel like there's a lot of rabit we could go down in terms of kind of second or third order consequences of this or that designation and for example the combination of access points with uh number uh you know 31 and uh one on the back uh the numbers in front of me yeah yeah 19 right uh 31 and 13 and 19 and kind of the combination of access points but in terms of the decision we're making for these properties it has to be a throughh or section three yes and regardless of the validity of whatever these other concerns are and the planning kind of Downstream from what we're doing tonight we can't take that kind of stuff into account in terms of the decision we're making tonight is that understanding correct I would say you should not should not thank you other than anticipating there may be cases using the section three criteria where it may be appropriate to expand for ACC in a way you're sort of jumping the gun you're thinking ah head um it is a cart before the horse have issue is a challenge we have all the time with the law because I'm basically asking you to contemplate this could be useful there's no plan but wouldn't you want to see a plan if access was truly usable needed and related to that kind of one thing I wanted to clarify is that you mentioned a couple times the master plan and the presence or absence of driveways facing rid and the phrase you used earlier was non-starter uh in terms of having vehicular access uh from directly from Ren Avenue because we want to kind of preserve The Pedestrian safety along that that walking Corridor um does that impact those decisions uh for section three in terms of access to other points I believe it does because as part of justification were those lots will be appropriate for Access whether vehicular vestan or fire access because the alternative of having driveways on Maran Avenue is simp it's not it's not permitted again whe it's in current zoning the Redundant plan or any future red plan we would not want access from there if was permitted and we wanted d off I think you can make the case you don't need lot 31 for Access but you may be able to use it for but let's say the boundary line of the existing Redevelopment area was s of check aboard as wear um boundary lines a property could be appropriate to be included that squares it off because as you know a building that's nice and rectangular with a parking behind it has a if you can have the parking area behind the building directly behind it it's an riate module typically buildings are about 60 to 70 ft feet 10 ft setep back where they drive walkway and then 60 fo Drive Park all together including setbacks you need about 150 for an appropriate building and parking but that's that was secondary in this case we s relied on access many way to use section three um and it's again hard to justify without seeing a plan but but the burrow has contemplated access from side streets 2005 so we're sort of using that same methodology like well it would be especially since South Second is so close and we don't think it would be appropriate to use lot one's driveway let's say the house was moved into the Reel plan you wouldn't want to use that driveway it's too close to intersections especially if more traffic it's lot more traffic lot 31 is even better because it's further back you get on street parking on South Second and it's more of a straight pattern to the middle basically the back it's actually perfect for parking lot ACC okay um since you've been waiting so patiently I was just going to jump ahead and ask if you had a comment or a question to come up and take the microphone and just give your name and address for the record please my name is Debbie Gerber I live at 10 South Third lot 39 I I gotta swear you in sorry you have to be you have to be in Mar raise your right hand you the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth the truth the whole truth I was say self be God yes it's the whole truth all right thank you my name is Deber I live at 10 South Third Avenue L 39 as you called it above I live above the music school I have Liv there for 19 years and I just appreciated your question about rers I rent the apartment from the owner of the music school and uh have done so so I I wonder what will be my uh future and where will I go so that's my question basically so can you here I think it's appropriate to contact our attorney Joe Balman as well as Terry love to get information so we can share what the responsibility of the redeveloper would be if this property were included into the destination and further merge as part of the plan um soy get you the an that you're looking for see what your options are thank thank you ask Mr a question what I just he had go ahead just um step back for a second and talk about sort the overall area I think um I think as you you told story starting from 2005 all day is that we've had some properties on this street in Commendation expanded it andand again um and one of the things I think that curious why you didn't use criteria e and I know the long history of G for criteria e but in 2013 uh as the the state law as you as you remarked that it expanded and allowed for this non-com combination of Redevelopment in need of Redevelopment and it also extended expanded uh criteria e uh and so you you referen that in your report uh and now go so far as to include um not just real property but real properties um and similar conditions that impact land assemblage and discourage uh undertaking uh the undertaking or approvement and so forth those the next new language from 2013 and it suggests suggest me that we have a lot of small Lots the first Redevelopment uh designation in 2003 first Regal elment been in 2005 we haven't seen signif development in 18 18 years math almost 19 years so U I'm curious why some