meeting to order 7 o' and ask the deputy clerk to read the statement of compliance with public meeting meeting is being held in compliance of the open public meetings with the meeting schedule advertised in the January 10th 2025 edition of the Trenton Times and provided to the Trenton Times theun County Dem the buck heral and hope press the meeting agenda was posted on the bulleon board at City Hall and the city's website a meeting notice was sent to
members on the list Ser department heads and the city engineer on Monday February 3rd 2025 meeting agenda offers planned action items known at the time of publication and is subject to change this meeting is being reported and stream live is in the zoom meeting council president Lambert here know here good evening uh if you would please
rise for the Alle remain stand thank
you nice to see you all uh we're going to begin this evening with uh the bills list um had a chance to list it's a short one but we've got some vendors who um vendors and they could they haveone now weeks so motion to approve the bill please okay all in favor please stay I I
I um we're going to do things a little differently tonight uh and I'm going to start off uh by allowing um we're going to shift around the agenda a little bit so I'm going to ask you to just bear with me for a few minutes um the first thing we're going to do is for those people who uh have arrived to talk uh about uh um canvas retail hours uh I'm going to allow those people to discuss uh to to come to the podium and have
public comment uh just for them at the moment and then following that uh what we're going to do we're going to talk about affordable housing um we going have on this conversation answer people's questions and to deal with this very important matter but um since Jesse and c and other people have come to this uh I think that it's fair that at a minimum that we give them the opportunity we speak to it though the council will not
be discussing it this evening so if you'd like to St out uh begin um mayor just a point of of order is that um for I think for the Cannabis hours and cannabis matters in general I'm going to recuse myself um because of just not familiar uh you know than you fol that are you know associated with other CID I appreciate that is there any is there any concern with the councilman staying at the B no I didn't think so
right here tonight I wanted to follow up on my public comment last week to again request an ordinance change to extend the hours of cannabis retail businesses in the central business district to 9:00 p.m. be considered at the city council meeting later this month I've spoken as Council meetings over the last few months about their request FL and assigned petition and support from over a dozen businesses in the central business district and at the prior City Council meetings received words of
support from members of the city council and residents in attendance after all this progress I was told to respect our extension changes to be up for consideration on the city council agenda in February and started preparing my employees many of whom are here today so as I mentioned last week I was surprised when I received an email stating that the majority of City Council Members had taken a different stance in favor of waiting for former mayor Dave Delio's dispensary Jersey girls to open and get settled before making a stance to the uh making a change to the ordinance that is
currently limiting my open and operational small business based on the response from my public comment last week there seems to possibly be some Mis miscommunication over the decision to not include this proposed change in the city council agenda for February so I wanted to come today in good faith and once again request that the city council change the local ordinance to allow for an extension of hours for cannabis businesses in the central business district to 9:00 p.m. at the last meeting there was a discussion around proceeding with cing due to the potential future traffic impact that
could be caused by Jersey Girls I spoke with my lawyer regarding this issue and he advised me that the city council could readily put language in the ordinance change that would allow the option for the city council to require additional traffic studies if needed to perit extended hours or to allow the extension of hours after a business has been opened for a year and the flow of traffic and community imp of that business better understood there are ways you can change this ordinance that would respond to the needs of my currently open business allowing for a pathway to determine if gey girls could be
permitted my business did our due diligence to move forward in a timely manner after getting our local and state approvals to open and we are open and operational now it's unreasonable to ask us to rate an undisclosed amount of time for a business that doesn't yet have a planned opening date B by the river is ready to demonstrate the extension of cannabis retail hours in the central business district could benefit the local economy have a positive Community impact and a positive impact on the surrounding small businesses in the
central business district already demonstrated the strange is widely supported by the local small business Community big bad River has been well received in amberville we've been open for over a year and have had no complaints my dispensary has gone above and beyond to try and have a positive impact and be a good neighbor here in town we're just asking to be open two hours later a request that's widely supported please put this or ordinance change up for conservation of the upcoming city council meeting later this month thank you so this is only about cannabis at the moment yeah
three minutes Sean Ellis 21 deladier Avenue um I am shocked that there's such resistance to uh make by the river being open later um I see it as a win for the city because that means extra cannabis you know taxes and revenue for the city
