go to work. We have Is everybody gonna be here? Here. I see Justin is in Janetta. Is Janetta here? She said she was going to be here now. Yeah, she's on our screen. Yep. See Justin Pasc. Melissa.
Yep. Well, Mike's got one, too. Yeah. I don't see everybody, but if we're Are we ready to go? Yep. We're recording. Okay. Um, this is a special meeting of the Hillsdale Burough Council on this 25th day of June, 2025. Notice of the time
and place of this meeting has been provided to the Ridgewood News and the Bergen Record. A copy was posted on the bulletin board outside of this meeting room, well outside of our general meeting room and provided to any interested parties. Please silence all cell phones. Please wait to be
recognized by the mayor during the public hearing and the public comment part of the meeting. You will need to state your name and town of residence for the record. Uh will everybody please rise for pledge
algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisibley with liberty and justice for all. Right.
Okay. Will the clerk please read the role? Council President Oso here. Council member Kleti here. Council member Fox here. Council member Mazatang here. Council member Ruko here. Council
member Troyuk here. Mayor Shinfield here. Okay, great. Um, it is the public comment portion of the meeting limited to three minutes on one topic per speaker. Please state your name and res record. Does anyone wish to be
recognized? No. Okay. Seeing no one, um we have uh a resolution before us. The purpose of this special meeting is 25198, a resolution endorsing the 2025 housing
element and fair share housing plan. Um we'll we'll go through the motion in a second and go through discussion of it. Thank you, Darlene, for being here to guide us through this discussion of it. Um, so can I get a motion to consider
it? Motion. Second. Second. Okay, great. Um, so before we get any further, Darlene, um, as I was saying earlier, thank you for taking us through the planning board last night and for being here again with us today. If you want to
sort of tell the public and give information as to why we're all here and what's going on. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon, everyone. Uh Darlene Green, Burough, Planner for the Record. Uh we are here today holding a special meeting because last year the
legislature adopted widespread changes to the Fair Housing Act. The bill is 75 pages long. So, uh not a short read. There were changes in the process and the procedures. And the reason that we're having a special meeting today is
because that there is a deadline of June 30th to submit a new housing element and fair share plan to address or satisfy our fourth round obligation. If towns across the state of New Jersey do not file a new housing element and fair
share plan by the June 30th date, they will automatically lose immunity on July 1st. Now, I know the council is well aware of this, but for members of the public, immunity is essential because immunity is what protects the burrow from builder remedy lawsuits. It is the
continued carrot and stick approach in the world of affordable housing in the state of New Jersey. The carrot in this process has always been towns come in and voluntarily comply and you will receive immunity, which protects your zoning and your master plan. If towns do
not voluntarily comply or if they meet this June 30th deadline, they will lose that immunity, which then opens them for builder remedy the lawsuits, which have always been the stick in the process. A builder remedy lawsuit can be brought by
a property owner or a contract purchaser in a town and they would file a case with the county level housing judge saying, "Judge, I nice developer want to build 200 units on this halfacre lot of land because town X has not met their
constitutional obligation or has failed to do certain things in their housing element fair share plan." The judge would hear the case and if the judge agrees with the builder that a town has failed to comply with their constitutional obligation, the remedy is
the award of the builder doing whatever his plan was. That remedy is blind to our zoning ordinance. It does not care what our master plan says. It does not uh look at or analyze the surrounding
uses around that property. It is um it it does not take into account whether or not your schools have capacity for children or you have sufficient police officers. Simply put, in a builder remedy scenario, a town loses all
control. To me, that is much more than a stick. It's more of like a club with nail spikes surrounding it. And so that's the reason that we're meeting today is so that we can continue our immunity in the world of affordable housing, continue to uphold our zoning
ordinance and our master plan, which is our vision for the way that Hillsdale is developed. So with that, um, I'd like to share my screen, which I think I have the ability to do. Perfect. So you should be able to see my
screen. Um, hold on, Ashley. Um, one second. I want to reorient this because now I'm looking sideways and that's not the way I like to do this. Perfect. Now we're working here. Okay.
