[Music] Welcome to the June 20125 Franklin Township Planning Board meeting. I would like to call the meeting to order. All 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. Uh, roll call, please. Mr. Branch, here. Mr. Clark, here. Mr.
Mr. Kelly, here. Mr. Here, Mr. Here, Mr. Mr. Mayor here, Mr. Here. Uh, Mr. Pesh, our chairman, is not present this evening. He has a grandchild graduating from Deli
Regional, and I will fill in as chairperson. Um, we have a statement from our solicitor this evening. We will allow public comment tonight on two ordinances, 525 and 725, and the
application for the housing, affordable housing element, and fair share plan. Those are the topics. So, we'll be announcing a public comment. When you come up, if you want to make public comment, you will be sworn. Um, state your name, spell your full name, give us your address, and speak directly into
the microphone. Don't touch it. Speak into it because the meeting is recorded. We want to record all comments. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, first on tonight's agenda is resolution PB25-1, Patriot Homes. Is there a motion to
approve? So move I'm sorry somebody else made it out. I'll take the second. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mayor Bruno. Yes. Mr. Yes. Motion approved. Resolution
approved. Next on the agenda is resolution SB2503 Sahara Sand. Is there a motion to approve? I make a motion to approve SP25-03. Second.
Roll call, please. Mr. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mayor Bruno. Yes. Yes. Next on tonight's agenda is our housing plan fourth round uh formerly known as
COA coalition of affordable housing. Uh can we have a report Mr. Planner? Thank you. a record for stopping the plan association projected by the county very housing plan fair share plan as
required by the fair housing act ended last year and set forth a lot of very strict timelines short timelines for American housing plan to fourth round I think all of you up here were on this board
to the audience this Oh, not even not even two years ago, we adopted finally got through the process of the third round settlement adopting a housing. We're we're now starting the fourth round. Uh technically starts July 1st of this year, begins the fourth round affordable housing run through the
30th of 20 or 20 year affordable housing round where the state has calculated obligations for every talent in the state. Um I'm going to Essentially I have a live my presentation will be about anywhere
from 5 to 10 maybe 15 minutes as really you guys ask questions question to the public in the process but your plan is relatively simple and short in terms of the actual substance of the plan. I know it's a whatever 150 page document here. Most of it's language as well as
discussion on tracking down the numbers or your compliance with the state laws but get to the [Music] obligations under the law. So we had our third round plan. We adopted I believe
in the spring of last year all 2023 alone in my head. At that time we had an obligation of 527 units that we satisfied through the affordable housing overlay districts that were put in place not long after the plan was
um my prior round obligations dating back to 1987 through 1999 166 unit but also satisfied through that same building. Um those about the prior round. Now we're into the fourth round where DCA had calculated that Franklin
had an obligation of 250 units. Uh the town we had adopted a resolution back in January claiming that our obligations would be 2124. Uh the New Jersey Builders Association challenged that determination. We've demonstrated a little bit from what PCA
had calculated and we had ultimately settled on 243 units of the council's ground obligation. Uh so that is that's that's been set by order of the court. We have an obligation to meet a prospective de of new construction of 243 have in the next
10 years. Another component of the obligation is know that that the present deed obligation or the rehabilitation obligation of 48 years. That's separate from the prospective. The prospective needs is essentially new construction of affordable housing restricted 40 years for low moderate income households.
Rehabilitation obligation is homes that are existing in the township already that are likely occupied by a lower moderate income household are also likely code deficient in one way or another and therefore need rehabilitation. Uh so based on census data which which is not necessarily the most accurate but
it's the only source we have outside of somebody going out and doing a survey of every every house in the town and also getting a statement of the income of every household in the town might be in those houses. Uh how many are like I said occupied by low moderate income household and even some repairs that's
48 units. Uh and that is essentially going to be entirely satisfied by my estimation through discontinued participation in the Boston County home program. Historically speaking, Wster Countyy's program which is funded by uh CDP county money development block
grants uh rehabilitates anywhere from 5 to 10 houses in Franklin Township every year over the next 10 years. That's anywhere from 50 to 100 homes being rehabilitated just through receiving participation in that program which I don't think even requires currently
providing any funding that is entirely funded through CDPG but that obligation should be entirely satisfied with participation in the county's program nothing other than potentially provide some financial assistance to the county program through your award
not out of the general that would be entirely satisfied prior to third round obligations As I said, those have been satisfied and approved by the court last year through the affordable housing overlay districts. We put in place entirely with
generally rank amalgamate areas. There was about like 30 or 40 different properties we put in those overlays on um where inclusionary multif family housing is limited by rank. Uh that means somebody wants to build say uh multif family housing for every 5 units they construct, one of them has to be
derestricted in the corner and get credit for that. put enough zoning in place at the time, enough property that we will get more than more than the uh 400 something
500 more than the 500 obligation. Since we call overlay zoning, we wouldn't quite take full credit for everything in there. But through that zoning, we fully satisfied the prior not brown. We are proposing essentially just one site to cover the entirety of the
foreground operation of the 22 units. And that is and I'm sure you're all aware we had the uh utility solar project that was proposed with the keepers farmer. It went back and forth through the courts for a while. First went to the zoning board for interpretation of the board then came to this board. got a preliminary cycle
approval to cover the entire farm with the solar panels and that's was still going on in court and then um multiple layers of the board they the appeal from town was granted and the zoning board essentially said to have
jurisdiction over the planning board and the developer assistance withdrawing the application essentially. So now that site would previously taken that site out of consideration for potential boards and justification for reducing our obligation when we resolution now
that have obligation was 215 or so rather than 253. Now that that site is potentially available um can't claim that it's not available for affordable housing as well as the current zoning on that site already permits as one of the options
under cluster development a essentially a residential campus development that already requires affordable housing. Anyway, we can satisfy the entirety of our affordable housing obligation by making a few tweaks to the existing code in the business district where that house already permitted by increasing
the density just a little bit. We're going from six units an acre to 8 or 10 units an acre there. Wow. 10 units an acre. keep the same zoning in place and we fully satisfy that 243 unit and even a
little bit of a 250 work unit to be constructed there and that through that one site and one of the existing code we can fully satisfy but I do have to point out in the last round you be quite technically qualified
but we more or less qualified for what's known as a regional adjustment meaning that and the same exact languages in this plan. We're we're fully acknowledging that there's no way all these affordable housing units are going to be built unless somehow uh public sewer is
brought into the town. Uh and what that requires is not not an obligation on the township part. Town does not have to do anything to bring sewer in. uh if a developer wants to bring in sewer to a particular property to build affordable housing to really can't do anything to get in the way of blocking that as part
of the settlement agreement with fair share housing center in the last round and I'm uh 100% certain that the courts we're not we're not negotiating with fair share housing center this time it's going to courts rather than a settlement negotiating with them but I'm 100% certain the courts will require some similar provision about the exact same
language that the town will agree that if they develop to build multif family housing with an inclusionary set aside and they're going to bring new sewer in whether that's from mine or link however they get it the town essentially obligated to work with them in order to achieve that rather than trying to stop
that. So that being said the directional adjustment is essentially that the courts in the last round acknowledge that more than likely the the housing isn't going to necessarily be built in this round. The way the law is set up, it's supposed to
be a realistic opportunity for construction within this 10-year time frame. And we can't really put a time frame on somebody extending sewing framework. That could happen two years from now. It might not happen for the next 50 years. That all depends on what wearily
do that anytime in the near future when that happen. So that being said, that's really the entirety of the plan here. Like I said, it's 80 some odd page or whatever. It's actually less than 100 pages. [Music]
It's mostly boilerplate language explaining what affordable housing is and isn't what the fair housing act requires. Uh there's 20 or 30 pages on the demographics of the town which are nearly identical to the demographics of the town we put in the master plan exam that we adopted last year as well. I I
think some of the census data is updated to 2023 whereas we used to have 2022. Not a lot of changes in account between 2022 as I'm sure you're all aware. And then there's some other languages discussing um pointing out that you already have an affordable housing ordinance on the books after the last
round. You have a municipal housing leazison administrative agent. Uh you have an affordable housing trust fund. There's a graphic spending plan outlining what you're going to do with the money when it comes in or if it comes in and what you're required to do with that which is essentially to provide support for affordable housing.
