okay it's uh it's uh 7:00 we'd ask everyone now to please take their seats we'd like to uh get the meeting underway uh this is a unique situation this is the first time there's been a joint meeting of the Bel mayor and council and the planning board it's been advertised as a special meeting because
under the open public meetings act uh we have to whenever there's a quorum we have to conduct it as though it were a regular meeting the reality is it's more of a presentation it's a and uh we want everyone to see this basically for the first time most of the planning board
and almost everyone on council they haven't seen this this is the first time they're going to see it so if you will note if you had look took an agenda you'll see that it's bifurcated the question period we're going to allow the planning board and the council to ask their questions first then we're going
to open it up to the public uh the first speaker that we're going to recognize is Brendan Judge he is an attorney representing some real residents and he's asked because he has another commitment if he could speak first and we're going to extend that courtesy to him and then uh really the only thing is
we're going to try to stick to a threeinut question period for everybody because there's a lot of people everybody's going to want to ask a question so if you ask your question we'd ask you not to ask a second question until everybody else has had an opportunity to ask their first question
and finally we are on YouTube and uh you may notice on the news you see these rowdy meetings taking place these town halls across the nation but I think this is our opportunity to show what how we are behaving in Bel we're respectful we let the speaker speak we don't interrupt
her and we should be able to get through this uh in a few minutes now I'll turn this over to Mayor Guzo who will open the meeting in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act thank you good evening everyone in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act notice of this
special meeting of the Belor and Council and Planning and Zoning Board has been given by placing a notice on the public bulletin board Facebook the municipal website and publishing said notice in the Asbury Park Press i also have a statement to make this evening in regard to the fair share housing plan being
presented to the council i want to advise the council the planning board and the public that my son-in-law is employed by a firm that serves as an in as the engineering firm of one of the participants in the fair share housing plan therefore in the interest of avoiding any issues I'm going to remove
myself from the hearing the presentation tonight and any further consideration of the plan going forward uh there is a committee that will be handling that on on the on the on mayor and council on council um and I respect and you know appreciate and I know they'll do the
right thing so good evening everyone thank you very much tendra at this time uh the because it is a meeting uh Miss Baron the municipal clerk will take the roll call of the council and then Karen Brisbane the
planning board secretary will take the roll call after that we will recognize Mr jeffrey Serenian and Kendra Lily who will make the presentation of the plan member Gorm here council member Lawer here council member Shock here council
member Velia here karen Karen Brisbane here kevin Callahan here amber Fernicola here jay Jones here james Piolo here karen Trainer here dan Turk here james Stenson here i would
also like to announce that our board attorney David Clark is present as well as Alan Hill Jr our board engineer and at this time we will recognize Mr jeffrey Serenian i guess I should stand up so I can see
everyone my name is Jeff Serenan i am the affordable housing attorney for Belle uh my firm is Serenan Edwards Boozak and Nolan just across the bridge uh we represent towns all over the state on affordable housing uh the purpose of
tonight it's the culmination of the efforts to try to voluntarily come up with a plan to satisfy your obligation and Kendra Lily is our planner very well recognized uh an excellent planner that helped that's helping put the plan
together uh there instead of having a hearing like many towns do and just adopting the plan the idea was to come inform everyone what's taking shape there will then be a plan that will be the subject of another hearing uh there
there may al there's there will also likely be an agreement at some point with the Munford site and that too will be the subject of a public uh action before anything is signed so this is one
step in a series of steps intended to culminate in the adoption of a plan by the deadline that we have to comply with which is June 30th of this year with that I'll turn it over to Miss Ley good evening everyone my name is Kendra
Lely i am from the firm of Kyle McManis um I'm a professional planner that's licensed in the state of New Jersey uh I've been providing professional planning services to municipalities across New Jersey for over 30 years uh I would say in the last 10 years I have an
expertise in affordable housing and have done many affordable housing plans uh for many municipalities i've also been recognized uh by an as an expert uh as what's called as special adjudicator in several visages courts within the state
of New Jersey um I came on board with Belle um about this time last year to help them put together start thinking about putting together an affordable housing plan um the purpose of this presentation as Jeff had indicated is not necessarily a public hearing that we
there is no adoption no action occurring tonight um I really want this to be an information um provision of information to all of you generally about affordable housing in the state as well as it relates to the bureau but I also want to
have your feedback i want to answer your questions and I and and truly would like feedback from all of you as it relates to affordable housing planning in in the bureau um so I'm going to start the presentation i I don't think it's going
to take more than about 15 minutes um you kind of heard what the the the the next SE section would be would be questions and answers um from uh up up here on the deis and then also from all of you um and let's get
started can you all see that okay great um so the items that I'd like to cover tonight uh this is kind of a quick outline or the goals of the presentation um I'm going to try to pull this a little bit closer uh so the first is the
affordable housing over overview so I'm not going to get into a whole history we could be here for days talking about affordable housing in the state of New Jersey um but I do want to talk through things that are important to understand as we as we talk about low and moderate income households in the in the state
and what does that really mean so we're going to talk about uh who qualifies for affordable housing we're going to talk about the need in the state of New Jersey and then regionally and then down microscopically into the bureau what is the need of affordable housing how did
this obligation come to be um then we're going to talk about the compliance plan this is a proposed compliance plan i've been working with uh several people within the municipality uh you all know that there are several what's known as builder's remedy suits they're lawsuits
uh and and they will be talked about generally tonight um I will indicate that because we are in litigation I can only talk about uh general information i cannot talk about specifics because we are in the middle of negotiating at least uh one or two of those builder
remedy sites so but we will talk about a general compliance plan enough meat there that you all can um it just it won't be uh you'll be able to to respond to it and ask some general questions um but I will indicate that if it's too general of a question or too specific of
a question I I won't be able to answer it because of uh I'm not at liberty to say because of litigation um finally I'll talk about what the next steps are where do we go from here what what are the next opportunities for public input and then finally we'll get to the questions and answers okay so the first
slide here uh talks about uh qualifications who qualifies so this the first thing I really want to talk about is when we say low and moderate income households what what does that really mean the Fair Housing Act which is legislation that um really guides uh affordable housing and how
municipalities comply with their obligation defines housing that's affordable to low and moderate income households as being 80% of the median income and it's important to know that that 80% of the median income is of the region um you are Braille's in region
four which includes Mercer Mammoth and Ocean counties so the state of New Jersey is broken up into six regions you're in in one of those regions and um the median income is based upon those counties so it's not just Mammoth it it encompasses Mercer Mammoth and and Ocean
i gave an example here of what a t a twoerson family would be earning um if they were to be considered moderate income uh in this particular case uh they two per a median income earns
$104,000 so 80% of that is approximately $83,000 that's what a twoperson household is that would qualify for what's known as a moderate income household or moderate income unit um as you'll see here there are different um subsections of what low and moderate
income housing is it also includes low income and then very low income and you'll see what the ratios are with uh with regards to low-inccome it's 50% of the median income and with very low it's 30% of median income so when we talk about low and moderate income families
or I say affordable housing um these are the that this realm this cohort of people that's that's who can afford affordable housing as it relates to okay so fine that's how much everybody makes what does that mean as far as what what a purchasing power has or the ability to
afford a rent um with affordability on a twoerson household uh and this is uh looking at low to moderate income uh you're probably looking about $130 to $230,000 that would be the worth of a house that somebody uh and these these are general these are very general but
that that'd be the worth of the house that somebody could purchase on a rental side somebody that makes a twoerson household in that very low to moderate income is anywhere from $1,000 a month to $2,000 a month um so that's really when we're talking about who can afford
affordable housing that's the um that's the range that we're dealing with it changes uh every year as uh federal government uh comes out with new HUD numbers new income uh limits or new levels there's a new calculation um
completed and typically for the most part um those incomes go up slightly as far as who can who can afford affordable housing um the qualification process for folks that go through this uh or are able to to qualify uh first they must
show pro proof of income so it's like you and me going for a mortgage it's no it's really isn't any different um we have to go through the mortgage process we have to prove prove income uh they are then put on a once they're income certified they're put on a waiting list
uh and that waiting list is uh pretty much stays in in in effect for a period of a couple of years as units become available the people from that waiting list um are contacted and they are let they let they're they're told that there's something available if they're
interested they can go on kind of what I would call a second waiting list the way that the the uh initial uh um I guess way that you would get into an affordable housing uh unit is actually through what's known as a lottery system it's a random lottery system there's no
preference uh necessarily to speak people who live in Bel there is a preference however to folks that live in the region so the qualification process is very strenuous it is it is by New Jersey law um as to how the process
moves forward how people get income qualified and then the lottery system as to how people get go actually go in to those units in Ma so so going to move on to the need um most of you have heard there are these numbers obligations there's a
need of affordable housing in the state of New Jersey where that came from was way back in 1975 when um the Supreme Court uh ruled on something known as the Mount Laurel uh case and they had a Mount Laurel decision uh basically that
decision said that towns in the state of New Jersey um they are not allowed to exclusionary zone and basically what that means is you can't just zone for single family housing you must allow from for different varieties of housing typically multif family apartments think
of apartments as when I talk about multif family housing um that's one piece of it the other piece of it was you can't not only can you not do exclusionary zoning but you must provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing within your municipality and