So, the housing element fair share plan was prepared uh by my office and it is accompanied by an appendix which verifies all of our credits and our various um documentation that are required
underneath the statute. The first important page that I would turn your attention to is page five. And actually, I'll zoom in just a little bit here that details our obligation. And so you'll see here at the bottom of page five, we
have a four-part obligation with the new fourth round. So we have a rehabilitation obligation of zero, which is wonderful. That means we don't have to do anything. Darling, darling, excuse me. Can you just make that bigger like Sure. It's a little bit of an eye exam
challenge. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm on myself on that. That's Oh jeez. Oh well then this is going to be tremendously difficult. Okay. How about Yeah, that's perfect. Perfect. Uh so we have a rehabilitation obligation of zero. Our prior round obligation is comprised of both the first round and the second round merged
together. That number has been established for quite some time. It's 111. Then the third round obligation which is what we were in court for uh in the third round that stretched out for 26 years. So it was really 2.6 affordable
housing rounds that ended up being uh combined into one. Our obligation was 234. However, we sought and received a vacant land adjustment. Under the affordable housing rules, towns can seek um three different types of adjustments.
One of those is a lack of vacant and developable land. And so, we submitted the requisite information to the court and we received an adjustment of our 234 unit obligation down to 35.
That 35 is identified or known as realistic development potential which we abbreviate as RDP. That number we have to satisfy and that's an important um item to note is that word satisfy. So that reduced our 234 I should say it
adjusted our 234 unit obligation down to 35. The difference between your obligation and your RDP is known as unmet need which was 199 for the third round. unmet need has to be addressed. You do not have to satisfy the entirety
of unmet need. Otherwise, there would be no reason to seek an adjustment. So, that's the third round. Now, we move forward to the fourth round, which commences on July 1st of this year and runs for 10 years. Initially, Hillsdale was issued an obligation from DCA of 220
units. When we received the backup data that showed how they came to that number, we quickly realized that they included land that is not developable, such as the drinking water reservoir, portions of front side and rear yards of
developed properties. So in January when we filed our binding resolution committing to our number, we said that the number is has is based on errors and it needs to be reduced. Ultimately, we ended up settling because there were challenges to our number. We settled at
190, which is a 13.6% reduction from the original DCA number. Um, which is noteworthy because not every town was as successful as Hillsdale was in reducing their initial DCA number. Once again, my office conducted a vacant land adjustment
because we still remain a land constrained town. That analysis resulted in a 4unit realistic development potential which which we have to satisfy. The difference between that and the 190 is 186 which we need to address.
Now let me zoom back out. So as you page through the document you will see under chapter 2 that lists all of the content that this document must contain pursuant to the municipal land use law. and we have checked all of those boxes. Uh, as
noted, there is a plethora of demographic data in this report. You might find it interesting. It has no bearing on our obligation or our mechanisms. It is just required to be included with this plan. Um,
I will turn to what I consider the uh the more interesting or should say where the rubber really meets the road. The second part of the plan on Darlene, excuse me. What happens with the unmet needs, the 199 and 186? So, they don't go away. Um, they they follow you
around, but you do not have to satisfy them in their entirety. So, that's why I I I made a point. There's a difference between RDP, which has to be satisfied, and unmet need, which needs to be addressed. Um, and when I go through the mechanisms, you'll see how the court
approved the mechanisms for third round unmet need. Um you're never you're not required under the statute to fulfill that entire unmet need. Otherwise, there'd be no point in granting adjustments. Yeah, because right now we're at 385, right? If you had the two
together or you you don't add the two together. Um I mean, you you could if you want to look at them in total, but they are separate rounds. They don't um they don't typically get merged, but then again, we're under a new program with a new process, but typically they
stay separate. Okay. Um so on page 37 you will see a series of formulas. So not only do we receive an obligation um for rehab, prior round, third round and fourth round. Prior round, third
round and fourth round also have micro requirements. And so not only do we have to meet those obligations but then what underneath of that there are minimums and maximums. So we have to provide a certain number of our affordable housing units as family units which is not a
good name but that's the name that is used in the statute which really means unrestricted units anyone can occupy those units. Then a certain percent of our units have to be available as rental. Conversely we are capped on the
number of um bonus credits that we can take advantage of and the number of age restricted affordable housing units that we can claim. What makes it even more difficult is that each round has different percentage micro requirements for the different
categories. So, um this is u a little bit of a complex 3D formula that you have to put together to check all of these boxes, but this plan does check all of the micro requirement boxes. What about supportive housing units?
