City of Trenton
Planning Board
Conference and Public Hearing
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Trenton City Hall
APPROVED
May 14, 2015
Planning Board
Conference Session
Members in Attendance:
Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, Acting Chair
David Peiffer
Elmer Sandoval
Anthony Santora
Wanda Swiggett
Peter Yull
Members Not in Attendance:
Jeff Halpern, Chair
Shirley Bridgewater-Sims, Vice Chair
Douglas Hughes
Mario Laurenti
Sasa Montano
Staff in Attendance:
Jeffrey Wilkerson, Principal Planner
Stephani Register, Senior Planner
Regine Saintilien, Assistant Planner
Cherry Oakley, Planning Board Secretary
George McGill, Temporary Planning Board Attorney
CONFERENCE SESSION
Ms. Reynolds- Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:23pm.
Mr. Yull made a motion to approve the minutes of March 26, 2015. Ms. Swiggett seconded the
motion. All were in favor.
Update on the Master Plan250: The Melvin Group will be at the next Board meeting to talk about
the language around the development of the plan. He noted that he was going to have some ‘asks’
for the Redevelopment Committee ask if they were able to identify issues and concerns specific to
the Redevelopment Plans, which will offer the Committee some meaningful work and focus to the
scope of the work and offer his firm some assistance in assessing the Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated that in forming the committee there may be members of the Zoning Board
that might want to be part of the Redevelopment Committee to assist in the review.
1
He also noted that the Melvin Group suggested that a Committee might also be formed to look at
the competing Zoning requirements that hinder the Planning and development process. This
committee might also be a joint committee between the two Boards.
Mr. Wilkerson made a presentation to the County Planning Board to secure a resolution to
acknowledge and support Trenton’s Vision Element. At the next meeting the resolution will most
likely be granted. Mr. Wilkerson is working on acquiring that same level of acknowledgement at the
State level.
April 23rd a Volunteer Training for Trenton250 to help facilitate the event that will be on April 25th.
The training will be held at 5:30pm, right before the Planning Board meeting. Andrew Bobbitt,
Director of Citizens Concerns, will be helping with outreach for this process. Mr. Wilkerson asked
for the Board to help with getting the word out about the event via each Board Member’s
distribution lists. Each Council Member is being asked to participate and to provide lunches for
each of the volunteers from their Ward.
Ms. Reynolds-Jackson mentioned to the Bonner Foundation information about the Trenton250
process and suggested that the staff use the Bonner Students to help on-going with outreach and
dissemination of information as this process can be integrated into their educational curriculum.
There will be an Issue and Opportunities report that will be developed in this process and have 3
segments to it.
The Community Action Plan for the Health and Food Systems Element of the Trenton250 that was
submitted on March 31st will be sent electronically.
Next Meeting:
No information shared
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Reynolds-Jackson called the Public Hearing of the called to order 7:55pm
Mr. McGill made an announcement that the matter related to Item #2 has been moved for review to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment and will be heard on May 20, 2015. Mr. Anthony J. Apicelli, Esq.,
acknowledged the transfer of the application to the Zoning Board on behalf of the applicant.
Case began at 7:59pm
Item #1
14-P-399WE- 399 West State Street-Trenton, NJ
Applicant seeks waiver for a Major Site Plan and an Approval for a Minor Site Plan to renovate an
existing building into 5 apartments along with improvements to the 19 off-street paved parking
areas. Applicant shall testify regarding the variance for minimum net habitable area where 650sqft
is required and 562sqft is proposed for apartment #3. The site is available for shared parking. The
applicant appeared before the board on January 22, 2015 and by request from the Board, the
applicant must re-appear for major site plan submission. The Site is located in a Mixed Use (MU)
2
Zone District -Location Address, 399 West State Street; City Tax Map Block(s) 2902, Lot(s) 21.0;
Applicant, Mercer Property Partners, 1200 River Rd., Titusville, NJ 08560.
Mr. McGill indicated that the applicant has requested numerous waivers and is asking to amend the
application to include the variance for the apartment unit that is undersized. The Board all noted that
the applicant could proceed with the application as amended.