um Jersey girls has been we've been hearing that they're going to open for years now but hasn't happened yet I don't know why there's the delay in favor of them um to you know to to wait and see I think the accommodations that Jesse's lawyer uh for are reasonable and I'd love to hear any arguments against them if there are any um I just want to
extend my support to to them they've been doing everything right Community um particularly on chur on Church Street where they're located so uh I don't think it makes any sense to restrict them any May H my name is John R I live at 52 Wilson Street I also own and operate a business
at um 37 North Union pardon me directly around the corner from Big by the river I invite any business to stay open later um we are often open till 8 n o'clock sometimes in the busier season and I don't understand why another business in the business district can't also operate under the same conditions that my business does um that's all I to say thank
you hi Remy 11 35 treat I'm here to voice my support for the extension of B by the river's hours to match the liquor stores in town at 9:00 Not only would this change encourage people to shop at our neighboring businesses that are already later and to add to the town's Revenue but research shows access to a dispensary also reduced reduces overdose rates which is an active and growing concern in our community and A New Hope right now additionally baked by the river hands out free overdose rescue kits with Naran and fentol testing kits
uh further reducing the risk of overdoses in our area more than the typical dispenser these times of in these times of increasing uncertainty cannabis in that time frame an objectively safer substance please take all these points into consideration when it comes time to vote and please stop pushing back the discussion on something as positive as this thank
you I'm Dominique Dodge I live at 35 and a half for Church Street I am a resident of Church Street and I'm also an employee of Bak by the river um I would like to emphasize what my cooworker said and also um just I have experence customers rushing to get there at 7 like this is I've so far this year a handful of customers have been like kind of rushing to get to the door their residents of Lambertville they work elsewhere and
it's like there's a little bit of a gap like if you're getting off at six and you're you know you have an hour commute home you can't get to so they'll call and be like oh can you it's like you have to be here before s um thank you for schom a Church Street lamberville New Jersey I would like to state that I'm in favor of cannabis retail businesses in the central business district being able to open until 9:00 p.m. it benefits the town it
benefits the local residents and it benefits the local small businesses it's unreasonable to treat cannabis businesses differently than the surrounding businesses in the central business district there is a lovely bar across the street from our dispensary that is regularly open until 11:00 p.m. the ice cream shops are open until 10 p.m. the restaurants are open until 9: to 10: p.m. the liquor stores open until 9:00 p.m. it doesn't make sense for our small for our business to close
hours earlier than all the businesses around us it doesn't make sense for us to have to close earlier than the liquor stores my wife has been attending City Council meetings for months to discuss this simple change she's dedicated time and effort to get a local petition in support of this change and has repeated come out herself to represent our business and a simple request to stay open two hours later when I tell that other tell that other business owners in town they're appul that this is the
process we have to go through just to be able to stay open till 9 it shouldn't have to be this hard there are other things we should we could and should be focusing on right now so please put an ordinance change that would allow cannabis retail businesses in the central business district to stay open until 9:00 p.m. on the next city council agenda so that we can move forward and focus on other matters here in our community like affordable housing I'd also like to say that I'd like to see affordable housing issues worked on here in the community in more Dynamic ways
with Community Support in order to avoid hostilities around issues we need to be working together on coming together with trust and transparency on these issues is essential especially in these unprecedented times where drastic Federal changes are causing members of our community to live in fear members that we love thank you very much for your time was there anybody else who want to speak to cannabis thank you for coming sorry about the the late notice on the agenda
change but uh if you stay you'll you'll you'll hear my reason for it um all right what I'd like to do tonight um is I would like to take us take a few minutes to take us back through the last couple of years um so that everybody in the community can understand uh kind of where uh yes I'm sorry let's uh yeah may
we uh I would also know I'm sorry I forgot to welcome Kelly uh Kelly Grant steing she helps us on affordable housing uh legal issues as well as Bill opal who's the City attorney um um so what I'd like to do this evening is uh just kind of walk you through uh everything every the point to where we are now we'll stop at several opportunities I will ask people if they
have a question if you have a question you're just stand up okay I want the first I would like the first completely understanding where we are and how we've gotten here so um so we're going to do things a little differently so I'll I'll explain some things I'll say are there any questions if you have a question please raise your hand just stand up you'll ask your question um I will answer it perhaps one of the council people might answer it certainly Kelly and Bill are here to