There is no cap on supportive housing units, but because of the family requirements, those units do not count as family units because they are restricted to certain
uh population demographics. So, in a roundabout way, while the rules don't specify a cap on supportive housing units, you are limited on how many you can claim credit for in any given round because they don't meet the
family um definition. Gotcha. Okay. Um on pages 38 through 40, we discussed the vacant land adjustment. There is one property generating RDP in the third round. That property is the 90 Wemiss
site that is vacant. I'm sure the governing body is well aware of that property. It's the um largest vacant property in the entire burrow that is privately owned. Um on page 41, we start the mechanisms and the credits. So this
chapter is divided into two sections. The first section covers the existing mechanisms that are on the ground today that are creditw worthy that we can apply to our obligations. The second half of the chapter details the mechanisms that are proposed
uh and or have not yet received a certificate of occupancy. So first we start off with I will just let's change the way we're displaying this. We start off with existing prior round
mechanisms. So first we have Hillsdale House. And this property is I I I wish I had one of these sites in every one of my towns because it yields a plethora of credits that are allocated to several of your obligations.
So, Hillsdale House is a uh 99 unit affordable housing building. When we settled in 2017, we were under the assumption based on data that we had received that that entire building was
age restricted. So we of course exceeded our age restricted caps for both prior round and third round because we had so many age restricted units. Over the past 6 months I have been speaking to the board and the operators of the facility
to to gain more intel on this site specifically its controls to see if we were eligible to claim a second credit for it. And when I was discussing the property with their board and their operator, I learned that 10% of the
units at Hillsdale House are not age restricted. They are reserved for individuals um who are disabled. And so residents in those particular units may be under the age of 62 which means that 10% of those
units are no longer subject to the age restricted cap which gives us greater flexibility. Um you will see on page 41 and 42 there is a detailed discussion of all of the controls that regulate this
site and that is purposeful um for what I will talk about in a few moments regarding fourth round. Uh so this site we are utilizing 86 of the units to provide credits towards the prior round and we are
eligible for 27 bonuses. Now if you add those two numbers together you will realize that that totals 113 which is more than our prior round obligation of 111. So we are able to carry forward two surplus credits from Hillsdale House and
apply it to our third round RDP. We also have two existing group homes. One owned by New Concepts for Living at 80 Ruckman that produces four credits and another owned by Alliance Against Homelessness that produces four credits.
We have an existing inclusionary development over on Patterson Street that VNR Developers built. Inside of that building, there are four rental units. So, we receive four credits and four bonuses for that property. In addition, we have the existing inclusionary development at 273
Broadway. That site also has two credits and two bonuses allocated towards the third round RDP. Next, we have the 305 Patterson Street property. That property contains six uh affordable rental units. We get six credits and three bonuses for
that site. Excuse me. So, those are our existing third round RDP sites. We also have the nine disabled units that we did not know
existed when we had our uh when we signed our third round settlement agreement with fair share housing center. So I'm now taking those nine disabled nonrestricted units or I should say non-age restricted units and applying those nine credits towards our third
round unmet need. In addition, we have three more group home facilities. One owned by Spectrum, which generates six credits, one own there's two owned by Care Plus. Those two in total provide nine credits towards our unmet need. And the burrow partnered with Habitat for
Humanity uh several years ago and one for sale unit was built. So, we receive one credit for that property. So when you total up our existing uh mechanisms, you'll see we have over 160 credits on the ground today that
satisfies our entire prior round obligation, nearly satisfies our third round RDP and has already 25 um credits to apply towards unmet need. So then we turn our attention to what's proposed
and we start with the third round because remember prior round is entirely satisfied as we sit here today. So there's one outstanding mechanism that has not yet come to fruition. This was included in our third round fair share housing center settlement agreement and