of these properties we use criteria e section three4 and three of the seven three of three of the seven properties and not maybe criteria e which um you know when you look at the nature of the parcels you're looking at suggest to me that the diverse ownership of the entire area is contributing to a stagnant and nonproductive use and I think maybe the issue of of section three we're ask we you know asking for three properties for us to use section three for instead of criteria e um I have I actually have a little I a little concerned with the heavy use of section three here rather than criteria e and then making an argument for for criteria e so the reason I didn't really rely on criteria e is in a way third rail issue because um as you discussed it's issue regarding property ownership and title issues and if I recall case really show that it pertained to property ownership en titles but the issue with that study in 2007 car did was that they relied only on the fact that there were um it was unproductive or because it wasn't being used to his full potential but I believe the courts indicated that in addition to that you must also make a finding that it is it's presumed to have a negative social you have can't do or you have to do and that's what I recall looking at the case law I know I think it was another case in 2015 46 Main Street versus and they sort of I forgot what the case that was but remember 2015 it sort of brought back the ability to use title e except they clarifi record that the the Restriction that was applied by the courts in ganth only appli this criteria in that time period it was very difficult everything's up in the air about how utilize some of the criteria but that case 2015 now the focus to only I don't think that answers your question but I was I'm AST use that because you have to prove that a property owners title issues as well as the I the other crer a e and section three were more appropriate if the board finds that a criter e be more useful as you indicated I think the board could consider that as far as recommendations of there's nothing wrong with the board they to R only on presentation can make are we voting on these properties individually or is just like a block like a group can vote for all them together or decide certain properties will not be part of the recommendation can I motion to separate Lot 19 first before we make any motions I'd like to make sure that a we hear from the rest if there are any more questions and if there any more questions from are there any virtual questions or anybody on Zoom call one so I I hear what you're saying that's a perfectly reasonable so um if the board is done for now I would I would rather have our discussion take talk about before before before we make that motion yeah that's that's after after we've had our discussion that may may indeed be an apprpriate motion but I would rather rather postpone do it in the right sequence okay you know since I would love to hear from the uh the person who's perhaps been waiting online to make you know a comment or a question and we'll then we'll go to continue our discussion so they're not raising their hand but you can ask them if they have well if they want to they're they're welcome to that's I'm saying if not you know we'll move on they're called they are not making any okay so we'll continue the discussion um I'd like to keep things in some ways organized we're approaching two hours on this one issue so um for some reason my forearm is cramping but it's neither here nor there um yeah um I think we could just you know well why go ahead could we maybe hear from colleg yeah let why we if if the motion that I understand it would be uh everything except 19 can we hear the kind of R yes okay um so of the properties that are listed uh and presented before tonight um Lot 19 is the only lot that is wholly owned by a private residential property owner that's not part of an LLC it's not a commercial mixed use property it's not a property deed for affordable housing it is just a regular residential home and I uh as a member of this board have concerns about making a designation for someone's private property that could potentially have very big impact on the value of this property we don't know and so for that I would like to single this property out uh for voting separately than the other ones yeah I I I understand the motion uh Chris is there's nothing to stop obviously this developer to talking to this individual property owner and coming to an agreement and with then this property if they I guess they if they bought it then they could apply for a designation or something like that it doesn't the fact that we do everyone but 19 now doesn't preclude something happening in the future between the developer and this individual property that is correct um and that can happen now because under the rehab designation you could have a plan that involves that law of course we maintaining use of um but more critically that sale could still happen okay no it's it's a very reasonable uh proposal any other discuss I have a question so is it are we thinking that that this may negatively impact the value of the property I think it can potentially negatively impact the value of this property I think it can potentially negative potentially have a negative impact for the property owner if they decide to sell this property down the line and it's designated as Redevelopment area or it sort of boxes this property owner in to where they feel like they can only sell it to the developer and then for how much they could get for it versus if they were to put it on the open market and it didn't have this designation I think the property owner should absolutely be a part of this conversation and I don't feel comfortable making this judgment for someone