Uh and that's that's really it. It's we have a new obligation for ground and we're fully satisfied that obligation in my opinion minor to the existing zoning we have in the business.
So Chris, to summarize, real summarize, the reason we're here tonight is you're presenting the new revised element to the planning board. This planning board doesn't need to make a recommendation to the township committee to adopt. This is the housing plan
element, the fair share plan. Uh fair share plan comes out of the fair housing act housing plan element law. This is this is an element of the master plan which is exclusively your jurisdiction to adopt. What the courts want to see though is that what the town adopts the planning board adopts the housing plan
but they also are requesting that the governing body enforce the housing plan. They don't the committee would not be adopting this plan but presumably at their next meeting they will be endorsing the plan. Simply saying they you know they're aware of the plan they don't have
adopted it will do tonight because we have a deadline to do so. So, we need to put a motion in this evening if we wish to adopt this plan and it needs to carry and then we present it to the township committee all before June 30. Would be
the law doesn't specifically say that it's required that the committee endorsed prior to June 30, but the the expectation is that it will do so for most of the towns that the attorney with and I believe has said this as well. They want to include that in their submission to the court.
So from a professional standpoint, do you recommend that this board approve this plan? Yes. You'd be in a little bit of trouble if you don't approve this plan because like I said, every town in New Jersey has a deadline of June 30th to have a plan submitted to the report. The law technically requires 48 hours
after adoption that is submitted to the courts. So the plan right now would be presumably adopted plan tonight. Uh Senator St. Angelo, the town's affordable housing attorney with the department keeper who submitted and then when the town committee endorses the plan through resolutions to supplement
the res. Should this board this evening not endorse this plan, what would the ramifications be? Uh any town that is not compliant with the Fair Housing Act uh in any shape or form technically is potentially subject to a building lawsuit, which means a developer can sue
the town and say point out that you're not currently compliant with the Fair Housing Act and you're not in the process of gaining compliance. Um the way it's generally supposed to work is that once you submit and start the process, uh you're granted temporary immunity from those lawsuits
for the plan and certify everything. So if you're not complant by June 30th or may not Thank you, Chris. Chris, um I guess yeah, open it up to the board for comment. Yeah. Uh so on that same line
there, so uh we don't adopt this by June 30th. Can any developer just file suit without even a plan to develop or do you does he have to have a plan to develop to suit an application before this? They can file suit um remedy suit.
I'm not sure that they have to have a plan before this board. That's so what's the basis of the suit then? Get a parcel of land and they're going to put housing on it. You can't stop them. Um, no. No. I know you can't stop them, but what I'm what I'm the lawsuit.
I'm not sure if they have to have an application that's pending. I don't I don't know that they have to have an application pending or that they have to have an application denied like they're appealing something. My assumption would be that if the developer simply just sees and says they're not compliant, they send a two-page letter in that says, "I'm going to build houses
somewhere in town." I don't think that would get very far, but if somebody had a concrete plan, a concept plan ready to submit to show the courts, look, I'm going to build these 400 units and give them 80 affordable units on this exact property. Here's my plan to extend sewer. And we haven't adopted the plan within
the time frame that's going through the court, they would have a good chance of winning that. But yeah, my question, that's kind of what I was looking for. I just was want to make sure that somebody can't just file some frivolous lawsuit because you didn't adopt on time.
We all know that. Well, I bet it cost us money. I mean, it cost you money and um the planners have gone through and give a very thoughtful presentation regarding how we can meet our affordable housing obligation consistent with the new fourth round uh legislation that was passed last year and we complied with
all of the deadlines so far. So this has to be appro adopted so it can be submitted before the June 30th deadline to avoid uh it gives you the immunity from the builder's remedy. Now no builder can come in through Franklin Township saying you know I have the right to affordable housing wherever I
want because I've purchased this land that you you're immune from those lawsuits. Um, and this doesn't really expand upon the third round as much. The overlay is a little bigger, but other than that, he's designated where you can meet your obligation, which is what is
required under the fourth round legislation. identified how you're going to satisfy your respective obligations. The the requirements under the law in terms of amendment state and the courts have set what the town's obligation is
in terms of numbers which um I said a resolution was adopted by the committee in January and then that was submitted to the program. Uh developers or any interested party had a full month the entire month of February to decide to challenge those numbers which the New Jersey Buildings
Association did challenge. uh we settled with them at 243 that number was and the courts didn't approve that number until early March. So essentially we're 3 months after when the numbers were assigned including the time frame we've had to put this plan together might be even less than that because the plan had
to be done at least 10 days ago to make sure it was on final here at the office in case anybody wanted to come look at it. Effectively every town in New Jersey had about 2 months to put their fourth round housing plan together. uh which is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. The
last round I I did about the same number of housing plants but over about a 5year span we had anywhere from 6 months to a year or so to get these plans together and work through the board process. This was now had about 2 to 3 months to put their plan together. Planners are this month planner said there is a little work professionally given the
municipality with no extension. Um I mean the recommendation from the planner as far as leaving is that you adopt a you pass resolution. I I will say putting this plan together was a little bit easier than a lot of other towns that we had. One big piece of property in the north
town that is already zoned to permit relatively dense housing and already has a provision in that zoning district to require a set of set aside affordable housing and happens to be a big available piece of property within the sewer service area if somebody were to extend sewer um within the planning
areas in the state plan that encourages development. Uh, frankly, the only reason we didn't include that site to heat reform in our last round plan was because there was a pending application for the solar there. So, we figured we couldn't get that through the court saying the board housing sector. We knew there was already an application of town
for solar there. Just to be clear, there is no longer a solar application on that parcel. That's my understanding that they have with the application or or elected not to pursue further appeals of the last decision. They could always come back and go to the zoning board and ask for a use variance. Yes. Yes, but
they have not. This just has to be a realistic plan. It is workable. They may come back, but at this moment in time, they're not. Okay. So, this evening, we'll be opening up this uh for discussion. Uh but before
we go to open public, I would like to ask once again, are there any more comments from this board? I just have one quick comment and it's, you know, related to the court's uh participation in this. I from my understanding and Jack you can chime in or Chris multiple
municipalities have submitted extension requests and all of those requests have been denied by the courts. So denying every even couple towns I work in where their attorney recently got sick and they didn't change attorneys about 3 weeks ago and their request were extension.