we're going to talk about what that means realistic opportunity um means a very specific definition and we'll go through that in a second but one of the things that affordable housing planners such as myself throughout the state of New Jersey we are trying to balance we
are trying to balance the need for affordable housing that we know is coming from the state that they've given us a particular number but it's also then looking at how do we do that in such a way that it respects the community character um it does it with
sound planning principles we look at locations of potential projects and zoning to fit into the community character but also take advantage of existing infrastructure sewer and water existing sidewalks existing park locations near parks and schools retail
services um you know that's really what our job is is to lead the folks that you see up here and say "Okay yes you have this obligation here's how we start to kind of think about the best way to to divvy up that obligation but in a way
that doesn't we hope that balances with the need with the community character and that's what we're here tonight to talk about you know this is a proposed plan um and of course we want your feedback uh but but it is it is it is something that needs to be done because
it is a constitutional obligation as decided by the the Mount Laurel um Mount Laurel sup the Mount Mural decision by the Supreme Court so um we all know for sure we're in a national housing crisis right across the country not only is there not
enough affordable housing for low and moderate income households but we're also dealing with um the segment of population which al it's also called in planner terms the missing mi middle where folks that don't quite qualify for low and moderate income households but they also can't get into the market yet
they aren't able to necessarily afford uh the the housing that we have and therefore we have a crisis um and of course we we all know that we have uh issues with people that are unhoused as well so the challenge that we have not only in the in the country but also in
the state it calls for definitely providing for a variety of housing options um and uh while I've only been here about a year doing this work um when you look back at the planning uh efforts of of Bel as it relates to their
master plan um and actually boots on the ground what has happened on the ground you will find that over the past 25 years you did a you did a master plan in 2000 um it included a housing element and fair share plan that's basically your affordable housing plan um there
was also one done recently the last two years um but what you will find is that uh there are there were there was an R5 and still is an R5 zoning district which allows for multif family housing those are apartment units so places like the Branding Wine at Breel is an example of
that um Whers Key and Union Place are examples of what would be considered affordable housing uh you have attached single family homes uh in different areas within the municipality so you started to plan for this in 2000 there
was a recognition and I'll talk about this in a little while but there was definitely a recognition that you as a bureau just didn't have enough space meaning you didn't have enough land to support the the large obligation which we'll go through and and therefore um
really started to think about um just just generally waiting for COA Council on Affordable Housing which was the administrative body uh before the courts took over um to really create rules and regulations uh for for the bureau to
abide by um so you've planned for it to some degree uh and you have implemented actually some affordable housing however it doesn't necessarily meet the definition as the state would define affordable housing any of the units that people go into have to be deedestricted
for 30 years that it's only it's only affordable for the low and moderate income households uh that is one major restriction and and that's one of the ways that you would get credit for affordable housing so the need as you would see here uh which is calculated by the state
of New Jersey through what's known as the Fair Housing Act as I said that's a body of legislation that that regulates affordable housing in the state um that this need that you see on the screen is based upon household change in the state of New Jersey from 2010 to 2020 and then
the 80,000 units comes from a multiplier 40% of that change of households um the way that the Fair Housing Act reads is that that number 40% the 80,000 units are the number of low low and moderate income houses that that are households
that are needed in the state so for the next 10 years uh the goal is to hit 80,000 units of low and moderate income households that is then brought into um it's divvied up as I said amongst the six regions one of the regions of which
Bel is in is Mercer Ocean Mammoth um that is divvied up and there's about 13,000 units that then will be divvied up amongst municipalities throughout throughout that region so that really talks about the need um and that's what then drives the affordable housing
obligation for the burrow as I indicated uh the Fair Housing Act is the body of legislation that that regulates affordable housing um just last year March of 2025 the Fair
Housing Act was um amended significantly uh and it was signed by the by the obviously by the governor and it did a couple of things it established the affordable housing need which I just talked about it created a methodology um of how that need is allocated amongst
all municipalities uh it creates a general regulation to some degree as to how we put together what what needs to go into affordable housing plan um it sets up a mediation process and it's what's known as the program to address
any disputes on obligations and then going forward any affordable housing um plans that we put together so we will as a bureau uh we've we've accepted our obligation of 65 for the fourth round and I'll talk about that in a second um
so you haven't had to go through what's known as mediation that actually ends next week um and so you've accepted your number your number will will uh be 65 for what's known as the fourth round however uh we will put a plan together it will be submitted by June of this
year and it will go through a mediation process people have the option have the ability to object to the plan and we have the ability to mediate that so there's a program that's set up by the Fair Housing Act that helps with those disputes um it establishes an approval
process um and which I just mentioned it will go to court however so the program is a mediation arm the mediation arm recommends something to the court we will be still in a court situation um so the approval of our plan will will come
from the superior court uh in Mammoth County and then it creates incentives for compliance to the law and when I say incentives um it's more of a carrot sorry it's more of a stick than a carrot meaning that the in while Jeff had
mentioned it's a voluntary process uh if you don't comply uh you are open to what's known as a builder's remedy lawsuit which we just we just uh talked about you have a couple of them now so um while it's voluntary if you don't
comply you could be open to lawsuits and so I always I tend to call that a stick here is the obligation this obligation the large number that you see there 419 affordable housing units um that represents a 48-year obligation and
I don't know if you can see it but it it is made up of three different rounds there's a prior round which covers 1987 to 1999 there's a second round I'm sorry there's a third round which we are just ending we will be ending it in June of this year which ran which was the
longest round um between 1999 and 2025 and then we are moving into what's known as the fourth round which will cover the next 10 years from 2025 to 2035 um you can see the numbers up there they are
they are big numbers uh 159 16 sorry 195 and and 65 um that all is pulled into one large number of 419 uh housing units generally the way that
the obligation is determined uh it's been since 1987 there's been lots of different ways of doing it but generally the way that the the way that you take the regional need and you divy it up amongst the municipalities has to do
with three main factors one is income the household income in the municipality um as it relates to the region u non-residential valuations the amount of commercial valuation that you have in a municipality and the amount of land that you would have to develop and they
average those what what are called factors to come up with your percentage of the need um and that's how it it's very it was very clear in the new fair fair fair housing act the amendment as to how uh that the number 65 came to be for for the fourth
round so while this is a large number and you all may be like how the heck do we do that with not a whole lot of vacant land and you know how do we accommodate 419 new units there is an adjustment uh that the uh regulations allow for towns like Bel who have what's
known as a scarce resource which is vacant land you don't have enough vacant land to support that obligation um it we do what's what's known as a vacant land adjustment um so we look we look through uh what really is vacant what parcels
are vacant that could support an inclusionary development an inclusionary development basically is a development that would allow for at least five units of of of development with a set aside of um 20% for affordable housing so when I
talk about inclusionary developments and we'll talk about it tonight there's a couple of them that that we're going to go through it basically means that about 80% of the development is market rate units and 20% is affordable housing to so it's some it's what's known as a set
aside for affordable housing that's what inclusionary uh development or zoning is uh we when we do that vacant land analysis we look at parcels that could support affordable housing doesn't necessarily mean that they would be built on those parcels it's kind of a
theoretical exercise um but based upon densities that we apply to those parcels and what that set aside of affordable housing would be after we do that um that is what actually is what is your number or your realistic development
oper excuse me realistic development potential so this 419 units that very large number is broken into two pieces uh one is the RDP or what I just mentioned the realistic development potential and that's based upon a vacant
land analysis and then the remainder is the unmet need 395 um we treat them differently the RDP is uh a a number that we has to be realistic we have to create a plan that will realistically produce uh units in a
in a in a realistic time frame the unmet need is we provide uh mechanisms that provide for meaningful capture of affordable housing into the future we may never hit that number ever but we have to at least put into mechanisms
that would help to capture affordable housing if development were to occur in the future throughout the municipality um and so this when we did the vacant land analysis um I'm coming up with an RDP of 24 and we're going to talk about how we're going to uh meet that
obligation and and then an unmet need and we'll also talk about uh how we're going to meet that so this is the proposed affordable housing plan um we are uh looking at two two boxes
the first box is the RDP 24 units uh within that RDP uh the law allows us to take what's known as bonus credits um and so while we're still in the third round this is what's known as our third round RDP this will be our only RDP but
we are running by third round rules we get bonus credits meaning uh one for one you you provide one rental unit you get a bonus credit for that so what you'll see up here is that there's actually 18 true units that are being proposed and
then we're taking advantage of six bonus credits or what is also known as paper credits um so they the third round rules have uh incentivized municipalities to provide for family rental housing which tends to be the most accessible uh housing for
low and moderate income households uh so what you will see here and I'll go through this uh by step by step for these projects but I just wanted to give you the summary and the overview of it um we have 628 um Higgins Avenue that's also known as what we've been calling it
as the M &D site uh this is and I'll go through it in a second but um basically uh it includes that is that's an inclusionary housing um project uh 704 Ranken Road is the Mumford project that is also an inclusionary
project 636 Borie Avenue this is a lot that's owned by the burrow and I'll go through it in a little bit more detail but this is what would be known as a 100% project meaning that 100% of the affordable housing units um that will be built are affordable to low and moderate
income households and that's usually uh it is um part of a a partnership with a nonprofit organization that builds 100% affordable housing and then finally we're going to recommend uh that Higgins Avenue all of it be considered a redevelopment area and we would do a