it's the Bank of America property. We have put the zoning in place for that property. The MU2 district was uh established in 2018. It permits mixeduse inclusionary development with an affordable housing set aside and we await a developer to
redevelop that property. When and if it is redeveloped um just a map of the site uh at full buildout, we anticipate four affordable housing credits from that property. We also have four proposed mechanisms
that were part of our settlement agreement that were allocated to address the third round unmet need. Uh first we have the Claremont redevelopment site which is inside of our greater uh Patterson Street redevelopment area. The
Claremont inclusionary development will produce when it's done 20 credits towards our third round unmet need. In addition, we have the remaining properties in the Patterson Street redevelopment area that have been um
placed in a redevelopment plan that permits inclusionary development. And you'll see here on the map, it's a little busy with the environmental constraints, but the red dash is the Claremont redevelopment site and the yellow areas are the entire
redevelopment area. So you can see about I'd say over half of the redevelopment area is um available to be redeveloped for inclusionary housing. So when those properties are redeveloped, we will generate credits
towards the third round unmet need. And based on what we had estimated in our settlement agreement with Fairshair Housing Center, we had actually estimated a total of 24 credits from the overall redevelopment area with Claremont providing 20. That means there's still four more to go based on
that 2017 estimate. We have also reszoned the Verizon property over at 175 Broadway. We put in place the MU1 uh mixeduse one district back in 2018. So inclusionary development is permitted there. It was anticipated if that
property was redeveloped at full buildout, we would garner six affordable housing credits from that site. And then last but not least, we were required as part of our fair share housing center settlement agreement to adopt a burrowwide set aside ordinance. And I
think of this as a fisherman's net that is cast out into the ocean and we just let it sit there because it is a a passive ordinance that we wait for an application to trigger this ordinance. And that application more than likely
would be a a D1 use variance or a D5 density variance for multifamily housing outside of one of our inclusionary zones. The way this ordinance is written is that if someone proposes five or more multifamily units in the burrow outside
of one of our inclusionary zones and the board, whether it's in front of planning board or zoning board, if the board is inclined to approve it, then the board is required to place upon that approval an affordable housing set aside. Our ordinance is currently written says that
it's a 15% set aside if it's rental or a 20% set aside if it's sale. The reason there was a difference between the set aides was because previously you would receive a full bonus for rental units. That full bonus has been eliminated. So
there's no reason now to give an advantage to rental developers. So as part of this package we're submitting to the program, we are changing the set aside to 20% u irregardless of the proposed tenure of
the units. So those mechanisms are what was approved by the court. We have a judgment of repose on compliance to address our third round unmet need. That is all we are required to do for third round unmet need. Now we move to the
fourth round. So first we start with the 4unit RDP that we have to satisfy. However, the amended fair housing act added a new requirement for towns seeking a vacant land adjustment. The statute now requires towns to identify
sufficient parcels likely to redevelop during the current round of obligations to at le address at least 25% of the prospective need obligation that has been adjusted and adopt zoning that allows for such adjusted obligation. And when you translate that through a
plain language reading of the statute into a mathematical formula that equals 25% of RDP well 25% * 4 is 1. So in addition to our four unit RDP, we also have to meet this
redevelopment requirement of one. And the way uh and I will tell you how we're going to do that um next. So first we have 40 Central Avenue. This site is being constructed by Bergen County United Way. The burrow is partnering
with them by providing some of our affordable housing trust fund monies to bring that site to fruition. That property will include four um special needs units that will generate four
credits and four bonuses towards our obligation. Now, I will tell you one of your very sharp planning board members caught that the text in the middle of this paragraph um was inaccurate and as part of their approval last night, they u allowed me
to correct it. So the tables at the back end of the report are correct but the text did not get updated um as the tables were finalized. So what we will be doing is utilizing these four credits