Yeah. So the courts essentially are not not playing games with this like they were last time allowing extensions for years at a time. It seems they want to they want the situations resolved. Started in 1999 and it put out some numbers and they tried to establish a
new methodology called the growth share that ultimately got turned down by the courts and then so they had multiple versions of numbers coming out and then statewide court cases. This time it's just the one law was signed and nobody nobody challenged the law particular was the law. There was a group of towns from
uh I think mostly Bergen County and say county that challenged the fair housing act sort of on its face that that didn't really go anywhere. So they they're holding very firm on these deadlines to submit get plans adopted and submitted. What's going to happen once everything is submitted at at the same time they're they're putting a lot of burden on
themselves. The courts then and anybody who wants to review these they have two months to review uh what's essentially going to be about 485 housing plans because they're getting all of these submitted at the same time. All right. Thank you. On page page 24, you list out you showed the uh three different
options where these properties could be built. The first one being the prize mill property that you just spoke about. But the uh let's say though that the solar guys come back, they get approval. So then that piece is off the off the board. What did you look at any are
there any other uh locations that uh you looked at? Because these other two can't they just kind of scratch the surface of what you need. Well, yeah, there were there were two other parcels where somebody had approached suggested they might want to do there. Uh, one is uh
around Miles Lake Boulevard avenue 9 acre property that could get a little bit same thing with the other one on page 24 West Boulevard about 3 acres. Those aren't necessarily feasible to get even if we upzone considerably to get anywhere near if the solar people come back and they
get approval on that site zoning board that would essentially throw a big wrench into this plan right so that would put it this way um if this plan is approved and the zoning amended there and that becomes part of the housing plan I I think it would be
very difficult to cons and argue that they could get a experience would be pretty complex since we know the master plan say this is going to be our housing location where they say you know really we really don't need that affordable housing but that that's yeah because if that
gets thrown out then these other two locations you listed don't even address what's needed to be clear those other two sites we're not including those in the plan as somewhere we're proposing to change the zoning on those sites or just we're required by law whenever there's been any mention of somebody potentially wanting to housing somewhere and to
include that in the plan. I think the law specifically says anywhere where a developer has expressed an interest in developing that they include affordable housing, we're supposed to address whether or not we think those sites are suitable or people in my opinion a site that M Lake Boulevard and Oak Avenue.
Um there's something there maybe some single family, maybe some duplexes, things like that and you can get a little bit of housing there. Would they still fall under like the same 10 houses per 10 houses? No, that right now we're not we're not actually proposing to change the zoning on those sites. We're
suggesting that point behind this is give a little bit of flexibility that if the committee wanted to consider changing the zoning on those sites to up against housing, it would be part of the plan that they'd be able to do so. We're not actually at this time. We're
acknowledging that there that there has been um interest in building something there, but we're not saying that we're necessarily relying on those sites for any form of credits at this point. Well, thank you Chris for a comprehensive
report. uh be before we open to the public and I appreciate Chris's comments and full transparency. Two of those parcels that were proposed um I have an ownership interest in um which I was planning on abstaining from from the vote uh on on the master plan um so I
just want to make that very clear that um that I do have an ownership interest in those. I did approach you and request that you consider those. Um, so I don't want there to be any ambiguity, somebody thinking that uh they were stuck in there and and that wasn't fully disclosed. So, all right. Is there a
motion to go into open public portion to speak only on the housing plan element? Make a motion. Is there a second? All in favor? Hi. Hi. Cindy Mks, 330 Oak Avenue, Malaga, New Jersey. Raise your right hand. I will.
Do you swear that the question you're about to get before this will be the truth for nothing but I do. Thank you. You're welcome. See if she can turn up now. Yeah, it's Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? I can hear you. I can they hear me in the
back. Phil. Okay. Well, thank you for your presentation. Um, since I live on Oak Avenue and I have for 45 years and attended more meetings than I'd like to say, I'm glad that Mr.
Faruchi years ago stood up and said, "We want to stay water and sewer." and he was challenged by the greenways. It cost us to continue that fight which we did to bring those numbers down that
were going to increase our schools and what was country like to change. What I'm concerned about right now is that we didn't really do a good PowerPoint presentation to let the public know that maybe came out to look at it to see exactly where these would
be. Jason, I'm glad you came forward to finally tell everybody that you do have an interest in that and that you've been on this board and the preliminary boards and that you failed to say that then when it probably should have been
addressed because you were on the other part of these boards. Not that I'm saying you certainly have your choice and have every bit of your freedom to say that, but I do think it is a conflict when we chose people on the board that if that was on that that
we should have known that then and maybe put other people in that. That's all I'm saying regarding that. That bothers me. Okay? Because it is in a neighborhood that right now the roads are bad. There's still flooding. Over the years,
I've had to come here because we didn't have enough drainage. Nobody wants, you know, Jason's been here trying to produce a lot of building in our area. And every time people come out, and I'm not going to bring up, but I can. But
why don't we go back? You got 50 acres back there for $9,000. And it still is a big sore spot on a lot of the neighbors who live there. In addition, the woodland management back there, they ripped out everybody behind all their homes. Now they're faced with
all types of bugs and insects that they left all the stuff there. So, with all due respect, one message, what does this have anything to do with the the housing plan? You can direct your comments to the affordable housing. I will. So, well, it is because it is in my neighborhood. No,
it's not. When you're thinking of my neighbor, these are the three properties listed here are the properties that developers have approached. They're not part of the plan is for the keeper that that's what the planner suggested the affordable housing correct element will
be satisfied by the keeper. One of them that's one of the areas, but there also are areas in Malaga. Correct. There's two the two that correct emailed myself and say property. What about the damatio form? What about Grub Road? What about
that area that was on the on your plan before in Mal? Yeah, those are still everything from the private round where we've already done the 4,000 lakes. Those are staying open. So, they can still come in and put in all that if they wanted to forget that farm with the solar and still come
into downtown. They need that farm with the solar too to meet the obligation. So, they would absolutely it's a prior obligation. But the problem again is water and sewer. Listen, I'm not arguing that. No, that's why Mayor Fuuchi years ago and not that I'm telling you, but
but this was your own party and they the people didn't want it to change and they were willing to say, "We're going to fight it." Jackie, you're a great lawyer. You've stood against many of them. I have every bit of confidence that you'd go in there and you would still fight for Franklin Township if they told you to go do it. There's not a
doubt in my mind that any lawyer would take it to say it's not fair. We still want to stay water and sewer. You want to be like Silvergate? Look what happened. Those people I got to go to a meeting tomorrow night because of the amount of building that's going on and they'll they'll just connect to
everybody. Once they connect, they connect to the next one, the next one, and it goes against your property. I don't want to see it. I'm just one person. I've been asked by many people to still stand up here. So, I do. I've been an advocate for 45 years to keep it
water and sewer. I I don't I don't think there's a person sitting here to disagree with you. This is just what the state of New Jersey has. But don't be afraid of them is what I'm saying. If you have to be the one to say no, I'm not afraid of you know or not. These guys are always state has
put this on a rocket. But we don't like the state. They lost the injunctive relief that they fought last week and the town had so much exposure. That's all right. I got to go. Thank you, Cindy. Anyone else from the public? Over the last 45 years,
virtually all my name is Y Z E L I 45 Tatum Road, Frank Hill. Yes. is mainly questions directly to you. I wrote this while you were giving your presentation. Do are we going to need
our own Franklin Town to have in place for a developer who may want to put sewer lines in? There's no obligation to that. The assumption or at least the conversations we had with the courts and car housing center the last time the assumption would be if any
public school would be brought into Franklin it would be an extension from either that's good to hear that um how would well and septic work for 10 years just out of curiosity I know in places
like well septic were not very much unless Well, that's what I'm thinking is like they have to be like a like a big package deal like they do in like like the one that comes to mind. My husband's a survey answer that he um they they have like package units for a reason.
