e I'm calling to order the regular meeting of the March 18th 2025 Township of burnard's planning board all rise for the flag salute I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
repic for it stands godice I'd like to put on the record that before today's meeting Miss Megan om Ali our alternate number two who's filling the onx fire two-year term of nobody it was vacant and expiring 1231
2026 was sworn in by our board attorney Mr Jonathan drill before the meeting and I'd also like to welcome this is the open public meeting statement for this meeting in accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of
1975 notice of this meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building Kier Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey was sent to the Bernardsville News whiy New Jersey to
The Courier News Bridgewater New Jersey on January 22nd 2025 and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the Bernards Township planning board there will be no new
cases heard after 10 p.m. and no new Witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. roll call Miss kefir please certainly uh chairwoman Master Angelo here Mr Crane here Mr kuzo here
Mr yoro here Mr linski here miss manduk I understand she'll be coming in later Mr Rabino here Mr sevil here Mr tanky here and for the record uh Miss Smith had advised me earlier she's unable to
attend M Ali here Mr drill here Mr good here Mr SCH here uh M mcmanis here miss ly here and for the record Miss Keir is present uh Madam chair you have a form you may proceed thank you may I have have a motion to excuse the absence of
Miss Julie Smith please I'll make that motion second thank you all in favor I and we'll hold reserve for Miss Mand I am in receipt of the minutes for the January 21st 2025 reorganization and
regular session these have been distributed in advance to our board members uh have all board members have an opportunity to review these I assume that you have unless otherwise noted and can I have a motion to approve or any
edits or additions or delions thank you Mr Rino second thank you Mr Kozo roll call Mr Crane yes Mr
crzo Mr yeso oh yes sir got to speak latter apparently apparently all righty um Mr linski yes uh Mr Rabino yes Mr sevil yes Mr
tanky obain and uh chair yes motion carries you believe you were there I wasn't here on the reor not not the reorg no okay right because you I was appointed
comme 28 February um chairwoman Master Angelo yes thank you so motion carries and just for the record Miss Mand hasar right moving on to the draft minutes of our regular
session for February 4th these were also circulated to the board in advance are there any comments or additions deletions no may I have a motion to approve the regular session minutes for February 4th
please make that motion thank you Mr cran second second Mr tany thank you I have a roll call Miss kefir Mr Tran yes Mr kzo yes Mr riorio
yes M manduk yes Mr Rino yes Mr tanky yes and chairwoman master yes thank you thank you motion carries the draft of excuse me the minutes of the executive session for February 4th executive sessions one two
three and three just three yes excuse me got a little carried away there executive sessions one through three have been um distributed in advance are there any comments may I have a motion for the three sessions um executive sessions
please so move thank you Mr rinos second second Mr Kozo thank you roll call Miss kefir uh Mr Crane yes Mr kuzo yes all right um Mr riorio yes M Mandu
yes Mr Rabino yes Mr tank grey yes and uh chairwoman Master Angela yes carries thank you m keer um we are going to be going into an executive session to discuss matters subject to attorney client privilege and advice where
confidentiality is required for the board attorney to exercise his duties as an attorney I will read that resolution in a moment the formal resolution I would just like to note I see quite a bit of people here from the public we certainly welcome you we're very happy that you're here and interested in this
process I would like to point out however this is going to be a uh this is an ordinance two ordinances have been referred to our board for consistency review and this is not a public hearing so we will not be having
public comment so I just want to make that clear because I don't want to you know mislead you or you know waste anyone's time if you if you're not aware of that we're going to have to close the room for a bit for the executive session all of you are going to have to leave the room and then you'll be welcomed back in the room but that's the
formality that we have to do do you have anything to add Mr Dre yeah the municipal land use Law requires public that the public have an opportunity to be heard ask questions and make comments on applications hearings on applications for development or on master plan
amendments the municipal land use law does not require that any opportunity be given to the public to ask questions or make comments on a master plan consistency review so the chair has ruled that there's going to be no public
comments or uh questions on the master plan consistency reviews obviously you're all welcome to hear what the board does with their master plan consistency review the time to make comments on these two ordinances are when they're sent back to the township
