Call to Order
Chair Wynn called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm and announced that the meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and that the meeting is being recorded and can be viewed on the Township website or on Channel 34.
Roll Call
Chair Wynn, Vice Chair Brodock, Councilor Schlager, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Willis, and Ms. Loughman were present. Mr. Gilmer arrived at 8:00. Mr. Ianuale and Mr. Barr were excused. Board Attorney Robert Muñoz, Board Engineer Thomas Watkinson, Michael Dannemiller from NV5, Gerard Giosa from Level G Associates and Planning Director Janice Talley were also present.
Minutes
A motion to approve the minutes from the November 26, 2018 meeting as amended was made by Chair Wynn, seconded by Mr. Schwartz and approved with Ms. Willis and Vice Chair Brodock abstaining. A motion to approve the December 5, 2018 minutes as amended was made by Ms. Loughman, seconded by Councilor Schlager and approved unanimously with Mr. Gilmer abstaining.
Application 2543: Lackawanna SPE, LLC – Lackawanna Plaza. (Block 3213, Lot 2 and Block 4202, Lots 4.01 and 4.02)
Thomas, Trautner, Esq., attorney for the applicant, stated that he concluded his presentation at the December 3 meeting.
Kathleen Bennett, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, introduced Thomas Connolly of Connolly and Hickey, the Commission’s Historic Preservation Consultant. Mr. Connolly stated his credentials and was accepted by the Board.
Mr. Trautner objected to the Historic Preservation Commission putting on their own expert and questioned why the applicant did not receive his report in advance of the meeting. He stated that this is a conflict of interest since the Historic Preservation Commission already voted on a resolution regarding the application. Chair Wynn stated that the Board has not seen Mr. Connolly’s report, either.
Mr. Connolly stated that he did not prepare a written report intended for the applicant or Planning Board. He read his comments into the record, stating that while the train sheds are not Lincoln Bush train sheds, they are included in the description of the site in the National Register of Historic Places notation. He stated that Dr. Bedford has an outdated approach to historic preservation. Mr. Connolly noted that the Lackawanna Train Station in downtown Montclair is a significant architectural and engineering resource reflective of the expansion of the American railroad system at the turn of the 20th century. The significance of the station includes the station, the adjoining train platforms including the sheds, and the various entrance points for both pedestrians and the trains. He emphasized that train stations were a new form of architecture when passenger service was added in the late-19th century. He noted that the overhanging roofs or canopies are defining architectural features in station architecture.
Mr. Connolly stated that the train sheds at the Lackawanna Station are the result of the evolution of the Lincoln Bush‐type shed which evolved until they were abandoned for the butterfly shed like the ones used at the Lackawanna Station which are a more economical design. He stated that the sheds are an important part of the railroad complex with direct connections to the passenger station that provide an understanding of the scale of the facility.
Mr. Connolly stated that it is important to view the building or site in the context of its overall historical evolution. He stated that prior to its redevelopment in the 1980s, the station was documented by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) with the probable foresight that demolition was possible given its long time of underutilization and historical trends. He noted that demolition did not occur with its adaptation to a shopping mall because the sheds were incorporated into the design in an innovative manner. He stated that repurposing a prominent architectural feature into a new structure while retaining the rhythm, scale and proportions of the original is a particular goal in adaptive reuse.
Mr. Connolly stated that the Lackawanna Station can be adaptively reused again to respond to current and future retail needs including maintaining the structural integrity of the sheds and their canopies in a new design. He stated that removing them from their context for use as light fixtures or signage is not the appropriate form of preservation. Rather, applying the same principals as employed in the 1980s by using them as the structural rhythm for sensitive infill would once again reinforce the value of their preservation for the next generation.
Chair Wynn asked for the exact language in the historic designation by the federal government. Kathleen Bennett, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, was sworn in. She identified the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Board.
Chair Wynn asked why the train platforms are historically important if the National Register of Historic Places form appears to designate the building, not the site. Mr. Connolly stated that he disagrees with the designation and that the entire property has to be considered, not just the building. Chair Wynn asked Mr. Connolly to provide the Board with a reference from the Secretary of Interior standards that the designation applies to the whole property, not just the building.
Chair Wynn asked about the impact of development during the 1980’s to the historic resources on the site, noting that the tracks were filled and covered. Mr. Connolly stated that he has walked the site and can identify the differences between the original elements and the new elements. He stated that the 1980’s project successfully adapted the historic elements without demolition.