So, I I was just curious if you knew how that was going to work with 10 units per acre and well and distances between homes and all that. that have to be something really needs to be addressed. I think a little further regulations that the assumption is if
anything is going to be built anywhere near the proposed difference. Okay. My um my next one is you were talking about the houses that already exist. Now we don't have a rental registry here in our town that we're aware of. Would getting a rental
registry in place help with the affordable housing bringing that down some if we put one in place? We have one. How can you explain that a little more? We have We have one. We do. That's news to me because I have people across the street that never been on any
register. They don't register. It's the rehabilitation obligations for existing homes in Boston County. Anybody who lives in Franklin, if you with the county program owner occupied housing, uh, but if you live in town and you qualify as low moderate income, you can apply to Boston County for home repairs
to a system which includes roofing, HBAC, siding, windows, doors, access, but that's only taking into account. They don't come out, right? Okay. So that's on the thinking. So are are we encouraging people to basically apply
for these things and that it's the program's been also kind of program 20 years starting there. Okay. Um I don't know. I don't know that many people know about that to be honest with you because other people and that might put more
houses into this to bring our numbers down a little bit. It wouldn't change the numbers. It's it's a separate obligation. We have obligations. If the county, let's say the county hypothes 10 years, then it doesn't obligation and the rehab is just the present need for
repairs and prospect to meet obligations while new construction. But you can accomplish through essentially only one of two ways. You can have somebody build new homes and leadership in those affordable units or you can have the town buy existing market rate homes and then sell them at a cheaper price as a
unit. If you go buy a house and you count your funds to $350,000 and you resell it for I think Yeah, I think the confusion at least $250,000. Yeah, exactly. That's not We did get credits a few years ago. There were the
prior round obligation did allow for uh they call it prior cycle credits. The rest is not controlled. Um very limited to homes built between 1980 and 1986. And we have to demonstrate that those homes were occupied by a low modern
household for at least 20 to 30 years and that the current value of the homes also still at a price. [Music] The initial estimate was there were several hundred homes that fit that category. compliance. We did two surveys to try to
get the credit because of that. I think we ended up on about 49 credits that we could claim. What is the income base that they need to comply or does that go by household size? It's it's determined by household size. There's nothing here. So, if somebody who bought the house in
1980 had a household of say six people and now they're only a household of two or three, that makes that income requirement go different. Well, the way it works way to estimate a household size for all these calculator
we've already got all the credit out of that mechanism unless somebody can get better information. My recollection is letters were sent out to five or 600 homes qualify and only about 15 20% return.
Thank you. Anybody else from the public wish to speak on housing? Seeing none, is there a motion to close open public portion? Make a motion to close. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. All right. Um the board again,
one last discussion before we uh vote to make a recommendation uh to comply or vote not to comply. Motion would be to adopt the housing plan. Okay, we have a resolution. Yeah, it's a resolution.
Okay. Uh seeing none, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? Motion to pass the resolution. Motion to adopt to pass the resolution of the plant. Yeah. What she said, we'll be right. I make a motion what Jackie
said. Thank you, Joe. Is there a second? Seeing none, I make the second. Safety, John. All right. Perfect. Okay. I'm going to recuse myself for previously stated reasons. Mr. Clark.
Yes. Mr. Kelly. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mayor Bruno. Can I abain, Jackie, since I have to We have five without. Yes. Uh motion carries.
Okay. Next on the agenda, we have a couple of ordinances um that were up for the township committee to review at the last township committee meeting. And uh the first one on our docket this evening is 0525
land use chapter 253 accessory structures. Uh the reason we are here is one of the township committeemen uh didn't quite understand the language and he was complaining about height restrictions. Didn't quite understand
it. Uh since that moment he asked for a postponement he asked to kick it back to the planning board. He is now aware of what the height restriction means. He misinterpreted it. Uh
Mr. Planner, any comments on uh '0525? I was not at the committee meeting when this was introduced were discussed. But when we have the ordinance 05 is one about the accessory structures we're talking about and we have the two different charts. This is based on the language that we use in the master plan
they reported about based on the size of your property that sort of dictates how big of an accessory structure you're allowed to have based on the size of the structure there's increased uh setbacks required and essentially the further setback you are the bigger
increase height my understanding from what um the township manager had explained to me he called me a few weeks ago saying last week saying they tabled this one they want to discuss planning board. There are some questions questions about you know how we
calculated these specific numbers of the height and you know my recollection this board and then the something that you had last year was you know it wasn't a super scientific calculation it was used these sizes and said you know 5t 7t
10 12 15 20 of setbacks and 12 15 20 25 I don't necessarily have a strong feeling any one way or another about these exact numbers and digits this board or the township committee's strong feelings that they want to use up or down in any direction.
I can shed a little bit of light the we started with the baseline of what is currently permitted within the township. Um currently you're you're allowed on regardless of the your lot size the way the ordinance is written is that uh the maximum permitted accessory structure
would be 1,200 ft uh and I believe it's a height of 15 ft. So we started at the base and we increased from there uh due to the fact that we have multiple applications over the years to the zoning board um for larger structures on
larger properties. So that's where the numbers came from. Um but there was no um there was no increase to the what I would call the base um height and the base uh building size in addition to what's currently or
changing the definition where it no longer says maximum of two cars I think you know two cars or three cars we struck struck that out so we're not talking we're not regulating how many cars you're allowed to run right for clarity purposes because that was confusing so
it wasn't It's not like I sat down did an analysis of every application for the town or through height diagram showing you the impact of every single accessory structure was they're just nice round numbers essentially increasing in height and size as you get further away from the property and as you have a bigger
run and things like that. According to the zoning board, the number one reason for a variance in this township is for a larger accessory structure. And the intent of the uh master plan revisit team was to lessen the burden on the
township residents to make it easier. Therefore, this ordinance, the question was that particular night at our last township committee meeting was the height restriction. the particular um township committeeman did not understand
what mean height is. He cons uh confused it with overall height. Just so people know the overall height of the building if it's an a roof would be the top of the peak. That's not the answer. Our 15 foot for smaller
structures is halfway from the height of the building usable space halfway to the peak and uh they call that mean height it's a whole new terminology for many people. U so when you see the height of
the building at 15t it could be 17 18 ft 20T even based on your pitch of your roof. So Ralph, you had said that that the committeeman didn't understand at first, but now he does understand. I believe Mr. Brand explained it to him. Okay. So
then this isn't there should be nothing. There should be no issue done with this. It should not be but we were perhaps we can we can we can offer some clarity uh as to the the height calculation. It says maximum height and maximum mean
right. You should say exactly building a flat roof to get measured in the roof itself. If you have a gamble roof where essentially there's five linkages, it's essentially the middle linkage which is offer basically the mean height most
gam. If you have a pitch roof, which most accessory starts with the set is going to be also have the a cable or hip roof measure to the middle of the so for these 25 ft maximum height 3,000t structure that could be the peak could
be at 30 32 based on the nomenclature we don't need to put the word okay In in in the course of my career, I've reviewed many ordinances and I think the
the most appropriate thing to do here for clarity is you can simply put an asterisk next to where it says maximum permitted height. See note one, put note one underneath with the definition of height. So anyone reading the chart uh can see what the definition of height is
rather than having to go back, you know, to the definition section of the ordinance. I've seen it done uh many times on charts like this. Um so I think that provides some clarity that So would you have three definitions then for flat roof? No, that's already incorporated into the current definition.