committee for a public hearing that public hearing under the law the public is required to be given the opportunity to participate so that's why the Chairman's just giving you a heads up so if people go out because of the close session and
the only reason they're coming back in is because they plan on participating she's just telling you ahead of time that you're not going to have the opportunity to participate so if you don't want to stick around and listen you know you don't have to you certainly welcome you I love that you're here but
I just want to make that clear okay um for all for purposes of transparency so with that in mind now I'm going to read the resolution authorizing us to go into close session whereas njsa 10
semicolon 4y 12 friends the open public meeting act and fors authorizes this board to exclude the public from that portion of a meeting at which this board discusses certain matters semicolon whereas the board is about to discuss such matters namely attorney client
privileged legal advice regarding affordable housing where confidentiality is required for the board attorney to exercise his ethical duties as a lawyer whereas this board believes the public should be excluded from those discussions now therefore be it resolved
by the Bernard's Township planning board on March 18 2025 that the board now go into closed session and the public be excluded and that the board believes that the discussions conducted in the closed session may not be disclosed to the public because they will involve
attorney client privilege advice the above re resolution oh can we have a motion for this right is that a motion yeah motion motion for um us to go into close session please make a motion thank you Mr Crane second Mr ceville may I
have a roll call Miss Keir okay um Mr Crane yes Mr kuzo yes uh Mr riorio yes Mr linski yes M Mandu yes
Mr Rino yes Mr sevil yes Mr T yes Umi and chairwoman mat Angelo yes thank you we're now going to go to close session I'd ask everyone to exit the room and the last person to pleas close the door thank you I'm sorry we don't
have drinks for you outside e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e that's okay may I have a motion to close the Clos session and open the Open session of the meeting please so move thank you
Mr Seville second second is that a roll call Miss keer Mr CR yeso yes Mr yes Mr linski yes Mand yes Mr Rino yes
yes Mr T yes M chairwoman Master Angelo yes thank you motion pass thank you members of the public for your patience we had a lot to cover and I I do appreciate now you've got softer places to sit down um all
right our next order of business is the ordinance referral this is ordinance number 2575 an ordinance of the township of Bernards county of Somerset state of New Jersey amending revising and supplementing the code of the township
of Bernards chapter 21 quote Land Development unquote to replace the Westgate Village mixed use senior overlay Zone within the e- 3 Zone with the Westgate Village mixed use
Zone at this time I would like um our board planner Miss mcmanis to please um give us uh take us through this new ordinance referral um if you want you want to just do it
from there that's fine yeah that's fine we don't need to swear in right no correct this is not a hearing right thank you yes that'd be fine Mr schy has a map just to assist us oh that would be wonderful thank you uh just while he gets going uh I'll say that uh so this
is ordinance 2575 that I'll refer to as the Westgate ordinance and I provided the board with a memo dated March 12th of this year the memo includes I would say three sections the first is an overview of the ordinance the second addresses relevant master plan policies
a master plan language and then the third and final session section addresses recommendations for the ordinance thank you David so uh up on the screen here we have have highlighted in red we have the property which is the subject of this
ordinance and just for the record it is block 11301 lot 7 uh as the as was introduced this ordinance or excuse me this property is currently in the E3 District however it is also subject to an overlay
Zone referred to as the Westgate Village mixed use senior overlay Zone the nature of an overlay zone is that this is optional zoning that a developer can exercise if they so choose or they can utilize the underlying Zone District which in this case is the E3 District
ordinance 2575 proposes to eliminate the existing E3 and the overlay Zone applic on this particular property and replace it with the mx1 Westgate Village mixed use
Zone uh and so fundamentally this is a mixed use Zone that permits family inclusionary housing as as well as commercial uses uh in terms of how it changes uh or how it amends the ordinance I would say this is something
that is largely built upon the existing overlay ordinance or overl Zone but there are some very key differences the first difference is that the housing that is permitted is no longer senior housing instead it is family housing and
specifically family inclusionary housing which means that it's a mix of market rate and affordable housing units and in addition to the change in housing uh occupancy it also increases the density of housing units permitted on the site