corridor plan redevelopment plan for that which which I'll talk about in a second the unmet need is taken uh into account and then we we look at satisfying that unmet need that larger number through a couple of mechanisms including a mandatory set aside
ordinance um a development fee ordinance and then potentially overlay zoning over not only Higgins Avenue but potentially Union and I'm I'll talk about unmet need in a little bit i want to kind of get into the the RDP first and we'll talk about unmet need after that
so this is the first site um that is in the plan um this is a builder's remedy site um they they came to the burrow probably about a year and a half ago uh and and sued under a builder's remedy lawsuit uh the the case was settled so I
can talk about the the details the redevelopment plan was adopted um the redevelopment plan included uh it was about 15 units an acre that was the density uh but what you'll see here is obviously included 20 town home units uh
it was on 1.33 acres uh and and this sits right across from the um the gym on Higgins Avenue you on on this particular uh parcel the 20 town home units will be rental units they will not be for sale
and because they are rental units you get three bonus credits for the three affordable housing units that they are providing as part of this project um and so this this particular project as I said was is zoned is approved and my understanding is they've submitted an
application uh for uh for site plan approval at the planning board this is a representation of the architecture we spent a lot of time with this developer coming up with um a decent architectural design as well as a site layout um as you see here I think
this I think for everybody as you start to kind of think about affordable housing and what's it going to look like this is a very good representation of what your B burrow officials want to see in any inclusionary development as it relates to um building massing how it
relates to the street as you'll notice here Higgins Avenue is to the left hand side uh these are front-facing town homes with rear entry garages so you have porches you have face face forward or public facing um uh units and so that
you're engaging that's very important obviously to engage a community especially on Higgins Avenue as we start to kind of think about redevelopment uh opportunities along along Higgins Avenue so this gives everybody at least I think an idea of what as we move forward what
the bureau is hoping to accomplish with uh other uh builders or projects that would be coming uh to the burrow for affordable housing or inclusionary zoning the second is what's known as I'm calling it the Mumford site um this one
is under lid is still under negotiation this is another site that was a builder's remedy site uh lawsuit uh this is located at 704 to 708 um Rank and Road it's about 6.7 acres and um the density that's
being uh had here as we start to kind of go through this but I I I feel comfortable that I can divulge this is that it's 25 townhouse units that equals about a density of 3.7 units an acre on this property there will be two units uh
set aside as uh affordable housing units uh two town houses and then two of the units will have uh three bedrooms which are for special needs so folks that have supportive and special needs uh um needs for housing uh actually provide you get
credit for each bedroom so in this particular instance there may be six to seven bedrooms uh but you get so for two units you would actually get six to seven credits uh per per unit or for those two units um so that's important
to understand is that that there's a limited amount of uh building on this property uh but you're actually getting you you're getting a lot of credits for these particular units uh what I can share with you is that the site plan that's been presented or concept plan
that's been presented to the burrow as it relates to I think it was 11 single family homes that was originally proposed on that property um definitely seeing less impervious coverage you're seeing more buffering around the outskirts of this lot uh you are seeing
greater building setbacks or we are seeing it you will see it eventually uh and again we we get some additional credits for the special needs units this is the Borie Avenue site um this is owned by the burrow and uh what we are looking at this is about a.34
acre a little bit o a bit of an oversized lot on this area on this uh street um we are looking to work with a nonprofit developer in the state uh that does a lot of these small what I would call small infill projects uh wherein we
would provide for probably five to six rental units but it would look like a single family home probably an over oversized single family home uh again in this particular instance because they are rental units we would get additional bonus credits now um we're only can only
take three additional bonus credits uh even though they're providing more units because we are maxed out there's a maximum number of bonus credits that you can take which is 25% of your obligation so um it's always a goal to max out your bonus credits obviously because you're
getting um a two for one uh credit for it the the one thing that I wanted to urge all of you to kind of think about is as I mentioned in the beginning one of the things that we do as affordable housing planners is to kind of take this obligation and and um provide for good
planning sound planning principles this lot is in an excellent location it has access to sidewalks to li to the li it's within walking distance to the library it's walking distance to the park to the school um so as it relates to an inf and it's an infill type of development so it
I I think seamlessly fit into the community very well but also getting a really good number of uh credits for um a small piece of property without feeling like it's overburdened and then finally uh which
which is um the Higgins Avenue redevelopment area uh you will see at the bottom right of the of the aerial it says the High Tide BR site that's the high tide builder remedy site um you all know I'm sure most of you know that uh
the town's been sued by what's known as High Tide and um while we have not we're we we're still in negotiations we have not settled uh with this particular developer one of the ways that we are pulling this property into the plan but
not at the necessarily the density or the number of units that was proposed at this point was to really look at and this and this somewhat came from the planning board like look at the entire corridor we want to redevelop this corridor most likely for mixed use um so
let's look at a redevelopment area that encompasses the entire corridor and provide for zoning that would uh allow for mixed use uh so think about retail bottom or commercial bottom and one or two stories of of apartments above along
this area this would be zoning so these aren't necessar this is not a project this is something that would give an opportunity for a developer to come in to to redevelop the interesting part about this is that we are meeting our RDP with those other projects the only
thing that we really need to realize from this redevelopment zone to meet our affordable housing obligation is 10 total new units of which two have to be affordable so the zoning here we haven't gone through redevelopment is a two-step process we need to go through an area
need study to determine whether these part these parcels meet the criteria per state law uh as to whether it's an area need of redevelopment uh which I I know the area I feel like a good number of them could meet that criteria and then f
we would do a a redevelopment plan and it and it really dubtales off of what's your existing zoning is for this area this is a gateway overlay zone or at least a portion of it um and in that gateway overlay zone your your master plan and your zoning already support
this main street theme so we're we're really just we're kind of just piggybacking off of that and and looking at this and really instead of looking at a specific site just looking at the high tide site and thinking about um what should happen there I think we're
looking at it uh globally or comprehensively as to how do we look at this entire corridor but then fit that site into it as as and what makes sense uh for development in that area i will say to you that Hig the M andD site
which which has been approved that was a redevelopment area that was 15 units an acre i would imagine that we're probably in and around that density somewhere between 10 to 12 to 15 units an acre excuse me depending upon the use of of that particular prop of the properties
within this area you'll see that it in encompasses about 30 parcels which is about 14 acres so in summary this this gives you a good sense of the number of credits each of the projects is providing so six credits
from Hig from the M &D site um eight to nine credits from the me the Mumford site um eight credits for for this the Borie Avenue site and potentially two credits uh for and this goes to RDP for the Higgins redevelopment area as it
relates to unmet need uh these are the mechanisms that have been adopted and allowed for in the past a mandatory set aside ordinance is basically a blanketwide ordinance across the entire municipality that says if anybody develops five or more units they are to
provide affordable housing set aside that's that's basically it so um if somebody gets a use variance to provide more than five units they have to provide a set aside capturing affordable housing as new development potentially occurs um a development fee ordinance
allows the bureau to collect development fees on residential uh improvements typically new homes as well as non-residential improvements um the residential improvements can go up to 1.5% of the assessed value of that new
home uh and the non-residential improvements could go up to 2.5% of the assessed value of that that new improvement the um the residential development fee is is is regulated by the municipality the 2.5 non-residential
fee is regulated by the state we can't change that but that development fee ordinance as the municipality collects fees they can then use it for affordable housing purposes they can use it to pay administrative fees like my my my um cost as well as Jeff's cost it can
provide for uh helping a nonprofit build affordable housing so there's lots of ways that that as you build up that that development fee ordinance it takes the burden off the municipality or the general fund and allows for a funding source for new affordable housing and
then finally uh one of the things that we're contemplating is um the overlay zone that we would do for Higgins Avenue if we get above and beyond let's say two units of affordable housing it would go it would go then to what's known as this unmet need that that larger number uh we
are also contemplating and like to hear certainly your feedback about maybe doing an overlay zone on Union Avenue as well as as to you know maybe that makes some sense to capture any new future redevelopment that would occur in that location um so hopefully it wasn't too
long and long- winded um but the next steps and this before we get to questions and and um feedback is we will finalize the housing element fair share plan which which I've been calling the affordable housing plan um that will most likely occur in May where there
will be a public hearing in front of the planning board the planning board is the entity that adopts the housing element and fair share plan part of your master plan and they will have a public hearing where they where they would listen to public uh comments there will be a a plan that's on file 10 days before that
hearing so everybody has a chance to review it um and and so that's required by uh municipal land use law um after that sometime in June the bureau uh the governing body will have to endorse that plan and then we would submit it to the
court or to the program uh for approval which I could take to it could take several months for that to occur um and so that's really the next steps there will be opportunities beyond that so as for instance their settlement agreements let's say with the Mumford site the the
governing body would have to go through that settlement agreement in in public and and sign it and and pass it by resolution that's an opportunity for uh continually to understand uh what that particular development may look like uh and so and then with the redevelopment
plan there will be several opportunities both at the planning board and the governing body to review the redevelopment plan so conceptually that's that's the overall plan the details um I can go through some things I can't go through other things but certainly uh happy planning board and
governing body to answer any questions that you all may have and then I guess we'll open it up uh can I sorry uh Elliot Cologne uh Briel uh council person