Mr. Schwartz asked if the 1980’s modification destroyed the historic fabric of the site. Mr. Connolly stated that it did not. Mr. Schwartz asked if a supermarket is an appropriate adaptive reuse of the space today. Mr. Connolly stated that he is not concerned with the use; he is only concerned about the sheds and stanchions. He noted that the goal is to retain everything in its historic location and that the relocation of the stanchions is a detriment.
Vice Chair Brodock asked if Mr. Connolly has reviewed the 1983 site plan. Mr. Connolly responded that he has not. Vice Chair Brodock asked why is only the building listed in the National Register Inventory Form. Mr. Connolly responded that if the Nomination Report is revised, it would include the whole site because the train station includes both the building and the platforms.
Mr. Trautner asked that the term “train sheds” not be used as the site does not contain a train sheds and that “butterfly canopies” is the proper term. Mr. Connolly stated that “butterfly canopies” are an evolution of the Lincoln Bush train sheds. Mr. Trautner asked if the listing on the National Register precludes demolition. Mr. Connolly stated that listing does not preclude demolition, but that adaptive reuse is important and that the 1980’s adaptive reuse of the site is a good project.
Mr. Trautner asked if the fact that 82 of the 98 columns will remain in place is an important consideration. Mr. Connolly responded that all columns should remain in place and that he objects to the removal of 16 columns.
Mr. Trautner asked how many columns are currently buried within the walls in the shopping center. Mr. Connolly stated that he does not know the answer.
The public was invited to question Mr. Connolly.
Frank Rubacky of 398 Upper Mountain Avenue asked about the original purpose of the train sheds. Mr. Connolly stated that their purpose was to provide shelter. Mr. Rubacky asked if adaptive reuse of the train sheds should provide shelter. Mr. Connolly stated that adaptive reuse of the canopies without the shelter aspect is not a good adaptive reuse.
Kevin Amin of the South Ward asked if Mr. Connolly had considered the cost and benefits of retaining all of the historic resources on the site, noting that if the project is not completed in a timely fashion, the South Ward will suffer. Mr. Connolly responded that adaptive reuse of the building that retains the original structures in their current location is a better solution. Chair Wynn asked if a better solution could include some degree of compromise. Mr. Connolly responded that he cannot answer that question.
Frank Gerard Godlewski of 249 Runnymede Road in Essex Fells asked if removal of the train sheds would ruin the archetypical status of this historic landmark. Mr. Connolly responded that it would.
Cesar Estella asked if the site was designated as a historic landmark. Mr. Connolly responded that the site is a designated historic landmark.
David Placek of 218 South Mountain Avenue asked about the developer’s legal responsibility for a designated historic property. Mr. Connolly responded that the developer has no legal obligation unless federal funds are used. Mr. Placek asked for details about the difference between a train shed and a butterfly platform canopy. Mr. Connolly responded that the butterfly canopies covered only the platform, not the tracks. Mr. Placek asked if the butterfly canopies were still important historic resources if they have been radically changed through welding and other alterations. Mr. Connolly stated that it depends on the amount of alterations.
Kirsten Giardi of Greenwood Avenue asked if the Board is required to deny the demolition permit if there is no government funding. Mr. Connolly responded that the Board is not required to deny the demolition permit.
Bruce Haines of Queens, NY asked if the iconic nature of the building is important. Mr. Connolly responded that the terminal building is iconic as is the first platform shed, which has not been disturbed.
Adam Baker of 38 Christopher Street asked if the characterization by Dr. Bedford of the impact of the 1980’s renovation to the butterfly canopies has merit. Mr. Connolly responded that he disagrees with Dr. Bedford because the original work is very discernable from the new additions. Mr. Trautner asked if removal of the platform canopies would injure the architecture. Mr. Connolly stated that any good design would retain the historic assets in their original location. Kathleen Bennett stated that this is why the Historic Preservation Commission asked for a thorough assessment of the historic resources on the site. Mr. Trautner stated that Sheet AR103 of the site plan for the 1980’s renovation shows which stanchions are not original.
John Reimnitz of 189 Highland Avenue and David Greenbaum or Lloyd Road made a presentation to the Board showing an alternative plan for the site. Mr. Reimnitz provided his credentials as an architect and was accepted by the Board as an expert and sworn in. Mr. Greenbaum was not accepted by the Board as an expert, but was allowed to provide testimony as prat of Mr. Reimnitz’s presentation.