from 374 units to 574 units Additionally the zoning ordinance amends the uh amount of non-residential development that is permitted under the existing Zone ordinance and so ultimately what it's doing is it is reducing the amount
of non-residential development by approximately 210,000 Square ft the ordinance permits as it does today uh the the proposed ordinance continues to permit about 217,000 square fet of uh floor area for
a hotel it also permits another 20,000 square feet of other nonresidential uses the existing overlay Zone permitted that same Hotel area but it also permitted an additional 230,000 ft of non-residential space so
as I said it's a net reduction of approximately 210,000 square feet in addition the ordinance uh sets forth uh a number of additional standards to regulate the development in the site it's it sets
forth for example a building setback and a parking setback which are uh 50 ft unless it is uh along Martinsville Road uh excuse me it is it is uh it creates a building setback and a parking setback
for property lines other than along Martinsville Road or those which ab but a residential Zone those areas have been reduced from 50 feet down to 20 feet uh but as I as I alluded to the existing
setback of 50 fet would continue to apply for property lines that are but a residential Zone and addition the ordinance allows for the existing office building shown on the screen to remain and to be repurposed for uh for the development
allowed in this devel in this site um it also uh permits um excuse me it also includes extensive affordable housing language all of which is intended to ensure that the affordable housing units that are being created in the zone will
actually satisfy a portion of the Township's fourth round affordable housing uh obl a which of course is the the purpose of this ordinance and so that's an overview of the ordinance as I said the the second section addresses master plan
consistency and while I have uh a few pages of Master Plan excerpts talking about for example the purpose of the existing district and a variety of Master Plan goals and objectives which I think are relevant to
this application the fundamental question question before the board for for this type of a purpose is whether the proposed ordinance is consistent or not with the land use element and the housing element and I say that because
that's exactly what the municipal land use law states in section 62a where it cites ordinances shall be cons substantially consistent with the land use plan element and the housing plan element of the master plan and it goes on to state that if they are not
substantially consistent it has implications for how the governing body May adopt the ordinance stating that the governing body May adopt uh zoning ordinance or Amendment or revisions uh which are whole or in part inconsistent but only by affirmative vote of a
majority of the full authorized membership of the governing body uh and setting forth the reasons on the record so while the municipal land use law clearly has a preference for consistency it does allow an Avenue for an ordinance that is not consistent with the master plan
my reading of your land use element and of your housing element and this is your third round housing element is that the zone change set forth in this District so uh amending the non-residential floor area and increasing the residential use
as well as changing the residential use from senior to to family housing is not addressed in your master plan it is not recommended in the master plan and therefore my finding is that this ordinance is not consistent with the
master plan not withstanding that there are some goals and objectives that I think are supportive of it is fundamentally not addressed and not recommended in your two primary master plan elements the land use element and the housing element just to be clear your professional opinion is that the
proposed ordinance is inconsistent with the master plan correct yes so when you say not consistent that the same is inconsistent yes yes um and so then the final section of my review of this ordinance as I said earlier is recommendations and I do have a few
recommendations for this ordinance both of them are what you're saying is if the governing body adopts it even though it's inconsistent with the they need minimum of four mons or whatever if they adopt it you're making recommendations
that the ordinance be amended in certain way that you're about to recommend correct yes both of my recommendations relate to the affordable housing simply intended to ensure that the units are uh eligible for credit against our housing
obligation without question the first recommendation is that uh we edit the ordinance to eliminate references to the second round rules of the Council on affordable housing it's set forth in my
memo as njac 5 col 93 these are the uh set of substantive rules that were adopted by COA now many many years ago however ever uh since that original adoption of those rules we have now have a new body of rules referred to as the
uniform housing affordability control rules also you'll hear me say uck uh and these are the rules which Now set forth all of the details about how affordable housing units are to be administered and