uh just two questions um you if we if this plan is approved by the planning board and the mayor and council and it goes to the state and if the department of community affairs gives its blessing in other
words approves it will we have obtained obtained compliance so the plan will go to the program which is a panel of judges first dca has nothing to do with it um the panel of judges will make
there's an opportunity for mediate for objections to occur so a developer could object to the plan fair Share Housing Center which is a a nonforprofit uh organization that represents low and moderate income household interests throughout state New Jersey could object
to the plan and we would sit in what's known as mediation and settlement um if we get let's assume we get through that the plan is what it is uh there will be what's known as a judgment of compliance from the superior court and that is um
basically your approval of the plan so so even if we're if we obtain compliance uh based upon the plan would we still possibly be uh subject to any builder remedy suits so what's interesting about vacant land towns is
because that as you recall in that slide it's broken up into two pieces RDP and unmet need that unmet need means that you've never really completely met your need um and so there's a presumption of of validity when you u submit a plan and
it's approved by the court you have leverage let's say you have you have an ability to say you've done what you've said you wanted to do that doesn't however u exclude a developer to come in and say I have this piece of property and I want to be a part of your plan and
I'm going to try to sue you um we have a good defense because we have an approved plan from the court but anybody can sue at any particular time so you'd be defendable but not a cruel correct okay thank you to put it another way you have to sleep with one eye open if you're a vacant
land town because at any point someone could pop out and say "I'm here to help you." And then you have an issue that you have to face thank you any other questions from governing body planning board
yes sir 24 units plan before the plan the one before that was for 12 units 12 or 11 units i'm not aware of any other plans coming before the planning no you you wouldn't be so it's in the middle of
negotiations for negotiations but if if the property is such that they can't build that there's all kinds of problems with the with the uh uh they're going to take all the trees down there's all kinds of water problems coming in but with the 11 thing 11 sites they're
building five or six different uh drainage ditches that all drains down into Ranken Road yep now if it's questionable for 12 what the hell is going to happen with 24 how does it how can you plan for that if they haven't looked at it so I can't get into the details until the settlement agreement
is finalized which is is pretty close those details will be um allowed to go before the public at that point i can say though because I've been part of the negotiations is that what I said to you before is compared to the 11 unit plan we're seeing less impervious coverage
we're seeing less clearing how well they're taking all the taking all the plants down sir I would just ask that you would wait to for the settlement agreement and for the concept plan and then we can go through it in more detail i can't I'm not at liberty to get into the details but you're talking about a settlement agreement without looking at
any of the material no but that's the that's the burough council's responsibility it's not Council has a look at a plan for it there has been plans there have been plans for building there there are settlement agreements in the works yes sir that makes no sense anybody else from the planning board
yes sir um is it fair to say that uh that a that a builder's that the builder's remedy uh suits
uh enable a builder to knowingly buy a piece of property that is not zoned the way he or she would like it to be zoned for a project that they have in mind it's the typical way of happening
correct and so um so then they sue yes and that's what we call a builder's remedy yep that's the law allows for that that's the stick um if you're not compliant with what's known as the Mount Laurel doctrine or the Mount Laurel law
um and you have then you are open to a builder's remedy suit and so yes so builders are savvy they they know i I will mention also and I think this probably may have come up in other public um realms is that uh vacant land
towns up until about a couple of years ago really didn't feel a lot of risk that there was a builder that was going to come in um I think as you see the state of New Jersey a lot of the vacant land in suburbia that has been eaten up through um development builders are now
looking at redeveloping and so that's what you're seeing now is that you're seeing them coming to the smaller areas so you know while it may have not been a risk 20 years ago definitely seeing more of a risk as it as it relates to a Bel type of town that doesn't have a lot of
vacant land but yeah that they have every right to do that and and they look for it so the implication of that is if we're not in compliance this is a question the implication seems to be that if we're
not in compliance then our zoning codes do not have a lot of teeth whereas on the other hand if we are in compliance then our zoning codes
do have for lack of a better term yeah I mean the the idea is once you have a builder's remedy suit you're trying to settle that right and you're and we're putting together a plan voluntarily we want the the court to approve it and so we have legitimate zoning codes if we and there's been a couple municipalities
in the state if we say we're not doing anything um your zoning power could be taken away uh if we decide that we're just going to you know put our feet in the ground and we're not going to move and we're not going to settle we're not going to put a plan together and be proactive uh that's a possibility yes
thank you you're welcome can I ask one more question sure it just in my own research it seems that out of the hund the 564 towns in New Jersey uh over 160 of them are non-compliant that's more than
one/4 right it are are why would is there a strategy of just not being compliant I mean like I know we're trying really hard to become compliant yeah and I know we're you know this exhaustive e effort
to become compliant hiring you hiring the other experts but there's a lot of work that's going into this why are60 other municipalities saying we don't have to go through all this work or maybe they're just trying but they're not
successful no I I would imagine there are some and I know of a couple that have chosen not to to participate in the fourth round and and it's a risk benefit uh you know is it is there enough of a risk to put us in a place where we want to put a plan together are we just
willing to deal with developers as they come along um the risk however is even if you want to deal with developers as they come along a judge could basically say I need a plan i want not I don't want you just dealing with the developers i want a plan for how you're going to provide for affordable housing
technically you need a housing element fair share plan in order to have legitimate zoning so it it is a requirement of municipal land use law why folks aren't necessarily complying with going into the program is a policy decision and it and and it's obviously
different for each municipality but they're taking a potential risk of dealing with additional builders re or builders so council of sorts for for whatever town that's that's ignoring this is is choosing Yeah to accept the risk by not pretty much i mean I don't
know all 160 towns in their in their situations but that that's I would say generally across the board okay thank you in this process that has just been created by the amendment to the Fair Housing Act last year 440 of the 560 odd
municipalities have elected to participate that means that there's over a hundred that have elected not to so there's there's a fair number that are rolling the dice thank you yes sir
how how does the settlement of the M andd site with regards to density impacts us going forward we obviously increased our density up to 15 units per acre does that help us i mean it it it's a good precedent i mean it for a
townhouse development i think we as I said we spent a lot of time on the layout of that and making sure that it wasn't o overly developed or or feeling like it was too big too much of a building mass and so it gives a good example of what 15 units an acre looks
like and and is acceptable to the governing body and and uh to the planning board and so uh it's a good representation uh now it it could there could be a different type of unit too so multif family housing apartments u may
look a little bit different which you know may change the density a bit but I think it's always about how you fit that into the community car the neighborhood character and how does that how does that dovetail into what's existing around it um and not necessarily um
dealing with things that would in my opinion be uh you know not sound planning which ultimately could help us with the high tide possibly Um does a paving um moratorum apply to
builder's remedies does the what i'm sorry paving mortorium there's a there there's certain roads that the town is repaving and they're imposing I think a five-year moratorum where you can't open those roads uh for any utilities or the
like since they're just being repaved i would imagine that would have be dealt with in a settlement agreement i have a question too yes ma'am um could you talk a little bit um about um people's obligations for offtrack improvements and who bears the cost there's a lot of
concerns that the community has right now in particular concerning our water supply in town and I think that people are concerned about increasing the number of residential units when there's when there hasn't been any talk yet tonight about the offtrack improvements
and who bears that cost sure it's a good question so offtrack improvements are prata shares so a developer comes in and they have x number of units and they require x number of whatever water or sewer and there needs to be an improvement of that that utility to get to that site they are responsible for
the prata share of of that utility so that that's typically how that's dealt with kendra I just wanted to say you you call it rank and road and it really the application before the planning board is for the end of Rathton Road it's on the corner of Rank and Rathon but it's
really up so it really should say Rathon Road thank you so much appreciate that any other questions up at the deis okay we'll open it up to the public um I think we're going to line up at the mic um and I believe this is the
gentleman that has first dibs right okay that's correct go ahead i'm sorry you're just making a statement you don't need me to stand up here or Pardon me are you just making a statement or do you have questions um I'm going to make a statement and then introduce some testimony from the planner okay I'll stand back thank you uh good evening
members of the council and the planning board my name is Brendan Judge and I'm with the law firm of Connell Foley i represent a nonprofit corporation known as Preserving Our Town which is comprised of three Briel residents George Harms Michael Craig and Lauren
Harms who are here in the audience tonight first I want to thank the the council and the planning board for conducting thisformational meeting we recognize that you're under no obligation to do so we appreciate the effort towards
transparency we also appreciate your efforts to deal with affordable housing and development issues these are complex and timeconsuming issues especially when you're faced with the builder's remedy lawsuit such as the remedy the builder's
remedy lawsuit filed by high tide bell to develop the whiskey lounge site as some of you may know I made a motion to intervene in that lawsuit on behalf of preserving our town that motion was denied at the trial level and the issue is currently before the appellet
division the crux of our opposition to high tides development is that its concept is inconsistent with sound land use planning now that is a factor that the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in
Mount Laurel 2 can be used to defeat a builder's remedy lawsuit it fails to comply with sound land use planning now I understand from Miss Ly's presentation that the burrow is considering a redevelopment uh zone for Higgins Avenue that would
include the Whiskey Lounge site that would reduce the density at that site uh I'm not in a position to comment on that tonight i have to review that with my clients and also I understand that the density isn't set yet uh it's somewhere between 10 and 12 um but I can say we
are encouraged that we see steps being taken towards sound land use planning but what I want to do tonight is to formally object on the record to any development of the Whiskey Lounge site that is not in not consistent with sound