else as with regard to something so important and valuable as equity in their home so that's my res why do you think it would negatively affect that well um if it appears that the only use for this property would be in the future to be potentially torn down to be made an access point for a potential building that could go on track C in the future or whatever the plan is we don't have a plan so that could potentially um give a buyer pause if they're looking to maybe purchase that home or and and it could devalue the property I'm not saying that it would but it may have the potential to and I just don't think that we should make that discuss that decision for someone without them being here I think they should be a part of that conversation because they're a privately owned correct it's a misus commercial property all the rest of the other property pretty much all but I think it does it does combine two thoughts one that they really should be part of this discussion not an llcer but I still don't understand um how it would it would decrease the value of property by being part of okay again I I I agree with a lot of it is just perception yeah I mean it could absolutely have no issue at all the house it's a really cute house I love that house I pass by it whenever we go to the farm Market it's a great house um a lot of um value is perception and I think we should take that into consideration on the flip side somebody coming in buying it regardless of the designation will see the parking lot next door will know about there's a proposed Redevelopment going there so that would impact it but you know I have no objection to S you know removing it from the whatever so but you had a question mat com I guess my question goad sorry I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of of of the consultation there but but wouldn't the potential for positive or negative effects on the property value happen if it ends in a Redevelopment plan not by being designated one way or another so if it is in a Redevelopment plan certainly there's the capacity for for for either positive or negative I just I'm not sure that I see having it designated in an area as as as we're doing tonight um has the potential for that um market conditions I think that the next step may have the potential for those Market but I think the next step is more feasible once it's part of the designated area possibly but but I I guess I I'm not convinced that right now that this is but in order create the plan plan is based on the areas that are designated for redevelopment if this is not included in that designated area then the developer but it also doesn't have to be included in a plan so it's because it's designated tonight doesn't mean it has to be designated in the I hear what you're saying and I and I I totally understand where you're coming from um I still very much feel that the owner of that property should be a part of that a part of this conversation to clear the burrow can still do a plan that involves Lot 19 without this design and to Matt's Point could designate it choose not to include there's like three different ways I I think to the degree of anybody who hasn't spoken yet Alan yes the owner of the property has attended multiple of these types of meetings and has never indicated she'd be negative about being part of it and she she also was notified I I believe that this on the topic tonight and she's not here so I don't want to comment out that they may it on vacation I don't want to speculate why they're not all right a couple more and then so is this in terms of our purview as the planning board as opposed to the governing body is this a consideration that we could consider in terms of tonight in terms of making this as a nation because we the report is very specific and very narrowly tailored for criteria H and section three our decisions have to be based on criteria a through H in section three uh and there are certainly other valid considerations in terms of this decision-making process what I I'm wondering question for you question for sorry I don't know your name is the normal um is this a kind of consideration we should be using in making in terms of the decision we're making tonight as the planning board for tonight I believe we should keep our consideration strictly into the confines of the testimon planner and within the local Redevelopment law which is the I believe it's sub section c or the a through H and the section three which he he provided exensive testimony about I mean obviously there are some ancillary issues but for we don't want to keep going down this R we're not like I feel like a lot of these questions were putting the cart before the horse as we've heard numerous times tonight and it it's inevitable to happen in situations like this but we got I believe we should keep it within the confines of what the testimony of Mr Panza was tonight and within the within the applicable law I I I'll let other people talk before we further I actually want to come back tot um 39 and um you know I think I think a lot of your um testimony on on this parcel putting it making a recommendation that meet a design you know criteria criteria D um relates a lot to the parking design um parking lot uh and as I was reading the report um you you talked about it which was uh that honey board approved waiver in 1993 um it's related to the change of use um from a travel agency and the fact there was not adequate parking uh available and some of the conditions that parking lot I I wonder if you read it in the minutes to that meeting or the resolution seems to be the planing board our predecessors would have looked at the condition of the parking lot things that you document and apparently made an approved the request with the parking lot design as it is uh