uh uh marketed and and also to to a very limited extent designed uh and integrated within the within the proc project and so my recommendation is rather than citing these now out ofd standards in Co substantive rules the
ordinance should simply be updated or revised to say the affordable housing unit shall be consistent with uck essentially similar to to that the ordinance includes some integration and design requirements in terms of
integrating the affordable housing units within the market rate units and and a few design requirements however uck also includes those standards but it does so to a greater detail my recommendation is rather than the township only requiring
these standards that we simply uh amend the ordinance to require integration and design as stated in uck uh the township uh all of the standards set forth in the ordinance are addressed in uhak so there's no loss in in control no
reduction in regulation of these units it's just simply an updated standard for which quite frankly the development must comply with regardless the the last component of my recommendation regarding uck is that the planning board uh recommended that the
township ultimately uh include a a more General reference to uhak as opposed to the specific uh specific items contained in that body of rules and that is because it is anticipated that uhak will be amended inside of the next month and
there's simply no no need to go through that level of detail and risk creating a conflict in your ordinance and so a simple uh reference to uhak will suffice and will give the planning board the power to require uck compliance uh as
part of your site plan application um and there is and I'm sorry I there is one more component of this ordinance I uh I wanted to cite um that I had forgotten about until now the ordinance also includes a concept plan and this uh
this ordinance requires that the eventual site plan that comes before all of you uh be substantially or organized substantially in accordance with that concept plan that is attached to the ordinance and so that is the the final component uh that I wanted to bring to
the board's attention but is that in the ordinance currently yes it is in not a recommendation no I'm sorry I I had glossed over it when I was going that's not a recommendation correct that's in there already you have three recommendations it's it is three recommendations with a clarification uh
so it's one eliminate uh Co substantive rule references in favor of uck two eliminate the design and integration requirements set forth in the ordinance in favor of uck but the clarification is rather than citing specific uck
requirements like section 3A Etc just provide a general reference to uck because we know that it's going to be amended okay are you are you finished yes yes I'm going to open this up to the board for any questions I just have a general question
about so the site as we see it now um that current building is staying being repurposed as a residential and then there will be three additional buildings yes so the Mr SCH do we have
the concept plan do you have the concept plan you put that okay actually there's and the hotel yes so we have the uh the existing building located uh top left in the image and then the other three buildings shown on the plan are would be newly
proposed right there's actually and then the first building the entrance is the proposed Hotel yes right yes and so actually um the two buildings in
front of the current building the connected buildings I think they're connected a yeah they are going to be um in the current parking area yes
so one of the the features of this ordinance is it makes excellent use of the existing Paving paved or impervious areas of the property and so we have buildings A and B as well as for example uh building D which is the the smallest building on the top right are making use
of the existing paved areas uh on the property and so the and the impervious coverage from the prior ordinance was in the senior overlay and then it's 80% for this correct I believe that is true well
I did look at the previous Orin and I know 80% % okay so there's no increase correct anyone have any other questions no other questions um I would entertain a motion at this time
you guys have a recommendation professional opinion from your planning expert that it's inconsistent obviously you're not bound by that but that's her opinion yeah mad I'd like to motion ordinance not consistent consistent with
mr's do you want to include her recommendations that are noted in her Memo yes and her clarification yes do have a second Mr Linsky so we currently have Miss Mand has the motion second by Mr linski roll call Miss
kefir Mr Crane yes Mr yes Mr yoro yes Mr linski yes M Mand yes Mr Rino yes excuse me Mr s yes Mr tanky Yes
chairwoman master Angela yes motion carries that one's not that's not consistent not consistent otherwise with recommendations with recommendations and a clarification okay let me take out my
next ordinance on the agenda mam chair I'll recuse myself at this oh yes thank there may be a couple board members recusing from this next ordinance uh anyone else anyone else refusing no okay John John okay thank you
okay so just noting for the record that Mr linski is leaving the room and it's recusal Mr T yes I am I'm sorry and Mr tany wait for you to leave the room thank you okay next item on the agenda is