to in part meet our fourth round RDP to satisfy the one unit redevelopment requirement and then the remainder of the credits will be uh allocated towards fourth round unmet need. In addition, we have the property
located at 100-101 West Street. This property owner approached us and I have a map, so let me go there first. No, that's Bergen County United Way. Next. So, the property in yellow is the 101 West Street. So, this property owner
submitted a letter, which developers are allowed to do asking to be included as part of our housing element and fair share plan. And initially they proposed 20 town homes with two affordable housing units. And we were able to
negotiate with them 18 total town homes and we doubled the number of affordable units to four. And if you look at the surrounding uses, I find the site quite interesting. To the rear of the property, there are condos. That's what all these little boxes are actually showing. Condos. Um I'm not sure where
the the the D mapping says there's steep slopes on top of these condos. I'm not sure that that's very accurate. Uh but be that as it may, so we have a multifamily development to the west of the property currently. South of the property is the inclusionary development
um 273 Broadway. And then to the north and to the east of the property are a mixture of commercial and residential uses. And so this site actually is appropriate for town homes. It's going to be less dense than the property to
the west. Um, so it works really as a transition zone between the denser property uses to the west and the single family uses across Broadway to the east. And so you'll see on the prior page, we
actually have a concept plan uh of the property. So this is West Street coming in here and the town homes are laid out on either side and the portion of the street would be vacated. Um, so that property would yield four credits, but we're
using two of them to satisfy the remainder of our 4unit RDP. And what is important, we actually have a letter from the developer committing to construct family rental. So, this circles back to these micro requirements. Typically, I would have
used all of the Bergen County United Way to satisfy your RDP, but because they are reserved for special needs individuals, I cannot do that and simultaneously meet your family rental micro requirements. And that's why these
credits are split amongst the various requirements. So, a portion of 40 central and 100-101 West will go towards fourth round unmet need. Then we turn our attention back to
Hillsdale House. And this is why I've been meeting with their board because what I learned is that there are Let me go to the next page. That property is subject to a series of either controls, rental agreements, or
your tax abatement agreement that requires that property to be utilized for affordable housing until 2045. Under the affordable housing rules, in order to take a second credit for a
unit, you must show that a site has 60 years of controls. And when you do the math, 2045 is a total of 59 years of controls for
that site. So what I have said in this document and based on my discussions with their board, this site is not going anywhere. They are fully committed to retaining this property to serve low and moderate income households. Um they are financially secure and sound uh based on
the conversations I've received with them and it is their intent and purpose to continue to serve these 99 low and moderate income households. And so what I have said in this document is to get us to 60 years. The Burrow of Hillsdale is committed to extending that tax
abatement agreement so long as the site continues to qualify for a tax abatement agreement for another year to get us to 2046 so that we would have a total of 60 years worth of controls. If for some reason the property ceases
to operate as a 100% affordable housing development prior to October 21st, 2046 with which is the 60-year anniversary, then we would not be able to claim a second credit for the units. Um, so what
this allows us to do is to seek nine credits for the disabled adult portion to be applied toward our fourth round unmet need and 51 credits of the senior component to be applied towards our unmet need. I have reached the senior
cap. So there are 39 additional credits that would be carried forward as surplus to be applied to any future obligation likely the fifth round obligation that would commence in 2035. So if you turn
to page 67, yes, you will see all of the existing and proposed mechanisms together. And this paints the full picture of how do we comply with our various obligations. Anything with an asterct is proposed and not yet completed. So you will see
Hillsdale House satisfies our entire 111 unit prior round obligation. We then have a handful of credits. All of them exist except for Bank of America and we satisfy our 35 unit third round RDP.
