Adequate notice of the July 10th, 2025 regular meeting of the township committee has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act by posting written notice and agenda of the meeting on the bulletin board in the municipal building 10 township of Hannover by hand delivery, mailing or faxing such notice to the following
newspapers. Mars County Daily Record, the Star Ledger, Hannover Eagle, and by filing the same with the township clerk. Roll call. Committeeman Cahill here. Committeeman Peramasa here. Committeeman Francioli here. Committeeman Mahalo here. Mayor Gallagher here. Five members in attendance.
If you would please join us for the pledge of allegiance and please remain standing for a prayer led by Deputy Mayor Mark Malco. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America for it stands one nation under God
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Almighty God, please watch over and guide this governing body with abundance of wisdom and understanding to help make the best decisions for our residents. Please bless our first responders and
township volunteers who help keep us all safe. Also bless our township employees and residents. Lastly, please let us pray for the men and women of the US armed forces who stand vigil over us always. Amen. Hey ladies and gentlemen, uh it's a
privilege and honor this evening to recognize the 100th anniversary of Notre Dame of Mount Carmel Ro Roman Catholic Church. And this is a great honor for us. And at this time, committee manosca
will read into the record a plaque that uh will be presented to the congregation, not only tonight, but also at a special event on Saturday. Thank you, Joe. This is a Golden Jubilee Award. It's presented to Notre Dame of
Mount Carmel Roman Catholic Church in thanksgiving and celebration of Notre Dame Centennial Anniversary 1925 to 2025 in counting. the foundation stone of its congregation
with a rich history that continues to serve as a beacon of faith, love, hope, and inspiration to its parishioners and in service to God's ministries from the township of committee
township mayor Hanover Township Ace Gallagher Township of Hanover July 12th, 2025. Very good. At this time, I'd like to welcome Father
Vidal along with members of the parish to come up and accept this prestigious award. And please, members of the governing body, please join us in terms of the celebration. Heat. Heat. Heat up here.
Yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, father. Very good. Did you want to say anything? You could go to the microphone. Thank you. I'm going to start the timer. Well, uh, well, thank you so much to
Mayor Thomas A. Gallagher and to the members of the council. On behalf of the entire Paris community of not today Mark Carmel, I wish to express our heartful gratitude for that beautiful plaque you presented
in honor of our centration. We would be honored to welcome you to our centennial mass followed by a time of fellowship and refreshment this coming Saturday at 5:00
p.m. Your presence would truly bless our celebration as we give thanks for the past and look forward with hope to the future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Now, if everyone that was here for that celebration would like to leave, we'd understand. But if you want to hang around and listen to us conduct our business, we'd love to have you. Thank you. Don't feel guilty. Thank you.
Thank you. So cute. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. First on the agenda, we have a letter of resignation from dialery driver Pello effective July 14th, 2025. May I please have a motion to accept this letter of
resignation? Motion. Second. All in favor? I. Next, we have the approval of the township committee meeting minutes of June 12th, 2025 and also of June 26, 2025. May I please have a motion to
approve the minutes? So move. Second. All in favor? I so approved. Next is the public hearing and adoption of ordinance numbers 19-2025 and 20-2025. I'd like to state for the record that
the township committee has decided to table ordinance 20-2025 until the August 14th meeting. May I please have a motion to carry ordinance 2025 to the August 14th meeting? So move second.
On roll call. Committee mahill. I committ. Hi, Committeeman Francioli. Hi, Committee Malco. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Hi. Okay. Motion to carry until the August 14th meeting at 8:00 p.m. Next, the public hearing of ordinance
19-2025. Proof of publication that ordinance 19-2025 and the notice of introduction appeared in full in the June 18th issue of the daily record. At this time, may I please have a motion to convene the public hearing on ordinance number 19-2025?
So move. Second. Is anyone in chambers wishing to be heard concerning ordinance 19-2025? If so, please state your name and address for the record and you can speak at the podium. Motion close. Second.
All in favor. I. Now an adoption of ordinance 19-2025. May I have a motion to adopt ordinance number 19-2025? Motion second. Roll call. Committeeman Cahill. Hi. Commandment Veramaska. Hi.
Committeeman Francioli. Hi. Committee Melco. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Hi. Ordinance number 19, 2022. So adopted. Next on the agenda is the introduction of ordinance number 21-2025
and ordinance number 22-2025. I'd like to read the title of each of these ordinances into the record. Ordinance 212025, an ordinance of the township committee of the township of handover in the county of Morris, state of New Jersey, authorizing the
resurfacing of a portion of Horse Hill Road from its intersection with East Hanover Avenue, County Road 650 to appoint 7 275 ft south of Saddle Road and further authorizing the
appropriation of $125,000 from the unallocated portion of the 2025 5 capital improvement fund and for all prior years for the financing of this improvement. Ordinance 22-2025
is an ordinance of the township committee of the township of handover authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with the handover Tigers youth football and cheerleading in operating the Bmetal Park Brickyard concession facility retroactive to August 1st, 2025
through November 15, 2025 during the football season. I'd like to state for the record that both ordinances and the respective notices of introduction will be published in full in the daily record in accordance with law. The public hearing is scheduled for August 10th,
2025 at 8:00 p.m. If any member of the public, I'm sorry, August 14th. Thank you for that. At 8:00 p.m., if there's any member of the public that would like to be heard during those ordinances, you will be given the opportunity to do so that evening. May I now have a motion to
introduce ordinances number 21 and 22? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I I'm sorry. On roll call. Committ Cahill. Yes. Committas. Hi. Commander Francoli. Hooray. On horse hill. Yes. Commander Mahalo. Yes.
Mayor Gallagher. Hi. So introduced. Our next order of business is the approval of our resolutions as a consent agenda. Any questions regarding any of these resolutions? May I have a motion then to approve
these resolutions as a consent agenda? Second. May I just make a statement about uh the last two resolutions and that that's part of the motion. Correct. 164 and 165. 164 2025 is uh for special
counsel. Um Mr. Goldstein. And one of the things the mayor had a special meeting, an informal meeting with the public, and there was some comments that the administration took back and and took into consideration, one of them was to to maybe consider having special counsel with respect to the hotel
ordinance. Uh it's being challenged in federal district court. Uh we looked at some names to put together what we would call the dream team, right? put we have um Eric Harrison representing the township and this resolution also also
authorizes Jonathan Goldstein who's a very experienced litigator to also uh participate along with our office um to address and defend uh the hotel ordinance which as I said is right in federal district court. We received a
request to put a stay on the ordinance and its enforcement uh and that's the first order of business that's been directed. that it has not been stayed by the way. Uh but nonetheless, that resolution is on the agenda uh for the governing body's consideration. And then the last resolution was something the
governing body wanted me to mention. Uh that's to designate what would be affirmed the the redevelopment a redevelopment designation is made by the planning board. And in this case, uh, the planning board last year made a determination, uh, that the former H2O
site, uh, is meets the criteria for an area in need of redevelopment. And so, the resolution has been added to the agenda tonight for the sole purpose of of the concerns and what's in the resolution, the outreach expressed by the township committee and the residents
as to the condition of that property. This is a legal mechanism to give the governing body more options including but not limited to the right of condemnation if things don't go in the direction that the governing body wishes it to go and that is an expeditious uh
cleanup of the site and take down of the buildings. The designation for redevelopment this evening does not give the property owner any other rights of zoning pilots whatever you want to call it. There's no additional rights. It's
to complete this designation so that the governing body has the requisite tools if necessary to move ahead in an expeditious manner to address the condition of the site. Thank you, mayor. Thank you for great explanation.
May I have a motion to approve the resolutions as a consent agenda? Do it again. Second. Thank you. All in favor? So approved. And lastly, we have to pay our bills in the amount of $9,964,36323. May I have a motion, John, to pay our bills? So, we come on.