answer any legal questions that may arise from this discussion um once all the questions have been asked if people would like to make a comment we will have a separate comment period but I really feel strongly that this first section of the meeting as as it's so uh so often pointed out this is what we do this is why we're here before we begin uh I am going to bre uh three things which uh are on the
public record um because I think that they're very important uh in uh framing this discussion tonight and uh in being completely transparent and uh open with the community the first is a a flyer that's been around I don't know how many people have read it how many people have seen it um but it
is could yeah thisa a good time for everybody check their phones make sure all our phones are on theas and that we're all really fully engaged in uh in this that okay hogland development is back the mayor plans to run out the clock and force the city to build 200 units on the hill ignoring objections from the Council planning board and public mayor
told the affordable housing committee they could not look for alternative sites for the housing plan at the Lambertville High School site opening us up to a lawsuit unless we identify other sites quickly the mayor is playing games with the lamberville High School site he announced that he is seeking a he is looking to seek a vacant land adjustment for ground four of our affordable housing obligation and not replace kov Nan site for round three KOB can then petition the court with Builder's remedy to fulfill Our obligation using the original 200 unit project on the hill
bypassing a vote by the city council the mayor will not offer straight answers on this matter we need to watch what he does not what he says he he did not follow the direction of the council or what the public wanted he should be following the letter the council got him to send to kop to not extend the project this is a bad project at a terrible location with a landfill that was never properly
CL high levels of P you know it's forever chemicals were discovered in the surrounding neighborhoods drinking water there was a cluster of cancer in this neighborhood which still has no access to portable water New Jersey Law NJ Administrative Code 7 Co and8 54 prevents groundwater recharge in areas where contamination is present meaning all storm water from the site must be directed downtown there are steep slopes and an inadequate storm
water plan and they will clear cut 12 acres of trees this is a recipe for storm water and flooding disaster alternative sites that the public has identified such as the Village Apartments which has been abandoned for years and there a public mutant let's make our voices heard together we can
protect the environment our community and meet our affordable housing bus second document which is M public record now is uh a letter from Sean Ellis stated Relentless National headlines designed to overwhelm us into inaction I would not send this message if it weren't necessary I need to share what's
happening in lamberville with you on last week's kickoff meeting for the affordable housing committee mayor Noah once again breached the public trust he announced that the committee will not be exploring alternative sites for for meeting round three obligation affordable housing obligations this is a direct betrayal the commit Alternatives that do not involve a 200 unit development at the former lamberville High School site on K Hill
many members were left confused and blind cited by no sabotage as well as his stated intent to keep the lamberville High School site in the plan the mayor's actions contradict the position of other city council members at yesterday's city council meeting council members Kaminsky and Lambert and lied and lied at the affordable housing movement mud reaffirmed their belief that alternative sites alternative sites must be investigated especially since no
himself abandoned the two the 2024 lville High School Redevelopment plan due to environmental contamination and residents concerns yet when a resident asked if the Lille High School site was still in play the City attorney confirmed that the developer KOB is still in conversations with meron divide the property despite kov losing as provisional developer the site remains under consideration when asked if the location was negotiable council members made it
clear consideration and his ban on exploring alternative locations puts lamber in an should be retracted heal can still build 139 units at the rville high school site including 28 affordable units no is pushing for a vacant land adjustment to reduce our fourth round obligation to seven units
leaving five additional units unfulfilled from the ill-conceived police station plan that brings our final obligation to 40 units it appears that note is deliberately set setting us up for a Builders remedy lawsuit which if successful would allow KOB to build 200 units 40 40 affordable after all when I asked for public access to the minutes from No Ex two years of discussions with kov well he and the City attorney refused claiming kov now
has standing to sue the city this is a dangerous position one that the mayor has intentionally put as in because he can then deliver 200 units to KOB without the council vote that he will never get here's what you can do to fight back email city council and affordable housing committee members to reject the mayor's intent to keep the lville high school in our affordable fill our third round
obligation we must come up with a solid plan to meet our obligations that K naming cannot challenge in court this letter then includes all of the email addresses for the city council members and myself as well as uh members of the um affordable housing advisory committee I'm not going to read all of those share this email and your thoughts with your neighbors and other lamberville residents we have a large contingent of lamberville population on this smist but we need to raise more awareness
