Planning Board Work Session

WALDWICK PLANNING BOARD November 25, 2024 INFORMAL SESSION The Informal Session of the Waldwick Planning Board was held on Monday, November 25, 2024 at 7:30 p.m. and was called to order by Chair, Adele Badalamenti, who made the announcement of adequate notice of all meetings. ROLL CALL: Ms. Badalamenti present Mr. Mysliwiec present Mayor Giordano present Mr. Oravetz present Mr. Schatz absent Mr. Posillico present Mr. Ramundo present Mr. Panfile present Mr. Vervoort present Mr. Kowalski present Also Present: Cliff Singer, Board Attorney Joyce Sinclair, Board Secretary Paul Grygiel, Board Planner -Review of Ordinance 2024-33 37-49 Harrison Ave. & 13 W. Prospect Street Redevelopment Area Block 107, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Mr. Singer noted that the Board had questions from the November 6 formal session and had proposed this evening’s work session. Mayor Giordano recused himself. Mr. Grygiel, Board Planner, is here to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Singer greeted the public and explained that although they are welcome to attend, they are prohibited to speak. The Board’s formal session on December 4 will be the time for the public to speak. Mr. Vervoort noted that he did not realize that there already is a plan for the proposed redevelopment area and that troubles him. It seems like this plan/developer is driving the bus and he thought we were. Mr. Vervoort could see Lots 9, 10, 11, 17 as the lots addressed for redevelopment, as that is the corner of Franklin Turnpike and E. Prospect Street and the most visible with fewest residential and less residential impact. He questioned why the plan is for the back and not the front. Mr. Vervoort wonders if it is to appease the planners, and why we are doing it this way, as it does not seem right to him. Ms. Badalamenti noted that the Board had originally heard it was the whole block and then when it came back it was missing Rite Aid and accompanying lots. 1 Mr. Vervoort noted that he would much rather see the commercial entities go through the pain rather than the residential. Mr. Grygiel pointed out that the redevelopment area does include all of the lots. It was at the Mayor and Council’s discretion to move forward with this area first. Mr. Grygiel noted that this is the first he is seeing the conceptual plan. Mr. Vervoort felt that Lots 13, 17 and 11 and empty lots on the corner should be in the first phase of development, instead of Lots 1-8, which should be left for a later phase. He felt that making the area look pretty and still be near the train station would reap all of the benefit we are looking for and where we get more bang for the buck, The Board had received a conceptual architectural rendering from Craig Bossong, Borough Attorney, of a project for the redevelopment area. They also received architecturals of the newly constructed Ho Ho Kus Crossing development, so that the Board could visualize a building at a 50’ height. Mr. Ramundo questioned road widening and fire truck access. It was noted that this would be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Ramundo questioned storm water run-off. Mr. Grygiel noted that engineering standards would have to be met. Mr. Kowalski questioned the affordable housing units required. Mr. Grygiel explained the process and noted that the Mayor and Council would have to accept the number mandated by the State. The conceptual review has 42 units proposed with about 8 or 9 affordable units. There are credits from prior rounds. Mr. Singer questioned whether municipalities are being required to create these developments. Mr. Grygiel noted that the rules have just come out in the past few months, along with the data of how they came up with the numbers. January 31 is the deadline to accept the number or give an alternative. Ms. Badalamenti felt that a two story height would be sufficient. Mr. Mysliwiec noted that this is C-1 zone. All of the homes are rentals with the exception of one, with three owners of all of the lots. He felt if the price is right everyone will sell. In order for this concept to work they would have to have that piece of property. All of these are legally non-conforming. Mr..Mysliwiec noted that when the Zazzetti Street station came for approval, the height was a concern because there was residential on the other side. Mr. Mysliwiec does not have an issue with four stories and noted that the last stories are recessed, and he likes the concept. Mr. Grygiel noted that the standard for the affordable housing units is 15% for rentals and 20% for residential. He noted that there is a formula you must follow for how many 1, 2 or 3 bedrooms. Mr. Mysliwiec noted that many businesses rely on the parking in the Rite Aid parking lot for their day to day operations. If something is done on that lot he feels there should be parking left there. They have been great neighbors. 2 Mr. Oravetz commented on the Ho Ho Kus and Allendale residential/retail units recently built, and noted they are oversized and out of character. Mr. Oravetz questioned who had paid for the conceptual drawing the Board received for information. Mr. Mysliwiec noted that it is a rendition of what it might look like. Mr. Oravetz felt is it too large of a building for this area and it would look way out of place, as he feels the one in Ho Ho Kus is. Mr. Oravetz noted the rentals in the Allendale units go in the range of $4,000 and those in the Train Station go up to $6,000. Mr. Oravetz indicated that for the people who live in town, he does not think they could afford it. Mr. Oravetz noted there are six open units in the train station building. Mr. Grygiel noted that 20% of the leased apartments will need to be affordable dwellings, and 15% for privately owned. The rents of the affordable units are set by regulations. Mr. Oravetz commented that Waldwick does not have the area to re develop, in order to do this we have to knock down existing housing. If Waldwick does not have open space, are we forced to do this? Mr. Mysliwiec noted that reducing the concept to two stories would not be feasible for a developer. The economics will not allow it - there has to be a point of return. Ms. Badalmenti noted the residential/retail unit in Ho Ho Kus is obtrusive and she felt awful when it was being