We then have all of our mechanisms that were approved by the court for our in our third round settlement agreement. The only one that's not in here is Hillsdale House, which was an approved mechanism, but we did not know at that point in time that we had alternative
living arrangements, not senior units in there. So, we have nine additional credits than we envisioned when we settled with the court in um 2017. These mechanisms address our third round unmet need. Then we move on to the fourth round RDP
of four. You can see here, this is where I'm splitting the credits to make sure we meet the micro requirements. Two of the units at West Street will be applied to our 4unit RDP and one of the units at 40 central, which generates a full
bonus, will get us to our 4unit RDP. We'll then use one unit of 40 central to meet our one unit realistic redevelopment requirement. And then the remainder of 40 central, the remainder of West Street, we also get a bonus for
West Street and and we get bonuses for Central um will be applied to unmet need. We have the third round surplus credits that were already a part of our third round settlement agreement because we couldn't use all those senior units for second and third round. And then we have
the extended control credit we're going to seek for Hillsdale House. Nine of those will be the alternative living arrangements for the disabled um households and the remainder will be the 51 extended controls for the senior units. So we have 71 credits to apply
against our fourth round unmet need, which is what we will be seeking the program's approval of to address our fourth round unmet need. The remainder of the document are um are sections that are just required by the statute. Uh I
think I'll stop there, mayor, and happy to take any questions that the governing body or the public might have. Great. Um let's start with with the council here. Um does council have any questions? Yeah, the I have one. The the unmet need
that's not addressed, right? What happens with that? So let's start with the third round because that's easier. So the court has already approved the mechanisms we've put in place and they know exactly what those are supposed to yield except for the set aside. No one knows what set aside will yield but the court has
stamped their approval on that saying that those mechanisms are sufficient to address our unmet need. So that that in my mind that chapter is done. We have a court approved judgment of repose in compliance on third round. So what we
are seeking as part of this submission now to the program the affordable housing resolution dispute program who has effectively replaced COA who used to be the administrative entity. We're now asking the program to approve these mechanisms that we have allocated
towards unmet need and put their stamp of approval on it saying that they are sufficient to address our unmet need. So, even though there's a delta, it's fine. Even though there there is always going to be a delta when you are seeking a vacant land adjustment because the the
rules recognize that you do not have enough vacant and developable land to reach that full number. Um, now what may happen is that there may be a challenge on this realistic redevelopment potential requirement that
they've added. And so we and and you're not the only one seeking a vacant land adjustment in this round. The overwhelming majority of my town, we have any exposure there, right? The problem is the the legislature did not do anyone any favors because they
could have written that section more clearly. But it is written the way it is. And I am very fortunate in that I work with some of the top-notch affordable housing attorneys in the state of New Jersey who
agree with my plain language reading of the statute. Furthermore, I have inquired of the special adjudicators who are that's a new name for the courtappointed masters in this round. And in my discussions with two of those special adjudicators, they also have the
same exact plain language reading of the statute. Okay. If I clen just so you you know where you can get hurt is if someone pops up with a whole bunch of vacant land. For example,
uh we don't have this issue in Hillsdale, but in Franklin Lakes or somewhere like that, uh a 20 acre office park becomes vacant and available for development. Now all of a sudden your
argument that you don't have any vacant land rings a little hollow because you just got a whole bunch of vacant land thrown in your lap. But absent some sort of dramatic instance like that, we should
be fine. Okay. Anybody else on council have questions? When will the test be administered? Yeah. Yeah. And is the passing grade 40, 30, 20? We're we're we're grading on the curve
completely. And yes. So So our obligation today is merely to endorse this plan because this plan was already adopted by the planning board, right? And that's who has jurisdiction
over it. Our action is the mere endorsement which is a much different thing than adoption because usually affordable housing plans contain spending components and that of course is the duty of the legislature and the
executive meaning the governing body. So, if uh this is endorsed based upon the resolution and the motion that was pending and seconded, uh Darlene and I will work and our plan based on the
planning board approval last night is this will be uh loaded and delivered to the court uh by noon tomorrow. that is our our drop dead in my office that that is when this will be fully filed with
the court. Um and our obligations here will end. So mayor if there's a mo there is a motion and a second. We we do have that. Yeah. Just yes we have a just to clarify we have the control over that
trust fund. Correct. So that's why we're here. We are here because the endorsing the plan is required because we always have the power of the purse. Right. Okay. So, we've already had the first or the second. Um, anybody have any other comment before we
ask the clerk to read the role? Seeing none, will the clerk please read the role? Council member Kleti, yes. Council member Fox, yes. Council member Mazich, yes. Council President Oso, yes. Council member Rico, yes. Council member
Trojim. Yes. Wonderful. It is passed. Uh does anybody have any council commentaries? Seeing none, uh can I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Motion. Second. Second. Second. All those in favor? I adjourn.
Thank you very much everybody and public too. Thank you. Great job everybody. Thank you guys. Thank you darling. Have a great day. Byebye. All right. Bye-bye.