Mr. D. Justin Massimo, of Mercer Asset Partners, of Titusville, NJ was sworn in and testified that
he is the developer on the project and reviewed the other properties in the City that he has been
involved in leasing and developing. He noted that the plan for renovating this property is to convert
it into high quality workforce housing to address the demand in the City.
There will be minor repairs and limited exterior work done, such as updating the exterior paint and
replacing the soffits. The interior of the building will be renovated and have a new HVAC system
and electrical system installed. The flooring will be replaced and each unit will have a new kitchen
and bathroom. There is not exterior development work currently planned. The size of the building
and the exterior design of the property will remain the same. There is a parking lot attached to the
building that provides 19 parking spaces, which is in excess of what is required. The parking lot is
currently striped and no changes will be made to the parking lots configuration.
Mercer Asset Partners has their own property management company and will be responsible for the
on-going maintenance and management of the property. All of the residents in their buildings have
Mr. Massimo’s personal cell phone number so he can be available to address concerns.
A sub-contracted landscaper will maintain the general maintenance of the exterior of the property.
Trash removal will be a 3rd party vendor for the trash and recycling management. The landscaping
contractor will also handle snow removal. Several two-yard totes will be provided to the residents to
address their trash and recycling needs. These totes will be stored adjacent to the garage that is
closest to the apartment building. Most of the materials for the maintenance of the building will be
stored on site in the storage areas of the building, including the basement and the garage.
The existing lighting that is on the building will be used. The current lighting scheme was designed
for office use which means the parking lot is very well lit. As lights and bulbs deteriorate the
applicant will replace them.
Mr. Daniel Fortunato, Architect, was sworn in and presented his credentials and was accepted as an
expert before this Board. He noted that the main goal was to maintain the character of this Tudor
style building. As the building has been well maintained there is little change that is needed, such as
changing the windows to be egress windows (1 per bedroom) as required by code.
Mr. Fortunato testified that in trying to maintain the interior character and integrity of the building
they have tried to work around the staircase in the center of the building. With this staircase in
place, creating a two bedroom apartment in the building caused one of the apartments to become
undersized by code. If additional space were pursued to bring the undersized apartment into
compliance it would require exterior walls to be moved or to go 88sq ft. into apartment #4 and make
the kitchen area and part of the living area in that apartment unusable for a two-bedroom apartment.
The undersized apartment however is adequate in size for a single person and keeps the footprint of
the building from changing.
3
Regarding the flow of traffic, the business use required it to be one-way traffic. If 5 of the stalls
were removed it is possible to get two-way traffic with 90 degree angled parking instead of solely
angled parking with a one directional traffic pattern. Currently the plan is to maintain the one-way
parking that is currently facilitated there.
Mr. Fortunato indicated that it would not be an issue to replace the asphalt with concrete in the
parking lot. He reviewed all 17 items on the Lanning Engineering report, agreed to comply with
almost all conditions cited, and explained all points except item 4 as it related to Engineering.
Given that the applicant had a formal survey done, he noted that he could not speak to why there
was a 4 ft. discrepancy noted. Waivers were requested on items 7 and 8 and the applicant noted that
they have removed Item #13 because of the concerns of the Planning Staff. There will be no tree
removal and the applicant has asked that this requirement be waived. The applicant also requested
that the requirement to show all proposed and existing bridges on the plans be waived, since there
will be no bridges built on or inside of the property. A waiver is requested from the requirement of
providing a landscape survey of topographical issues as no soil will be disturbed on the site and the
drainage will remain in place and unchanged from what it has been for the past 100 years.
Mr. Fortunato provided an overview of each apartment that will be built in this property. Apartment
#2 will be barrier free accessible apartment. Mr. Massimo also reviewed how the purchase of the
property was done.
Ms. Reynolds-Jackson asked if there was anyone in the chamber who wanted to speak for or against
this project.