built and thought this just does not belong there. She questioned how many people would be living in this concept and it was noted there are 42 proposed units, approximately 80 - 100 people. Mr. Grygiel noted that wherever there is a train station and good schools there is a demand for this type of housing. Mr. Grygiel noted there is room for two or three retails in the conceptual plan. Mr. Singer noted that he would need a sense from the Board at this point as to the Board’s recommendation. Ms. Badalamenti noted it feels like we are being rushed. Mr. Singer noted that the statute says we have 45 days since it was referred to us. We were being urged to have the recommendations at the last meeting. We need to have a feel of what we are going to do. Mr. Singer noted that the fundamental issue is whether this concept is in general consistency with the master plan. Mr. Singer noted that it does not seem unreasonable to argue that it is. Mr. Singer noted that in terms of use and idea, when you get to the specifics, the devil is in the details. We can draft something saying that it is generally consistent, with pushback about the size. We are talking about 42 residential units 4,000 sq. ft. of retail and 80 parking spaces where 120 is required. Mr. Grygiel noted that redevelopment allows for a reduction in parking requirements. Mr. Singer noted that it is nagging at him, that it was suggested to this Board that the original area of need for redevelopment including condemnation power, was being done to guard against bankruptcy of Rite Aid, but this plan is not looking at Rite Aid, but is lowering the guns of condemnation power to the other side of this area. Mr. Singer noted his concern that this Board explained to the public one thing, but this condemnation power is going along with something else. 3 Mr. Vervoort noted that when he voted yes the first time, his consideration was more the Rite Aid property in need of redevelopment, which is the side that needs to be cleaned up. Now he sees this and it is different from what he thought when saying yes to the redevelopment plan. Mr. Singer noted that it is the Board Planner’s opinion that this is consistent with the master plan. Ms. Badalament feels two stories should be the height limit. Mr. Panfile questioned Lot 11. If the hair cut place stays, their parking would be taken away. Mr. Grygiel noted that their parking would apply to the new building. Mr. Kowalski questioned if there was any other developer interested in this area. Mr. Grygiel did not have any knowledge of that. Mr. Singer noted that the Board’s concerns seem to be the size and height of the building, concept, parking and that it does not account for 13 Prospect. The Board thought it included all of the lots and now it does not. Mr. Vervoort questioned if we recommend no, can the Mayor and Council still override. Mr. Singer said yes, they can as we do not have the power to shut this down. This is similar to when the Board of Education comes before the Board with projects, it is a courtesy. This Board has on occasion suggested continuation of sidewalks from Wyckoff Ave to Prospect and yet there are no sidewalks. Mr. Singer reviewed what it sounds like the Board’s recommendations would be: Acknowledge that the proposal for the 8 lots in question is generally consistent with the master plan; however, the Board specifically recommends against going beyond the current zoning height, maximum 35 feet, 2 1/2 stores, and further that despite the proposal for reduced parking requirements, the parking by the proposal must be re- evaluated in light of fact it does not address the existing use at Lot 13. Finally, the Board has concerns about the fact that although understanding of the nature of the situation, there is concern with the lack of comprehensive redevelopment for the entire area. Mr. Posillico questioned if the Board recommends no, based on height, and the Mayor and Council accepts, does it kill the whole thing. Mr. Singer noted the developers may not be able to come down in the end. Mr. Singer related knowing of a proposed condo development in Haledon that went back and forth with Haledon. The Borough said that it was too many units and the developer cut it back, then they said it is still too many and they shaved off one or two more, but then it does not become economically viable. The developer ultimately then said he was not going to develop it and it was sold to a house of worship and by so doing, the Borough lost the tax revenue entirely. The cautionary tale is you can cut off your nose to spite your face, but by the same token if "you don't ask, you don't get." No one is going to propose less than what they want, but what they want does not have to be what they really need. That is where the Mayor and Council come in. 4 At the next meeting the Board will hear from the public. There is no final vote this evening, the content of the letter is preliminary. The Board may want to shift where the letter is pointing based upon what is heard at the public hearing. This is doable and the letter can be amended. The time deadline falls on Friday, December 6. Mr. Singer noted that tonight’s work session was a discussion and this is not to be discussed outside of this Board. It is still an open matter before the Board and as such it cannot be discussed with the public or amongst yourself in groups, small or large - to do so is in a violation of the open public meetings act. Any and all commentary has to happen here. If and when there is a formal site plan, the Board will have opportunity to look at details. Mr. Grygiel noted that the concept plan was given for information and felt there would be no benefit to having the developer come before the Board and it is not customary, as we may ask the same questions. Ms. Badalamenti, Mr. Wekarski, Mr. Vervoort, Mr. Ramundo, Mr. Possilico and Mr. Panfile were in agreement for Mr. Singer to write the letter to the Mayor and Council indicating that while the Board finds it consistent with the Master Plan, specifically, the Board does not approve it based on height and parking focus. Mr. Mysliwiec noted he would be in approval of the proposal as it stands. The next formal session will be held on December 4. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. Joyce C. Sinclair, Secretary 5