Good evening. Thanks for your patience. I now call the special council meeting of March 9th, 2026 to order at 7:11 p.m. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> City clerk, will you please read the statement regarding Open Public Meetings Act?
>> This meeting is called pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings law. Notice of this meeting was included in a notice sent to the record and advertised in said newspapers newspaper on January 12th, 2026 posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building and has remained continu continuously
posted as the required notices under the statute in accordance with the provisions of PL 2025 chapter 72. A revised notice was posted on the city of Englewood website on March 5th, 2026. Copies of the notice are notices are and
have been available to the public and and are on file in the office of the municipal clerk. Proper notice haven't been given. The municipal clerk is directed to include the statement in the minutes of this meeting. >> Roll call.
That backwards again. Uh >> Councilman Tayer >> present. >> Councilman Wilson >> present. Councilwoman Wasatski >> here. >> Council President Rosenwag >> present. >> Also present is Mayor Michael Wilds, City Manager Robert S. Hoffman, Deputy
City Manager John Burkner, city attorney Bill Bailey, city planner John Zabbo. Absent with prior notice is Councilwoman Angela David. >> All right. And just as we get started, um, city clerk, can you just I know a lot of people were noticed about this
meeting. Can you just explain the process and why um the city council meeting is different from all other nights? >> Okay. >> I don't know where to start. Okay. >> Why would people notice? >> So, the reason people were noticed
because this is a land use ordinance that um is creating an overlay zone over already zoned areas. Uh the law requires that everyone that is being affected by the uh overlay zone and anyone within
200 ft of properties that are uh in this overlay zone uh have to receive a regular uh mailed letter and a certified mailed letter. So that's the requirement from the law. >> And Mr. Bailey. Um, have we,
you know, there are a lot of requirements to have a a council meeting. Have we met all those requirements in terms of notification and etc.? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. And just be before we start and as as Mr. Zbo's getting ready,
just to go over uh tonight, we're going to have Mr. Zbo explain uh the changes here. But even before we get to that, you know, why are we doing this? um because it's a constitutional mandate from the state. Um and we started this
process probably back in 2022 when we uh were working on the third round of affordable housing and we came out with uh the initial set of overlay zones and there was a lot of discussion about them in 2023
and they were passed by the council in the summer of 2023. Um and then uh round four um started shortly after that and we were working on that for a good chunk of
last year 2025 and that was eventually passed by the council in June 2025 and that mostly consisted of some changes in the round three overlay zones and there was a um a
process where people or organizations could challenge our round four uh plan and three entities uh did. Um one was Fairshare Housing, which is a statewide organization, and I believe
they challenged about 500 out of the 566 municipalities. I could be uh off on on that. Um and also uh Englewood one and um Care1431
East Paliside Avenue. Uh but um so we had three uh objectors to our plan and then this goes to a judge who has an adjudicator who who works with the towns and the objectors. And so it's four entities working there plus the adjudicator. So five people.
And we we had our professionals, Mr. Zabbo, uh, Mr. Busach, who's not here tonight, who's our, uh, affordable housing attorney, uh, working on this, and then they would report back to the council. And as you can imagine, with,
uh, four entities in the room, you know, entity one could say, "I want A." Entity two could say, "I don't want A." Entity three could say, "Forget about A. I want B and C." And you know to get to a situation where the city and the three
objectors are in agreement is you know a challenging um event. We have a very uh strict deadline of March 15th to get this done which is why we're meeting uh tonight March 9th um with the second reading.
So, we introduced this uh five weeks ago and that was very deliberate because we were giving time for the planning board to meet and discuss it and we we we we typically give them 35 days. It turns out they're meeting on Thursday to really discuss this. So, we're going to
discuss this tonight but hold off on the vote till Friday so we can hear from the planning board uh on Thursday about their um their deliberations on this. Um uh over all of this there, you know,
there's this thing called um um why am I having a what's what's the when the judge takes over builder's remedy? Builder's remedy. Yeah, I guess uh that's very Freudian. I I forgot the thing I'm most scared of.
So this builder's remedy is uh this poison pill uh this sort of damocles hanging over us where the judge can just take a strip away all of our zoning and just allow anything that allows affordable housing. It's it's very bad
for municipalities. Uh you could Google um Anglewood Cliffs builders remedy and you could see how much it costs them. So we really need to get a plan done by March 15th. um just to show you how um um
difficult the process is. You know, we need, like I said, five weeks notice for this, but the template, the format to do this didn't come out to a few weeks ago. So, there's really no way to have gotten any agreement formalized into this
format within the March 15th deadline. So, next month, we're going to have to amend it to change the format. It just shows you how difficult the process has been to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees. One question that's come up since 2022, which I just want to answer
unequivocally tonight. There's this is just changing the zoning to make it more favorable for developers to build affordable housing. This does not give any power to a developer to the municipality to take someone's property
and make it into affordable housing. So if if and when this gets passed, it doesn't mean someone can knock on your door and say, "You're out of here. I'm putting in affordable housing." If you own property in in town, you'd have to sell it and the buyer would have to give you
um your asking price. And if and if you don't sell it, they they can't do anything. You you you this there there's absolutely no provision. This council does not support it. That's not going to happen. Developers don't have that power. So, I know that's always a concern when especially you get a
certified letter and it it has the block and lot. It seems like something something's happening, but it's really uh some tweaks to to the zoning in case someone's going to develop uh some of the areas. Um anything that I missed but Yeah.
Council President Prom. >> Yeah. I um city clerk, I believe that um of the notices that were sent, it was also sent to properties that were removed from the overlay zone or from
being 200 ft from an overlay zone. So if people look at the map, everything in red was removed from the overlay zone. So, anybody who lives within those red areas or within 200 feet of those red areas also received not notices. Um,
city clerk, how many notices were sent out? >> 1190. >> So, 1190 people received notices. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, almost 1,200 people. So, and that that's a good point. if you're being removed from the overlay zone and
it's being reverted back to what we had pre202, you received a notice. Um, so if you like being in the overlay zone, although it obviously didn't affect you because nothing got built in the past four years, uh, with regarding to the overlay
zone, uh, that's, you know, you're not going to be in it any further. You lost your opportunity to take advantage of it. Um, so Mr. is I'm going to hand the floor over to you to go through uh the very complicated uh issue.
Oh, and and forgive me. Then we will open up the ordinances to public comment. So, everyone will have two opportunity. The ordinances are pretty similar, but there are two of them. So, everyone will have two opportunities to speak tonight. So, um for ordinance five and ordinance six, uh
but but hopefully Mr. Zable will answer all your questions. Good evening, council president, members of the council, mayor, members of the public. Pleasure to be here. What is pending before the council tonight are two tasks. One, to adopt on second
reading, potentially adopt on second reading, two ordinances that are intended to implement the housing and housing element and fair share plan. and it introduced two ordinances that need to be adopted to further implement the plan that it arose as a result of
discussions between all of the parties that the council president discussed. Just by way of background, um again, we went through a number of presentations and back in in uh last year, the state of New Jersey amended
its Fair Housing Act and created an entirely new process called the program. And what it's intended to do is to guide municipalities into the fourth round to satisfy its obligation under the Mount Laurel decision of the Supreme Court
that each municipality has a constitutional obligation for the development of affordable housing. And basically boils down to the principle that municipalities a cannot use zoning as a tool to keep
certain housing types from being built. that would prevent certain families and seniors from moving into their town. So, it's called exclusionary zoning. It's never legal. And the Supreme Court said you you cannot do that. You have to create housing opportunities.