That's the purpose of the definition to begin with. Shall be measured from the average grade around the finished floor elevation to uh peak of a flat roof, the midpoint of a gamble roof or the elevation of a picture. So Mr.
reference that one. So, Mr. Brandt would like to add that footnote. Should that be in a form of a motion and carried for the recommendation for the change to the ordinance or can we just tell the township committee to add it?
I think you should do it by motion. Okay. Send the recommendation back. All right. All right. Mr. Brandt, can you please restate what you stated and that would be your motion? Sure. Um I'd make a motion to amend the current accessory structure setback and height uh
requirement chart um adding uh a note um below the chart uh referencing uh maximum permitted height and include the current definition uh which is currently in chapter 253 uh as it pertains to
building height. All right, we've all heard that. Before we ask for a second at this point, is there a motion to go into uh open public portion on 0525? Motion. Hey, I want to ask Chris one question. Sure. Chris, so you you've
read this, right? The ordinance. Yeah. So, all of the language that's struck here is consistent with our initial um recommendation, correct? Yes. Pretty much verbatim said. Okay. He's just going to make sure that we're not
striking anything else. Strikes about 3:00. Yeah. I I just, you know, I just make sure we're not striking anything else up. There's a motion to go into open public. Is there a second? I second it. Okay. All in favor? Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.
45. [Music] Yes. Okay. So, again, those questions for you uh because you weren't there. So I was I got up and asked. So we have a lot of smaller lot in here. I feel like this was mainly directed at the ones
that are in there. So you've got your I mean I could show you those things in like by Iona Lake or lake that are you know they're doing 10,000 foot properties. There's nothing listed for like how far you have to your back from your septic from your neighbor's septic and everything at the back of the of the
property isn't always feasible for some of these weird shaped blocks that have them because you know the backyard of every corner property is somebody's sidewalk. So I think it's kind of there and it's not just you know one property another there there's several any corner
property is going to have that issue but the back of their property is the sideyard of somebody else and you're also again I want to know how like there's nothing listed that you have to be so many ft away from your septic or your well and all that help that that's already but people looking at that are
going to say well I can build a 12,000 foot even though they only have the house that's maybe 700 800 ft they could know a,200 foot. Exactly. And it is and I feel like that then you got, you know, two people living on a, you know, a 10,000 foot
property and you're like, wait a minute, there's got to be some sort of I think well in the second house. Yeah. But you know as well as a lot of people live then. So um I know they're not supposed to, but people do. Um, I've got I know people in my area that are
living in in trailers that are pulling the next to people's house RVs and campers and all that. So, not supposed to be I know they're not supposed to be, but we know that we also know it exists. Part of this, right? We also know it exists. So, I my concern is um I feel like there I think there just needs to
be a little bit more for the smaller lot properties here or some sort of I just I don't think it's complete. I feel like it's a little bit incomplete for the there is a big all through the village sections you go from Franklin all the way basically everywhere where the waste
water management overlay goes for eventual water and sewer and that was my concern was that is this a precursor to going into water and sewer which yeah I know everybody says that it's they're not but the overlays are all there where these smaller lots all are all the way
from Frackable Lake through Iona and down into Malib. So let me take a stab at answering. So we have our setbacks of 15 ft. We have our maximum size in these small lots of,200 square foot.
The applicant that wanted to build this building would have to go to the zoning office first to see if it complies. Okay? And then we have other ordinances in place. If you disturb greater than 500 square ft, we have storm water management things in place. And all
these things are safeguards I believe to protect the neighbors. Okay. You take a 10,000 square foot lot, take the square footage of the house off the square footage of the driveway, the square footage of the setbacks on all four sides,
[Music] your well, you're by the time you take all that and subtract that from 10,000 square ft, what are you really left with? I mean it but see this is where I think the verbiage and the language isn't clear. Somebody's going to say well it's within the it's within the code and they're
just going to build without going to a variance or going to a board. That that's the point to to stop people having to go variance. I thought it was the opposite. I thought you guys you don't want them to go through the zoning board and everything. We don't want them to go to zoning board to spend money on necessarily. That's correct.
Right. That's what but I I think that they actually need to because there's different blocks. I think that there's a lot of people in town that care. I know they won't like me, but you know what? I mean, my neighbors all call me a Karen anyway, but you know what? That's because I care. More than likely,
somebody has a great lot roughly 10,000 and they wanted to put up the maximum, 1200 foot time, they're probably going to be triggering a variance one way or another somewhere between the setbacks between the building coverage requirements between what the if they have an existing septic field. I know
the requirement is you're going to put a plan. most of that. That's another issue is that there's one that on my set that doesn't have a field. My I have a chamber system. I have a D restriction on my property because I have to get I basically have a sewer bill because I have to get the county to come every year and agree to my exception. And that
these are the systems that they're making people put in on these undersized lots. So I think you know that would there's there's too many gray areas I think to put everything into one without being so nothing in this order [Music] somebody only violates one of those
codes but there's no teeth in them it's it's a it's a it's a medial I do know there are teeth well they can put a lean against your house if you don't pay because I know cuz I I fall into that if I don't I over here. Thank you. Anybody else from the public
that wishes to speak on 0 525? Is there a motion to close open public portion on 0525? I make a motion to close. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I.
Okay. So, do you need me to re repeat my motion or Yeah. Yeah. We have a motion on the floor seconded by Mr. Sweet. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So, u now we need to vote and
then we would make a recommendation to the township committee to adopt 0525. We did that. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. If you could do a roll call, Chris Young. Roll call. Yeah. Thank you, Jason. Sure. No, I'm not abstaining from this. Yes.
Mr. Clark. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mayor Mr. Yes. Okay. Motion carries to recommend to the township committee 0525. Next on tonight's docket again for the
uh ordinances for the master plan 0725 RA to highway commercial and interchange commercial. Uh Chris, any comments from our planner? This um this one was relatively straightforward. This was the
recommendation of the master plan to take essentially the entirety of Hardy Highway and Delta Drive and join them back to or build them. There was a handful of parcels that were in the RA zone or RA zone or a couple of them and
maybe I think it was all RA zone in the highway zone commercial zones. So we have uniform commercial zoning across the frontage as well as to acknowledge the existing non-conforming homes in a few areas
other mentioned houses on crime that currently are non-conforming uses mentioned the zones reflect that they would be permitted uses if they are existing so they're not treated as a non-conforming use anymore and if they wanted to to expand on their housing zone build a new bedroom build a new
kitchen build a deck they're put into the do so as a regular resident rather than having to go to the zoning board for expansion of the non-conforming use period. So makes it easier for somebody who lives there to uh expand on their property if they wish. Currently they would have to go in front of the zoning
board and request of use house in the HC district. You'd have to go to the zoning board to expand your house. So this uh plan change would eliminate that. That would make it conforming. Now, the issue that's been brought to my attention that I don't have any problem with this is
that right now your buffering requirements uh in the code at 253 103 or 104 maybe am I off by a number or two there? Uh requires buffering between non-residential uses and residential districts for non-residential uses.