May I have a second? Bills can be paid. Uh, mayors, mayor, and the members of the township committee. That clears the agenda and I thank you very, very much. Thank you, Kristen. Before I open to the public, I would just like to state we have a lot of people here. We want to hear from anybody that would like to
address us. So what we're going to do is we do have a 4minut policy and what we'd like to do is listen to as many people as possible and then address the concerns at the end of each person
getting to speak. Um so if anyone would like to Oh, can I have a motion to second? Second. All in favor. So, if anyone would like to address the governing body, please take uh go up to the podium, state your name, address, and
you have four minutes. Thank you. Fern Wal Journals. Um, I didn't I I appreciate what the attorney just said and I understand it, so I feel a little bit better, but I still do have some questions if you can address them. Um,
you know, I remember back when we had meetings about what was going to get built there. I live basically across the street and over the trees, but I can see H2O from my bedroom. So, I had concerns
at that time which I thought were being addressed which had to do with, you know, we were they were building the uh assisted living facility. We were concerned about lighting and so forth. No, that's not happening anymore. But now I have concerns over and I wasn't
against that. I, you know, to me that's better than an apartment building, better than a uh shopping mall. So, so I was fine with it, but now that's not happening. So, now I have the same concerns I had before, which is what is
going to be built there. And I guess you probably don't know yet, but um I just want you to know I guess that the residents across the street are concerned. I again I don't have a problem with
housing. I don't have a problem with a lot of things as long as they are low and not, you know, lit to the degree where it impinges on the people who live across the street. So, that's basically
all I wanted to say to make you guys aware. I am sure you're aware, but um just wanted to put it out there. It's why I came tonight. Thank you. Thank you, F. Anyone else? Hi, I'm Gail Hansen and I live in Cedar
Null, not far from that other lady. And my concern is the corner property um on Ridgedale and Mel Cartis. I heard talk that they were going to put condominiums.
Is there any plans for development? Are you talking about the H2 Ocean property? Uh, no. Across the street next to Progressive, uh, the corner of Ridgedale and Malpardis, the property across from the cemetery on the corner
of Melis. It's a triangular piece at the end of first day. Yep. and then wait at the end. Yeah, we will to be honest with you, we will address any questions, but as far as I'm concerned, I mean, I find out a lot of different things that that we haven't
discussed yet. I haven't heard anything about that personally yet. No. Okay. Cuz it is considered wetlands. That was my concern. But to be honest with you, we do hear a lot of things like I heard about two different properties this week that were going to be developed that we actually
haven't talked about at all. But we will check with Jerry and Bla1 and Fred and to see if anything's come across, but I haven't heard anything. We haven't discussed it at all because we back up to that property and it would be a water issue. We know that that area is wet. Okay. Thank you very much.
Hi. Um March Krition on Boulevard Road. We live right behind H2 Ocean. considering uh that they found a dead body in the house next door there. Is the that all going to be raised? Is it all going to be knocked down? Um you know, we're right behind there is a
little bit of woods that is owned by the cemetery. Uh sometimes we see people in the woods and someone has placed what looks like a campground in that piece of woods. I don't know if it's kids doing
that or we haven't seen any vagrants, if you will. Uh, so we wanted to see what was going to happen with that property. Also, the speed on Boulevard Road, it's atrocious. I got almost got clipped in the last year, maybe 10 times the speed.
They have those little signs, little happy face if you're doing 25, but everybody does about 50 or more. It's ridiculous. us just getting out of our driveway, you take your life in your hands. So, the speed on Boulevard Road
is is really terrible and we wanted to address again, you know, those those vacant buildings on Ridgedale. We will address the vacant buildings at the end of public comment and we believe we have very very good news for you. Okay. All right. But we got to be very careful, but we
believe we have very good news. And as far as the speeding, we've been discussing that and Brian Cahill is leazison of public safety and um Brian hears it loud and clear and Brian is constantly being in constant touch with our chief. So thank you. And the other
thing is they've got speed humps on the side street. Why not speed humps where you can go 50 m an hour? That might slow these people down on the side street on the Elm. I don't remember Prospect. They
there's not even room half for half a block to speed and they got the speed humps there. I would love to see them on Boulevard Road, especially as you come around the bend and they see the little sign with the happy face and then they floor it. Boom. And they come. To be honest with you, that was part two
of a program of the Mountain Avenue project. Mhm. And uh we're looking at different options to make that happen quicker, but that there is a full design on that and that is part two of the Mountain Avenue design. Good, good, good to hear that. Thank you. My name is Christopher Madison, 32
Sunset Drive in Whippony. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the Hammer Township Green Team. Now, I understand that ordinance 20-2025 was moved to August. Uh, my question is, do you want
to allow more than four minutes so I can speak our advice on this ordinance tonight so you have time to consider it or am I limited to 4 minutes still? Chris, we discussed this at length because we're not going to be hearing this tonight. We decided to limit you
tonight to four minutes, but that doesn't mean you have access don't have access to us. We did invite you into conference and you can come back into conference. But on August 14th, we invited you to make a 10-minute presentation. That's right. Prior to any changes, I'll read participate in the
changes. I'll read as much as I can. Then I I start off with a request. Um, I've attended all of the environmental commission meetings for the last 6 years, but I do not have a seat on the environmental commission. I'm only on the green team. I was told that the
roster did not have additional spaces. Uh considering that our group has a very good turnout, I'd like to kindly request that we expand the roster to include myself and perhaps a few other people that serve on the green on the green team, but don't have seats on the environmental commission. Uh it's currently um 10 members on
environmental, but the green team has 14 who all regular uh regularly attend both meetings. That's something we can discuss. Okay. Uh moving on uh onto the advice portion. Uh I believe the public needs a bit of background to understand the
nature of what's going on. Hanover Township Environmental Commission and green team were made aware that an amendment to the township tree ordinances was introduced to the governing body at the June 12th, 2025 meeting. We realized this change by viewing an agenda for that meeting which generated confusion amongst the group
because we had been working with the township planner for several months on simplifying the existing tree ordinance. I placed several phone calls to pinpoint the origin of 20-2025 and the mayor and the deputy mayor did not introduce it. Committeeman Farasa
then explained that township attorney Samra had drafted this new amendment to comply with the 2024 NJ fair housing act in an effort to reduce development fees. This ordinance was approved by the planning board in conjunction with the Bayer redevelopment plan which shows a
possible connection between the two. The principal change to the ordinance is how lap lot size is used to calculate the tree replacements. The current Hanover Township ordinance applies a cap of 40 trees per acre multiplied by the landowner's entire lot size which has been the method used for many years.
Ordinance 2025 20-2025 seeks to apply the cap of 40 trees per acre to only the area of disturbance which drastically reduces the cap thus reducing the tree replacement fees. The environmental advisers expressed concern that they were not consulted in relation to this
change which directly affects the environment of the township. is also concerning that this change was introduced on June 12th and then scheduled for a vote on July 10th today during a period of time in which there were no environmental commission meetings scheduled. It's additionally
concerning that the that committee member Farosa is both the director of planning and the liaison to the environmental advisory groups which means he participated in discussions with attorney Samra and the township planner on this but failed to inform the environmental adviserss of this change.
We feel that as our liaison, he should have been forthright with these ordinance changes and development documents. Instead, I had to collect the info directly from the township planner and provide it to the group. I then received an email from another member on the environmental commission
stating, "In terms of legal issues brought to my attention by John Faramosa, please refrain from any actions that you are undertaking regarding this ordinance. This email was vague and confusing." Is that my time? Mark.
One second. One second. Mark Chris, take two more minutes. Sure. Thank you. Typically, our planning board has a member of the environmental commission present on it, and our township code 166-5
creates a special carveout for this member to have voting rights. It's a way to ensure that the environment is represented in manners of planning. I regret to inform this body that when member Nadia served on the planning board for one year, she was erroneously not given any voting rights in conflict
with this code. In 2024 though, the environmental commission was represented on the planning board by member Phil Glowey, a class 4 voting member. However, Mr. Glowey was removed from the planning board in the January 9th, 2025 meeting and replaced by a person who is not on the environmental commission,
leaving us with no representation. Phil Glowie's term extends until 2027. I asked in the last township meeting if Mr. Glowey was removed for cause, and the response was no. I asked anyone had if anyone had this resignation letter and the response was no. I filed an open
request to attain this resignation letter but one was not produced only a letter from committeeman phamosa saying this is to confirm that member Phil Glowey has resigned from the planning board given that we have a replacement for him on the board. The lack of an environmental commission member on the
planning board through all of 2025 was a contributing factor to the environmental advisors not receiving any information about the Bayer tree situation or proposed ordinance 20-2025 which required prior planning board approval. Now I am sure that this is all just a
series of chronologically convenient coincidences. But in response to learning all of this, the green team called a special meeting this past Monday, which also was attended by the township planner and the mayor. At this meeting, we discussed the issues with the current tree ordinance,
the issues with the proposed amendment and its relation to the recently approved site plan at Bayer submitted by JMF Property Group LLC. The numbers were reviewed. What it showed was under the current tree ordinance, doing calculations, an
estimated 2,355 trees would be owed into our tree fund at the price of $400 each, yielding a total tree replacement fee of $942,000. Under the proposed new ordinance 20-2025,
that would reduce to 591 trees being owed into the fund times $400 for a total fee of 236,400 approximately. This yields a savings for the developer of $75,600
approximately. After reviewing the online video of the June 12th township committee meeting and in discussion with the planner in the special green team meeting, the arguments being proposed to support ordinance number 2025 are listed here along with our counterarguments.