and so I I'm not sure that this design of the parking L is is so delerious that it poses a public health safety and risk the plan board looked at this parking lot design uh if there were issues with it then planner would have made a recommendation make improvements and so forth and not if that didn't happen then um I think you know I think that that's telling and then um also I think we have a resident who maybe use that parking lot um like to hear from the resident too whether or not it really is a public health safety risk that this park design poses that and I think I think if it doesn't then I think you know I think you're I think I think we're on meak ground for finding a a a criteria for 39 you know add that section three again so now we got to four Parcels so anyway I that's just my comment and a question so with regards to the uh prior approvals that were granted on the property this also relates to the driveway that was granted by VAR one in that case a little different it was done without permits they approval got the approval I would say not withstanding board approval prior or prior board approvals I still have to look at the current conditions as relates to these criteria um if that means I'm critiquing or criticizing approval for so be it I I believe that I have to look at the current conditions as it's designed it doesn't need to it's obsolete with today's standards for example citizens Princeton paring Lots were approved all the time but today's code uh in best practices is parking lots are last year's never parking structures are more appropriate and there's some case La supporting those OB conditions even though paring lot were obviously approved in years past in this case specific to the par l 39 and driveway L one even though they were approved by the forwards of this community I don't think that negates the not criteria request I don't know if we can ask the resent who lives in that such property and maybe Ed to the parking lot whether or not they feel or do you feel it's a a health safety RK I have to say that that I I have to be really careful I park there all the time that is my parking space and I have a handicapped brother who um were talking about the wheelchair access and we have I have to think about that and pull to the side so that he can get his into the car but um it is I have to be careful I think everybody who pulls out of any driveway backs out of any driveway has to be careful and I have to be very cognizant of the fact that there are pedestrians so I I pull very slowly out and I look and I try to be really aware of that and stop to so that if people are coming that they um you know see me and stop so I think it is it is I understand what you're saying I in in all honesty but um in 20 years I've been doing that and I've been very trying to be very careful you never hit anybody right not never anybody but it badly designed but I wanted to have a mirror there I wanted to have like a mirror set up um that something that would help could do better all right um let's see one last statement and then we'll go and take up your motion um so I got a few things first I want to thank Chris um I thought this was a very good report very clear very thorough and very candid and that makes our job easier um um from my point of view Redevelopment is the how iter of land use planning tools is the most powerful tool we have and so um one shouldn't use it casually one we everything we do should be careful um and um it is my view and I think reinforced by Prince's testimony that even the designation has negative consequences and so we shouldn't do this lightly um there are circumstances where it's absolutely appropriate and this may Le to be one but um it's a weight we should treat it as a weighty decision it has consequences um and so that is that is the way I look view it and I I would urge the board as a whole to treat it that way um I am particularly concerned about the three properties um that that are in the in in in the proposed area only under section three and I just want to go back to Chris's report where he quotes the statute he quotes it I think three different places in the report maybe four but the the key words are the properties are uh uh themselves are not detrimental to the public health safety and Welfare but the inclusion of which is found necessary with that with or without change in their conditions to the for the effective development of the area of which they are a part so the op operative word here is necessary that's a very high standard it's not it would be a good idea we ought to be thinking about it maybe sometime in the future we might want this um we're talking about three different POS possible Ingress and egress we're not going to use all of them it's very hard at this point to say that any of them is necessary and I I appreciate Chris's Chris's point that um uh it is a little weird for us to have to make that decision before we see a plant and I and part my my view is in some sense this is premature that at the point where the where the there really is a crystal Iz plan that is the right time to come back to us and say now we should expand expand the area because now we know what the plan what the what what the proposed plan looks like I confess I do not find any of these sites any of these properties necessary um under the statutory standard and I don't think the statute permits anything less you know uh we have bandied about other kinds of words uh in place of necessary but in the end the statute statutory stand is necessary and so I have a lot of a lot of concern about whether any of those properties really meets that standard I'm also a little concerned about the other properties um it is my impression I'm glad my house is not a candidate U because I'm a little concerned my