The c the Supreme Court went one step further and it mandated that it was a constitutional obligation that municipalities, every municipality has an obligation to provide this opportunity for affordable housing. And there have been a series of
decisions that elaborated on that. So back in 2023 going uh 2024 going to 2025, we've been going through this process of trying to determine how the city of Anglewood is going to comply with its constitutional mandate. The the city of Anglewood has an obligation for
359 affordable units. That's the perspect we call perspective need. It's a lot of units. Uh, and when we did the analysis, to nobody's surprise, the city of Anglewood does not have any vacant land to accommodate all of those units. We just can't build that many units. And
there's a process under the law that talks about vacant land adjustments. And what we did was we took that vacant land adjustment and the city's obligation in terms of its affirmative responsibility is we we have no land. So those 359 units is what we call unmet need. Unmet
meaning we're going to aspire to try to develop it, but if it doesn't happen, it's because it's there's a lack of land. So all this is unmet need. The way you treat unmet need is you identify areas as overl zoning, but you create an opportunity on top of that for someone
to develop affordable housing. We did that in the third round and we're now doing that in the fourth round. But what's changed from the third to the fourth round? Well, there was challenges filed on the third round plan by Anglewood One, joined in by some other
uh property owners challenging the plan and questioning the overlays as they were, which then drove it into litigation. That rolled into the fourth round where that litigation carried into the fourth round. So, the city had to deal with that objection.
Objections were also filed by Fair Share Housing Center. Fair Share Housing Center is an advoc advocacy group and all they care about is getting affordable housing units. That's their function. That's their focus. They filed objections because they did that for, as
the council president indicated, for a lot of municipalities in the state of New Jersey because they want oversight over the process. They want to make sure that municipalities are doing what they're supposed to. and they have great sway with the court and they influence decisions and they become a protagonist
in the process. So we had to deal with fair shares objections, we had to deal with the Anglewood one litigation and we had to resolve those while still meeting our constitutional mandate to provide for affordable housing. As a result of a lot of discussions, presentations, the
city did adopt a housing plan in June as it was required to under the Fair Housing Act. There was a public hearing planning board adopted and it was all taken care of and that's when the objections were being filed because you had until August 31st to file these objections and we've been dealing with
these objections from then until this day today. Uh as a result of these discussions, as a result of the back and forth negotiations and the settlements, uh we've agreed that there will be certain changes to the the third round
and fourth round plans and that's what these ordinances are intended to do. I'm just giving a very brief overview and then I'll get into the ordinances themselves. If you look on the screen before you, there's a board here. They're these are this is going to
highlight all the changes. Now, it wasn't possible for the city of Anglewood to simply say we're not going to do any more overlays. We're just going to just, you know, stick with what the plan was in the third round and go forward from there. It wasn't going to work because fair share wanted to wanted
calculated numbers of how we were going to address our 359 unit obligation. We agreed to remove some areas from consideration in you know based on settlement discussions with Anglewood one which was agreed to by fair share
and we agreed to add a few in areas that we thought were appropriate that would not impact neighborhoods and so that's what is the result of that map that's what the housing plan that's going to be reviewed on Thursday evening is going to talk about and the ordinances that are before the council tonight are to
implement those changes and we'll go into all those uh one by one. Now, if you look up on the board, you'll see colors. You're going to see red and you're going to see blue. And I'm going to
blow this up. Now, these areas in red were in the third round plan as overlays for affordable housing. Those areas by agreement, settlement agreement are going to be removed. This is the Pendle area. This is a
portion of Angle. This is East Palisades. Up here is the uh King's Gardens development, which we're going
to remove. Just above that is another neighborhood that's going to be removed. It's going to stay under the SP zoning that it has now. This is the Mary Street area. This area is going to be removed from the overlays. They will revert back to the zoning that
they have now. The blue areas are new areas because as we were eliminating overlays, we had to convince fair share that we were still meeting our obligation by providing sufficient opportunity for the housing that wasn't
going to be built because we were removing these other areas. So the city agreed that the downtown area all in blue be added as an overlay. Now what's interesting about that is the
downtown already permits affordable already permits housing above the storefronts throughout the the downtown. It already allows that. If you look at the zoning right now, you'll see that that that's already in place. Well, fair share wasn't satisfied with that.
They wanted an actual number attached to so they can calculate how many units because again we have that magical 359 number that we have to at least demonstrate that we're trying to make an effort to achieve. So we agreed to overlay essentially what
already permits residential housing over the downtown. as a planning perspective, that is a positive thing because that's generally where you want to concentrate your housing and your your mixed use because it supports they're symbiotic. They support the businesses underneath. It
provides while what we call wallets on the street. It provides convenience for the residents. It's walkable. Uh it car has all the characteristics of a of a very uh traditional downtown. The other area that we were agreeing to,
and this was in the original plan, was this area here on Anglewood Avenue. It's the site where you have the former um uh the Salvation Army store that's empty and decrepit. That whole block that was in the fourth round plan as
originally was adopted back in June, that's going to remain. That's going to be an AHO1, 15 units of the acre, fourstory, 40 feet period. We agreed just below the Mary Street area, Alewood
said, well, why don't we look at this area here? The third the fourth round plan that the city had adopted called for the auto dealerships on Grand Avenue to be an overlay. The idea there is we we provide some residential, there's commercial on the street. There's that interactivity that
you want, walkability, the convenience of walkable storefronts and all that. Now, we have an area behind there that's also slated for affordable housing. And what that does is it forms a transi
transition. It eliminates an industrial area. It transitions into the Mary Street area. So you have a neighborhood that's forming here that can that can be a a catalyst for positive change in that region. So we
felt that that was an appropriate change. There's been interest to develop the area here along Route 4 by the turnpike at a higher
density. So we're going to allow that because we have to show again fair share angle one. We have to show that there's an opportunity to provide for affordable housing. The one pending change is this site. When this map was created,
uh we there was an understanding with the owners of the property which was was to be developed uh for at one point for assisted living but then it morphed into a multif family uh development proposal which has been the source of litigation for the city. It was added in as a
separate overlay zone for 150 units. That is not in the overlay ordinances that you that is being considered tonight because we we thought we had a settlement, but we're still not settled on that. We still have some issues with with specifics about how the development is going to proceed. So, that is going
to be set aside for now until we can figure out an agreement with with the developer on that site. But those are the highlighted changes uh that the plan proposes and what these ordinances will implement. And that's the o broad overview so that you understand what
these ordinances do. So we're removing some areas, we're including some areas and we're maintaining the overlays that aren't being changed as the same categories that are reflected on the map. And this one map explains all of that. Uh
>> it's just with the exception, as Mr. Zbo noted of was 431 East Palisade A. So that is not part of this just so the record's clear. >> The housing element and fair share plan that will be considered by the planning board on Thursday and I encourage you to to that's I believe going to be by Zoom
to tune in and and participate in that. My understanding is that um that is still there's still some issues there that we are working out. So, it may or may not be in the plan, but the housing plan that the planning board is going to
consider on Thursday has it in the plan at 150 units. However, it talks about the need to dismiss all all litigation against the city. There's a tremendous lawsuit pending on that site, and we haven't gotten to that point. So that
won't happen unless all the conditions that the city has imposed on that site are agreed to which would include it dismissing all of the litigation against the city or and all liability. That would be those are the changes. And then the plan reflects everything that
was discussed up to this point. It reflects discussions with Anglewood one. It reflects the discussions with Fairshare Housing. We still have yet to get a settlement with um with the owners of the property over on care which was the care one site. I'll call it the care
one site. What's important is we need to proceed because of the March 15th deadline because if we fail to meet that there's a possibility that the city may lose its its immunity. Now what does that mean? What we're pursuing here is what we call
a certificate of compliance from the court from the program. Once we achieve that certificate, we are protected from what we call builder's remedy suits. And that's important because with that protection, the city is determining where the development should occur under
what standards, how many units, how high, all of that has to be part of the plan. If we didn't have that immunity, if we didn't have that protection under the under that certificate of compliance, anybody could come into your neighborhood and decide, you know what,
this looks good. let me put it here. We would have no control. We would have to litigate that at great expense and we would lose control of the site. And in my experience with builder remedy suits, they're very difficult to defend because you didn't comply with the affordable housing requirements of the Fair Housing
Act. Therefore, you haven't met your obligation under the Mount Laurel doctrine. So, that's is that that certificate. The plan that has evolved has evolved as a result of litigation, tough negotiations, a lot of back and forth, but I think in its final form,
this is a plan that could be supported and also will gain the certificate that we need to get that protection. >> All right. Thank you. Uh so now we're going to uh open it for public comment um the public hearings and then as the
question I think at the end of both ordinance she at the end of the public comment if there are any questions. Well, do you want to you want to are we going to introduce we going to do the public hearings on the ordinances all >> so in the public if I may the public
hearings on ordinances 05 and 06 were which were introduced on uh February 3rd um then once that is concluded the public hearing portion will be closed and the
matter will be continued until Friday uh March 13th at 3 p.m. via Zoom. The reason being the planning board is meeting Thursday so that we can get their input before there's an actual vote on it. Uh the council president
mentioned 35 days by the way earlier that that's required by law. That's under the mun state municipal land use law that when you introduce a land use related ordinance, it has to go to the planning board and they have a minimum of 35 they have 35 days to review it.