land use planning and especially to the high tide bell uh site concept that's a concept that calls for 101 units in a fourstory structure that absolutely is not consistent with sound land use
planning with me tonight is Michael Sullivan a planner with Clark Kaitton and hints who's prepared to address the the high tide realel concept michael could you first provide the council and planning board with your
credentials okay um I'm Michael Sullivan i'm a principal with Clark Kaitton Hints in Trenton New Jersey i'm a planner uh and a landscape architect in New Jersey i've been um a professional planner for 35 years practicing predominantly in
municipal millu municipal clients planning boards um redevelopment plans affordable housing plans and the like h have you been recognized as an expert by any uh boards or courts uh on
the issue of planning yes uh hundreds are you familiar with High Tide's concept as proposed for the Whiskey Lounge site yes could you describe it please yes the concept for uh the Whiskey Lounge uh site is a a four-story
building with 101 units it's four-story multif family building with uh apartments uh 16 units 15% of those are proposals affordable housing it has 181 parking spaces configured in such a way that they are underneath the building and
constitute the first floor of the building it also includes um amenities including an amenity deck on the fourth floor which will be an outdoor recreational space on the In your opinion does the high tide concept comply with sound land use
planning i don't think it does should I tell you can I tell you can I tell you why okay um the high tide use uh abuts an existing single family neighborhood the R2 um residential neighborhood um and um
it doesn't comply with principal uses density building coverages building setbacks and other spatial relationships to the public streets and existing homes um and it the floor area is excessive and the floor area ratios are excessive it doesn't comport to any of those not
only is it incompatible with the residential district but it eliminates the commercial potential of the C1 district the total area of the C1 district is just over 8 acres the plaintiff's property high tide is 1.65
acres which is over 20% of the C1 zone development of the planist parcel uh high tide uh would eliminate the ability to develop commercial uses in the zone and that would equate to a reduction in
commercial potential of about 44,000 to 45,000 square feet of commercial ratables um there are currently no multif family dwellings in the C1 zone so it's uh distinctly different from the character of that zone um and uh because
it's inconsistent it undermines the intent of the C1 zone as a commercial district um uh the percentage of the zone consisting of residential uses because there are some residential uses within the C1 zone would increase from
about 20% to over 40% so nearing almost 50% getting towards 50% of the commercial zone that's a substantial impact to the nature and of the underlying C1 zone which is required to reflect the the existing character of the district pursuant to the New Jersey
Municipal Land use Law Section 62 all zoning must reflect the character of the district to some extent so you're undermining that um so it's not just a change to the property it's effectively removing a portion of the C1 zone effectively a zoning change um the
average lot coverage in the C1 zone is about 25% high tides lot coverage 84% that's 342% higher than the average of the properties in the C1 district um we talked about building height within the C1 district the building heights
range from about 14 feet to 30 feet um and they're two and a half stories roughly the average building height is 21 feet high Tides uh fourstory building is 47 feet or 217% higher than that in the C1 um let's
talk a little bit about the impacts to the the residential neighborhood the abuing neighborhoods to the south the southwest are entirely composed of single family residential homes it's redundant residential homes uh the neighborhood directly to subject uh
property high tide is R2 zones single family zone has older housing stock most of the housing stock uh there's some as early as 1850 they're very noteworthy those home that home um 80% of the dwellings were built before 1967 and
most were built uh between 1976 and 2013 there's 39 single family homes in that area um they're of an appropriate size and scale with uh trees on the streets and yards and and lots of light air and open space around those homes um it's
very pleasant relatively low density setting multif family housing in that neighborhood is is not permitted but the high tide proposal would put it right up against that neighborhood and would essentially um loom over the neighborhood um so the character and the scale is is
very distinctly different from the R2 residential neighborhood um and there could be substantial impacts um the density let's talk about the density i think this is one of the most stark uh differences between the R2 single family neighborhood and high tide's proposal
um the gross residential density is approximately 1 point units per acre within the R2 zone in that 39 uh home neighborhood high tide is at 61 units per acre okay that's insane
uh it would exceed the existing density by 59 units per acre which is 34 times the density of the R2 zone in that residential neighborhood um Uh so the building height the plaintiff's
high tide would ex also exceed the average height 25 ft in the neighborhood uh by 86% uh and this is even uh the height uh difference is even more uh important because when you go up four stories and then you put an amenity deck
on there with speakers and hot tubs or whatever else you're going to put up there for people to have fun with lights that all is now emphasized it's almost like having an outdoor fifth story which could uh uh impact the neighborhood so uh due to its location uh and its uh
size and scale and its density its character uh I don't think it represents sound planning to put any kind of development of that nature at that location in close proximity to those homes and uh and I also think it's detrimental to the C1 zone for
commercial use so that's what I base my opinion on that it doesn't represent sound planning [Applause] thank you Michael because High Tide's proposal does not is not consistent with
sound land use planning I encourage this council to continue to fight the lawsuit we are going to continue our efforts to participate in that lawsuit to join the fight with you thank you [Applause]
hello my name is Richard Degrroot i live at 915 Riverview Drive in Briel i've been a resident of this town for 47 plus years uh at the last meeting I attended in January um my question was what
constitutes sound planning um these gentlemen gave us an idea and please excuse my uh looking at this because I'm not a lawyer but I looked this up and it said if the proposed development is contrary to sound planning and
represents a substantial environmental hazard that should be denied uh rules have articulated these principles with a dozen site suitability uh criteria including access compliance
with the flood hazard area um I would think being that close to the river that's a flood hazard area and adjacent to compatible land uses and it requires addable uh adequate um public services
etc school but it also requires ires an adequate water supply um a deck on top of that building would probably also uh add to any noise regulations that the town has that has
to be complied with within the town um in addressing sound planning I'd like to know have any traffic studies been done because this is not just a local use this is going to be summer
use people are going to have people coming down here for the summer have traffic studies been done the other thing this week I spoke to um um Michael I think McDonald who was
in charge of um uh the uh water supply for Bel and Manisquan and um I'm not sure the other town he told me that Bel is allotted I think it's six million
gallons a quarter Uh he said two million come from each water tower and two million come from the uh Manisquan reservoir and he said we are already a town short of water
short and we will be paying a penalty for overusing the reservoir i think you mentioned that the builder will pay a pro
ratta that's not going to be the same once we start drawing more water it's not going to be anywhere near the same and we are already short of water people coming down for the summer they're going to take showers so I I don't know how sound
planning can take that into account aside from what uh Mr h's lawyer said so I I'll address the first question and probably punt it to Al uh with regards to the water issue uh who has much more
information on that as it relates to traffic study there's not been any traffic studies it has not been there's not we don't have a traffic study i have to make it clear we are in settlement negotiations with high tide site um I put on the record I agree with Michael
Sullivan i believe that what has been proposed is not sound planning um so this burrow is in the process of of thinking thinking out of the box as to how you include that site but not anywhere near those densities at this point so from a traffic impact
perspective traffic studies are typically done at a site plan level um and at that point we we would have traffic studies but there's lots of steps that need to happen before we even consider anything on that particular
site so I understand your concern um but again uh there is no negotiation or even a settlement that's coming close to what they're proposing at this point but does that mean that no traffic planning has to be done before i'm saying that we
have to go through that process as part of the redevelopment planning process um but it it's not something that we're we have done yet going into it this is conceptually what we're we're presenting i'm taking your feedback obviously traffic is a concern so we will make
sure that that we're aware of that al can you talk to the water issue at all um it doesn't we don't have to get into depth but just kind of talk about what you know about the situation sure uh so the uh burrow has been working proactively with the D to address the uh
let's say the water uh shortfall um most of that's based on calculations their D calculations um and they're taking steps forward to addressing that so that's not like an issue going forward uh you know one of the things that should be said is you
know part of the troubles that we had last summer have in large part have to do with as as many people that water their lawns with our portable water um you know unfortunately it's been fairly inexpensive to do that over the years
and I'd say you know I think it's you know kind of become like a a common thing to just use the the town water for the watering of lawns but that's something that going forward is needs to be curtailed because we do have adequate
sources for let's say the consumption within the town it's just we don't have enough water to to you know irrigate the town as well but but the water excuse me but the water use now you're talking about is in the summer i spoke to the
man who is in charge of the water he did not say this is a summer issue this is a yearround issue it's not a summer issue and once our town starts paying uh a penalty for using more water that's
going to go on top of the water bills we just received this is not a summer issue alone well it's totaled over the course of the year but it spikes for the six months that actually people do irrigation it may spike but it's it's still an issue i I think the water issue
as it relates to new development coming into town we we are aware of the need for getting potentially another water source and so the town municip the municipality is going to have to work through that process as well as we move forward and so we as it relates to
affordable housing in the state of New Jersey um you can't put a moratorium on development because you don't necessarily have sewer and water you have to find the ability to get sewer and water into the municipality to support your obligation um and so that's something that the municipality will work towards and work with developers to
ensure that um that they are going to have sufficient water supply can we move on to the next person i think probably say one last thing this uh part of this uh sound planning said compliance with flood hazard that should be in a flood zone it's partially in a flood zone it's
it sits right on the cusp of a flood zone to the high tide site we've looked at that okay thank you i'm going to make one last statement just because you said that you just said that no no this is my last statement just because you can do something does not mean that you should
[Applause] david Ericson 301 Oldbridge Road um I appreciate all the professional planning testimony uh it's probably accurate but that project wasn't presented here so I'm not going to comment on it i'm going to focus on the ones that were uh the