Argument one, township engineer stated when dealing with affordable housing, there are legal concerns that you can offset some of that cost associated with those developments. Attorney Samra stated, "There have been some cases that say you have to have a re a reasonable relationship to the cost that you're collecting or you need to have some caps
on the amount that you can collect on tree removal before it becomes excessive. Government can't charge whatever it wants. We have to take a look at this to ensure it's in line with the case law." The argument of reducing tree replacement costs was reiterated by the
township planner and committee mana in July 7th meeting this past Monday. Included in this argument was the threat that our township will incur a lawsuit by this specific builder over this specific site and our tree ordinance will be invalidated and all previously collected fees will have to be returned
to all previous developers in township's history. Our advisory response to this argument is that we start by saying this argument holds no water. The references to reducing costs to comply with the 2024 NJ fair housing act are a stretch. This new law contains zero mention of
the word tree or tree ordinance. I spent a weekend reading it. It offers no legal requirements to do a tree replacement fees at all. There is one paragraph that recommends townships remove unnecessary housing cost generating features, but we
Christina Morzano handover. Turning my time over to Chris. Chris, how much more time do you have? Till the end. Till the end. We're almost there. I'll read faster. Uh there is one paragraph that recommends townships remove unnecessary housing cost sharing
features, but we firmly state that the tree replacement fees are not unnecessary. This township's currently involved in a lawsuit with the state and one of the pieces of evidence being used to support us is the green team memo from September of last year on the effects of housing and the impacts it
causes on our local environment. We state that trees are essential to maintaining a healthy and happy population. Mature trees each absorb 100 gallons of water after storms. They filter the air. They provide natural habitats for wildlife. They absorb and contain CO2. They shield the ground layer of the planet from excessive heat
and are proven to relate directly to the mental health of humans. We argue that maintaining the overall tree canopy of the township is both necessary and critical. Furthermore, the green team requested all case law that attorney Samurai used to justify this statement. At this time, none has been provided to
me. Conducting our own case law research, we discovered that a 2009 case, New Jersey Shorebuilders versus Jackson Township, upheld the legality of tree replacement fees by the New Jersey Supreme Court. That is relevant to us. In this decision, the court decided that tree replacement fees are legal so long
as they reflect the actual cost to replace a tree. Also, 2022 case Mammoth Commerce Center versus Howell Township yielded a similar decision. These ordinance ordinances have been proven to not constitute government overreach because they do not outright bar individuals from developing their
private property but do require them to contribute to a public fund which will be used to maintain the overall township natural environment. There is advice in here about specific dollar amounts. I'm going to skip it. We feel that New Jersey case law currently
upholds our tree as it stands. We believe should a legal case occur, any competent attorney could prevail for the township. The township's recommendation on reducing tree replacement fees to avoid a potential lawsuit amounts to caving to a de developer by paying them
with our tree replacement money. Lastly, the most dangerous course of action would be to our tree our existing tree ordinance with this proposed change because it then opens the door for all land developers that to claim that they were overcharged in all
previous redevelopment plans. We also hope nobody has been so irresponsible to have awarded tree replacement waiverss to developers without just cause because that would put our entire escro fund into jeopardy. Not done. Sorry, I just breathing. In
the July 7th Oh, argument two. In the July 7th meeting, township planner committee at Fairaska shared that the developer of the bear site called the tree fee ridiculous because the total amount is approximately $942,000. It was stated that this will be the largest single payment of tree fees in Hannover's history and therefore is too
high and needs to be adjusted to a more reasonable amount. Our advisory response, if the tree if the current tree ordinance creates a large fee due to a proposed development, this does not automatically qualify it as ridiculous. Rather, we argue it reflects the fact that this will be the largest
quantifiable destruction of a forested area in the history of handover and thus has a correspondingly large cost to maintain our overall tree canopy. Simplified large-scale deforestation comes with large cost to reforest. Further, this developer has a history of
building here and is well aware of this tree replacement fee. The township has a record of the tree fund dating back several decades. We've requested oversight to this account but have not received it. The former mayor and author of the original tree ordinance, Len Farella, was able to provide some historical transactions for context. In
2008, right across the street, Hanover Renaissance condo complex was built along Route 10. Tree replacement fee was $521,000. If you convert that money into today's dollars, that's $778,000. We're not that far away from the cost at
the Bayer site. So, I'm going to jump to our advisory recommendations. Number one is to vote no on ordinance 20-2025 whenever you decide to vote on it. Because no case law has been provided by the attorney to justify the change. No comparisons of neighboring towns have been done at this time. Our current tree ordinance has been legally generating
replacement fees for 20 years. Changing this ordinance today means that you agree with the developer that the fees are ridiculous, which would invalidate all the previous collected tree fund revenue, causing the township to possibly owe millions of dollars to land developers and homeowners. And the justification for changing the
calculation from the overall lot size to the area of disturbance is arbitrary. It's an admitted shot in the dark to an appease builder and backed by no history. Our second point is to utilize the arburous and create an actual tree count for the 7.26 acres of disturbed woodlands. This will remove the
guesswork and accurately reflect what needs to be replaced. You can subtract ash trees, dead or diseased trees and invasive species from the sample and only count the healthy native species. that we feel is fair to anyone who wants to develop in the town and we feel like we shouldn't sample the wetland area but
the actual piece being developed. Third is to offer no waiverss of the tree fees to any developers unless justifiable reason is presented like the development is for nonprofit or it contains affordable housing as part of the deal. An example, if this site for Bayer
contains 20% affordable housing, offer a 20% discount in the tree fee. example, $942,000 gets reduced to $753,000. It's 80% of the total that we feel is reasonable. Um, we feel there's no reason to give a developer our township
tree replacement money on sites that hold market rate apartments, hotels, retail stores, and other commercial sites that generate healthy revenue. When our fourth point, when comparing our fees of 400 to other surrounding towns, we feel it is justifiable and reasonable. Our fifth point is to grant
the environmental commission oversight of the tree fund escrow account. This advisory team should have the ability to monitor the revenues and should also have the ability to veto inappropriate expenditures. Sixth, continue to collect tree fund replacement fees and utilize this money to purchase vacant land. Convert this
land into forested property and introduce it to the Rossy, the recreation open space inventory known as green acres. All land put into this program is then removed from the vacant land used for affordable housing calculations and thereby reduces our township's obligation.
And that is the end of the advice. And I'm going to close with two questions for attorney Samra. Will the entire Bayer site plan be nullified or possibly cancelled if the tree fees are not reduced?
And Chris, what's your second question? If this site is being approved for affordable housing mandates and special ordinances are being written for this one developer and must ask, how many affordable housing units has this one developer brought into the market in
Hanover Township at this point in time at all other sites? Fred, we're going to try to keep on our rhythm going, but if you want to hit those two questions real quick, I'd appreciate it. I I don't know about the second one. Um
I I I I don't follow the question. The first question again, Chris, the first one is is the Bayer plan on its whole contingent upon 20-2025 being approved or not? No. No. The bare plan is not contingent
on this ordinance being approved. There's no uh understanding that that would be the case. As a matter of fact, I stated at a public meeting right here last month that the bare redevelopment agreement uh in itself uh I was very
upset because they in the agreement they wanted the tree fee waved and this governing body said no and they actually brought the agreement over to the administrator's office to get it signed with it waved and we intercepted it.
So there is no deal and there's no waiver and there was no agreement that it would be changed. Thank you. Okay. Chris, before we conclude your portion, um John, would you like to address any of the uh points that Chris made?
Sure. Yeah. First of all, I thank Chris. I thank the members of the green team of which I'm a member of since the year 2010 along with other founding members who are in this room. Phil Glowey who also served for a long period of time on
our planning board and Mayor Gallagher and the person who is the fourth member is Ann Kraik who still serves uh involving the green team. So she does a great job. Uh I don't doubt the veracity of the statements the work that was
done. I think it's a fine body of work but I also am very much one who believes in accurate factual communication of information. When you disseminate information in public, it should be supported with facts as opposed to
innuendo. For example, I'm going to ask the attorney, I'm going to ask Mr. Branchowl, did I participate in meetings with the developer, the attorney, as well as the planner regarding said
amendment to the tree ordinance? No, not at all. And there weren't any meetings with the developer with respect to the tree ordinance. Yeah. So just want to clarify for the record in terms of reality fact versus
fiction. In terms of argument number one, we talk about a paragraph submission of issuance of a threat. Um there were no threats made. I spent three hours in that room with the mayor. I spent three hours in
the room with with our planner just trying to give advisory of risk. That's what was presented. So in terms of communication of information, if we're going to communicate, let's get it right. In terms of argument number one,
paragraph 5, an insinuation that our attorney lacks competency. I think this member, this governing body has significant confidence in our attorney. He has done a great job helping us throughout. So I believe he is highly competent.