they can do it quicker if they are able to. In this case, they're doing it on Thursday. So, that's why that is Friday. Now, the other wonky thing to put it nicely is we have two things on for an amendment
to these ordinances that haven't even been adopted yet. Uh, >> I was going to get into that. The the part of it is on February 12th, the state of New Jersey came out with a template for one of the ordinances that the municipalities are required to
adopt. February 12th is in 35 days from March 15th, which is the deadline for all the towns to act. This is kind of the absurdity of this. So, that ordinance is going to have to be amended. Um, which that public hearing will be in April, but at least we're
hitting the March 15th deadline. The other ordinance being introduced tonight is to just correct a uh >> omission problem. >> An omission on the plan. There's AHO5. It's been referred to that's not supposed to be included. That's going to
be removed. Um but again because of the timing we couldn't just put all this stuff off for a couple weeks and adopt it because as council president said the sort of damocles theoretically comes down on March 15th which could open us up to
builders remedy suits. One quick point on that you know you've all heard many times probably the references to our neighbor Anga Cliffs who lost their builder's remedy. So that not only effectively canvoid a municipality
zoning in that case, the judge uh even went so far as to say Angler Cliffs, your planning board can't even act. Um and the judge said any applications that go to the planning board, they're coming
to me, the judge and my special master. We're going to decide what goes there. Um and that was you know a significant issue and is for Anglewood Cliff. So that is what all these towns are trying to avoid.
Okay. So well um again the these two ordinances are are kind of peas in a pod but we we will have two separate public hearings for them and then any questions that were brought up from these two hearings we'll ask uh Mr. is able to um address or or
the city manager if it's more or or Mr. Bailey if it's more appropriate for them. >> Um so I now declare the public hearing on ordinance 26 oh excuse me city clerk will you please read ordinance 2605 by title only. >> This is an ordinance to amend the code of the city of Anglo by repealing and
replacing article 17 affordable housing. I now declare that the public hearing on this ordinance 2605 is now open. Anyone who desires to be heard or to ask questions concerning this ordinance will be heard at this time. And speakers are asked to say their
name, municipality, and you have three minutes. >> Good evening. My name is Raymond Diaz 408 Shannon. I have certain comments. One is uh the second paragraph on page 14
uh whereas the ordinance establishes citywide regulations and standards to govern the development of very low low moderate income affordable units for multif family for sale rental residential developments that may be
approved by the city or city planning. Why is that? For me it's ambiguous. It's either you or him. The planning board's responsible for the master plan. So why shouldn't they consistently just do this plan? >> I can
>> and I go don't go back and forth because the and I don't want to lose my time, but there was a time when in June we were waiting for responses >> and you they couldn't respond to us because they say it's in progress. So we had like four or five minutes that it's
progress and nothing is said. So now we had a meeting Monday. we find out all of this and this is a complete surprise because I I read something to the effect that uh we were not going to change the single family zoning to allow multi-
dwelling type development today. You tell me that the court says we're not allowed to do that. So, I rather that I want to hear the truth right up front. Don't keep me holding on back and asking these questions. Uh I think the
residents should have the respect of the council and of the courts to hear or to answer our questions that we have. And there were two primary things we were worried about was the flooding issue and the multi-dwelling development and single family. I don't want to see
anything where I got 25 apartments in front of my house and this is a uh it's a dead end street. Now we got we can only park so many cars in our driveways and then you got 50 cars in the street. What good is that? That that is not the
anglewood that I came to move to. >> Okay. So I wish that they can respond to that. Why is that ambiguity? Oh Jesus. Uh controls. Will the affordable housing units status remain so after a vacancy or will the status change to a market
rent apartment? Yes or no? Okay. Also, there's an inconsistency there where it says first you say low low and low income. This one says low and moderate. Why is that?
>> What ordinance are you reading from? >> 2605. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's down at the bottom uh page 14 25118. The last paragraph says low and moderate income. Why the low low was kept out?
>> Uh a big one. I already said that. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Just so we, you know, since a lot of people might have the same questions, maybe you can address some of these
issues. So we, you know, couple of things. >> So we'll do a person come up and then we'll answer if there's a question. So please go ahead, Mr. Za. Uh, ordinance 2605 is part of the discussions with settlement with fair share housing center and one of the things that it
does is it guarantees that no any development no matter where it occurs if it has five units or more must have a 20% set aside period. Before that uh under the third round it was 15% for rental 20% for owner occupied. The law
was amended uh this in 2024 to require 20% across the board. This is intended to comply with that. So that language that you're referring to comes straight out of the statute. There are three categories of affordable housing units that are recognized that you have to provide for under the under your plan.
Very very very very low, low and moderate. Very low are those families that earn 30% below median. Low is 50% of median for the region. It's all broken down. And moderate is
80% of median. And the units that are created as a result of the plan, should they be created that are designated for affordable, only those families that meet those kinds of of income requirements can go into those units and they're deed restricted for over 40 years. So it continues to be an
affordable available as affordable housing. The terms of of the regulations, I want to impress upon the public that nothing's going to get built without planning board site plan approval. uh the ordinances that have been drafted that are in your if you go to for example online you go to Englewood
e-code you'll see all the all the ordinances all the laws and regulations you have to go to to the planning board for site plan approval and in there you have to meet parking you have to meet setbacks you have to meet the height requirements you have to meet all the architectural standards landscaping
standards open space standards all of those are incorporated into the ordinance requirements the most important of which I know that is a concern to everybody here is stormwater management. Right? Every application there is a whole article chapter in your code that talks
about storm water management and the requirements of that. What kind of a storm you have to plan for, how do you have to detain it, groundwater recharge, green infrastructure, all of the recent requirements that have been amended by D are incorporated into your ordinances.