two round the two affordable housing sites that were identified they're both round three sites yes and you settle or one was settled with a 15% set aside instead of the 20 uh yes I believe so don't you have to change an ordinance or
something or that was part of the redevelopment plan for that parcel as part of the settlement agreement the second one was also settled with a 15% set aside instead of a 20 we haven't settled that case yet it's heading towards settlement it was presented here with a 15% set aside instead of a 20 it's it's heading towards settlement so
it may change isn't that going to increase our future burden by taking 15 on the two that we're taking instead of 20 now I think if you noticed on the on the Mumford site actually we're getting more credits um for that particular site so it's a higher set Can I finish it's a
higher set aside um so essentially we as I said that was a general uh understanding of what we think we're going to get it it may change but it doesn't change our future requirements as it relates to ordinances or our obligation no that wasn't my point my point is we could get a couple more
units now by going to 20% and have less in the future but I'll let that go um how are we getting bonus credits on round three sites when we were never a certified municipality because you're getting rental bonus credits they're rental units you get bonus credits it
doesn't matter if you were a previously non-certified site or approved uh town or not no we've never submitted anything doesn't matter well okay i'll let that one go too well she's saying I'm wrong you are wrong it's that's it's the case should
we let it go i think we let it go um you identified a redevelopment overlay zone of 14 acres approximately with a 15 unit an acre density that will generate 200 units in
total if we take 20% of those units and require everybody to do 20% instead of 15 you'll generate 42 potentially yep so we owe 3.95 and this plan generates 42
so the the way that the unmet need is um uh put together for second for the prior round and third round um there wasn't a mechanism or there wasn't a metric sorry there wasn't a metric that said you had to meet so much of your unmet need the third round sorry the fourth round says
that you have to provide 25% uh of the units of the unmet need so 65 units is our fourth round obligation 25% is of that is I don't know it off the top of my head 16 units something like that we have to provide that to meet our
unmet need as I said in the beginning unmet need may never be met because of the number of units so my my question really I just want to add one thing to that just to clear the record there's a dispute as to what that 25% applies to
the plain language of the statute says the 25% applies to the RDP fair share housing center has taken the possession contrary to the plain language of the statute the unambiguous plain language of the statute that that 25% applies to
the to the unmet need for round four you know we're going to take the position that like any judge knows the plain language of the statute controls so I'm I'm going to try to paraphrase what I think is happening here so we're
we're going to put right now we have two builder remedies that we're settling because we can't defend ourselves i heard Well I heard somebody say that even if we do all this the builders can still come in and file suit against us
even if we do everything you're doing the builders can still come in and file suit against us is that correct that's correct so we have no protection well you have some protection what kind of protection if they come in and file suit what protection well you will would if we have an approved plan we would we
would argue that we have the right to determine how to address the obligation but it is true that every municipality that secures approval of a plan that has a vacant land adjustment if a site comes along after your plan is approved and
that site is suitable for residential development you have to deal with it so I guess what I'm thinking is we're about to go to a judge and ask the judge if this plan is good enough right
good enough to approve it it has to comply with the regulations correct and they would approve it indicating that that's what a judgment of compliance means is that you're complying with the the reg the regulations so we we've known about these obligations for decades we currently have
zero qualified affordable houses in Brio i'm not aware of any deed restricted affordable housing zero we have zero qualified affordable housing in Breel so we're going in front of a judge and we're saying we know we were supposed to build 400 we did zero we have this plan
that's going to generate 40 and we know we're supposed to do 400 the judge is going to say "Good Bel." or the judge is going to say "Go back and start again." Now the judge is So the way that this works and I've been doing this for lots of vacant land towns and everything that I've proposed here
tonight has been used and approved by uh a judge or has been approve used by municipalities and approved by a judge i feel very confident that if we don't have fair share housing come in and object to our plan that that a judge and a and a a special adjudicator um would
come forward and say this this meets the obligation and it meets the regulations uh per council of affordable housing and the fair housing act yes and if fair share does step up and say they don't like it then we're starting over no I don't necessarily think we'll start over but there is going to be a a negotiation
and settlement that would would be had so we're really not sure i mean what number one a developer can come in and sue us anytime no matter what and we're not even sure if this plan is really going to be approved or not but listen you got to start from somewhere so this is where we're starting from this is
conceptually uh what's being proposed i feel very confident that if it was before a judge it it would go through an approval process um but yeah I mean what we've answered is that there is a likely is a possibility of another builder coming in at some point in the future i
however um feel confident that uh that given our level of protection with a judgment of compliance that we would be in a much better position than we potentially are now without any affordable housing plan i I would also add that by virtue of having filed the
declaratory judgment action in January we have insulation we have immunity from any developer that might sue us at this point i'm I'm glad you brought that up miss Ley I'd like to ask your professional opinion on something with your review of Bel's history would you
be willing to certify that Bel has documented a volunt a history of voluntary compliance with the COA rules documented i don't know what you mean by documented shown something i mean I did an analysis of all the master plans there hasn't been a single zoning
ordinance enacted they have said they don't have redevelopment zones if you're asking me to make a statement that would hurt the interest of my client obviously I asked her answer i asked her opinion not you let me let me just I I think I mentioned this um in my in my
presentation while the bureau has not submitted to council on affordable housing or the court there was a housing element and fair share plan put together in the year 2000 there was one recently done in 2022 so as it relates to municipal land use law you've done what
you're supposed to do i will say to you I've looked at lots of I work for lots of municipalities throughout the state um when I look at your zoning ordinance and the master plan you have created opportunities for low and moderate income households they may not be dis
deed restricted but they would be available and and affordable to folks that would meet those income uh criteria so yes there are examples of boots on the ground where they've done they've done some of that work it may not have been necessarily specifically as it
relates to an obligation but you definitely see a different um a variety of a housing stock ranging from uh attached single families to condos to apartments um to um town houses uh throughout the the the state so so you
know I don't think you're necessarily exclusionary zoning even though there's a builder's remedy suit you have created opportunities for densities upwards of six units per acre in certain zoning districts so to answer your question I think that there's been an opportunity and you've seen actually some units
being built that in my opinion are affordable to low moderate income families well I love this town and I think it's a great town and I think there's a lot of nice places to live but it doesn't meet the letter of the law and it doesn't give us protection and when a builder comes in here our zoning
gets thrown out the window that's what I'm worried about we have no protection whatever zoning you're putting in place if a builder comes in he can do whatever he wants just like the whiskey lounge is trying to do and it's Yeah I don't I don't necessarily agree with that i think we put a plan in place of builder can't come in and do whatever he wants i
disagree thank you [Applause] maybe I misunderstood you but you did say if we were not in compliance then our planning board has no jurisdiction they have nothing to say
so he's right if a builder comes in here he could do whatever he wants no that's not true what are we fighting for here so so again I'll reiterate if you if you adopt a housing element fair share plan and you get court approval what Mr mr renian mentioned was um because we have
unmet need we're we're a town that doesn't have a lot of vacant land because we have unmet need a builder can come in and say "I have a site now that I want and it's and if it's suitable for residential development I think that I should be a part of your plan." That the
fact that we have an approval does not disallow him to do that i'm not saying he can do whatever he wants we can say "Fine you've created an obligation on that property but we think it should go into a different location." So we still have zoning control we still have the
ability to put our case before a court so it it's not as if anybody can just file suits and and we have to deal with them once you receive approval from a court and I got to tell you builders know that they don't want to fight an uphill battle they don't want to spend a lot of money that once a municipality
has a judgment of compliance from a court they're they're looking at other locations they they have limited resources limited time they don't want to spend years fighting a fighting a lawsuit so um I would disagree that I don't think that that's the case i should have mentioned my name is Joe
Natoli i live at two Crescent Drive um we have Whiskey Lounge as a project that's doesn't meet the height requirements setback requirements none of the requirements it's a it's something that you would build in Jersey
City not Belle our planning board the way I understand it they have no say over that can they stop that project because it's too high because it doesn't have setback it has no landscaping it's grossly inconsistent with these several
projects that you put up here you're talking 103 units what What do we have to fight that with so we don't have jurisdiction these the these guys made a very good case about why we shouldn't
approve that project and who they're making the case to you so they have every they don't have it sounds like a judge is going to decide not you not them not me not anybody in the room if there is not a settlement agreement with
this builder it will go to a judge and the testimony that you heard tonight will be very similar testimony that I put on the record in front of that judge but again the judge that Wait a minute you said to me that I was wrong that the
planning board does have a jurisdiction over this now you're telling me that they don't the fact of the matter is they don't have a set they don't not right now they don't they So so a builder's remedy lawsuit is a lawsuit
they the the municipality is defending a lawsuit that goes to court the the judge will make a determination as to what if if a builder's remedy lawsuit can be awarded and if it is awarded then it will come back to the municipality i
think you're maybe conflating two things when it comes back to the municipality what jurisdiction or what can can our planning board say the building is too high can our planning board say there
should be more setbacks can our planning board say there's no landscaping can our can our planning board say the traffic is going to be horrendous for this size of a project in this area sir I have to I have to make this clear we are
fighting this lawsuit we will fight it tooth and nail at the at the at the um superior court the hope is and I feel very confident that we can prove that it is not sound planning and it will be dismissed that's our hope i can't tell