among he is awarding the will of the people the council the planning board and continuing to push he House's gos we need all eyes on no here I am at next council meeting is February 6th here's the city calendar I know it's exhausting to keep fighting but that is exactly what Nock and kaban are counting on their strategy is to wear us down and hope we stop paying
attention right now action feel may feel like a heavy lift amid the chaos of national politics but it feels better to fight put your phone on the Bas I don't want people texting during this meeting right now action may feel like a heavy list am amid the chaos of national politics I ask you to speak up sure but it feels better to fight back it feels better to push back against the disregard for climate change the Injustice toward conut Hill residents the continual
betrayal of public trust and the Relentless drive with profit profits over people's well-being it feels better to stand together and say we will not take this anymore Know It This lied to us repeatedly he has suppressed information about environmental contamination and a Public Health crisis he must resign if he refuses we must take steps toward a recall and limit his ability to do further damage to our community all I want is to live in a town where elected officials listen to their constituents
collaborate in good faith and tell the truth that is not too much to ask in solidarity Sean kis third document is fairly brief and came to me uh yesterday uh yesterday evening to May or know it from Sean Alice in case you haven't seen it I want to bring a fly I want to bring a flyer that has been circulating around town to
your attention please see aach photo actually even say please see aach photo you have a lot of explaining to do to the public inviting residents to your office hours for private conversations is not you need to address the assertions in that flyer directly and publicly I hope you'll be able to answer the following questions openly and honestly on a public record so there are eight questions here and I will answer them
but I wanted to go through some of the history first every question that people want answer tonight we'll get answered all right so uh I'm going to just ask that people remain respectful that we're calm that we're not there's no clapping this is a very serious matter these very serious uh documents that I'm sharing with you people are demanding my resignation and uh I want to make it clear that uh uh what the situation is we want to answer your questions and then I
would like at the end of public comment to offer few a few personal reflections of J mayor I'm G Begin by asking Mr opal if he would just take a minute to explain uh the the structure that allows a governing body to consider uh Redevelopment um such as we have over the last couple of years
uh um so I believe back in 2015 or 2016 uh this laville High School site was initially considered as an area in need of Redevelopment under the Redevelopment law um actually EXC in 2018 so in June the hearing on study that's required under the law it found that the
lamille High School site satisfied the criteria that s foring law to designate the property as an area need of Redevelopment so that's the first step in the process all of the the Lots up on that accompass everybody we just some but if they're in the lobby come in there's no there's no uh speakers out here okay well if you can't hear please come in you want to make sure everybody can hear thank you so that was in June of
2018 after that the the next step in the process is to adopt a Redevelopment plan which sets forth the guidelines for anyone to develop that site and it sets forth the zoning regulations that they have to abide by in order to start constr in and implementing development I'm sorry we're not going to ask questions just yet I'll I'll we'll have a moment to to ask questions as soon as you finish to explain okay so we have the I think people are confused
about the sequence here because you asked for questions people were kind of quiet and then you turned it over to Mr opal so I think we could give the the public the benefit of misunderstanding okay let me let me just I'll just clarify no is done explaining what uh gives the city council the right to consider these
matters in in U close session uh if there are questions about that we'll we'll do this PC mail so that so that people have a chance to ask their questions and and and don't have to ask them 20 minutes later when we moved on to okay so planning board had the hearing in May of 2018 the council in June of 2018 did what they have to do and they adopted um a resolution that designated the area as a need of revelop the next step is the Redevelopment plan which was adopted later in 2018 that ass sets the
development regulations and the zoning regulations for anything that can happen this Redevelopment plan was Su amended in 2020 what came up last summer was a further Amendment to the Redevelopment plan to accommodate what was a proposal to the council by a private developer K naan who was under contract with a private property owner there was one owner for the entire site so that was an agreement that kof n
and property owner reached I would say going on two years so probably sometime in 2023 um they reached that agreement for kobans acquire the land then koban reached out to the city to see if the city would consider an amendment to the existing Redevelopment plan to accommodate a proposed project the city and kaban went back and forth over the course of those two years um I believe it was last May where there was
some level of comfort to the extent that the council was willing to consider an ordinance to adopt amendments to the Redevelopment plan to accommodate the proposed and how the that the council is allowed to proceed with cl session meetings according to the development law um so during the course of those two years it's essentially a contract negotiation