So no one can build in the city of Anglewood without having to detain the storm water that's running off their property. And what the regulations require is that there can be no increase. So what engineers do is they do a pre-calculation of what's running
off and then they do a post calculation after development with the buildings and the parking and everything else and it has to equal zero. Now there's a green there is a groundwater recharge requirement. there's a water quality requirement if you're a major development. Those things tend to bring
that even down more to to less than what was running off. In my experience, under the new regulations, most of the time we are holding back more water than what's going into the system. I've said this before, part of the issues that you have in the cities, you have older infrastructure. One of the benefits of
maybe getting some of these developments done is we get the infrastructure upgraded to address some of these concerns that you have. But the bottom line is with storm water it is driven by NJDP department of environmental protection by state regulations that are very stringent. We have one of the
strictest laws in the in the country when it comes to runoff. So ordinance 2605 talks about the set aside that we agreed to which was already matter of law and then we'll get into the introduced
ordinances later on about what that has to accomplish. Thank you, Mrs. Does anyone else wish to address uh anyone from the public wish to address the council regarding ordinance 2605?
Please come up. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, ma'am. I'm Dr. Moana. I am here tonight because I got this letter last weekend. I think it was on Saturday that somebody knocked on my door and we opened the door. They handed
us a certified letter. Now when we were here in 2023, I we said that certified letter they sent us a few days before this meeting was the first letter we ever got since we did not know anything about this until we get that certified
letter on 2023. We came here, there was a riot. So everybody went home without concluding the meeting. Now, we haven't hear anything about this except when the man handed uh the certified letter to us uh last Saturday.
If they send out any letters to people, we never received it except two certified letter one handed to us a few days before the last meeting of 2023. And this past Saturday when my son got it, he said, "Mommy, they have started
again." I say what he said the people who wants to take our house. I say well I don't think that anybody is going to take your house unless if you want to give up your house. >> Correct. >> So don't lose a sleep over that. >> Correct.
>> But the trouble with I why I come here to ask a few question is that I have no no um there's no way I can understand this map. >> I have no knowledge of it. So this thing it doesn't apply to me. This map I have
no clue what you guys were talking about. I was sitting down here. I was one of the first people that have showed up in this meeting. Yet I cannot understand this. Another thing is you know I know it's not your problem.
You know you didn't start this. Obviously this thing came from somewhere. This zoning and all whatnot. Maybe it's part of what a city have to do to survive. That I understand because in my career sometimes they will come up with changes that you do not understand
where it's coming from. It's coming from above. You cannot tackle the people the management at the work because it doesn't those things were handed down to them to take care of and then they put it on us. >> That's But online is
even though that we do not know where this zoning thing is coming from and I moved in in here 30 years ago, February 6 to be exact. I bought the house where I lived.
I raised all my children here. They all went to school here. and I have traveled from here to New York every single day in those 30 something years to work and come back. Now, the difference
between me and the people who need affordable housing is because I decided that I'm going to go work so hard. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, we have a >> Oh, time out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm sorry about I I I think the
the the the the sense I'm getting is the frustration that you're getting a notice and what what where is this all coming about. I have a lot of issues with the process. I've discussed them before. Council's well aware of it. When you're when you
have litigants and you're trying to negotiate or try to get to some kind of a reconciliation, a settlement, you have a lot of back and forth. And with the time frame shrinking as significantly as it was over time, we still don't have a full settlement with
all the parties yet, but we still have this March 15th deadline. So, we're marching forward with this because we have to protect the city. But the reality is when you're going back and forth in settlement agreement, there's very little chance to have to consult with the planning board, go back to have
a another session and keep going back and forth when all this is done being driven by litigation. So, we have this dual problem of litigation. We have a deadline. We're working all that out and the plan itself kind of reflects that.
Now, if if there's a particular area you're concerned with, you could point to it and we could talk about it. >> I don't understand it. I don't know what's going on in there. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And just to uh reiterate, I know one thing you said which I'd said earlier,
you know, they're coming to take our house and and that is is certainly that's certainly not the case. The council doesn't do that. We have no funds to do that. Um so that that's we didn't do it four year or three years ago when you got the notice. We're not
going to do it now. So that's just not even in in a figment of our imagination at this point. This is and and and also this um map is online so you could you know zoom in and see you know exactly where your property is. Like we said we
have 1,200 properties that were noticed so it's it's tough to discuss each one individually obviously >> and and and many of you probably received a notice that isn't even affecting your property but you're within 200 feet. And the reason for that is the land use law, the state of New
Jersey requires that notice be given to property owners within 200 feet whenever there is a zone classification change. And that's what's happening. So if you weren't affected before, >> I'm sorry. >> Oh,
okay. Forgive me. Uh the other the other point, so that's why you might have gotten a notice. Second point is no one's taking anybody's home. There's no condemnation in here. We've talked about this numerous occasions. It has to be consensual.
No one's taking anybody's house. Your zoning is underlying. That's what controls. It's only if the opportunity presents itself. And the third and final thing I'd say, we're going to the council's going to have a public hearing on the next ordinance 06.
It identifies by block and lot your all the properties that are going to be added and which are going to be taken out. All you have to do is look up your property block and lot. Look at your tax bill and you'll be able to locate where these areas are. We do it by block and lot because that's the legal designation
of a property. That's what we use under the assessment records and that's what we use for mapping and that's why that that's occurring. So, does anyone else want to address the council regarding ordinance 2605? >> Yeah, coming up.
Hey, >> how you doing? Mike Gonzalez, Mr. Zable, again, these are just more questions. I'm just trying to educate myself here. >> So, we're being mandated to show that we have the ability or someplace to build 359 units. Is that correct?
>> Speak for three minutes, then I'll answer. >> Yeah. Get just ask your question and then that way you don't lose your time. >> No problem. >> That kind of throws off my train of thought. >> I'm sorry. All right. I would prefer the I give you a question just give me an answer. >> All right. The question was the the we're being
>> Yeah. Are we mandated to build 359 units? >> No. And the reason I want to clarify that is you have an obligation to provide the opportunity, but because you have no vacant land, we're treating it as unmet need, which the law treats differently, okay, >> than realistic development potential,
which I don't want to get into because you don't have any. >> So, it's it's it's it's a potential, which is why you can do overlays >> because it's aspirational, and I've used that word numerous times, where we hope that maybe something will happen, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. >> No. No. So, in other words,
theoretically, we could block out the areas, but build none. >> Theoretically, it'll be up to the market. The city is not obligated to actually build these units themselves. >> Okay, gotcha there. Uh, second, are any of these blue zones outside of Ward
Three? >> I don't have a W map on me. Um, >> anybody in the You can answer that after. Are any of anything outside of Ward three Most of it's outside. >> Yeah.
>> I I >> This is Ward four where we are. >> And >> yeah, we're W three. >> I think it's mostly in W. >> Okay. All right. Uh yeah. Fine. And I guess the last thing you were talking about recharge, right? We get runoff,
recharge. Uh obviously we got problems here. If we do build, if you take away green space, you're only going to get more runoff. And so how are we looking at the sewage pipes retrofitting everything
more people more parking >> and and again we got when we've had some rainstorms and then next thing you know Shopright is underwater parking lots collapse. >> Uh that road has been blocked off behind shop right you can't even cut through
there anymore from the last storm that came through. Um, so how are we handling how would we handle that? >> You handle it with your stormwater management ordinance. I mentioned earlier that everything has to go to the planning board. I've had the privilege
of working with your city engineer France Vulce as the board of adjustment planner and nothing gets built without addressing storm water management and making sure that there's zero runoff and how it's handled. And the city's very diligent about that and you have to comply with NJP regulations which are
incorporated into your ordinances. What that means is you have to detain it on your site either underground or in some kind of a system. So it it's not going to be 100% pavement and running off the properties without some control.