you what's going to happen after that but this this town is fighting that lawsuit and I am responsible to ensure that I put proofs on the on the record that it is not sound planning i agree with you i don't know if that helps then
what we need is experts like this to be at that court not here talking to you because what's the point thank you hi I'm Kim Row i live at 626 Borie Avenue and I was surprised to hear that we're on the list uh I everybody here in
this room is going to be very happy i have one question and that is uh the Borie Avenue is part of a single family home neighborhood there are some rentals but they are all single family homes all
the homes have driveways where we park there's still a lot of cars on the street no curbs no sidewalks i'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that it would be logical to put six rental units on a 1/3 acre
yard uh lot on that street so as it relates to um 100% affordable housing project the thing that we look for is um ways to utilize burrow owned property
for things like that and that's because if we had to provide for six rental units in an inclusionary um zoning district you would need 30 family homes in order to support that so the idea behind 100% affordable housing is that
municipality helps with the nonprofit to subsidize the 100% affordable housing project pretty much by giving the land um but it also saves an additional units that would have to be had somewhere else in the municipality so it's a bigger
bang for your buck um in in my opinion and we've started to work with a nonprofit uh we feel as though that the building could be uh designed in such a way that it it looks like a single family home parking will be different for sure it's not going to be the same
um but it is large enough that we believe five to six um I I think we're going to end up around five once we get it done but five rental units um could fit into that home and will there be parking on the lot yes four five five
cars yeah per RSIS correct okay thank you you're welcome [Applause] good evening uh my name is Joseph Dcross i am the president of Belal Landing uh we have a a serious vested interest of course in the in the property of our
water mids first I just want to thank everybody in the in the administration for letting this meeting happen uh without it we don't have an input so I thank you on behalf of our entire community number one number two I know that you all are between a rock and a
hard place this is a this is a a freight train that I know was coming down the pike and I think everybody now is trying to figure out how to best amilarate or to solve these problems uh in some fashion so I don't envy your positions
uh but I will say that I echo what Mr judge um and his planner uh has said we at Bel Landing what we look at and we have a petition that we are going to present appropriate time i've got at least 25 or 30 of the owners of our 56
unit owners that have already said we are vehemently opposed to the whiskey lounge project i'm not going to belabor all of the things that you know Mr judge went through with the planner but just as some food for thought for everybody you know we at Braille Landing have
extreme parking problems as it is in the summertime and along Ashley Avenue there is just there's no spots available ever it's gotten worse over the years i've lived here since 2000 i grew up in Point Pleasant Beach so I'm pretty familiar
with the area in general but the but the Ashley Avenue parking is a real problem i mean we have cars being towed out of our property all the time and I know that there was a proposal I don't know what happened or an application for additional parking for the marina for an
additional 13 to 15 spots at the end there um I I don't know what happened with that but when I look at this project and I've had in our board meetings along with the rest of the owners at Braille Landing we look and say just hypothetically if 102 units go
in there four stories high two cars per unit not including guests not including children in conjunction with the project that was just approved across from the Breil Sports Club you got another 20 units in there times two cars is 40 cars
times guests and kids the traffic alone on Higgins Avenue and Ashley Avenue is going to be off the charts then you're going to compound that with with parking problems in addition to the safety concerns for everybody in that area it's
it's going to be a a nightmare for everyone to the point where I think it's really going to change the dynamics of our community especially in that area and I know that you mentioned that the town is proposing a redevelopment or
rehabilitation plan for um Higgins Avenue my concern on the redevelopment and and and rehabilitation plan that might be set forth is the following in order to have a redevelopment and rehabilitation plan you correct me if I'm wrong uh I am an attorney but I'm a
trial attorney for medical malpractice cases so this is not in my comfort zone however when we look at a redevelopment rehabilitation plan doesn't the town have to then come up with how they're going to um take the properties that are there to conform with the plan that's
put forth and in doing that don't they have to then either by um adverse or eminent domain with condemnation take properties along Higgins Avenue no there is the redevelopment law allows for a non-condemnation area need a red
redevelopment study um and therefore uh it is really a zoning ordinance that would as people want to redevelop their property they would abide by the redevelopment plan so it's purely a private entity or private motivation for development okay so it it it would not
be subject to an eminent demand condemnation it would Okay i think that gives some comfort to other people that some of those properties are not just going to be taken by the town or whomever and and and redeveloped in some fashion without having a lot of say from the board and council and so forth i
think that's really critical in terms of what I have to go back to and answer to 56 uh owners about but I will I will just tell you that the enormous scope of what's being proposed there is is really a dynamic problem I think for all of us in in the way it's being proposed and
the the thing I was confused about in your presentation was that when that property came up it didn't say how many units are being proposed yeah so we're we're not we're we're basically saying we're going to treat the entire corridor and do some uh density on that on the
overall corridor um and and what I would suggest is as we move through that process there will be public input sessions as to what that plan will look like i'm I'm throwing out densities that would probably be in the range of 10 to 12 to 15 units an acre but it would
depend upon for instance if it's a mixed use it may be a little bit lower density because you'd have retail on the first floor but but from a I don't have a specific density for that site as I said we're throwing it in to the redevelopment plan because that's how we're choosing to deal with that site
through the plan right now um but we're we're looking to spread the the development overall at the corridor so there's not such a intense amount occurring on one particular property okay so if it's I forget what the acreage was 13 or 14 acres at that site
times 10 units per acre uh that that's a pretty wide latitude or am I am I doing the math on that wrong and you have to remember not everybody's going to redevelop their property so you you may not actually you know provide the the true buildout of that o over the next 10
years or even over the next 20 years but you're giving the opportunity for uh redevelopment to occur and then have a set aside of affordable housing as part of it okay and then really just lastly I know that you're fighting this in court and trust me I I've tried over 500 cases
myself it's not easy especially being in the chancery division which I'm I'm assuming you're in front of the chancery judge in Mammoth we're in front of the Mount Laurel judge in Mammoth and I'm assuming you're going to you're presenting expert testimony along with Mr judge and what the planners are going
to say to present to that judge we are okay and just if you could you just let us know who that judge is because I'm not familiar with the Mount Laurel judge in Mammoth i thought it was in front of the chancery court no go ahead there there's a kind of odd process going on
right now uh we're before Judge Jones in the three builders remedy lawsuits and then we're now also entered the program like this new process that's been established by the Fair Housing Act from last year so now we're going to have to
go through that process and I don't know that they figured out how one program integrates with the other we may end up with the same judge i don't know who is going to be the visage area judge but they set it up so stage one is mediation
they have what they call the program they have a retired judge that has a a planner that um tries to get you to settle and then if you settle you're done if you don't settle then you litigate and ultimately you find
yourself before whoever the visage area judge is going to be it may be Judge Jones maybe someone else and just lastly I think I think the concern I of course I can't speak for everybody i can speak for 56 unit owners but I think the concern is
is the town really going to bat and really fighting the litigation aspect of this um in a way that we all at some point can say listen we did everything we could it it came down to a judge and sometimes you know in my profession trying cases you think everything's
going to go great and you get some judge who's a renegade or somebody that just is going to go a different direction than where you're going and you end up losing or there's an issue and and you say did I do everything we could so I think on behalf of Bri Landing you know we just want you all to say we're doing
everything we can we're we're we're devoting enough assets to this just from the turnout here and you all being present I feel pretty comfortable that everybody's concerned enough that along with some of the other suits that we're joining in and frankly I'm trying to talk the uh board at Burell Landing into
joining into Mr judge's suit i know it's in the appelllet division but you know we have a concern there and it's a it's a large community right here in Burell but so thank you for your time i appreciate I can tell you I can tell you one thing the town ha was smart enough to hire one of the best planners in the
state if not the best planner in the state on affordable housing very credible an excellent witness and the issue in a in a builder's remedy suit is is the proposed project clearly contrary to sound land use planning great and I'm
sure there'll be transparency of what goes on if I was living next door I would want her testifying gotcha just as long as as we all kind of know what's going on in some fashion i think I think that provides a lot of um security for everybody knowing okay here's the status
here's what's going on and we're doing everything we can so I thank you i really appreciate your time thank you [Applause] kra can I just ask you a question sure you mentioned before i'll try to be efficient hold on one minute sir when you were talking to the whiskey lounge
you said you're basically going to fight try fighting it in court yes when we talked about the Mumford court you didn't say that no they're in settlement talks settlement talks although they haven't presented any kind of a proposal to the planning board that's the planning board it would go to the governing body that's the process the
the opening the the council doesn't have the ramification to look at look at this yeah so it goes to the affordable housing committee as well as the government which includes members of your planning board on the affordable housing committee so were you on that planning board were you did you see the
program for the new houses oh you have yeah it's in again litigation is confidential well that's very nice it's confidential negoti litigation is confidential negotiations until a
settlement agreement is had once the settlement agreement is had the that agreement will be public and everybody can review that that doesn't mean that it won't come to the planning board it will still come to the planning board you're basically telling you can go ahead and do it because the planning the
council has looked at it no I didn't I didn't say that i said it okay am I right no I I didn't say that i said goes through a settlement agreement which is in the process right now it will it will be finalized at some point in the future and will be made public and you can comment on at that point i can't talk
anymore about it however understood but you're not fighting it no we're No there's a settlement that's occurring correct thanks yes sir sorry i am John R teni i live at 815 Wrath Road resident
of uh Bel for several decades i'm particularly concerned about what's identified as 70478 Ranken Road although it does not front on Ranken Road it really is at the end of Rathjen Road and it's called