ordinance 2573 an ordinance of the township of burner County of sumerset state of New Jersey amending revising and supplementing the code of the township of burns chapter 21 quote Land Development unquote to create the
shyen 4 senior housing Zone Miss mcmanis um can you please take us through this um ordinance please I'd be happy to uh this memo I also issued on March 12th it's the same format as
the uh the memo we just addressed for the Westgate with a summary recommen uh summary master plan consistency and recommendations and so uh thank you to Dave for placing the uh the aerial photograph up on the screen for folks to
see the property outlined in red is the area which is subject to this sh4 Zone that is would be newly created by virtue of this ordinance and that is block 1611 lot 40 the ordinance is uh at its most
fundamental level what it does is it permits the development of 29 senior affordable housing units in the area outlined above but it does so through Amendment to the Township's existing uh sh zones the township has
sh1 sh2 sh3 District this ordinance creates a new sh4 District and the ordinance integrates standards that would accommodate this new building or this new Zone District within the general requirements of the sh zones and
it also creates standards specific to the sh4 district now similar to the to the Westgate ordinance as I had stated this ordinance also includes a concept plan that is attached and it the ordinance
specifically requires that the site plan application that will later come to all of you for uh Ford site plan hearing must be organized substantially in accordance with figure AA which is that concept plan could you put that up I feel like
that would be really helpful yes thank you and while he gets that up uh another interesting or unique component of this ordinance is that prior to submitting a site plan application the township committee must make three findings the
first is that the adopted housing plan includes this property and that that adopted housing plan shall have received approval from the court essentially confirming that uh that this site and the other components of the Township's
housing plan are indeed going to be used to satisfy the Township's fourth round obligation in addition the second finding is that the township must have entered into an agreement with the entity in control of this as well as the
other uh affordable units in the sh districts for an extension of expiring controls for 247 existing affordable housing units and so what that means is those 247 units whose controls are expiring will
be extended for a minimum of 30 years and that is really critical because what that means is this ordinance facilitates not just 29 affordable housing credits from from that building shown on the screen but
instead it's 29 plus the 247 credits of existing affordable housing units and so uh presuming success the township would receive almost 250 credits against its obligation for units that are already here in the
township and then the final finding is indeed that the site plan application uh before all of you is actually for the units that are set forth in the ordinance so as I said the council Township committee needs to make three findings one that the housing plan has been adopted with the site and has been
approved by the court two that's got an agreement for the extension of affordability controls for those 247 units and three that the site plan application is indeed for the 29 units and so in addition to uh to those frankly very important components of the
of the ordinance the ordinance also provides uh I would say more more typical standards uh as I said it limits that building to 29 units uh which is also 29 excuse me 28,000 square feet
specifically the housing type are independent living units for seniors however it also permits a variety of accessory uses uh largely geared towards amenity spaces and uh I want to make special note that the amenity spaces and
and the the services offered as part of that may be located in this district and may serve residents in the other sh districts or vice versa and so it allows for residents to essentially use amenity
spaces as uh as may be necessary and and organized by the property owners um I will say in terms of outdoor ameni spaces the ordinance specifically addresses that in states that um outdoor amenity spaces shall be passive and
outdoor pickle ball courts and similar facilities shall be prohibited and I I believe that's intended to reduce the the impact the noise impact from the development the ordinance uh as I said before also includes a variety of your
standard uh uh Zone District items such as a maximum Building height of 35 feet as well as other bulk standards such as uh specific to the sh4 district such as a front yard setback of 50 feet um and a
side yard setback of 100 ft where it abuts the R4 district and if you recall from that aerial photograph we just took a look at to the west of the property we have single family zones and so this ensures a larger setback along that area and then of course we have
affordable housing language set forth to again ensure that the 29 units are eligible for affordable housing credit and so that's an overview of the contents of the ordinance the next section is of master plan consistency and in this uh in this memo