>> Thank you. >> Please come out. >> Hi, good evening. I just have a question around taxation. Is there any way that >> Oh, my name is Rosa Franco. Um, so I want to know if all these changes impact
somehow the way that our properties are taxable. >> That's >> Does it affect your taxation? >> Yeah. Is there any way that these changes if >> affect property values? >> Yes. Yes. >> I'm not a tax assessor, so I'm not qualified to really answer that
question. Generally speaking, no, because the underlying zoning doesn't change. The rights to your house doesn't change. And I but I can't speak to the assessment, but I can't that shouldn't change either because it's just an overlay.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Pete Jansen, Ridgeland Terrace. uh one of the blue zones at the bottom is I believe Brookside the bottom. Why would you consider uh increasing the density
in an area that is directly downstream from Crystal Lake? So the water flows from Crystal Lake through those dual culverts and then just to the south side of Brookside. That blue box is just to the north of Brookside. So, you're
putting people >> Are you talking about this area here? >> What? >> I I don't know what you're talking about. >> I'll ask you. The question is, why would you put people in direct harm's way that when there's a culbert right there that takes all the water from Flat Rock to
Crystal Lake and right there and then from there it goes into team uh into uh Leonia. And why would you increase it to >> 50 units per acre?
>> That's one question. I'll let you answer him at the end. >> Okay. >> Uh the second is up on the hill the uh the blue box that you put on a chart already. >> That's a pristine undeveloped except for like two or three small houses on about
nine acres. >> Are you talking about this parcel up here? >> 431 Palisade. Yeah, that one. >> It's under litigation. >> Yes. >> But you put it on a map. >> Correct. >> So, it looks like you're allowing the litigation to determine how you handle
that and then consider it as part of affordable housing. We all know when it floods the the the storm drains and the manhole covers blow up at the bottom of the hill and it's a geyser. So, you already have a flooding
problem. putting that house that housing development 150 units is a major problem. It even if you have these these uh this this retention basins underneath the property, they're not proven.
>> They're not sized because they're only sized for two or three inch storms. So, we have storms that's six or eight inches. >> So, you're not replicating the the the way that that blot can absorb water. So my question is, how can we consider 150
units up there on the hill to settle litigation on the hill but permit development in the downtown and put people in harm's way from flooding coming from the hill >> in terms of the one site that you
pointed to that uh at the bottom >> question you tell us the specifications >> yeah that that's not being considered at this time uh it was an anticipate it there's an anticipation of settlement. We don't have a settlement, so it's not being introduced. It's not part of the ordinances that we're talking about this
evening. Terms of flooding, again, there's a wetland on that property and there's going to be buffers from that wetland that's going to absorb. There are special regulations when you do stormwater management that involves a wetland. They're going to have to live with that. They may not get the units
they want. They may not be able to, but this is as a result of litigation. There's a massive settlement. there's a potential massive judgment that we're having to deal with. So, we could accommodate that making sure that they they pro they comply with all of the D
regulations. And I respectfully disagree. These units are sized. These these storm water management systems are sized. They have to be. And it's for a variety of storms. And that has to again be passed through the city and the planning board and the city engineer.
and in terms of the planning board, the consulting engineer, and you're well aware of the issues that are affecting flooding in that area. >> Does anyone else wish to address the council regarding this ordinance? >> Hi, I'm Bob Kits. I've lived in Anglewood for over 30 years. Know Mayor
Wilds well. Lived at 27 North Woodland for the last 26 years and and since it just came up about 431 Palisades Avenue. you know that it feels like the final nail in the coffin of institutionalization of East Hill. And
so I live across the street from a thousand students being picked up and dropped off every day and less than a quarter mile down the road on South Woodland of 760 students being dropped off and picked up every day at Mariah. I moved here at a time when there wasn't
even a traffic light at the intersection of Palisades A and Woodland. And now the amount I can't even exit my driveway between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning and between 2 and 3:00 in the afternoon because of the amount of traffic. And
you're proposing 150 units in an area and settling this because you're being because of a rich bully. This is a sham transaction that's based on nursing home operator that is
disguised as uh affordable housing by being able to accept Medicare. And I would urge the city council not to cave because of a bully. I was raised in Newark and I learned to punch a bully in the nose when when prodded and it feels
like we're rolling over to satisfy Daniel Strauss as opposed to finding other areas in the city that would accommodate you know this affordable housing requirement. So, I'd also before my time runs out, I'd like to understand the um what the
process is as it relates to HO AHO4 and will there be a hearing and will there be the ability to uh you know discuss it again or is this going to be a rapid settlement as you described and it's done and no one ever gets to speak again about it?
>> It's not part of the ordinances that are being implemented. It would have to come back and be reintroduced and discussed. The only comment I have to that is that you have unless you've gone through the experience of negotiating with the court and the fair share center uh and going
through the third and fourth rounds the way we have you have very little leverage. The judges uh they work for the Supreme Court who mandated this affordable housing requirement to begin with. So the litigation is driving this. If there was no litigation we wouldn't be talking about this. But the problem
is when you have fair share housing center involved and then you have a litigant on top of that, you're not going to get that certificate of compliance unless fair share and the litigants sign off and they're not signing off without it. >> So that exposes us to other problems citywide. It just feels not to interrupt
before I lose. It feels like 430 the owner of 431 is profiting from this disproportionately and there's a value transfer. I live adjacent. There's no one that can tell me that the value of my property is going to be diminished as a result of this plan. Thank you.
>> Ken, if I could just say one >> um just one comment. The 431 East Palisate property was also the subject of the round three litigation that we're in. Correct. >> And um they were permitted to intervene in that case. They did. We never entered
into an agreement with them on that case. and we actually got certificate of compliance from the judge over their objection. So, that's still a possibility. Um, and if that property is to be considered in the future, as Mr.
Zbo pointed out, notice has to be given, introduced, public hearing scheduled, referred to the planning board as well. Um, so yeah, stay tuned. Yeah, but we also I forgot to mention the court adjudicator who works for the court and
supports the judge and their decisions and we also have to deal with their perspective which is provide the housing, provide the housing, provide the housing and that that's the pressure that we're facing and it's all driven through the litigation. >> Dr. Rosen,
my apologies everybody. Um, yes ma'am. >> Of course. I'm just gonna I'm just I have to leave and I just wanted anybody who wanted to speak to me personally, I will be at city hall on Thursday. Thank you, Mr. Kits and for
everybody for your kind remarks. These are very important times and there are a lot of collateral issues associated with this. I can't tell you how many phone calls I got where people are worried that their property is being taken. We have the finest professionals guiding
us. We are doing the best that we can. again I will be available and I will watch the remaining of this tape this evening so I understand your comments as well. Sorry ma'am please >> I am very short
>> just to you hear me? I'm Na Wharton. I've had my home on South Woodland Street, two three houses away from the Mariah School for the past 42 years. And I've
seen a lot of development, especially at the Mariah School where I too have had an emergency where I needed to get out of my driveway, but it was between 2 and 3 in the afternoon. And it
took me 45 minutes to get from my driveway across two homes and to get to go down Mountain Avenue. This has been going on for years. I've had dozens of conversations with them
and come to many hearings and the traffic is outrageous. And the idea that you would open things up to even the finest possibility of overcrowding the other corner of that avenue when
actually the traffic goes on both sides of the Mariah School on South Woodland Street and now down Mountain Road. You can't get anywhere in any three directions. Now Palisade Avenue has a traffic light. after many years of my
waiting for one, frankly. But the traffic at at dismissal time, the people the people at Dwight Anglewood are at least a little considerate about the neighbors and they make changes if the
neighbors speak to them. That is not the case at the Mariah School. Secondly, um I don't understand what you're saying that the AH5 is not not set yet.