Argument number two in terms of the accusation in terms of quoting me as saying tree fee ridiculous. I did not say tree fee ridiculous. So let's get that right.
Another issue that was brought up in your discussion was the mention of a member of the planning board. I'm not going to get into personal reasons for that member of the planning board leaving the planning board, but that was a personal
decision and it's going to be left that way because I don't talk personnel in a room. It's not fair to the individual. I have too much respect to anybody who serves on our boards. I value it. They do great jobs. I think you do a great job. But we just need to move forward
with factual information so that we get it right. We have decided to move this off until our August meeting. This will allow us time for us to evaluate the recommendations that are being put forward and hopefully that
this will help optimize the work that we're doing. That concludes my commentary. Thank you, John. Thank you, Fred. Thank you, Chris. Yeah, I did not insult the attorney. I think he does a fine job. I'm just
saying any competent attorney could win that case. That's all that means. Um the quote ridiculous was from the township planner. I wrote that in my notes so I know that that word was specifically used. Uh and in reference to
participating in discussions that is a general reference to discussions on the Bayer site plan and everything involved with it within it and the assumption is that the director of planning would be involved in the discussions of the Bayer site plan and everything within it.
Thank you. Just a comment the ridiculous was stated by the developer. That is correct. that that that is who was from from the developer we were told called it ridiculous and my my argument is that it's not actually ridiculous and
the other thing was the threat that was referred to. I was told that the developer was threatening to sue our township if we didn't approve this tree fund change. That's the threat I'm referring to. All of these things are coming from the developer to clarify.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to be heard? Hi, Laura Cotch, Sier. Um, regarding the tree ordinance or the proposed changes to the tree ordinance 2025, I just have
a question. I'm trying to understand it better. Is the purpose to incentivize builders who um would help the town meet their quota of affordable housing? Is that is that that's your question?
Sorry. I think um the the purpose is to to re to be revisit that ordinance because of the fact of the the relationship of whatever the fees are that are charged just throughout the township um versus
uh what you're permitted to really charge. You have to have a rel You can't necessarily so to speak profit on a fee that's charged as a governmental entity. It has to have a reasonable relationship to um what you're charging as opposed to
a tax, right? Government can just say this is the tax. Nobody has to say, "Well, is that really fair?" But when it's a fee like that, you have to um make sure that it that it warrants or it it's because it incurs a cost to the
township. So, I mean, for all intents and purposes, the if the fees were not covering the township's cost, you could increase it. If it is excessive to the township cost, you may have to look at it in in any type of fee situation where
you have to reduce it. Um, so um and I I just give it an example uh along those ways. There's a number of towns, the state legislature about 5 years ago said for abandoned properties you can charge, they said you can charge
up to um $500 for vand vacant lots and uh the statute said that towns did that. They did it very aggressively and then there was about there's right now I think 10 class
action suits saying prove to us that these are your costs and this is what your costs are. So you have to I'm just saying just as local government we have to make sure that the costs have a corresponding
um correspond to the actual fees that are collected. So that's really what I think a lot of the focus is here. It's that's part of the heart of this to make sure that the fees are uh they match what the costs are to the township. And I'm not going to say here publicly
whether we think they do or not. Um because I wouldn't want to give anybody, you know, that right to try to challenge it. Um but that's you're asking the question. That's what it was about. Okay. So will the ordinance 2025
the ordinance that you're proposing reduce builders costs when it comes to um replacing trees or giving money to the town in lie of trees? The way it's proposed it
is it just a yes or no? For certain it would depend on the actual project. For certain projects the answer would be yes. For other projects, the answer would be no. So, but it was my understanding that um builders
who build in the town and provide affordable housing will be able to reduce the tree requirement that they owe handover. Is that correct? In the proposed ordinance, that that I think would be correct.
Okay. Because as I understand it, according to the Mount Laurel doctrine and builder's remedy, um builders are already highly incentivized to build. They are building one affordable housing unit and also for that single unit, they
are also permitted to build four fair price housing units. So builders are already highly incentivized to build in this town. And as we know, market values are soaring and building is quite lucrative. So, it's my opinion, my
husband, Joseph Cotch's opinion, and the opinion of most people in handover that builders are already sufficiently incentivized, overly incentivized, and a tree ordinance that helps, as
Chris and the green team so clearly stated, helps in innumerable ways. that students in this town could elaborate on. We do not stand by and agree with any change to this ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else? Claire Matlin Whippy and I am a member of the environmental commission and the green team. So, I'm familiar with everything that's going on here. And I would just like to address that the $400
fee that is in our ordinance currently has been there for many years. And we have discussed as recently as this last we meeting that in order to replace a tree, you have a certain caliber tree,
certain costs with it. So the $400 covers the tree, the preparation for the the uh planting of that tree and the maintenance of that tree for the first two years so that will actually live. So I don't think it is an unreasonable
amount and it's something that's been in the ordinance and um if a builder is going to build here, he should be reading ordinances and know that ahead of time. Thank you. And I don't I don't think the ordinance changes that. Right. Please the 400. Correct. it stays the same because one
thing we did I I agree with exactly what you said that's the cost and um that's the charge and that's not being proposed to be amended and I just want to say for the record it doesn't mean the governing body is going to approve this anyway but to your point Claire that's accurate and
that number wasn't even proposed to be changed but for the reasons you stated anyone 60 seconds. Mark Amore Whippity. Uh just a couple things. Fred, you had mentioned uh you know,
proving how much it costs for a tree. A full adult tree cuz we've moved them before is tens of thousands of dollars for one tree to move from one place to replace it. Uh 400 is actually very low nowadays to replace a tree. I mean, it's it's actually ridiculously low. Um,
also, um, you know, Chris asked how many of, uh, the low-inccome homes were, uh, were were built that this, uh, developer was asked to do. The answer is zero. I'm sure we all know that. So, this person continually fails in any of the promises
to this town. And I believe that that failure should uh, result in you guys being much more tough on what we do here. Please, thank you. Okay, you got to move on. This we're talking Sorry, this Clare
Matlin Whippy. One of the other things is we have the this affordable housing. We all know that affordable housing is hard to come by. So now we're we're going to allow less trees because it's affordable housing. What about all the the the uh deserts of Newark and
everything else where the heat just radiates? So, we're going to say it's okay cuz it's affordable housing. We should almost be doing the opposite. If you're going to talk about helping out people that can't afford it, you want to come from New York to here and then have no trees here as well. Not a good idea.
Thank you. Anyone else? Poor guy. six times. Hi, Judy. I ratty Hannover Township. And I was actually around when the tree ordinance was first put into law in in Hover Township. And the original intent
of it was to discourage developers from cutting down unnecessary trees or tree or clear cutting a piece of property. Um so, uh it wasn't to to get funds or money or anything like this. So was to discourage the cutting of unnecessary
trees. So um ideally if they would cut down one tree, another tree would be replaced. If they needed to cut down trees, another tree would be replaced in town. So you're not losing any of that uh uh oxygen in the air and everything like that. Uh over
the years, the I guess it's it's better financially for the developer to clear cut a piece of property. So, in doing so, you you're cutting down a lot of trees. And I have a beautiful estry, two beautiful esties on my property that are not dead, and I don't intend for them to
be dead. Anyway, it's a side thing. Um, so this tree ordinance, it's been in place for a long time, and the justification uh that Fred was saying about um covering the costs if you had to go to court. Yeah, it's going to
cover the cost. $400 is very reasonable to plant a tree in town. So again, the intent of this ordinance was to try to have the developer not cut down unnecessary trees. Thank you. Thank you, J.
Sir, we got path cleared for you now. Uh Saro to Lexington Court Whippony. Um, you know, I I don't know how much I can
expound on the distaste that the public has for this entire project. Um, one of my concerns was the council's due diligence on the figures that the
developer was giving. And uh whilst I haven't had time to go through everything, one of the main things that basically stands out was a project that they wanted to put the hotel up and uh I don't know whether
you guys have done your due diligence on it, okay? But within a 5 mile radius, we've got 50 hotels. If you go to 10 miles that triples. Okay. Now
you sir were stating that you're dealing facts. The builder was dealing in facts that he wants to make work for his project. Okay. If you go to uh STR
or Hoteligence to look at occupancies in this area, okay, you'll find that the hotels, they actually plan and budget for 60 to 70% occupancy, okay? And that's between September,
November, and April and June, which is their busiest on the offshot. Okay? Now I've done my research and I've gone to these research reports. Okay, on the off shot a hotel may be at 100%
capacity and even if they do when they have people coming over there's enough hotels in the area for a spillover. As a matter of fact, the hotels do deals with each other. Okay, where they send their customers to the other places. Okay.