after the Redevelopment plan is in place the idea under the Redevelopment law is to negotiate with a developer and come to an agreement that benefits both parties um exact we have these meetings they're noticed you're all here we discuss things in public there's certain things and there's seven or eight exceptions to the open public meetings act where the
council can meet in close session to discuss among other things contract matters uh the idea behind that is that you don't want negotiations between the city and someone else to be done in public you want those negotiations being private so that different ideas can be explored um people are comfortable to you know Express opinions um Express proposals that may ultimately not make into the agreement but the idea is an
open discussion and then after everything is completed at that point public so that's why over the course of the last two and a half years or so there's been a number of closed sessions to discuss this because you know the spirit of the law and the intent of the law contemplates these negotiations happening um outside of the public View and then when the negotiations are complete the document being brought to the public so the
public can have input on what went on in those negotiations and what would ultimately be the final document uh with regard to another statute the I know the op issue was raised there was there have been a number of requests for documents um related to this and there's certain documents that are available any legislation adopted by the council is available any agreements that are approved are available draft agreement that was negotiated um never got to the
point where um it was put to paper in a final form so that's why they considered so that's why there's no agreement that could have been shared um they're I believe there are some emails that are related to this but again not every meeting was conducted in person sometimes there's an exchange that um happens either draft terms or something to that effect that happens through
email and for the same reason the you know verbal negotiations aren't done public those emails are are protected under the old public records act so it's not the the intent of both of those is not to hide any thing everything that's available to be shared is on the city website and can be and has been shared uh you know the presentations that took place last summer those were all available
um and U you know some of the specific items that were proposed for the amended Redevelopment plan when that ordinance was intr yeah incorporated into the Redevelopment plan so those way to be shared but the the intent of both of those issues to have some things outside of the public it's a public policy decision their
state statutes and there's a reasoning behind it it's it's not to hide things from the public it's to make sure that when an agreement is reached that it's the final agreement there's no misconceptions that you know some term was discussed during negotiations and some people may think that that made the final agreement the the the idea is to get the final form of either the Redevelopment plan or the Redevelopment agreement in front of the public so you can see exactly what the council will be voting on so those are the reasons for for why a lot of these negotiations
happen either in a Clos session or in individual meetings that were outside of public when the council has to act and when there's something to act on that's all available that's all done in public any agreement that would have been or could have been reached with K naan would have would have had to have been approved by this Council would have been available to the public you all would have had an opportunity to review the agreement express your thoughts um and then
certainly you did with respect to the uh the proposed amendments to the ordinance you had you had a chance to review those and for that reason the council decided not to proceed with with those amendments just because there there wasn't support in the community for what they expressed so I think that's the basics for why we have close session and why certain documents still aren't available I do have a question for you Bill um very clearly the public wants wants I'm going to say the word closure
on this project and we are in we the city the governing body um and our professionals are in the midst of a process with your best lawyer tap dancing skills can you give us what might need to take
place in order to do the some of the things that are being asked might I said might and if you can't answer that question I'm sorry I asked it but but I think that's I'll answer it on on one specific issue so it's something that came up the last time the council met um and I it's something that I I mentioned a little bit earlier there is a contract between
as far as we know there's a contract between Kum and Mer Wilson or Academy Hill Inc I'm not sure um who it is but which entity it is but there is a bid contract between the two of them as far as we know but we have no indication that that agreement is no longer in place the city legally canot do anything to break that contract I would never advise the city to interfere in a
private contract between two private entities it exposed the city to significant damages and liability so that contract is in place and it's for that reason that you know in good faith I I can't advise the council that that they're not going to continue to come back to the city and try to negotiate so that's that's out there that's that's a fact and um you know this this wasn't this this whole project wasn't the city's brainchild this was
two private parties entered into agreement and City to see if this development law is it's a public private partnership it's the intent is to benefit both parties and part of what those negotiations they thought the benefit the city was affordable housing obligation so um that's why the city considered it it wasn't something that the city reached out to Merck Wilson we