>> There is no HO5. It's the 04 and we don't have we don't have a settlement. They're not they're not going to be considered right now. >> The F the four right on that corner. >> Yes. >> Why would you choose that? Why is it no longer going to be the red piece down
the hill? It was chosen because it's litigation. They are in they are in this litigation with the city and they are proposing that and the fair share housing center is on board. The court adjudicator is pushing. So we have to deal with it. It's not going away.
>> So he is a bully. So he just won't let go of doing whatever multiple housing he can do. There it is a piece of land left in Anglewood where there's there are many trees. the water can come down through the soil the way it's supposed
to and not be stored in concrete uh underground tanks and >> I'm not I'm just saying it the stormwater management will be designed by a civil engineer doesn't necessarily always mean underground but just go ahead >> oh good so it can be above ground and be just beautiful
>> combination rain gardens it could be a lot of different things alternate systems natural systems >> there's going to be a lot of push back we neighbors are very very deeply unhappy. >> Understood. >> Does anyone else wish to address the
council regarding this ordinance? All right. So, I'm going to close the public hearing on ordinance 2605. And again, we will take a vote on that via Zoom. at the Friday council meeting at 3 pm. I will now uh city clerk, will
you please read the title of ordinance 2606? >> This is an ordinance to amend and supplement chapter 250 titled land use amending affordable housing overlay zones. The I will now declare the public
hearing on this ordinance is now open. Anyone who ris who desires to be heard or to ask questions concerning ordinance 2606 will be heard at this time. Amy Bulland Avenue. Um, my first question is, will you be
providing on the website a list that will let us know what streets are included in this? It's been asked before that the streets be identified by name, not just block because I don't necessarily know all the blocks by heart, but I do know streets by names.
And then I just want to confirm block 2303 2304 that's Army Street Bennett Road area is still in the overlay zone. >> I'm sorry what block and lot >> 2303 and 2304. >> No, that I'll explain the ordinance
that's before the board now 2606 left that in there by mistake. There's going to be an introduced ordinance tonight that would remove those from the overlay. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Um and Bill, what's the legality of listing it? Because we said we have to kind of list it by block and lot. >> Yeah, that's what's required by the municipal land use law because the lot and block designations pretty much stay
the same, but an address, for example, could change. So that's why the law mandates that it be by lot and block >> and and people can find that block and lot number on their tax bill I believe. Right. >> Yep. >> Or Google it. Um all right. Does anyone
else wish to address the council regarding ordinance 2606 coming up? >> Hello. My name is Sam. I'm just going to start by saying I'm not an Anglewood resident, but I am an interesting interested student who's interested in learning more about housing in the area
and I have a few questions that I hope can also enlighten some of the residents who have questions of their own. Um, so first I guess related to the previous speaker, is it possible to have both the street names and the block numbers even if the street names are required? My
second question is what is the difference between affordable housing want overlay one two and three? What areas of the city are being removed from each uh designation? How is the required affordable how do the two ordinances that were voted on today? How does their
affordable housing uh requirements overlap? Can single family homes be constructed in the single in the affordable housing overlay areas? And if so, do they have the affordable housing and all of the other requirements, including the 22,000 foot minimum lot
size? Uh, are minimum lot yard sizes mentioned in the in this ordinance in square footage, in length, in width? >> Okay. Uh, why are front yards and driveways not counted as part of that open space? Um,
what is uh why does the ordinance require both a sideyard and a buffer between properties of different sizes? Don't these serve the same purpose? And why does the ordinance adjust the height and the story level in AHO2 but not the other two? Those are my questions just
for my own curiosity and I hope to enlighten all the residents. >> That's a lot to chew on uh for tonight. I think we'll all be certified in municipal land use uh once you're done with those. Yeah. >> Well, you're talking about our our planning considerations. The basis for a lot of the overlay zones was already
foundationed in your uh existing multif family zones, your RMA, RMBB zones. And what we did was we adjusted the ordinance that you have before you has densities, how many units and the different differentiation between one, two and three has to do
with the number of units and density that's permitted in these where a overlay for example abuted a area of lower density that that was an AHO1 where there was like a lower density of units 15 units to the acre. When you have an AHO2
we are closer now into the downtown. So planning wise we have higher densities there that has to be reflected in the HO2 zoning which is 35. The HO3 is another consideration that's 50 units the acre and that takes into account the surrounding areas what the acceptable
density should be based on general planning principles. The issue here though the other side of this discussion is what's driving this is the litigation and also the fair share housing center which is looking for the numbers because the obligation the city has is quite
large. So we had to accommodate the opportunity for these units, but there's a lot of planning that goes into that. But it also you have to understand that there's there's this pressure from the fair share, from the courts, the litigants that we have to kind of make
it all work together so that we can get this accomplished in a way that we can get our certificate of compliance and then move on with our lives. and and we'll probably go into more of that Thursday night in terms of the planning board hearing which I think is more of a a forum.
>> And just one other question uh the gentleman had was um so if you if you let's say you have a single family home in a and you're in the overlay zone, you can just rebuild another single family home. You you're not obligated. >> You don't lose your right to have that
home. But if you build a multif family of five units or more, you have an obligation to set aside 20% regardless. That's how the law works. That was ordinance 2201. Okay. Um, anyone else? Yeah, please, Mr. Jansen.
>> Uh, yeah, Pete Jansen, Richland Terrace. Um, I forgot to mention that the topography of the area on East Palisade Avenue uh flows into Flat Rock and we know these detention systems are sized.
We know that they absorb water. What we don't know is how well they absorb water 20 years from now, 30 years from now after people, landscapers with leaf blowers and dirt and salt and sand work
their way into these systems. >> We have a database. I would like the city to share with us how they test these these uh these detention systems so they know that they operate as they're designed. We have a database. Have we tested any of them? I don't
know. But what happens is they're not going to operate at 100% forever. They're going to degrade over time. And when they degrade the the storm water will flow from Flat Rockbrook down through Flat Rock past uh all the homes like Glouster,
Rock Creek, Cross Creek, Broad Avenue, all these places we have major major flooding and into Crystal Lake and then to Nap Place. So the impact of what we're doing here, even though it's in litigation,
it could be disastrous. So how can you do that knowing all the problems you have downstream already? >> Couple of things. First of all, when a drainage plan is prepared, it's based on a drainage area and that a civil engineer has to determine which will
probably take into account those areas that you're talking about. That's required under the storm water management regulations. Period. Now you're getting into maintenance. We have in the regulations that D mandates what we call BMP, best management practices. Every development that goes forward from
here now has to provide a manual of how all the onsite on-site stormwater management measures are going to be maintained over time. We never had those requirements going back decades ago. We're playing catch-up now with those developments that have no detention, do
not have BMPPS, and things of that nature. But going forward, as I had explained earlier, there are regulations in place to protect the public in terms of making sure that what happens on a property stays on the property. We cannot by law, and Bill, you can correct me if I'm wrong, go back to someone
that's a mile away and say fix your drainage when there's nothing that triggers that in terms of site plan. But what we can address is anything that's going forward in a new application because all applications must go to a board for site plan approval. And that's
where all this gets reviewed. And this is where the the engineers certify. Uh this is where the manuals come in. A lot of review goes into these plans. >> All right. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the council regarding ordinance 2606?