Their lowest time is being between December and March. Now, the member of the building council uh is in here that I guess he and I had heated a discussion on in the previous
meeting. Um and that was that if the property sold to the developer, this town cannot tell the developer what to do with it. That's true. Okay. What happens if this guy puts up a hotel, doesn't find a
buyer for it? What's it going to turn into? That's basically another issue. But it's it's a systemic problem that's going on. And it's a systemic problem that I'm hearing from everybody who's come up to this podium
based on this entire project. So, how much facts do you guys actually look at? Do you guys do your due diligence? And I'm really sorry Mr. Burn isn't here as he's the adjunct professor at Satan Hall for finance. I want to know whether they
do due diligence at seat hall. Do you guys do your due diligence? John, you want to take this? I think that we have a responsibility as a planning board. I'll speak from a planning board standpoint. Yeah, please. to listen to applicants
come in to present what they envision that they are trying to accomplish. But we don't have an investment in what they're doing. Tanner doesn't have an investment in terms of the capital structure. So if
they come in and they present to the planning board and it meets the township codes or it's adjusted by them to meet the township codes, then they get an approval. They get an approval to move forward. Now the approval to move
forward would allow them to come in and to build and it's their responsibility. We can't get involved in terms of telling them how to market their hotel. We can't get involved in that. That's that's not gerine to the responsibility
I get board. I I I get that. But there's another side to this also. Is what they're doing necessary for the town. John, I I I asked John to take it because you addressed John a minute ago cuz he John went through but I I'll tell
you another answer about the hotels. I went to a seminar about planning and good planning and trends and the importance of certain types of hotels and your your statistics are pretty interesting and I'd like to get them from you and I'd like you look them up
in hotel. We just went to a seminar and they said that just like in Florida Park a lot of these hotels are really happening. We have a lot of headquarters around here. We have a growing population on here. And like John said, when a company comes in and buys a piece of property and they
propose specific uses on that property, they did do their due diligence, share it with us. But what we have to do is appropriate that land for that use. But as far as the the business models, they do always change. Like look at office buildings today. In the 80s, everybody
built office buildings cuz they were so important. Investors were buying selling them all over the place. But right now they're vacant. So everything changes. But for right now, snapshot, the information that I saw is that a lot of these hotels are doing very well. They're in demand. But will that be the
same in 7 or 8 years from now? I have no idea. But they're the ones making the investment. They're the ones that want to develop it and they're the ones that came in and we approved it for that specific piece of property. And the mayor, my question to you again is is
that is this development necessary for this town? Is it? Well, I'll go back to what I said when we first discussed this. Is this property is 85 acres and I live about a mile and a half away from it. Do I want it to be developed? No. Is
it going to be developed? Yes. The only controls we have is to develop it the best we can for handshake within the parameters of our oversight. And that's why the timing is very important because we're talking about fair share housing.
We're talking about round four obligation. Although this didn't come in as an intervenor, we believe we did the best we can because if they did come in as an intervenor, the real number is 1365.
So with the amount of housing on there, 400 units including us, 20% set aside for fair share. We do have some very good ratables and HR Township really needs the ratables. We didn't pick and choose what was going to go in there, but we tried to control what was going to go in there the best we can and try
to make it so it wasn't 1365 houses because 400 housing units versus 1365 puts an incredible stress and strain on our on our municipality in every area. School, water, police, sew, I can go through the whole list. So, is this the
best we could have done with it? Yes. Is the investment from the developer? We can't say, "Hey, you know what? We don't think the hotel is going to succeed. They're investing in it supposedly they have somebody that wants to run it and there are statistics to say this type of hotel will do very well for a certain
period of time. Did that answer your question a little bit? Sort of because the what I'm looking at or or any analysis that I'm looking at versus what you're looking at is at
opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd like Well, we have to move on, but I'd like to talk to you offline if I would like to get your number. My door is always open. Say your address again. I said my door is always What's your address again? I'll come to you to Lexington Court. I'll be here. Okay. I'll give you my phone number. We
can go out to lunch if you want. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else? Oh, Michael Tuknitzki, 57 Oak Boulevard. I have lived in town now 15 years. Terresa Swalla's family has been here
for 150 years. I can only talk about the history that I know of. I see just in 15 years that our property lost a bunch of elm trees for Dutch elm disease. And then we lost a whole bunch
of uh trees because of some beautiful bug called the emerald ashborer. And as I understand it, this is like a regional infestation that lots of trees died.
So I am concerned that in general when you lose tens or hundreds of thousands of trees, you have less trees. If you then take a developer and say we're going to charge you less for
cutting down even more trees, that's a problem. We should not incentivize them by making it cheaper to cut down trees. So that's my two cents. Two quick things. Uh thing number one, there was a mention of the
property the northeast corner of Malipartis and Ridgedale that is actually historic. We used to have one of the resting places in the green book and I just learned that. So it's a historic place and I I can guess it's
very quickly going to be redeveloped. And the last thing is I am always blown away, amazed, impressed at how you gentlemen deal with so many different issues. So I compliment you. Thank you all. Can you say that again please, sir?
I I will make one comment about the species of trees when we're done, but thank you. Terry Beard, the Whippy section of Hanover. Um, I am shocked to
come to the realization that this particular developer, the Chameleon, always uses this bait and switch with you guys. I say you guys cuz you're the ones in charge. Um, we have settlement agreements that still have yet to be
fulfilled. We have essentially 120 affordable senior units that have yet to be built that are seem to be held hostage. And now we have different settlement agreements that make it so
that he gets to build his retail and uh market rate things prior to the affordables. And again, we still don't have the affordables built. And now we're going to go into a deal with him again and we're going to give
him a, you know, a tree. It's like getting a spiff. Like he's getting like a a little uh a tip, you know, an extra tip. And um it's disgusting. It really is. We have settlement agreements that were originally done with him where the
affordable was supposed to be built first. We have another settlement agreement with him after that which miraculously then he's allowed to build the everything at Hanover Town Center without having being whatever is going to go on at Park Avenue.
Okay. So, but yet we still don't have what we're supposed to have. We don't have our RDP. Nothing's being fulfilled. And then the person's never put an affordable unit in town yet. So, who's not to say that after a while
he'll say, "Oh, this isn't going to work out at this place and he's going to want to change it again. Everything gets changed again." Monarch over on Ridgedale changed HD Ocean, whatever you want to call it. Changed, changed, changed. Makes promises. I mean,
granted, March was going to have a a couple affordable housing for the the Medicaid beds in there, but I don't believe from everything that I've looked at that he we have ever gotten an affordable housing unit from this
builder. So, why do you keep going into agreements with him with these false promises? So, I have that. That's one of my first questions. And then I would also like an update on the HVAC system in our police
store melting over there. Joe, if you want an update on HVAC, but if you want to take it, you take it. The compressors have been installed and as of yesterday, they're working. Okay. And what about the rec center with the window units that I got to experience the other day? That is the next thing that we're
working on. Okay. And is this costing us a lot of money? It sure is. Money that could be better well spent somewhere else. Thank you. But yes, we we're going into agreements with him and over and over and we're not getting any
we're not getting anything back. We're not getting that affordable. He's holding that affordable over our heads all the time. Oh, Dangler affordable. Dangle affordables. And here comes every I'm just going to address the one piece before Fred addresses the part about the
um the affordable housing. What's interesting about the South Campus site, the bear site, is that we put we put into our agreement condemnation and not condemnation to lose people look
at condemnation that can hurt residents. This condemnation was put in to benefit our residents in that at any point if this changes and it's not acceptable and we don't like it, we can shut the whole project down. that's in the contract.
That's the first time that was put in any deal as long as I've been on this governing body, which is a device that we can use to help and work for Hannover Township and that is our job to help and work for Hover Township residents. So, that was a beautiful thing. Even every
time we use the word condemnation because it does have a bad history, I would ask Fred to explain why this condemnation will benefit us and our residents. So that where I used to call certain developments the blob, it was approved for A and it would turn into C.