Although it expressly says non-conforming residences get a buffer, but now we'd be making them conforming uses. technically the buffering requirement wouldn't apply to those existing homes. Um so my suggestion is I don't know if that gets done in this ordinance itself or a separate ordinance
uh an amendment to the buffering requirements to change it from residential district to residential use so that it's clear that wherever there's a new uh industrial or commercial facility going in in the highway commercial district in the irrigation district if they're adjacent to a
residential use they got to provide a buffer. So we need to be clear in our ordinance. Yeah. Right now your ordinance as it's written could be interpreted that if somebody brought in application in the highway commercial district or let's say building a gas station and they have a
residence next door to them, they might they wouldn't be required to put a buffer in because that residence would be a non-conforming residence. It would be a conforming residence. Now we just want to change the language and say res any residential use in those districts. You have commercial property. So it's
simply the removal of one one word uh changing changing potential district to use a couple of the little changes here but basically okay that hasn't been introduced to be wrapping that up so it's ready to act on
that so Chris we spent a lot of time in the master plan um advisory committee we spent a lot of time on revising buffers and increasing them in certain areas um just want to make sure that um whatever
change you're proposing here um that those increased buffers would apply to these residents residential areas in this in this zone. In the master plan, we didn't specify exact distances of increased buffer service. It does say we need to enforce and enhance the buffer
requirements between non-residential residential. This ordinance doesn't change anything the buffer requirements that that's not being addressed by this ordinance. This is simply the reasonzoning and then recognizing the existing number of leases. But it was pointed out by Barbara that the current
code the wording in apartments is a little bit we should update that and I I agree with that. So that's not being addressed by this ordinance, but I think that be addressed through another ordinance. You haven't written that draft yet on the revised ordinance language. Oh, I I have
personally drafted it, but it has not been sent to the county for that to be considerable. Okay. So township committee Matt Finley have not seen it yet. I have personally granted it. Thank you. Any more comments from the board before we go into open public portion on this? Well, just to clarify,
so to bifurcate these two issues, we're not really discussing the buffers as it relates to this this ordinance. And this ordinance actually expands individuals property rights by allowing them um to expand upon their this
ordinance doesn't change the zoning on these parcels only. It also extends those protections to everyone in the highway commercial zone uh that has a pre-existing residential use in order to expand their use.
Okay, I understand. Thank you. But but but how did they make a referral of the buffalo? Well, it would have to happen and he could then bring it to the committee's attention and if they want to they can introduce it whether it's in that form where they want to discuss it
further. But the intent of this the master plan committee this board and I don't want to speak for the township committee. There was never any intent to reduce buffers or eliminate buffers. Um that had that was not the intention. there there simply is a a language change that's going to need to happen.
It was an oversight, but we didn't review the actual proper language specifically to say, oh, we're changing this. So, I think the current language we put in place to recognize the existing non uses. So, it said non-important uses, but it probably should have just said if
you're facing a resial, right? Okay. Thank But the concern that uh exists though with these increased buffers is that this ordinance gets changed the way it's written to be changed. Those new buffers don't apply because they haven't
been adopted. Is that correct? Well, the current buffer requirement which says for I believe in certain districts it's 50 ft to 150 ft. It doesn't specify which I use for the planning force discretion as I've been reading. have a little bit of an issue with there that is required when
you're adjacent to a residential district or adjacent to a non-conforming residential use and other districts are taking commercial say 150 or maybe 100 to 300 foot buffer when you're adjacent to a residential district or non-conforming residential use. The real issue is those current non-conforming
uses would become performing and therefore by a technicality the the buffer requirement currently in place wouldn't apply to a non-conforming residential use if it's in the highway portion district. It's not a residential district but not a non-conforming user. So the cleaning up of the code would
then say your buffer requirements as they currently stand which is anywhere from 100 or anywhere from 50 to 300 ft would apply to residential uses rather than take out that non-conforming beach mark with the money [Music]
with that just be clear that ordinance anything changing the buffers themselves that has not been introduced by council that's not something that I referred to you so there isn't any actual ordinance. We can have I think we can have a discussion of what you might want to see ultimately in the ordinance and we did discuss that in the master plan, but there's no actual
ordinance to refer back to the council or the committee at this point for them to be they haven't introduced. [Music] All we're addressing is pre-existing conditions. The one that committee specifically
requested you review again in the 07 which is the resoning of the properties as recommended by the master plan and the recognizing of the existing residences in the highway district which is completely consistent with master
issue with the oversight. My opinion is that can be very easily addressed through a separate ordinance. Okay. Thank you. Motion to happen to the public. Ultimately, assuming the committee does want to act on that credential ordinance in some fashion or another that would
eventually come back to this board because it would be changed. So, they'd have to introduce it and come to you for consistency review at the master plan and then go back to the the council meeting for a second option. Ultimately, anything that would change the buffer, whether we increase it or just change that language, we'll come back to the
board again. Thank you, Chris. Is there a second on Jason's motion? I'll second to go public. All in favor? Okay. Open public portion is now for anything or anyone to speak about 0725.
Barbara Halurn, 2446 Harding Highway, Newfield, New Jersey. I do. Okay. I'm basically want to clarify it. I don't see the rush to change our our homes on on Harding
Highway from permit non-permitted to permitted without covering us with a buffer because it's more important as someone who lives in this district and someone who's spoken to many people in the district that we have a buffer.
applications are time of submission. It could take months before you give us a buffer. If you recommend passing this as it is, you strip us of buffers and many people are then vulnerable. There are hundreds of homes in the HC zone that
will be less vulnerable. So, what's the hurry? Can't you just recommend that either you strike section one from this and revisit it when you make the buffer ordinance or you just wait to do this until you have the
buffer ordinance so you can pass it at the same time and not leave us disenfranchised because we pay as much taxes as you do based on the square footage of our homes. It's based on the acreage of our land. So why should we be treated as secondass citizens? I was
zoned RA when I bought my house. It was changed to a master plan just like you're doing to these other people who are RA. You're going to dump them into a zone with no buffer. RA has the best buffer. 150 down to 50 and then like you said in
the IC zone it's 100 to 300. Now, as non-conforming, I had asked when I found out that I was dumped into the highway commercial zone from being residential. I asked Mayor Ferri for a buffer and he gave it to us. May not be
as good as the RA, but we have something. At least let us keep what we have now until you give us a replacement by fixing the language. Just from one word could fix this. One word. So, how hard is it for you to wait a little bit?
Recommend waiting and then get it all at once so you're not causing distress to hundreds of homeowners. Keep in mind, these homeowners are voters, too. So, please consider that rather than rush into something that
leaves us vulnerable. Like I said, time of application is what matters. You could change this a month, two months from now, but if someone zooms in there with an application, that homeowner has no options. So, please don't do this
to us. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Good evening. My name is Rachel Hest. I live at 47 Sha A, a resident to connect next to a property that will be impacted by ordinance 725 reszoning certain areas from residential agricultural highway
residential 12 to highway commercial. I'm here tonight as both a mother and a farmer to express serious concern over the continuation of ordinance 725 proposal to reszone areas that have long been designated residential agricultural. It's deeply troubling to
see an attempt to re rework zoning laws in a way that would clearly benefit particular businesses prohibited in the RA zone unless a use variance is granted. Not only does this circumvent the proper process, but it sets a dangerous precedent of bending rules to accommodate commercial developers at the
expense of residents, farmers, and our township's long-term vision. I urge the board not to ignore the spirit of the master plan, which emphasizes protecting rural character and preserving agricultural living. I oppose ordinance 725 and any attempt to
resone farmland for commercial use. The process should protect families, farmland, and our community's integrity, not accommodate prohibited developments through backdoor zoning. Hundreds of residents have signed petitions and attended meetings clearly opposing this development. Our voices matter. If the
board reson applicants from doing the same with that, I have some additional questions for you. How is the ordinance 725 consistent with our master plan's call to preserve agricultural land and the township's rural identity?
wasn't a direct recommendation by par. So for properties such as ours which has been residential agricultural for over 50 years in our district. Okay. And they stand corrected. Um, Chris, I just want to add that, you
know, again, we spent a lot of time in that master plan review and we're willing to change that that zoning for those areas to keep commercial development in on the commercial, you know, where it's where it's appropriate along the major highways. But I again, I
want to go back to the buffers. We also spent a lot of time on increasing buffers for the very reason that you're concerned about and that's the residences that the residents that are already on the these major highways. So, um I just wanted to make that
clarification. Um does this does this ordinance open the door for future commercial developments to request zoning changes on any residential agricultural park? any development that may want to request a zoning change, they can approach the committee and make request
this open door for those properties that are not on those particular properties. I don't I don't see any expanded [Music] farmer wants to sell and they have
project highway. I have a question. I'm sorry. How many properties were I want to say? 20. Some of them were township owned properties that were like 55, right?
