Garwood Planning Board – Comprehensive Meeting Notes (Certificates of Non-Conformity, Sign Ordinance Overhaul)

Roll Call & Preliminary Actions

Moment of silence and flag salute.
Attendance recorded:
- Mayor Blumentstock – present
- Ms. Lysak – present
- Councilman Carney – present
- Chair Greed – present
- Ms. Villaggio – present
- (Other members such as Mr. Nearstad, Ms. Hay, Ms. Bianco noted later in meeting as voting.)
Review of minutes from 28 May meeting
- Motion to accept “as-is” made and seconded
- Voice vote: unanimous “Aye” → minutes approved

Application PB25-04 — 54 Third Avenue (Garden Apartment Complex)

Parties & Representation

Applicant: Gardens (contract purchaser of property)
Legal counsel: Mark Liebman (CSG Law)
Expert witness: Catherine Gregory, PP/AICP (licensed professional planner)
Missing but mentioned: Borough planner Don Fraser (later joins discussion)

Requested Relief

Certificate of pre-existing non-conformity for a 36-unit garden apartment in the RA (single-family) zone

Key Evidence Presented

Complex built ≈ $1938\text{–}1940$ (≈ 85 years old)
Tax assessor re-valuation (≈ 2017) lists building age ≈ 79 yrs
2012 appraisal/tax card corroborates 1940 build date
OPRA requests to borough & county yielded no construction files → inference that structure predates zoning
1906, 1936 & 2018 tax maps show assembled oversized lot relative to 20 ft plats on block
- 1936 map already shows consolidated lot
Architectural style (brick garden apts) typical 1940s–50s, no recent construction signs

Planner Catherine Gregory’s Summary (≈ 5-min overview)

Site & Zoning Context
- Mid-block parcel in an otherwise single-family district
- Never rezoned, yet multifamily has remained for decades
Historic Mapping
- 1906: uniform 20 ft lots
- 1936: lot consolidation evident → implies pre-zoning existence
- 2018: same as 1936, confirms long-standing footprint
Document Search
- Reviewed land-use ordinances: Chapter 42 (undated), 1982 re-examination, 2003 ordinance, 2009 master plan, 2023 re-exam
- No ordinance found that legalized a newer build → default to
  “grandfathered” status
Age Confirmation
- Tax card shows “Year built = 1940”
- Re-val age math matches
Conclusion — structure clearly predates RA zoning → merits certificate

Board Q&A / Discussion

Board attorney (Don Fraser): question is factual – does it predate zoning? If yes, board can affirm.
Concerns voiced by Mr. Nearstad about lack of building permits, dumpsters/striping maintenance, shade-tree care.
Assurance from counsel that new owner will:
- Perform site housekeeping & cosmetic upgrades
- Rehab units as they vacate (no expansions)
Clarified for public: certificate does not allow expansion; any expansion would need a $d(1)$ use variance (stringent standard).

Public Comment

Tenant Jill Pall (12-yr resident) sworn in:
- Wants safe, well-maintained building; opposed earlier rezoning attempt; supports certificate provided rents remain fair & no density increase

Board Vote

Motion to approve certificate of non-conformity → UNANIMOUS AYE
Resolution to be drafted; closing expected in 60-90 days

Application PB25-05 — 59 Willow (?) / 59 ?? (Two-Family Residence)

(Transcript alternates between “59 Willow” and “59 ” — context clarifies it is a separate parcel in R-A zone)

Parties & Representation

Applicant/Owner: Fifty-Nine Willow LLC (family ownership since construction)
Counsel: Natasha Montalvo (Javerbaum Wurgaft)
Witness: Elizabeth Carew (family member, occupant)

Relief Sought

Certificate of non-conformity to confirm long-time 2-family use within now-single-family zone

Core Evidence

Construction & Conversion Timeline
- Built $1957$ as single-family; area zoned two-family at that time
- Building permit dated $17\,Oct\,1962$ : “Convert one-family to two-family” (key document)
- Rezoned to single-family sometime $1962\text{–}1974$ (1974 zoning map shows change)
Continuous Two-Family Occupancy
- Detailed family occupancy chronology:
  - 1957-62 single-family (grandparents)
  - 1962-65 two-family: grandparents + aunt (1F); parents + toddler (2F)
  - 1965-2000 swap floors (parents 1F, grandmother + aunt 2F)
  - 2000-17 parents 1F; sister + kids 2F
  - 2017-21 brother 1F; sister & kids then external tenant 2F
  - 2021-present: LLC owns; brother 1F, outside tenant 2F
Rationale for Certificate
- LLC formed 2022; realtor advised certificate for clear title to sell