That's not going to happen here because of the guidance and the recommendation of our municipal attorney Fred Samurro. Fred, if you want to just real quick address the piece about the affordable units with these projects. Yeah. Uh Terry, you I mean you always read everything and you're right about
the obligations for the the project for the 60 senior units. They have to be built over at Park Avenue before any cos are issued for the market units. So there's no way out of that. That's not going to happen. That's in the agreement
and COS will not be issued. So we'll get those. The other 60 that was above and beyond for this round. So that location once that's found um and the governing body's been looking at properties I don't want to say which ones um but
then the developer owes us as a township a million dollars towards the purchase of the land and then they're obligated to build those units. But that was above and beyond that that's not for any project. That's something the governing body at the time um
committeeman fara and mayor Gallagher insisted they wanted something for the future but we also have our obligation monetarily on that also. Well that's only if the purchase of the property is above a million dollars but that will come out of the affordable
housing trust fund which is in taxpayer dollars and it would be to good use and that comes out of developer fees. Yes. Okay. which they get reduced for this particular builder, right? They don't get if you have an affordable obligation, then you don't pay, but otherwise there's I don't know of any
waiver, not as long as I've been involved. And then as the mayor said about condemnation, that's something that the governing body has changed its course. And in like for the bare extension for what you just said so that there wouldn't be a change,
the governing body said, "We want condemnation rights. We don't want to do this." and then say, "Oh," and I'm not going to say one de developers knew it, right? And you're right. So that's why the condemnation stayed with the governing body so much to the point that
in the beginning of the redevelopment process, Bear didn't want it and they threatened to challenge it because you can only challenge a redevelopment condemnation determination 45 days after it's you can't do it down the road and say, "Now I don't want it. You know, I'm
going to fight it." So Bayer wanted it out and then again uh Bayer wanted it out when the redevelopment agreement was going to be signed. I don't really understand necessarily why. I think I know and that is because if the deal fell apart then keep in mind um there
were developers such as Avalon Bay who wanted that property and I and this just my understanding that they were even interested with respect to bear and as the mayor said if you compare the densities throughout the county that
site could have been you know three times the amount of of uses you know and that that would be 18 units an acre. This project six, a little less than six, I think. So, there was somewhat of a an incentive to say lock that in so
that Bayer didn't try to turn it into something else. And they they certainly had made a lot of noise that they were going to do that. Uh and and so that's just much lower of a density. But again, now for this project, same thing. in Blaze. You could correct me, but there's
a phase in where the affordables have to be built before the entire project. Like, you can't build the rest of the project and then say, "I'm not going to build the affordables that right now." There there's a phase in there. That's correct. And that's true for all affordable housing developments that
there's a phasing process where you have to build the affordables along with the market rate. You can't build all the market rate and leave the affordables for last. You can't do that except for Hannover Town Center where he got to build his retail and he didn't build any affordables there.
Right. That's why that it was done in offsite which wasn't built first before handover town the the settlement agreement which fair share housing center agreed to Mhm. was that before he could build the market rate units at Hanover Town
Center, he had to get a footing and foundation permit at Park Avenue. He did do that. Now, he didn't go beyond that and that's, you know, fair criticism there, but that he complied technically with the agreement and it was an
agreement with not with the with Hanover Township, it was with Fair Share Housing Center. So, they agreed with it as well and they're a builder's advocate. So, I don't know what to say. Um, like you, I was, you know, surprised that he didn't keep going, but um, he
did comply with the agreement. We did not let him off. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? I'll just make this real quick. Judy Ratty Township Fred.
Hi, how you doing? Um, if the ordinance is changed, is there a possibility, I think Chris had mentioned, is there a possibility that developers who have already developed stuff in town or even homeowners could come back and ask for relief? No, because it would be perspective going forward and there would be no
decision that says it was right or wrong in the past if it were changed. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Hi, uh, Anthony Lassardo Whippony. Um I was at the planning board meeting about a month ago where this project was discussed. Uh one of the benefits, if you want to call it that, of the uh
project that was pitched to all of us who were there was that the developer is going to be donating $250,000 to the town that could be used for traffic improvements um primarily along Whippy Road where traffic can, you know, build up especially during rush hour. Uh we've now learned that we could be
saving him over $700,000 in tree replacement costs um by reducing the fee. So my question is a very simple one. I have no other way to ask it. Um is the town contemplating reducing the tree uh removal fee in exchange for the
$250,000 donation that is being made for the traffic improvements? May there's no obligation. the governing body does not have to take any action and uh is nor is it obligated in any way in in a sense one has nothing to do with
the other there's there's absolutely no obligation and I so the answer and I understand your question but when I tell you that this was separate and apart as as an issue um and it doesn't change anything that commitment is locked up in
the agreement and one that and it happens with developers Um it was tried to be stretched a little bit against well if the county asked for improvements and things like that and this governing body said no it's 250 for
the township further just this is and I'm not saying it against any particular developer to get myself you know sort of entangled with it but in this case it was well but if the planning board asks for it then you're going to have to apply the 250 and again the answer was,
hey, wait a minute, that wasn't what was discussed. So, the agreement says it's 250 for the township committee for traffic improvements, not oh yeah, well, you know, the county asked for this, so now we have to use it. So, it was protected and to the same this
ordinance, it's if it's not changed or if it's changed differently, there's no agreement. So, you know, and I think I addressed this with you at the planning board, but I I live in your part of the town, and every traffic study that I've seen in 11 and a half
years concludes with little or no impact to local traffic. What we did was we brought in an engineering firm to look at every one of them in the accumulative because yours might not be causing traffic. That one might not be causing
traffic. This one should be fine. But put them all together and that's why you have a problem. And I cited a specific number that we got from Kolier's engineering where when we're told traffic is fine, Whippony Road going towards Route 10 is prorated to make a
peak hour 400 laps on the precip road. It's currently 700. So an argument that we had to get the additional money and our partnership now with the county to make real improvement is that the bear site isn't currently causing traffic problems. So that was an argument. This
it's not going to cause any traffic problems. It's bad already, but it's going to make it worse. And every development is going to make it worse. That's why we're looking at everything big picture. And we're not going to acknowledge any more of these traffic studies to say little or no impact to local traffic because we sit in the same
traffic all day long. And even with Jefferson Road, I mean, how many times do we see on Facebook how many lights people have to sit through? So we're looking at all of the above right now. And like Fred just said, there's not linkage between these two things. And as
far as I'm concerned, this is a negotiation tactic. The number was A. They wanted to pay B. And as far as I'm concerned, we're working on this. And since this was introduced, that's when everybody really jumps in and does their
due diligence. And a lot of people in our town have done incredible work. And I personally put forth some very serious recommendations to get to a very good number. And the ash trees were referred to before. Uh ash trees should be taken down before they fall down. In New Jersey, they have a do not climb.
They're very, very dangerous. So, I even said with this specific property, if we had a real number, an accurate survey, we if there was 200 ash trees and they take them down on any tree ordinance, those are free. So, we really have to get further into the numbers and look at
what is actually fair. But if you're looking at A and B, neither one of those numbers is probably going to be real realistic. But our job again is to do our due diligence and lean on people like the green team and the environmental commission to work with us and try to come up with the best deal
that we possibly can. And just like having this area condemnation, we want to take what worked in the past and build on it and we want to discontinue what didn't work in the past. Thank you. And then my last, it's not really a question, just a comment. I mean, obviously the tree fee is an
issue. I mean, there's already a very natural nice buffer on the north side of Eden Lane that separates where this project is going to be versus the residential houses that are right there. It seems like the logical thing would be to leave as much as that as possible and seems like that would be a win for
everyone. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Please, that is going to stay, right? That buffer will stay, won't it? Paul says from uh where I grew up in town uh Scottway. We're a dead end street and we had a forest at the end and uh we never
had a water problem in our basement until they tore down the forest and put up these apartments. Then we have to put a sump pump in. So uh is that looked at too uh the neighboring you know the neighbors uh you know how it's going to affect the winter table there? Are they going to have to put some pumps in? Does
it make it more flooding? And with uh some of the stuff going on in the state now where they made expanded the flood zone maps, would that affect that too? Now we have to, you know, homeowners paying more for uh flood insurance and that's not cheap either. So that's something else we should look at. Um
yeah, I mean this town's very family orientated. You have kids that want to come back and live here. So my daughter, she couldn't she couldn't afford it. But uh my son, he's he's qualified for affordable housing. And uh and now they're not even building enough affordable housing. It's it's like what
happened to home rule? You know, I know it's not you know, you have any control over trend. There's a bunch up there that just dishing it to us and you know, we're just taking it and you know, we're trying to fight as as much as we can. I know you guys working hard at that. Uh so there's, you know, I just wish there
was more home rule. You know, it should be that way. small group in Trenton telling each town what to do. I think that's tyranny and that's a problem. I say no to that 2025 ordinance say on August 14th. Thank you.