Rathton Road Woods by the locals uh this lot is particularly unsuited for this proposal of 25 town houses its location its topography and its natural setting are
inappropriate it's steeply sloped it has a stream that enters it there are wetlands there the developer who appeared before the planning board proposed to uh run the rightway of
Rathon Road through the wetlands transition area uh and 25 town houses on a very sloped um uh lot would be mean would require
removal of the natural vegetation the lot is very well densely vegetated that vegetation holds soil and water storm water the storm water already runs off
site and if you remove that vegetation and uh run it off site it is going to cause problems or at least well the volume and velocity offsite I think would probably be increased the prior
application of the developer proposed several catch basins which would have to be secured uh and cleared and a complicated conduit system which would lead into the storm water system down
Rathen Road down uh behind William Drive ultimately to Rick's Run to the Manisquan River uh so it it is a site that should not be denuted it also is a site in terms of
location that's bordered by Highway 35 which is which is a congested roadway you're going to have 25 town houses with cars coming and going to the intersection of Rathjen Road and Ranken
Road uh which I think is going to cause difficulties um the Briel uh environmental commission when it reviewed the prior plan the developers plan said that u that storm
water control system would not it did not demonstrate safe control of storm water offsite it also is a location that is not appropriate for safe walking downtown or to services and commercial
centers uh it's in a quiet residential corner of of Belle uh the site really needs is going to require protection by law of the wetlands and also the lots I think are
subject to CAFRA coastal area facilities review act and it's already been subdivided into various lots that have been developed so CAFRA may well I don't know but may well limit and prevent 25
town houses don't know something to be considered but what is clear is this is a uniquely topographically challenging site that already uh discharges storm water off site and
the imperous surfaces roadways roofs of 25 town houses would make it worse thank you [Applause] uh hi I'm Virginia Loftton uh South Street i just had a couple of comments
one is on the Borie Avenue um that proposed uh location i may be wrong but I thought there was some water infrastructure on that lot that it was a a burrow owned lot that had some I think I remember a water mane
break there about a year ago so um you want to answer that i I'm not aware of any easements or water manes on that okay i'm not I just remember there was they were doing some water main work on that one um but that's not I just wanted to make you aware of it but it's also no
sidewalks it's not what you said it is so all right i do want to go back to um you said that these affordable housing units have to be deed restricted for 30 years correct a minimum of 30 years minimum of 30 years um what happens
after 30 years so that the deed restrictions actually stay on unless the governing body releases those deed restrictions um and actually the new Fair Housing Act requires a minimum of 40 40 years of a deed restriction but it's it's a minimum so there's really nothing that happens they don't just ex
expire the the the governing body would have to take action to to release those deed restrictions after the 40 years and if those are released they become market rate units they they could become market rate units um however there is a possibility of getting additional credits when those deed restrictions
come due if you re uh what's called extend those credits sorry extend those deed restrictions uh you actually get credits for those existing units going into whatever round that may be in the future and is it possible that a developer would consider that 30 years is over and they want to change them to
market rate that we'd end up in additional lawsuits no I mean it's really up to the governing body that destriction is is clearly on the on the purview of the governing body okay and then um the other thing is when I saw your overlay for Higgins Avenue the new
um development at the Greco property was not covered i did not see that the M andD property yeah yeah that's in a separate redevelopment plan that would that we've already done that redevelopment plan it's already been approved and zoned but that doesn't get included as part of our it it wouldn't really because it's already been
approved and there they have uh rights underneath that redevelopment plan okay and then um there was an opportunity for municipalities to purchase credit for affordable housing from other towns that
um have any of our local municipalities done that that protect them from yeah that's called a regional contribution um agreement those are no longer permitted uh and they haven't been for uh 10 years plus 2008 200 what 2008 2008 so Belle
missed an opportunity to to put an end to this you would only you would only allow they would only be allowed to do 50% of the obligation and and um at that point in time uh I would say the Council on affordable housing regulations and rules were being overturned on a regular
basis and so um it was available at one point but it's no longer available any other local municipalities do that anybody around us um Wall Township did uh they had a huge obligation back in the second round in the prior round and they did some RCAs um elsewhere yes and
so the other question is when you say we are in settlement discussions when you say we does that mean the council the burrow council yes and you're representing the council or you're representing the burrow in this settlement negotiation i am I am their planner and helping them work through
any settlement negotiations that they have but you're also working for M andD on their No no I am the I am the municipal planner i don't represent private developers okay because I just confusing because you showed their plan yeah because that was um that was
settled the redevelopment plan is what I prepared for that property which is I would prepare for any property coming forward because the zoning is per the municipality um and what I showed you was what was in the settlement agreement their conceptual plans so I wasn't
necessarily saying I came up with that that was something that we worked we being the burough council affordable housing committee worked with that particular developer to come up with the redevelopment of that parcel and that was one of the exhibits picture that you showed now goes to the planning board
for approval correct so um so there's still opportunity for discussion on that yeah the the next step is that a site plan will be submitted to and I think they already have submitted to the planning board it will go through the typical approval process with the planning board and um the way that the
redevelopment plan was put together is that there's a specific concept plan and a a specific architectural plan that they must abide by in when they submit to the planning board so you've got a settlement and a and then it comes before the planning board and what if it
turns out that what they have submitted for approval is different has issues even though they have an approved settlement plan they they would have to come back and change the redevelopment plan if there's a substantial deviation
um from the the plan that's been part of the zoning which is the redevelopment plan right they'd have to change the zoning in order to do that um but my understanding is what they've submitted is I I believe the burough council has found that it was consistent with the redevelopment plan as to what they've
submitted at this point consistent but I think there were concerns with those building heights and ability for fire equipment to that and that will be worked out with that gets worked out in correct yes okay thank you welcome
[Applause] good evening my name is Rich Sedero i'm at 529 Borie Avenue and my questions do pertain to the Borie Avenue parcel there um I guess the the burrow uh being that
they own that property has offered this uh to be part of the plan so that they can sat satisfy partially satisfy the requirements yes okay and are there any plans yet that have been developed no
plans yet we've talked with a nonprofit developer that's um has many years of experience of doing this um what I what I would offer up to the community is once we do have plans that we would have a neighborhood m meeting to go through those plans and have feedback on those
plans so there would be an opportunity for neighbors to um as with these other properties that are under discussion to to have comment and provide input yes now you did also mention that parking would not be the same uh is there going
to be some kind of variance that uh reduces the the parking uh on the lot itself it's really not a very large parcel of land they would have it's very narrow and it's deep but it's narrow yeah they would have to provide parking on site in accordance with residential
site improvement standards which is a state requirement on parking so what I meant was it's not going to look like a single family home necessarily you'll most likely have a parking lot that will park those vehicles is there some kind of time frame that you would expect this
to start to gain steam once we re once we receive court approval we typically have about two years to actually put shovel in the ground um so I would I suspect you're probably looking at two to three years um from now okay thank
you very much you're welcome my name is Bruce Jeffrey i live at 804 Ashley Avenue which is Caddy County Corner to Whiskey Lounge what's in here can you speak into the mic bruce Jeffrey 804 Ashley Avenue which is adjacent to Whiskey Lounge um I think a lot was said
here in the best interest of the taxpayers um we covered a lot this past Monday at the council meeting which I appreciate just very uh couple questions do we ultimately know what the status is of the liquor license at Whiskey Lounge
has anybody researched that it was okay thank you um has any consideration been given to the town hall as to where it exists now whether that is a site that could be devoted to assisted living uh we have not looked at it for
that particular use but we did talk about the town hall as a potential site for future affordable housing um it it was not carried forward because we didn't think that there was enough land space to do that given I guess the redevelopment of that parcel at some
point i'm not sure I followed that you you asked about the town hall yeah there's been discussions in the past to consolidate municipalities with other towns and I was just wondering if that site was ever under consideration not that I'm aware of any thought to it
or is it too late okay all right my next question there was a recent rec recent settlement um with the township uh to the owner of Waypoint uh for a couple hundred,000 um the township messed up I
believe um and had to pay him this is the same council that's representing us um with this developer remedy is that correct i believe the answer is yes all we ask is as taxpayers that you do the right thing and you fight a little bit
harder i understand that but you represented the taxpayers with that particular suit correct well I'm not the attorney that represented them but I can tell you that $250,000 by insurance i understand that
but they paid it in behalf of the township okay um because the tachet possibly made the wrong decision i don't believe we did make the wrong decision then why' we pay $225,000
are my faction correct civil suit and business decision made the best interest okay um just to give a perspective um to the taxpayers the amount of parking that's being considered for this site
there's almost twice as many parking spots in the lot adjacent to this building so when you all drove in here and had difficulty parking that's how many cars they're proposing for this first floor thank you for your time
[Applause] dave Ericson I just had a quick follow up on the Whiskey Lounge Builder Remedy lawsuit aspects that's currently been filed and sitting with Judge Jones that's what I heard yes and no matter what we do here that
particular lawsuit is going to stay with Judge Jones because it's in the third round we'll see i I don't know that they that the courts have figured out how they're going to interact with this new system no but the option would be that round
four gets pulled back to Judge Jones this this whiskey lounge is not leaving you know the the the truth of the matter is these judges are feeling their way they don't really know of figuring out as they go okay thank you any other questions thank you so much
for coming out tonight um and look forward to seeing all of you as we go into the next couple of months and uh uh are at the planning board with the housing element fair share plan thank you