29 properties. I I don't have to know an acreage of them in front of me, but there's 29 properties. I think the biggest one of them was a county property that maybe school board on the corner there. Well, the specific properties you
mentioned at um the next zoning board meeting, they should be with the paper. They're listed in the ordinance. Yeah. The zoning board, the zoning board does not deal with reszoning. They only hear applications. None of this has been discussed at the county board. I don't know what happens.
I'm not there, but zoning board's jurisdiction is just here application. They don't they don't have anything to do with master plan aside from making reports to the pling board and the governing body and saying here. Thank you. Thank you. And and back to
Barbara, look, I can envision that these two the ordinance she's talking about having to be amended and this ordinance will probably be front of the tax committee at the same time. Could probably make that happen, right? We can make that happen. Like I said,
I've already got an ordinance drafted ready to go. I can make some tweaks to it if we have some discussion because this would have to be reintroduced anyway. Correct. Yes, possibly. I don't know. It's new language now within the next public hearing. Oh, no. You have
publicity, right? Yeah, but we didn't we just amend it a little bit or not? No. Well, it depends if Yeah, we haven't made any changes yet. Yeah, we made one minor change to '05, but nothing to We could I don't want I don't know if there's any.
I'm not aware of any applications that we want to stop or we want to push through. Can we can we add the buffers in part of this? What she said like can we have I have no issues with changing design but it was was my but it was done
with the understanding that the buffers were going to get made part of it. So can we amend this and then include these these well then we should the mayor has recommended that already. table. No, this has already been introduced at
the township. Yeah, so then it can be scheduled after the first reading. Can I say both scheduled both at the same time? Yeah, he can get that stuff to Matt tomorrow and that could be your recommendation back to the committee that these guys can kick back.
They already wanted in the master plan. They'll be adopted at the same meeting. Just for clarity purposes, Chris, the changes to the proper ordinance are language changes. Correct. Yeah.
Whatever the master plan just said, we didn't specifically say change it from 50 to 75 or 100, right? So, you don't have any specifics, right, on that. So, the the ordinance change would be specifically to remove one or two words
more clarity. residential, right? I want to have a discussion with the committee, but yeah, does recommend removing so that [Music] the
All right, we're still an open public portion from the public. One more time. Cindy Marks, 330 Oak Avenue, Malag. I do. Thank you. I have a question on this because um I'm looking at section two where it says the highway commercial
zoning district and that particular part down at the bottom there where it goes this boundary columns. See below. Okay, that says shall not apply to the proposed new zone boundary and let me go through some lots there. What I want to
know is these are all presently zoned RA and I believe Mr. uh Fazio that bought it became a farmer and it was all made into farmland. Am I correct, Mr. Traveler? Yeah. Pre previous to his ownership it was in a woodland management plan. Right. I I know that
part but now it's still listed as RA. These properties are not far. These properties I believe are on the south side of Route 40 um between let's say Malaga and um Route 55. There's a
couple small very small parcels that have homes on them. I think HT Communications there's a tower there. We own one by Mr. Mr. According to the the thing that says Fazand Court. So he has several other homes here. I that's what
I want to know. In other words, that's R A and he's farming it and getting farmland assessment. What would he change to interchange? Is that is that what they're going to go there? Yeah, the proposal is to change that strip to interchange commercial. So, it's go to interchange. Am I correct from that?
Yes. Does he lose his farmland stuff? Uh, no. Because um several years ago, several years ago, the right to farm ordinance was carried across all zones that farming is a permitted use in all zones. Therefore, farming is permitted in the IC zone. So, in the IC zone right
now, presently, you're not allowed to put warehousing. Correct. Or is that changed because of one of your recommendations? Page 41. Number nine, master plan. Now, I'm on the master plan reinvent that this board
was looking at. Township should consider permitting large warehouses and distribution center facilities. So that's the right thing on page 41 number nine. I recall 41. Okay. So does that change that now? So he could put
the warehouse on right now. The first building I believe warehousing some of it's ours. I believe the current building permits warehousing. The district master plan recommends making warehouses in certain districts.
The new master plan does the other one accessible. Correct. Storage warehouse. Okay. But on page 42 of your recommendations, you have right here proposed warehouse setbacks and you have building sizes up to 500,000 square ft.
Yeah. For master plan, we specifically recommend the current zoning required for any warehouse just like any light industrial use maybe 75 does recommend enhanced or increased setbacks for warehous.
So, we can change that to a giant warehouse put there, which was recommended by our economic development commission back in May 5th of 2022 where we had them come in for a 560,000 square ft warehouse and uh 300 parking spots
and let's see um Cindy, they also wanted to do quite a bit. No, no, that can do it. I just want to say they do it now. But but there there are again we spent a lot of time on restrictions and buffers. So although what you're reading is
what's correct is reflecting what the the u the the study showed or the revisions showed but you're not pointing you're not looking at the restrictions when when you start to apply all those restrictions to certain size warehouses. It'd be pretty hard to find a location
to put something that big. Well they did want to Jim just to let you know. Okay, they did do quite a bit of research because we did a redevelopment zone if you remember which we all had to pay for and they we put a lot of money into it to, you know, find out that well, let's
just go with plan B now. We'll go back to the master plan because the first one didn't work. Now, I don't know. Looks to me, and I'm going to say this, it it just doesn't seem fair. So yeah,
you really need to focus you need to focus in on the restrictions one time. No, I just say that there are there are a list of restrictions as it relates to size of buildings and it's makes it almost again almost impossible
to find a location that u would suit that size of building. The just want to clear the properties we're proposing here. This is the map. It's not in there. This big piece isn't this year, right? But this all here right now is Ra
and the yellow is No, this is this is Ra. Yes, you're correct. This is all the houses that are free from it is and and so when we come out where where we all live 150 to 200 homes back here, he wants to put in a traffic light and all
this. So that's why our concern is what we get tonight with a lot of the only [Music] one. No. No, that's not true. Well, that's what they say. Okay. But I'm telling you that's not
true. He owns a lot of them, but he doesn't own them all. Right. But we didn't approve warehouses and now I see that it is and you know I have a problem that
it's on your Thank you. So, thank you. Name your address. Mindy Curran, 71 Edgewood A, Malaga. Karen, these testimony about Yes.