Paul, you you nailed something that's very important to us is how is a leader in flood remediation. You created the whip for safe flood remediation task force right here. We were just featured in the leading municipalities magazine on what we can do when we work together and work towards a tangible goal. Uh New
Jerseyy's answer for this initially was to move the flood maps, not work on our waterways. So we have to fight once again a ridiculous policy where people that never needed flood insurance now have to get it. So FEMA is not
responsible to offset those costs to repair where they should be doing A, B, and C. So, I want you to know as far as the flooding over there and the water, we went into quite a bit of detail on where the water's going to go, the wetlands behind it. So, how I'm proud to say is a
leader when it comes to do we have a lot more to do? We just scratched the surface, but we have our eyes on all that water over there because we know how one move can affect three different properties. And actually, policy is if you do anything to adversely affect
water run onto a neighboring property, it's illegal. So, we're working on that. We're watching it. Thank you, Paul. Okay. Oh, one quick other thing. Uh what about an ordinance to limit amount of trees taken down? Chris said, you know, it creates uh oxygen out of CO2, right? I think that's what you said. I mean,
there's many bel uh um benefits. In Germany, uh anybody gets sick, they have a forest to walk through. There's something about energy in a forest. And now we're taking that away. We're a suburb, you know? and they're trying to turn our suburb into a city. But, you know, we need more trees. Call me a tree
hugger. I think it's good stuff. So, anything you can do to fight this, I just say no on 2025. Thank you very much. Thanks. And thanks for the good work you're doing with the flood remediation. I think you're the only one doing that in this state. Hopefully hopefully this kind of work is
uh going to catch on. I hope so. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else? Christina Morosano, handover. Um, couple of things. So, Whippony Road was always bad. Um, and I think I was at a meeting once where someone said, I think it was
an engineering team, it's an F intersection. It can't get any worse, so let's just leave it. Um, we had a very bad misortunity when we approved Bear, I'm sorry, Metife on that road. We could have fixed it. We widened the road, but
widening it three lanes for the one lane that everyone in in town and cutting through is making a left didn't solve a problem. Um, so it was an F. It's still an F and it's going to continue to be an F because there's not much you can do. Um, we missed that opportunity. Are we
asking or enforcing this developer who's building on Bear to make the connection at through to Al Gangquin? Is that even being discussed? No, we looked at that aggressively several different times with very high
level state leaders and again because of New Jersey. If we were to get an approval and we were able to get the funding in New Jersey currently, we would never be able to get through that water. We looked at going back to God. We looked at going
back onto Trey Hills Road behind the diner. We looked at making the bridge wider to make a right turn lane onto but that leave that to the developer. Put that burden on the developer. Make that part of the deal. Make that connection to Alangquin and the developer's headache and this whole
thing will go away. He won't take down the trees. He won't de It's not enticing anymore. We are turning over property and he's going to dump it into an F intersection and and as the engineer said, it can't get any worse, but it's going to take me an hour and a half to
get from one side of town to the other. Put put this burden put all of this burden on the developer. It will slow the process down and they will do it. Trust me, I'm on the other side. I know what the developers will and will not
do. Second of all, the tree issue. I work on developments way bigger than what this man is doing. We do not get a reduction in trees coming down. The checks are huge for other towns for us
taking down trees. They it no reduction. There should be no lenience because it's so big. His developments would fit in one of corner of what I'm building. Do not do not give up your leverage with him. Put Al Gangquin on the table. Take
the treat. Don't Don't do it. You're You're We cave to him. For some reason, somehow he he knows the buttons to push here. He's very savvy. I get it. We need to be smarter. We need to be smarter and
put the burden on him. That's all. Christine, I appreciate everything you said, but I do want you to know that we looked at that connection into Angloin so many times and New Jersey D is so dysfunctional. It will never happen. And
hopefully if we get some kind of regime change in New Jersey with people that are at least a little more reasonable, we can get some real relief. Yes. Dean Atinson cedals. Um I just want to say I agree with them that if you
don't reduce the um maximum tree replacement, it's not going to stop the developer. It hasn't stopped them in the past. It's not going to stop them in the future. So um how many people here think they should vote no on 2025?
Well, I hope you guys will really consider it. Um, and I had a question cuz I couldn't completely hear when you were talking about the um condemnation of a 41
ridgeell. Does that include H2 Ocean and the two houses or just H2 Ocean? The right of condemnation. I'm not saying it was, you know, that the governing body tonight said they're going to, but the right, which is very important, can only be preserved in a redevelopment
designation. That would be for the entire property, all of those. Okay. Those structures. Yes. All those lots, so to speak. Okay. And I just wanted to say thank you for resolution 160-2025
that um endorses the support of handover police in uh participating in the move over law enforcement. So I guess they're going to be enforcing that more strictly from July 1st to September 30th. and
especially with I'm sure many of you have heard about the young man that was uh helping somebody the tow truck driver that was hit. Um and so we really have to thank not just pull over for when you see a police car but a tow
truck or anybody broken down on the side. Um and thank you for doing that. Anyone else? I'm sorry. If nobody else has anything, we will uh Kathy, you drop our auditors here. Perhaps they
do want to make comments. Sorry, Kathy. Do you want to Let's just take a little break and say hello to our auditor. Thank our auditor and ask our order if she'd like to say a few words to Hatter Township. A few words.
She should have went first. So, we're back. We only have a few opportunities to be in front of the mayor and the council and every or committee, excuse me. And every opportunity that we have, we want to be available to you if you have any questions. So, I know on the cons
consent agenda tonight that the acceptance of the audit and the corrective action plan and all the requirements um for the audit procedure were done. So, um we thank you for that, but we just want to let you know that if
you do ever have any questions, you can communicate with administration and back to us. And it really is a pleasure to serve. So, I'm going to let Brian Co make a few comments about the audit. very brief because obviously the uh
mayor and committee is very happy with Hi, I'm Brian Co. I'm one of the managers on your account. Um I just have four quick highlights to go over. Um your current fund fund balance it did decrease by 955,000
this year. That was due to uh a one-time anticipation of fund balance. This is 2024. and that was used to use the fund balance to help offset any changes in taxes during the 2024 year. Um, we also wanted to draw some attention to the
reserve for tax appeals and to just keep an eye on that due to the high level of development in the town, the reserve should be monitored and it might be necessary to use it or increase it in the future. uh your tax rate uh decreased slightly
to 98.93%. Um which is perfectly acceptable once we don't want it to get too high. Um you did have $178,000 in tax interest that was collected during the year. Um once if the tax collection rate um goes too
high, you do lose that interest. All the taxes eventually do get collected for the most part um since it's over a 2-year period, but the tax collection rate of 98.93 for this year is just for the 2024 in 2024.
And then lastly, we did have um two recommendations. One was a segregation of duties. Almost all of our towns have that recommendation. Uh due to budgetary constraints, it's it's very difficult to eliminate that recommendation. That's just the um making sure that people
reporting on certain parts of the finances for the town do not um interact or have the right oversight on uh different excuse me um the finance departments um so that and and
practices. Sorry, I got a little jumbled up there. And then purchase order procedures. Um we just wanted to draw some attention that the purchase orders are prepared prior to the date of the receipt of goods or services. There was a couple of instances not many that we that happened
and we just wanted to draw the attention to that through the report process. And then we had two management suggestions. They were both about the federal and state grant receivables and then capital general capital grant receivables just to keep monitoring those uh to make sure
that everything that is receivable is collected and if the projects are were not fully completed and are not going to be fully completed that those open receivables that are not actually receivables be monitored for cancellation. Does anybody have any questions on the
audit? And then on top of that, we just want to say that the process is always a good one. Um, we communicate with CFO and administration. Everyone's highly cooperative and um, I think they
appreciate the audit. So, we experience a high level of cooperation and we just want to thank everyone that works in the building and we want to thank you for your support, too. So, thank you very much. Great work. And Silio, thank you very much. You always
do great work, Silio. Thank you. And those comments that Brian was talking about, some of them are just, you know, housekeeping type of things. They're not serious. They're just um words that we put in there to say, you know, stay on top of them type of
thing. Thank you very much. Okay, I think one one gentleman want to jump up and take one more shot. Yeah, they found been said
you said the township had the right to condemn the project if they didn't perform. Correct. Uh you're talking about the bare property, correct? That is correct. Okay. So, contrary to what a number of the
residents have stated about this builder, let's make an assumption. Let's assume whatever he promises, he delivers on. Okay, we've already gone through that the town cannot
tell the guy what to do or tell the builder what to do with the property as long as he follows the plan that you guys approved. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, he builds the property and let's just say
he finds nobody to take the retail space and he finds nobody to take on that hotel and let's assume that he sells three of the units.