I've issued I provide a number of exerpts from your ordinance addressing the purpose of the existing Zone District a variety of goals and a variety of objectives however at the end of the day what it boils down to is is this ordinance is the the changes set
forth in the ordinance the new Zone District consistent with your land use element and consistent with your housing elements and it's for the the same reasons I cited for the Westgate ordinance where the ma the municipal land use Law requires evaluation of those two elements it set it uh clearly
prefers consistency with the master plan for any new ordinance but it provides a path for adoption if it is not consistent and as I've reviewed your housing element from the third round and your current land use element I find that the creation of this Zone District
uh is not recommended is not addressed in these two master plan elements and so it is my professional opinion that this ordinance 2575 is not consistent 2573 excuse me is not
consistent with your master plan is not consistent with the land use element or the housing element and and then the last section is uh again recommendations and I do have a couple of again recommendation should should the governing body adopt the
ordinance despite the fact that it's inconsistent correct both of these recommendations are again intended uh they address affordable housing and they're simply intended to ensure that any of the affordable housing units created uh by virtue of this ordinance are actually able to
satisfy the Township's affordable housing obligation and so uh right now the ordinance states that the affordability controls shall be uh shall be not less than 40 years in accordance with the New Jersey Fair Housing Act I
recommend an amendment to that statement to that the affordability control shall be not less than 40 years but as prescribed by uck and as prescribed by the Township's affordable housing ordinance and so it's just simply uh a change to the reference of uh how the
control shall be structured um and then lastly I I recommend that the ordinance require uh General compliance with uck uh overall and then consistent with what I spoke about for the Westgate ordinance um
for the affordability controls rather than requiring that specific section in uck simply require compliance with uck because again it's my understanding uck is likely to be amended inside of the the next month or so and there's I I think the township should avoid having a
conflict in its ordinance and so with that those are my recommendations uh simply uh I would say minor amendments the affordable housing language to uh to reference uck and ensure the controls affordability control are done in accordance with
UAC and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions questions from the board I of course have a question so I just want to clarify that um this concept plan you've mentioned is
supposed to be followed in the ordinance and that um the Ingress and egress is on Manchester there's except for emergency access correct East yeah so as you can see in the concept plan there is no additional
driveway uh out to Manchester uh instead it it provides a connection to the adjacent parking lot out to and then follows their existing access out to Manchester and yes you're right it does permit emergency access only out to East over right for emergency yeah in the
case emergency so you're utilizing the concept plan is utilizing the current parking driveway for the Ingress and egress that it exists currently to go to this new site correct and there will be no curve cut
or driveway or anything the concept plan does not indicate any curve cut and as I said the the site plan including access must be organized substantially consistent with this concept plan okay okay but but for purposes of but
this is considered the front yard Manchester uh yes it has a small front yard but yes but that that was the defined as the front yard correct Mr I don't have a further question M i' like to make a motion yes
to find ordinance 2573 not but not withstanding if the governing body were to adopt the ordinance not withstanding finding that it's not consistent that they were to incorporate recomendations
St do I have a second second Mr yuo roll call Miss kefir Please Mr Crane yes Mr kzo yes Mr yio yes M Mand yes Mr R yes Mr cille
yes yes chairwoman master Angela yes thank you motion carries next order of business is uh comments from members do I have any comments from Members I would just like to welcome
again miss for becoming our all two we now are a full board um comments from staff none um Miss keepa I would just like to ask based on tonight's business I don't know that we will need to have
an April 1 meeting or should we keep it on just in case we have business why don't you keep it on for now just in case you never know we cancel it later okay so for currently we will keep our April 1 and April 8th meetings um and we
will notice if they are canc you never know you could have a zoning emergency be quiet okay uh with that then I will take a motion to adjourn I'll make that motion thank you Mr Crane second I'll
second thank you Mr cevil thank you