Um, I don't know if this applies right now is more about the buffers um and the Fazland area. Um there seems um I'd like it if they could be required whoever does anything or
even retroactively ideally that there be a greater buffer and greater responsibility to a buffer when you decimate trees along a highway that blocked sound for residents. Do you
understand what I'm saying? Y um there's no buffer right now commercial. [Music]
I guess that's I'm asking the town to consider and keep to Your reference is the Route 55, correct? Uh yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um there's there's no buffer. Uh you know, there's they were just allowed to cut down all the trees and Well,
that's cuz they're farmers and farmers get to do whatever they want. Yeah. Well, whatever. Um, so I just if you could just kind of keep that in your mind that there should be extra responsibility to the land owner
if they're going to clear land or there needs to be a a much larger buffer along the highway to protect the residents that had become accustomed to quiet and are now not allowed that. That's all.
Thank you. Any more comments from the public? Please come forward. Margaret, please come up. Margaret, I am on Forest Road. Flora Road. Forest Road.
1806 Flora Road. I'm a violent male. and um testimony. My opinion is going to be the truth. That's fine. Thank you. It's all good.
It's all testimony. I understand the answer for you. Just want to know what we're going to vote on. In other words, when the public portion is done, are you going to vote on uh tableabling this for now about the
the uh buffer zones or are you going to move ahead? Motion's been made to table. Now, wait a minute. There's no motion been made to table. Um all this board is doing is making a recommendation backard. What I think the board is considering
doing is making recommending to the township committee that this ordinance of 725 be reintroduced at the same time a buffer ordinance has been introduced so that you can be adopted at the same time. Thank you Jackie.
The buffers that were revised in the recent review according to the master plan. That's correct. That's that's this board's not taking any action. asked by the council committee to review this and report.
Okay. And and I mean when you read in the when you read in our plan now the the buffer zones they sound safe. Now I just heard you saying that there's no buffer zone for the front. I didn't know that
for the front yard. somebody wants to put in in the highway commercial wherever they want to put in commercial buffers if they're adjacent to a residence buffers in the side yard. They don't know anything about their front yard.
That's that's pretty typical commercial to have people see their business driving by. Um yeah, right now requires anywhere from 50 to 300 dependences and the side committee
will propose ordinance and they get it and introduce it there will be a public learning online session. All right. And sometimes when applicants have a um they have a plan that they bring in front of the planning board, something they want to build. Um for
example, the solar field, we required significant buffers on all three sides. Actually, it might have been in four sides. Um so that doesn't just because there's no buffer requirement for frontage today, doesn't mean that um one
wouldn't be required when the applicant has to go before uh a board. So yeah, I mean I think that everybody wants this to be rural, right? Everybody up here want remain rural,
Jason? Well, I I mean I I'm off for proper planning, let's put it that way. So So, okay. I I would think that um it's just speaking to well I mean saying something is rural is a a matter of uh
perspective. I mean I've been in many parts of this country that that would presume Franklin Township to be suburban. So um that's kind of a subjective thing to say to remain rural. So yeah, I mean we have two uh we have uh you know a state interstate that runs
through here uh two state interstates. So, um, I don't really know how to answer that question. So, thank you, Mrs. D. 37 Elm Street in I am brand new to this. I have never been to a town meeting. I've never given
comments. I am a teacher so I do not need a microphone. Okay, that's not for amplification. That's different. Uh so my comments are basically just uh referencing the 2004 master plan which is currently uh the
most recent version available on the website. So does work on updating that. Um but going through that document almost kind of prestages the uh issues that the township residents uh are bringing up at the moment. So in the
2004 master plan uh the very first stated goal is to quote preserve the quality of life in Franklin Township with the following objectives. Number one, retain the rural character of the community. Number two, preserve open space opportunities through public and private actions. Number three, encourage
farmland preservation and cooperation with the local agricultural community. And number four, strengthen ordinances that enhance community character. The overall tenor of that master plan is one reflective of residents concerned about unchecked development and destruction of
Frankfville's rural culture. The indeed the indu introduction of the master plan could have been written today by the residents in this room. Township residents have reported, quote, Township residents have reported that they fear a loss of rural character that attracted
many of them to Franklin Township. There is also increasing concern to maintain the natural environment that the community is justly proud of. 2004 master plan should be required reading for all members, not just of the committee, but for township residents whose views have not changed since its
original authorship and must be both considered and respected. Few additional quotes that relate to the ordinance. Quote, Franklin Township thinks of itself as a rural community. Residents have reported in public forums they are attracted to the community by its open
and rural character and that preservation of its character is a high priority. Quote, "When development has occurred, the existing zoning ordinance has permitted development patterns that are at odds with the desired rural character."
quote, "The existing zoning does not promote the retention of that rural character that is cherished by Franklin's residents." Quote, "In almost every instance, the amount of land zoned for the non-residential use greatly exceeds the
existing development." And finally, quote, "Malaga has become dominated by gas stations, restaurants, and convenience stores that are far more characteristic of highway commercial districts than traditional village forms. If similar use emerges in
Franklinville, its character could be destroyed. The zoning ordinance must offer protection both both the mixed use concept and to the overriding preservation of the village character. Some of the most commonly used words in
this master plan. The word village appears 29 times. Rural appears 24 times. The specific place phrase rural character appears 15 times. Preservation is 14 times. Conservation is 12 times.
The word industry does not appear in this document. The word economy appears only once in the context of the stated objective to quote expand opportunities for commercial and industrial development that complement Franklin's
rural character. The proposed resoning is antithetical to that rural character that has been part of our own planning for over 20 years. This is antithetical to the best interest of the township and its
residents and to the words and plans historically codified by this very committee. It must be rejected by the committee's own established standards. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Is there a motion to close open public
portion? Is there a second? Second. All in favor? All right. So, we are tasked uh to make a recommendation to the township committee. Uh it's been suggested that
we uh merge the buffer question in uh with uh the RAHC question. Uh that they would appear in front of the township committee on the same night for ordinance review.
Yeah. Based on Miss Halburn's suggestion, um, is there a motion to merge the two? Okay. That both would be submitted on the same evening. [Music]
Until such time or it was. [Music] already been tabled. So essentially, we're sending this ordinance back with no modification whatsoever. It's staying as it is, right? 725,
right? And change the language to allow for buffers to protect the few residents that would change from or IC. So that is a motion. Just making a motion to make that recommendation.
Okay. Is there anyone here would like to use the language and make that motion? I make a motion to send 0725 uh back to the township committee in its current form. um with the uh
understanding that uh it'll be adopted u in concurrence with the modified buffer ordinance under the master plan review. Well, we're going to get the the ordinance. Well, inconsistent with the with the buffers established in the master plan review. Well, the problem
with the master plan review is there was no buffers established. Well, there were there were I think there were there was no there was no numbers assigned to them, right? [Music] Yeah,
I think there were. Yeah, I mean there was a whole page with tables on these revised buffers. Yeah, I don't recall that. Sure. So, we have a motion by Mr. Brandt. Is there a second?
Second. Uh, that's a roll call. Joe seconded it. Okay. I think that's primary concern. Yeah, we'll call it. Yes, Mr.
Mr. Yes. Abstain. Abstain. Mr. Yes. All right. Thank you. Um, next on the agenda this evening are communications. Um, none. None. Chrissy. Okay. Next on
the agenda is correspondence. Okay. Next on the agenda, uh, minutes from May 20, 2025. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make a motion. Second. I stay.
Okay. Uh, all in favor? I I Okay. Kyle. Uh, Jackie, do we need to go into close session? Thank you. Uh, any last comments from planning board members?
Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn this evening? Is there a second? All in favor? Next meeting will be July 15th. Thank you everyone for attending.