>> Yes. Raymond Diaz for HN. Just uh want some clarification on page three of 12. Development is limited. Excuse me. The development is limited to height, density, and development coverages. with adequate space provisions comparable
with suburban character of the city of Inglewood. That's like an oxymoron there. Uh so we got a cape. What is the highest you can go in a single family zone? You're going to be putting multi multif family. >> Nothing nothing changes for the single
family. It's 35 ft. >> Okay. Whereas let's say on Palisades, someone said that we can go to height of what 60 feet. What is that? Well, in the downtown, uh, one of the things that we we needed to address with fair share housing was that, uh, we needed to allow
a little extra room on the top to allow for units because they were concerned that even though I explained to them that we already allow for multif family development in the downtown over the storefronts, they said that's not good enough. We need to have more assurance
of development. Give us a density and give us height. Will it ever get built? The way I explained it publicly and to to the uh to the council, mayor and council, is that there's only so much you can fit on a site, you have to drain it, you have to meet the the
architectural specifications, and you have to most importantly be able to park it. >> Mhm. >> So, if if those are other measures of intensity that if you don't meet those, maybe you have too many units. So that's where the site plan process comes in where the public has an opportunity to be heard. The planning board takes a
look at the review, the professionals guide the planning board and decisions are made about how appropriate is this applying site plan standards. All of the requirements that I've been talking about in terms of setback, storm water management, BMP, all of that gets wrapped up in an application
>> and that that's the the check and balance that occurs. >> Okay. Thank you. appreciate. >> Anyone else? >> Sorry. >> I would just like to further understand the situation with the so-called
litigant. Um there have been deca more than a decade of people. There was first the Korean church and then there was the care one
and each time we go through the same things with the uh proposals. And my question is what? And it may be out of date because I just learned about this entire situation last night and I
printed out everything I could find online, but it's the paper that I have says AH4 new zone type not listed in ordinance 150 units.
Now that is probably the most fragile among the locations chosen and I would like to understand better the connection between the litigation and even opening up the possibility of
this level of density. Thank you. What the city is faced with is an is a developer who is demonstrating to the court a willingness to build a multif family inclusionary. We call it inclusionary, meaning it's going to have a 20% set aside for
affordable units. That means that under the criteria for under the Fair Housing Act, it's available, it's developable, we got a project here. A judge looking at that with a court adjudicator assisting them who is also a
planner is going to say there it is. It's an opportunity. So the strategy is to try to constrain it as best we can or litigate it. And that's a that's a policy decision and we were in settlement discussions. As I had
indicated, it's not part of the ordinances at this point because we don't have a full settlement. So, we're going to move forward so we can meet that March 15th deadline and be able to preserve our right to protect ourselves, but also have to deal with
that property in some form. That's just the way it's going to go. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Anyone else on uh ordinance 2606? >> Okay. Uh thank you. Thank you. So then I will now close uh this ordinance and
then the council will um discuss it and vote on it on Friday at the 3M Zoom meeting. >> Um can't just >> what could I just add something? >> Um and just as we've discussed um so it's being carried to March 13th at 3
p.m. There's no further notice. There's not another mailing going to go out, but it wouldn't be enough time anyway. Uh so this is kind of the notice to u if you wish to attend please do um it'll be three o'clock and again the reason we're doing it is if it's not done by March
15th we have a serious issue so many towns this is my third meeting today >> because throughout the state the towns have to schedule these special meetings >> one every night >> uh despite repeated requests and lawsuits to extend that deadline all of
which have been denied uh even to the US supreme Supreme Court. >> Yeah, we literally took this to the Supreme Court. Judge Alo, I think I refuse to hear it. Justice Alto. Yeah. >> Okay. So,
um, as mentioned earlier, um, the process is so wonky that that that's a a word we can say on TV because I would think of a different word that we're going to actually have to amend these ordinances before we even adopt them. Um, so can
you, uh, city clerk, can you please read the title of ordinance 2609? >> This is an ordinance to amend and se supplement chapter 250 titled land use amending affordable housing overlay zones. >> Do I have a motion to introduce ordinance 2609
uh, which will be uh, published once by title only in the record and public hearing be held on April 14th as we discussed. >> Second. Roll call. >> Councilman Tokayer. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Wilson. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Waski? >> Yes. >> Council President Rosenway? >> Yes. City Clerk, will you please read the title of ordinance 2610? >> This is an ordinance to repeal and
replace chapter 250 land use article 17 affordable housing of the code of the city of Anglewood. And again, this will be passed on first reading tonight, published once, and the public hearing will be on April 14th, 2026. Do I have a motion?
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> Councilman Toker, >> yes. >> Councilman Wilson, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Wasadski, >> yes. >> Council President Rosenway, >> yes.
Okay. Okay. So now I know a lot of you uh this might be your first council meeting. So at the end of every council meeting we have a public session where we can discuss anything uh that uh people want to bring in front of the council. Again I'll be limited to three
minutes. Um and so I now open the meeting to the public. Speakers asked to step up to the microphone give their names and address and have three minutes to speak. Good evening, Dr. Suzanne Mullings, Phelps Sav. I have a question. I came in
late. Um, but if you could just for clarification purposes since we have Mr. Zbo here, can you explain how we resolved round three obligations and got to this fourth round? Now,
that's one question. I know you answered some of the questions during the presentation and the ordinance uh readings, but could you also clarify the process in which zoning goes through the planning board versus
the zoning board and also if that's an appropriate path under land use law? Uh, also just to echo some of the sentiments you did mention or cover, but in terms of
the criteria that's used to identify the overlay zone, if you could just clearly explain how those areas are considered because if we don't have the ability to have input from residents because of the
timing of litigation and so forth, how does how do the residents do something about it. Um lastly I think is obvious that obviously that area has
high traffic and if there's no study to support the potential of 150 units coming because of litigation because of all the other things you mentioned then those areas just suffer. what most
things here are covered in hindsight after it's already caused a problem or they're not covered at all. So, how do we fix that? And then lastly, um
just the transparency of planning and community engagement in a in a sense like this overlay won't go away because of the obligation. So, how does how does the community get involved in a timely manner? That makes sense, I think.
>> So, John, we're we're going to let everyone speak and then we'll get get through all the question. >> Yes. So, again, for people who haven't been here before, we let No, Ray, stay up here, but we let everyone speak and then we'll go through and answer all the questions. >> Uh, two things. I just want
clarification on the set aides. Uh uh I interpret that as if you got an approved plan, you have to build the 20 uh% on the same location, right? Are we going to enforce that?