Mr. Damond Green, of Trenton, NJ was sworn in and testified that there is a large problem with
drainage. His property is adjacent to this property and he noted that for the last 10 years he has been
personally keeping the small drain open in an attempt to keep his property and this property from
flooding. He noted that a small barrier that used to keep the snow on their property and prevented
the drain from being covered is now gone so the drain gets covered easily.
Mr. Green noted that twice cars coming through the parking lot have hit his house and not stopping
because the barrier that used to be there is not there to stop the cars. Also, when people come home
and through that parking lot his house gets lit up each time someone comes downwards in the
parking lot because there is no longer a barrier or buffer for the light.
Mr. Green stated that where the trash has been kept there has been an influx of ground hogs, skunks,
and rodents because that area is so easily accessible and overrun with trash from non-residents
dumping. He also noted that someone keeps breaking into the garage and living there in the last 4-5
months even after someone is called to remove the person.
Mr. Green noted that the hedges are 10-12 feet high but they are not kept trimmed. He stated that he
has asked the landscapers to cut them, but he was given a hard time so he had to cut them himself.
Mr. Stephen Slusher, of Trenton, NJ, also a resident on the street of this project was sworn in and
noted that he lives one house down from this proposed property. He noted that since the current
owner has taken possession of this property there has been no snow removal. He noted that there
has not been any trash picked up on this property.
4
Mr. Slusher asserted that he because this is a historic district it is not permitted to divide up a single
family home into small apartments as it will cause the building to be out of character in this
neighborhood when considering the existing homes.
Mr. Slusher provided the Board 2 photos (marked Exhibit O-1 & Exhibit O-2) illustrating the
condition of the sidewalks that are attributable to this property. Mr. Slusher stated that the sidewalks
need to be replaced and maintained.
He recommended that an additional landscaping as a buffer and the replacement of the barrier
should be put in place between the applicant’s property and Mr. Green’s property to help protect
Mr. Green’s property. He also noted that there is unnecessarily a large number of parking spaces in
excess of what is required for this project. There is very little in the way of ground based
landscaping and in consideration of the need for reducing the impervious coverage in this area he
recommended that the number of parking spaces be reduced to be more in line with what the needs
of the building are for the number of living areas planned and replace those spaces with a permeable
surface to help reduce flooding.
He noted that there is an elaborate metal fire escape on the back of the building that looks like it
needs significant repair. Mr. Slusher believes there are issues with the materials that will be used to
repair this fire escape. He noted that currently is a mix of materials there.
Mr. Massimo returned to testify that since the purchase of the building in April of 2014 they have
been trying to get the property back into use and the issues that Mr. Green and Mr. Slusher have
highlighted he has not been aware of and in light of these stated concerns he will be speaking with
the landscaper about these concerns. He noted that what has been noted is unacceptable to him as he
wants to maintain the property in harmony with the neighborhood. He noted that the trash that keeps
accumulating on the property is likely because the building is not in use, and once the property is
reactivated such issues such as the regular external maintenance of the hedges, snow and trash
removal issues will abate. He noted that he will provide his personal cell phone number to any
concerned neighbors so that any issues that are not properly addressed can be properly addressed.
Mr. Massimo stated that the Landmarks Commission approved the plans. The applicant has
promised this Commission that if there were any external changes that would be made they would
have those changes reviewed by that Commission. He noted that directly across the street from the
proposed property there is another converted single family home with multiple apartments in it.
There is another single family home diagonal from their current property that was also converted to
a multi-family unit but it is currently blighted and the applicant has a plan to rehab that building as
well if an agreement can be made with the current owner.
Mr. Massimo noted that in 1908 the current building was built as a single family home but has been
used as an office building for a significant period of time. Since the current company has owned the
building there has been a subcontractor there to remove trash and do some exterior maintenance but
since it is uninhabited it is difficult to stem the tide of what happens there on a daily basis, although
the applicant keeps trying.
He noted that if there are any issues with a broken sidewalk he will be happy to replace it and make
repairs. Related to the fire escape, he is aware that it is in need of some repair and if any changes are
5
needed to the character of the fire escape the applicant will return to the Landmarks Commission to
gain approval for any changes that need to be made.