Mr. Greenbaum reviewed the Township Master Plan. The Board stated that Mr. Greenbaum is not a professional planner and should concentrate on his ideas for the property. Mr. Greenbaum stated that enlarging the parking field in front of the supermarket is inconsistent with the master plan and the character of the Bloomfield Avenue corridor. He recommended that the Pathmark building be demolished and the train sheds be retained in their current location and adapted to create a new supermarket.
Ms. Loughman asked if this presentation was made to the applicant. Mr. Greenbaum responded that it was.
Mr. Reimnitz discussed how the train sheds can be adapted into a new structure for the supermarket.
The Board asked if Mr. Reimnitz had considered other practical considerations involving their plan such as parking and loading. Mr. Reimnitz said that they have not fully vetted these considerations.
Mr. Schwartz asked if building a supermarket as proposed by Mr. Reimnitz would be a massive undertaking creating a significant cost burden to the applicant. Mr. Reimnitz responded that it is not more expensive, but comes down to a conceptual use of space by the tenant.
The Board asked about the location of mechanical equipment. Mr. Reimnitz stated that it would be in the center of the roof and not visible.
Kathleen Bennett testified that the Historic Preservation Commission has endorsed this plan and one of multiple potential alternatives because it does not require the demolition of any historic resources. She noted that circulation, parking, loading and traffic considerations were not part of the Historic Preservation Commission’s purview.
Mr. Trautner asked if the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) took a vote on the site plan. Ms. Bennett responded that the HPC voted on the plan and the result of that vote is included in the memo to the Planning Board. Mr. Trautner asked if the HPC voted on the plan at its meeting on September 17. Ms. Bennett responded that they voted on the plan at that time and supplemented their recommendation at a later meeting. The Board asked for copies of the HPC minutes when the Lackawanna Plaza application was discussed.
Kevin Amin asked who would lease an open-air market space as being proposed by Mr. Reimnitz. Mr. Reimnitz responded that they did not conduct a market survey.
David Placek asked if Mr. Reimnitz has examples of supermarkets that work with this kind of design. Mr. Reimnitz provided examples of public markets, not supermarkets. Mr. Placek stated that philosophically he agrees with the concept but he does not know if it is practically viable. He stated that Montclair does not have the population to make this project work, noting that it will not meet the need of the community. He has not seen any examples of supermarkets that work with this kind of design.
Mr. Rubacky asked how the space would be used if a supermarket was not the tenant. Mr. Reimnitz responded that it depends upon the individual tenant.
Justin Waldman of 11 Seymour Street stated that the result may be no grocery store because of the specificity in the design, creating a potential food desert.
Linda Cranston of Alexander Avenue noted that the Board’s supermarket expert Brad Knab said that adaptive reuse of the train sheds would be a beautiful supermarket.
John Reimnitz stated that his plan is a conceptual layout.
The public hearing was continued to the next Planning Board meeting on January 14, 2019. Frank Rubacky asked if he would be allowed to present his presentation at that meeting. Chair Wynn asked Mr. Rubacky to send his presentation to the Board Secretary and Board Attorney so that the Board can determine how it will be presented.
Council Referral of Ordinance 18-045 – Amendment to Hahne’s Redevelopment Plan.
Ms. Talley reported that the Redevelopment Subcommittee had met and discussed the amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and submitted a report that summarized their recommendations. Vice Chair Brodock asked if the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The Board agreed with the recommendations from the subcommittee and determined that the report is consistent with the Master Plan. A motion was made by Vice Chair Brodock to submit the report to the Council with the amendment concerning its consistency with the Master Plan. The motion was seconded by Chair Wynn and approved unanimously. The Board decided that Ms. Talley should send the report to the Redevelopment Subcommittee for final review before submitting it to the Council.
Resolutions for Board Professionals
The Board discussed the resolutions for appointment of a Board Attorney, Conflict Counsel, Parking Expert, Engineer for Existing Applications, and Traffic Engineer. Vice Chair Brodock pointed out that the hourly rates for Traffic Engineer are significantly higher than other Board experts and requested that the Ms. Talley ask if the rates could be reduced. Ms. Talley stated that she will reach out to the firm to see if they have a reduced rate for municipal clients. A motion was made by Vice Chair Brodock to approve all of the resolutions as amended except for Traffic Engineer, seconded by Chair Wynn and approved unanimously.
Payment of Bills
A motion to pay bills was made by Vice Chair Brodock, seconded by Councilor Schlager and approved unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 am.