What happens to everything else? So you basically have a white elephant or does the hotel turn into a fentanyl factory? Great question. I I think the plan for
this hotel is to make it this premier hotel and as a result of the design adjacent to Metife and adjacent to Bear Corporate which soon will host Tiffany there as
well. Uh and the tremendous need for conference room space. I think the hotel is is one of his his power plays in terms of generating income. So I don't think there's a lot of risk associated with this hotel. Right. So you think that his hotel that
he's going to put on Whippy Road is better than the Hilton or the Marriott? I think the design component of the way it is in with Bayer and Metife who are
desperately under utilized in terms of their ability to get to conference rooms. So I I think it's I think it's going to work and it's a high-end hotel that is going to be very attractive to the corporate centers. Well, that's pretty pretty interesting.
Credential campus on the other hand, as you well know, they're knocking down five office buildings, knocking them down, putting up putting up residential. And what was an interesting dynamic working with Bear in
working with the developer in this team was Bear actually had quite a bit of input into what they would like on this site, which was predicated on who they thought a good developer would be to meet that need. And because of Metife, because of Bear, because of Tiffany's,
they really wanted to have a place where they can stay and even a place where some of the people can live. So there there was a lot of thought that went into this. Okay. Interestingly enough, okay, um your statement on conference rooms,
okay, uh I find it highly unlikely that MetLife and Bear doesn't have do not have sufficient conf rooms on their property for conferences. Okay. Have you ever been inside their
building? Uh look, I've worked for many corporations and a lot of a lot of banks and usually usually these companies and one of my customers at one time was Metife. Okay, so uh and I know damn well
that Metife has conference rooms. The Bear building has a scarcity of conference rooms in it. The design was an open floor plan that they all bought into and as a result of it there are minimal conference rooms in the building
there. I can't explain I haven't been in the Metife building but I can tell you no no I'm not talking about this Metife building. I'm talking about the original Metife corporate. That's that's the only reason why I'm saying it. I find it highly unlikely and you may know more than I do, but I find that
interesting. Well, thank you very much. Stop by your house. Sorry. Thank you very much. I'm going to stop by your house. Anytime. Anytime. I appreciate that. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none. Motion to close.
Mayor. Yes. I I just wanted to ask you put the timer on Fred now. I just want to say you you made comments that you have some suggested changes to the ordinance and you know as the process works the ordinance was introduced that's like something coming
out of committee that doesn't mean the governing body is necessarily going to vote for it. It's time to kick the tires and then you have the public hearing but because there are legal issues there was an executive session this evening and I I hope it's okay. You can tell me to
leave if it's not. it the direction was to to work on significant changes. I would like you to just go before we adjourn go into five or six points and then we'll just No, but before we do that I I feel like to do that you have a process you want to go through
but alls I wanted to ask you is so just maybe you want to take a straw poll so that the public's aware what you're going to do on August 14th with respect to the ordinance. you know, if you're going to if you're doesn't mean you're bound by it, but are you in favor of going forward on the
14th or you're not? So that if you're not, the public will be of have the understanding that you're not intending to move this ordinance into local law, the ordinance the way it's currently written. Correct. And then and because the
instruction is to retool the ordinance at a later date because you want to take certain steps and you want to evaluate certain things. That was my machine. Okay. So, John, would you approve the tree ordinance or the amendment to the tree ordinance the
way it is currently written? Yes or no? No. Ron, no. Mike, no. Brian, no. Nor would I. So, that's where we stand. So, so on the 14th, that would just be prefuncter. That's not going to go forward, that ordinance. Absolutely.
Okay. So, at least the public's aware and I know that I was given direction tonight. So is Blaze to look at certain issues and take a look at it and then bring it back after it goes through a certain process. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. And we appreciate everybody's due
diligence and like I said, there's five or six items that we're going to solidify and when we're prepared, we'll be happy to share with the public. Just one more comment on all of the stuff that's come out tonight. 99% of what we've been talking about comes down
to one thing. Low and moderate housing, the fair share housing. Just about everything we talked about stems, the problems stem from that. You come, you yell at us. We get it.
November, you've got a choice. Make the right choice. That's where you got to look. which governor is going to make the decision to put this back in its place. Not saying there's no place for it, but has taken over. It's become uh an
economic engine that is funded by lawyers, by builders, and they're using this premise of low and moderate housing to force us to build this stuff. Come November, look at who's look at who's saying what. That's all I'm going to
say. Sorry. Good point. And here's the trick. You make a good point, Mike. But, uh, as being a senior member of this committee, I can tell you I go back to 1978 with Mount Laurel when this drama all began and we've been living with this year after year after year until this entire state is covered and
socialized. So, yeah, get out there in November and make your choices. If you want to see more buildings go up, um, that's, uh, your opportunity to say no. We've had it and send a message to our politicians down here in Trenton. So,
and the one the one candidate wants to expand it, wants to do more. So, here's the trick to the fair share housing. No, I'm done. Here's the trick to the fair share housing. They call it fair share housing and affordable housing. Everybody wants affordable housing and everybody wants a
fair shot at getting good housing, but what we refer to it as is high density housing. you you're building four per one and the waiting list is so so long you're probably not going to get accommodated to benefit from the fair
share. So we're looking at as of course we want affordable housing. We need housing to be affordable but this is not a good policy. It's not a good plan and unless we get people that will listen to us and be honest with us and work for us
uh very little is going to change. So, I think what Mike said is very important. November, everybody's smiling away, coming to your house, coming to barbecues, taking pictures with your families. Ask them where they stand on a couple big issues because it really affects us. Anybody else have anything
on that before we adjourn and I think I think you said it very well. It's a big issue. I think the township for those of you who aren't aware of it had was a standard bear in a lawsuit with 30 plus other towns challenging the methodology
for the this round of fair share. I think the green team did a good job. I think Chris did a good job in terms of providing documentation that was part of that lawsuit trying to get them have a better appreciation of the impact of environmental and the impact of flooding
from increased density. So, I think we're pushing it as best we can, but our appeal is make your voices known. Vote in November based upon how you feel. Are you in support of this? Are you against it? We're to do something a little different
before we adjourn. I'm going to ask Brian Cahill to close out this meeting. Brian, you want to make any comments? Mayor, before you do, can I say one thing, please? Can I can I just say one thing? just because the topic has been the trees and the bear
extension and a little bit as being a historian about things I and and we talk about the as you said the state and what's happened and the threat of significant development to that site this governing body and it was John Faramosa spent a lot of time to speak to
bear about that being a nature I don't have the right words for it but a nature uh project and I think they you know we forget that a lot of times there was an investment in money and a discussion with Bear to have it as an educational
center as opposed to when they wanted it to be a sports stadium and things like that and they're pretty stubborn but you know I just I don't know John if you want it just for two seconds because one minute on it we made a major appeal to bear we brought them a recommendation
to make it a STEM facility science technical engineering math for Morris County we showed them We provided a 40-page presentation on it. It went all the way to Germany in terms of the appeal was very very strong in and the
interest is very very great and that would have delivered a tremendous opportunity for our children our our college age children our children in terms of advanced degrees in terms of being actively involved in an area that
literally has 50 acres of wetland. So we would have turned into a STEM magnet site for overall Mars County. We talked to the universities, they were all excited about it, but unfortunately the
economics uh involving their situation for those of you who know it with Monsanto did not lead to furthering of that, but that could have been one of the crown jewel ideas that we were presenting. Wrap us up, Ryan. Ryan, wrap us up. Take
us out as you put me on the spot again like this. I'm going to flatten your tires in the parking lot next time. But no, actually, I do. I I really just want to go back and I've said this before. We truly truly appreciate the community's input. We take it very very seriously. In this particular case, we had already
agreed that we weren't comfortable with the ordinance and we're going to look look at it and and make some different decisions or or, you know, make some adjustments. So, I I hope you believe that um because it's the truth. Uh the truth also is a lot of times, you know, people will say things to the effect of
we conveniently schedule meetings or we neglect to communicate things as if it's something nefarious. And and it's just not. Look at us. We live in this community. We've coached our children. We've coached your children. We we care about this community as much as
everybody else's. What Michael said was the absolute truth. Our hand is being forced. And if we are not very very careful, much worse can happen in this town. as far as development is concerned and and it's a lot of negotiation and unfortunately it's a lot of executive
sessions because it involves legal strategy but there is nothing that that is under that that is not above board legally and in the best interest of this town. I just felt that I had to say it because I've been to a lot of these
meetings where so many times people say things and then they say, "Oh, I really didn't mean it that way." But you know you did. We're working very very hard and I would truly appreciate if you'd be a little bit more careful about any accusations you may want to make whether it's here while we're sitting on the dis or whether you're doing it on Facebook
which apparently is a lot easier than doing here. So I um but I I really would hope that you understand we truly truly care about this community. I know I'm speaking for everybody on the dice. So that's my prior that was great. Thank you. Motion to move. Second. All
in favor? Second. All right. Wait. Oh my god. Recreation. I got I got 20 minutes. Yeah.