There are no plans to install a barrier along the backside of the property between this property and
Mr. Green’s property, but the applicant will install a fence there in order to make it more difficult to
run into Mr. Green’s home if it be the Board’s condition placed on this application. The Board
concurred that the applicant should contain this condition.
Referencing the applicant’s Exhibits Mr. Green showed the applicant where the small drain is
located on the plans for the site. He noted that this drain gets clogged and is covered during snow
removal and causes drainage problems that enter onto Mr. Green’s property.
Mr. Fortunato indicated that he can assess the pitch to the property and the status of the drainage to
consider a plan for addressing the concerns stated. He noted that the property line ends right at the
end of the asphalt and that is likely why cars have hit Mr. Green’s home. There are several
makeshift parking spaces in the rear of the property and this is probably exacerbating the problem.
He noted that if the curb is extended out that will help with the issue of the snow removal and help
cars to stop before running into Mr. Green’s home as they would have to hit the curb first and then
have to hop over that in order to continue towards Mr. Green’s home.
Mr. Slusher indicated that the brick wall is only about 2 ft high and is in disrepair and doesn’t
provide a water barrier or anything. It is simply a pile of bricks at this time. Mr. Massimo indicated
that the wall will be removed or repaired.
Mr. Wilkerson, Principal Planner for the City of Trenton, was sworn in and reiterated the staff’s
recommendation for approval of this application. Mr. Wilkerson acknowledged that this will be a
blighted property that will be brought back to life and the use that is proposed is a permitted use in
this area of Trenton. Mr. Wilkerson suggested that they consider a gravel parking lot instead of an
asphalt parking lot in order to improve the drainage concerns noted by the neighbors.
Ms. Reynolds-Jackson asked if there was anyone else in the chamber who wanted to speak for or
against this project. With no answer from the gallery the following vote was set forth:
Conditions for approval:
 Applicant will address the drainage issues on the property and take such measures to
address them
 The snow plowing will not result in any of the snow being pushed up against Mr.
green’s property
 The applicant will keep the hedges trimmed and the external property landscaped
 The broken sidewalks will be repaired
 The garbage will be kept in the garage and out of view of the neighbors
 Construct a fence along the rear side of the property to protect Mr. Green’s property
and home from vehicle traffic on the applicant’s property
 Extend the curb in that area in the rear of the property to keep cars from entering onto
Mr. Green’s property
 Repair or replace the rear wall
6

Stipulations to the conditions to the Lanning letter – repairing the sidewalks, put in
signage as recommended, install a ADA parking space, complete site plan checklist
 Return to the Landmarks Commission for changes to the exterior or the fire escape
Application site plan approval and variance relief for the size of unit #3 and waivers to
submission and checklist requirements as necessary subject to the conditions as noted above;
except those stipulated to in the testimony:
Member
Verlina Reynolds-Jackson,
Acting Chair
David Peiffer
Elmer Sandoval
Anthony Santora
Wanda Swiggett
*Peter Yull
Aye Nay
Abstain
Motioned
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seconded
X
X
Comment On Vote:
*Mr. Yull indicated that he would prefer that there would be fewer parking spaces and room for
landscaping in that area.
Case ended at 9:36pm
Item #2
15-P-819PR -819 Prospect Street-Trenton NJ
MOVED TO ZONING
Applicant seeks Approval for a Conditional Use Permit proposing to use the premises as a church.
The only exterior change anticipated is striping of the parking lot for 11 parking spaces. The
applicant request waiver of setbacks pursuant to Sec., 315-104 and a Waiver of Site Plan approval.
The Site is located in the Mixed Use (MU) Zone district – Location Address, 819 Prospect Street,
City Tax Map Block(s) 5403 Lot(s) 1; Applicant, Faithful Missionary Baptist Church represented
by Anthony Apicelli Jr., Esq., 2121 State Highway 33, Hamilton, NJ 08690.
Meeting adjourned at 9:37pm
Respectfully submitted by Cherry Oakley
7