Board Discussion & Vote

Board attorney: 1962 permit is “about the clearest evidence possible.”
Motion to grant certificate → UNANIMOUS AYE (Blumentstock & Carney abstain due to council roles)

Extension Request — Prior Resolution (2023-xx)

Applicant’s counsel could not access Zoom; extension letter submitted via colleague
Statutory allowance: up to 3 one-year extensions; applicant seeks 1-yr extension
Motion → UNANIMOUS AYE

Proposed Sign-Ordinance Overhaul

Background

Tasked months earlier (Kathy Villaggio & Mary-Anne Hay sub-committee) after Small Business Association requested permission for “feather flags.”
Existing sign code decades old; terminology & standards obsolete.

Key Additions & Revisions

New Section §106-147: Feathered Flags
- Defined as vertical fabric signs mounted on a flexible pole.
- Allowed zones: CBD, GB, CC, MU, LI (business & mixed-use).
- Permit required; $1-yr validity but display limited to:
  - New businesses: up to 2 months from opening
  - Existing businesses: $\le 28$ days/calendar year
- Placement:
  - On private property; if within ROW → written borough permission & possible insurance.
  - Minimum setback unless variance/permission.
- Wind restriction: must be removed when sustained wind $\ge 20\text{ mph}$ (per National Weather Service data at Newark Airport).
- Enforcement: any borough officer/employee; police empowered for emergent safety.
Political Signs
- Explicit max size $4\;\text{sq ft}$ (codifies long-standing practice).
Illumination Updates
- Allows external lighting (shielded, focused) in addition to internal illumination.
Dynamic Message Boards
- Permits non-scrolling, interval-changing LED/message signs (e.g., speed trailers) with timing standards TBD by council (≥ 30 s display per frame suggested).
Clean-Up of Definitions & Heights
- Facade sign height reduced from “20 ft/2-stories” to reflect borough building stock.
- Gender-neutral language (“his/her”).

Debate & Amendments During Meeting

Location of new section (keep as §147 vs. integrate) — left as §147.
Enforcement clarity added.
Permit duration vs. display limits clarified; language changed to “for no more than…”
Wind metric & data source specified (NWS Newark).
Typo fixes (gendered pronouns, “advertizement”).
Bill Nearstad objects to aesthetic impact of flags but votes “Aye” after amendments.

Vote to Forward to Council

Motion to recommend ordinance (with live-edited amendments) to Borough Council for adoption.
Roll-call: 7 Aye, 2 Abstain (Mayor Blumentstock & Councilman Carney, to preserve council neutrality).
Sub-committee also requests Harbor Consultants quote for:
- Remaining sign-code sections (factory/CC zones)
- New “Food-Truck” ordinance (multi-department inspections; reference Plainfield model)

Public Comment — Affordable-Housing Numbers (Bruce Patterson)

Claims borough mis-applied 3rd-round COAH rules; believes obligation should be 15 units, not 53.
Points to 25 % redevelopment requirement (§32-50) & vacancy-adjustment credits.
Suggests misinterpretation by borough counsel/planner; provides charts of surrounding towns (75 % avg decrease elsewhere).
Board attorney notes on record that planner Mr. Mistretta already rebutted Patterson’s analysis in writing and finds it “completely off-base.”
Chair enforces 5-min rule; Patterson exceeds but allowed extra time.

Adjournment

Motion to adjourn made & seconded
Voice vote “AYE” → meeting closed

Numerical / Statistical References

Garden Apts age: $\approx 85\;\text{years}$ (built $\sim 1940$ )
Two-family permit date: $17\,Oct\,1962$
Feather-flag limits:
- New biz: $\le 60\;\text{days}$
- Existing: $\le 28\;\text{days yr}^{-1}$
- Wind removal threshold: $\ge 20\;\text{mph}$ sustained
Political sign size: $4\;\text{sq ft}$
Affordable-housing debate: 25 % of $80$ → $20$ units; potential 5-unit bonus → $15$ units claimed

Practical / Ethical / Procedural Insights

Certificates of non-conformity secure lending & resale; do NOT authorize expansion.
Use-variance ( $d(1)$ ) is “extraordinarily unlikely” for further density in RA zone.
Maintenance (dumpsters, striping, tree care) can and should be improved even for grandfathered uses.
Ordinance drafting tips:
- Specify enforcement agency to survive municipal-court scrutiny.
- Reference objective data sources for weather-triggered rules.
- Provide gender-neutral phrasing and consistent definitions.
Public participation rights balanced with time limits; robust yet orderly discourse.