house would be would be deemed in need of Redevelopment if it were a candidate um but I'm concerned that we are we are relying on things that are readily remediable you know there no there were two properties where one of the what part of what made it dangerous was overgrown Shrubbery bushes that that that that reduce sight loines well you take your chainsaw and you cut them down you know those are not so those don't strike to me strike me as being conditions that meet the criteria under the statute um so I'm not prepared the the the only the only property that I'm really comfortable saying meets the statute is I gu lot 28 or 38 rather um yeah lot 38 with the with the four apartments behind where they really do seem to be 1 sorry 13 that's 13 no it's the it's envy and and and the and the ones behind it okay oh there is 38 single apartment and the pool Salon yeah it's the one behind Envy envy and the one behind that's the one yeah that was that that was the one that I was I was confident um meets the statutory standard all the others seem to be marginal and just I'm just a little concerned that we are we're uh we're exercising this power on in situations where where the we're right on the cusp we're not clearly in the in in in the realm of what is deterior or absolute I certainly respect your opinion on that and a lot of respects I agree with a lot of what you said this was not a cut and dry support as it was with stoping shots ample evidence every single Corner as well as the adjacent sites this was a very difficult report to write and in with regards to section 3 criteria really pertaining to access uh yes it's the C before the horse concept but I do feel it is necessary to provide access other than just me that's why I find appropriate lot 31 be included to the site and if that's included is more appropriate for a building form property development for success for the r development to inove line those two properties are the more appropriate for the destination uh if not criteria d lot one then you could use section three criteria as well Lot 19 is mainly to facilitate improve access uh by increasing the poer adjacent properties if it were included plan uh as far as the other Lots Lot 37 cly next to it at that point when do you where do you stop keep Su chasing to it's that's the issue that's the Challenger I think it Lot 37 benefits from being included in Section 3 because the lot 38 and 39 are adjacent to it which has some deterior conditions but they I do agree they are on the C I do believe that they do meet the criteria and would be better included into more successful R project okay at this point in time I'm going to close discussion and we can start entertaining motions um to be my understanding and the attorney can you know that if collegia let's say comes forward with motion that says we'll approve these except this one a yes or no vote would be solely on that motion and that other motions are free to come up to if it was uh rejected let's say uh but if it's approved that would be the motion going forward to the count uh to the council correct yes and I mean since we we don't have to we can refine which ones we recommend I believe it might be behoove of us to I know I was going to have her refine it but I just would you like to you know make your motion yes but before I do are you saying that we vote on these properties individually or my motion should just be for the property that I think should be singled out I believe that we could do whatever we want we could have six or seven different motions one for each property we could have a motion for all properties we could have a motion for all properties except one it depends on how we vote am I correct in my understanding yes and I mean one option would be to Bob all the section three um property or Lots into one vote or bifurcate that further I mean for interest of time I mean I just don't want to get bed down more about how we're voting nor do I want to let's say ex uh so perhaps an an up and down vote on each property would that be what would you I to uh take a vote on everything but Lot 19 and then take a vote separate second vote on Lot 19 second V second all right the motion has been made and second so roll call excuse me is everyone familiar with what first what's that which motion are we vote are we taking all all except 19 yeah correct that is the motion on the floor all properties except 19 which is the privately owned property adjacent to on coming on Magnolia adjacent to the access point to the parking lot of the church roll call Mr breter no Mr Chin yes mror no Miss had ha yes m just so I'm clear we're voting on the first six and then we will have a separate vote on the second one so we're voting to approve the first six yes we are excluding 19 from this vote then yes Mr leres yes Mr pran yes Mr Stern cardal yes Mr Williams yes Mr Malay yes okay that motion has passed and now there separate motion on the floor for the approval of uh uh Lot 19 is there a motion for that yes second second second call Mr breter no Mr Chens yes Mr E dorfer no M hat hay no Mr ha yes Mr lerys yes Mr proman no Mr Stern caral genuinely a tough decision uh yes Mr Williams yes Mr Malay yes okay the understanding that the chair has is that all properties that both votes were in were both motions were approved and that both the uh one two three four five six properties will go and as well as Lot 19 that's everyone's understanding y okay well that was good I mean well Good's a interesting word but uh it was definitely informative um let's see if there's any other business on the uh any uh corresponden uh stop from zoning okay um let's see any public comment on any other issues you know here or online at this point I'd take a motion for adjournment so move all right thank you very much