All right. I thought in there was a at one time there's a the name of that facility by the gas station over there that they have no affordable and they they got an exception that they can build all of them at one other place. You can correct me. This is what I
heard. So I don't want to see that happen. >> There's no in I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> That was an easy one. >> One last thing. Page 304. It has to do with this section shall not apply to any sites or specific zones otherwise identified in the city
settlement agreement dated November 1, 2022 approved by the court order January 2023. a little bit legally at the end or in the city's housing element and fair share plan for which density and set aside standards shall be governed by
specific standards set forth therein. I don't know what that mean. Um does that mean they have to follow the new standards or they have to follow the standards established for this agreement? >> That's it. Thank you. Amy Bullen Avenue took me a minute to
process that you actually suggested to me a resident a taxpayer to Google some information. Took a second for me to register that. I'm asking you as a taxpayer who helps pay some of the salaries in this city to please provide
a list of the streets that are in the affordable housing overlay zones by street name. You obviously have it because you mailed out letters to the people who live within 200 feet of these areas. So I'm asking again, Mr. Hoffman, please
have someone put that information together and make it available on the website so that all residents can see what exactly what streets are being engaged. Thank you. >> I can provide that peach and Richland Terrace. Uh,
you know, when we did our master plan, not this one, I'm talking about the one before, there were three or four meetings where they pulled the community together to see what their concerns were, what their priorities were, what they liked about
Anglewood. Do you know what the number one answer was? Preserve the character of the neighborhood. this latest round master plan. We had a
meeting in each ward. We had uh multi-word meetings. The number one concern, preserve the character of the neighborhood. >> When I look at Palisade Avenue, 431 LLC,
whoever it is, whatever he's doing, it does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. the nearest multifamily homes in to East Palisade, 431 East Palisade. There is the Garden Apartments up on
Summit Street at Staniel Drive in Kira Lane. There are 37 units on about 10 acres. Let's call it four units per acre. Simple math. Anglewood Village, which is the corner
of Jones Road and East Palisade. It's Garden Apartments. It's approximately, I don't know the exact number, but it's about 130 units on about 9.6 acres. That works out to be 14
units per acre. What we're talking about here in the blue, it's nowhere near that. It does not fit in. It does not it's not consistent with the with the neighborhood. It does not preserve the character of the
neighborhood. We're supposed to we all took we all swore everybody in here to follow the rules of the of of the country and our guiding document for this city is our master plan.
So let's not forget that. Thank you. Is it okay? >> Yeah, this is a different session. >> Everyone gets three bites at the end. >> So, um I think I'm out of the loop. >> Name and address.
>> Native Warden, Southwood Street 131. I think I'm beginning to get a sense of what's really going on here. I don't even know the name of this committee and what their charge is. I would like to know that. I would also like to know if
people who are involved even distantly with the litigators um have recused themselves. Are there people on this committee that are involved with uh the particular
purchaser of that corner land? And once I know the name of the committee, I'll be able to understand that I think, and I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, it seems to me that this is a way of
sort of overrestricting the the owner of that land from developing the land because it is impossible to meet all of those 150 units on that land. I just want to
understand how this is all working with the litigation and I would like to know the committee's obligations. >> Anyone else wish to address the council? Yeah, please come up. >> Hi, I'm Margarita. I'm from Anglewood. I
just want to say just a comment out of the notices you had sent of 1100 right look at the people that attended why I don't know because I just received just like the lady said I received this
notice on just I guess a week ago so we've been 2020 2023rd just like she said that I was also here when everybody was overflowing outside trying to get in
here to hear you. But I think people are frustrated that back and forth all these years that you're talking about overlay and all that. I don't understand all this, but the way I gathered is we have
no control of it. We It's just your obligation to let us know what's going on. But in actuality, let's be realistic. It's going to happen. I don't think it's going to stop
anything, but it's going to happen. So, back and forth all these questions, it's just going to happen. So, I'm just giving a statement as I said obviously out of,00 how many attended today tonight? Thank
you and thank you for what you do. I know you're doing all your ble best, but you know, it is what it is. Thank you. >> All right. So, uh, now I'll close the public session. Uh, so, Mr. Zabbo, um,
just some of the questions that you had, if you can just go over some >> public engagement. There's some questions about public engagement, the role of zoning, planning boards, boards of adjustment. There's a lot mixed in the earlier questions. Uh we had a
number the planning process is defined by the municipal land use law. The planning board conducted last year an entire master plan series that was referred to this evening. And from there stems the ordinances to implement the vision that the city has. So there's this public process. We're
all engaged in it. There's public meetings, forums, etc. We did the same thing with the housing plan. If you remember last year, we had a number of forums. We had a a subcommittee that consisted of the mayor, council members, and planning board members, and we tried to come up with a plan that was that
made sense for the for the city. And we presented that and it was adopted. Again, because of the litigation, now all of this other pressure is coming in sideways because by August 31st, all objections to the plan have to be filed. And that's what happened. The changes
that you see here are a result of this this litigation. So, you know, that that's how it evolved. Uh, planning boards review site plans for permitted uses and they apply
the zoning for that that property for a particular application and they apply site plan standards. That's for permitted uses. board of adjustment. They hear cases for those uses that are not permitted in the zone and those are called use variances and they're a different animal entirely under the law.
The way these overlays were selected uh originally in the third round we looked at areas where there was where there's already res multif family where there was already businesses so that we could create neighborhoods that can walk to
services and take advantage of the opportunity to be able to shop where you live. uh we we looked at areas where there were already multif family zones or multif family development. He said, "Okay, if
these should ever redevelop, then they would have an obligation, which they don't have now." As I said, the downtown already permitted multif family. Now they have an obligation. The only change there is that they have a they have a specific
density of 35 units to the acre. It's just a number because all these other factors get built in that determines how much can you fit on a piece of property. And that's what the planning board does. And on a use variance, that's what a board of adjustment does. So
the the overlays that exist now are to satisfy an unmet need. As I had said many times, it's aspirational. If it happens, it happens. I know there's a great deal of concern over the one site on East Palisade. Again,
that the developer presented a plan to the court. And so we've been trying to work that out in terms of again through the litigation negotiation process, how can we resolve this so that we can go forward. That didn't happen. We thought it was.
That's still being discussed. So we're focused now on simply taking out the areas that were objectionable through the litigation that were concerns. We had to replace those because fair share wanted to make sure that we provided a sufficient amount of land for
opportunity. There it is. And that's how it all evolved. Now on Thursday evening, the planning board's going to review this as long along with the ordinances and there'll be a public hearing on the adoption of the housing plan and there'll be further discussion. But
again, the window is shrinking. Not our fault. We've been trying to work these things out. But again, when you have litigation, courts involved and all of that, it gets very complicated. So, I think that this is a workable plan and I
think it's one that will eventually get approved by the court and just um Yeah, thank you. And and just, you know, we all I think we all care about the character of the town. Do you think the character would be worse off if we were under builder's remedy
>> with Yeah, that's a fair question and I I'm glad you raised it. Under a builder's remedy, you have very little control because if a developer comes in and says, "I could put 450 units on that parcel and I can park it and do it." A judge is going to consider that. And it
could be a 10-story building. It could be a five-story building. We don't know because we can't control it. Because now you're now going to play a waiting game of what what are you going to get hit with? That's not planning. Here we control where it occurs, how it occurs, how tall it can be, storm water
management, anything that has to go into developing these sites, we are now in control of. And that that's the significant difference. >> Can I just add something? >> Okay. Mr. Bailey, >> just briefly, you know, you've heard litigation that word quite a bit. Um,
right now 431 East Palisade, that property there on the near the Anglewood Cliff border is not included in the fourth round plan. Our hope is that the court agrees with us and over their objection approves it without that in the plan. Um, but at the end of the day,
a judge is going to decide. um third round they found in the city's favor over the objection of that entity who that was a state court case. There's currently a federal lawsuit pending uh which was where they wanted to build 150
unit assisted living facility there. Then at one point they changed and wanted to build 307 units there. Then it went back to 150 unit care 1 facility. So, it's been fought vigorously since
2020 thereabouts. It's been going on. And again, like I said, hopefully the court will agree with the city that that should not be included. But at at the end of the day, that's what's the court's going to decide. The court will have a fairness hearing um and at that
point make a determination if the city's plan, whether it's agreed to by everybody or not, uh meets its affordable housing obligation. And if it will issue a certificate of judgment of compliance and repose which affords us immunity from builder's remedy suits.
Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. All in favor? I. Thank you all for coming tonight. Uh planning board meeting on Thursday via Zoom. The continuation of this meeting Friday 3 p.m. via Zoom.