didn't that's where it all started and it was something that the city in good faith entertained thank you so I think it's it's maybe fair to rephrase what you're saying and stop me if I'm incorrect is that much of this is being
conducted we can't control what other people do right I mean you know we can give them we can vote on things and we can um we can State our acceptance or refusal of certain proposals but people are going to do what people are going to do absolutely they they did they they did that before I mean I don't think the city was aware of their negotiations I I certainly
wasn't purpose of the Redevelopment law is as I said obviously there's going to be a private developer involved nine times out of 10 and they're going to you know to build a project that they can benefit from and the you do that the read on the law because the law gives the city tools to kind of um control to some extent what gets built we can't control who buys the property we can't control who owns the property unless the
city owns it but in this case it doesn't we can't control any of that but we can't control what gets built under the law and that's why it's a beneficial tool for the city thanks uh I'm just going to say one thing I when we talk about the timeline when I talk about the timeline here in a few minutes uh we'll be able to kind of elaborate as they relate to the Redevelopment law I have a question if if if you wouldn't mind um
when you stand up if you just say your name please and speak loudly so that everyone can hear you good evening my name is Ryan mcfaden I live at 23 Old York Road um I moved here in 2018 late 2018 I want to know whether the ground was tested by the developer and or any other parties in order for that to be reclaimed or redeveloped typically if there's a brown field or a vacant lot or something to that effect if there is a contract negotiated they have to do
certain tests for the EPA in the state of New Jersey so I want to know if that stuff was done if that was done were there indications that the round was affected and then does that change whether they will be getting City water will they be getting any infrastructure support all these questions come up about how 200 additional units could be placed basically behind my house with without massive infrastructure
reconfiguration including City water so I mean right now we're dealing with non-potable water and if these guys decide to tear up the ground that's going to agitate anything that's in there right now we're getting a slow Lee if they just make a giant Hill on our Hill it's going to have a massive effect on everybody and that needs to be taken into consideration so my first question is was the ground water or and or dirt tested to make sure that there was even
a viable location here because if you're talking about building a playground and there's kids that are going to be running around kids eat dirt I have a one and a halfy old if the kids eat dirt are they going to be exposed to something that will have long-term detrimental effects to their health u p indicated to us they did their due diligence with regard to Environmental Studies
and um residential standards and that didn't and as the the just saying what the the concept plan indicates is that they're not going build housing on what's known as the former landfill that's up there but for the balance of the site they did indicate that they can remediate it in accordance with residential standards and the applicable State not the landfill Park but the PS part where like the tapon factory the the High School site and basically
everything other than the landfill site they indicated that they can Mo yes sorry just questions please yes uh I'm Dr Main and I live in 245 South Franklin Street first thing I want to address is that statement you made was false these pfas live go through the water I talked to an
attorney 3M and also tont knowing that these chemicals were what they were potential carcinogenic um back in the 50s and 60s so what you said sir there is no remediation for any of these chemicals because they all go down and get into the water you have a question the question is have you guys thought about that and I also I read on this piece of paper that there's a large cluster of cancer in that area and that probably
came from the Teflon Factory now if all of that is true has this been looked at by EPA and it's up to EPA standards for pfas just I'll respond initially I'm telling you what's been Rel and this is a company that has spent two and a half years doing PR diligence it make it according to what they've represented to the city they can build on part of that site and that's what they've said to us
and I I'll further note that our Redevelopment plan the existing Redevelopment plan not even the amended one that wasn't adopted the existing Redevelopment plan requires that remediation take place in accordance with NJ njd standards so if they couldn't do that they can't build okay I just want to tell you that the EPA standards are the law of the country we know that the federal law supersedes everything else what I want to know is has this been looked at by
EPA and how do you explain the large cluster of cancer and it's just a coincidence that they had a uh a factory up there that makes teon products we know that all of this comes from that area okay that's the first thing and the second thing is how you guys going to drain this I mean how in case of Storms and so forth and so on that all of that could be coming down into the City and into our surage and God knows where
else excuse me Bill um maybe I don't understand but um don't we we I mean young developers in the state of New Jersey need to comply with d standards State de standards is that the jurisdiction do we go do developers go directly to EPA and around the EP that's that's because I think that's a misconnect a disconnect on a point jury
Department Environmental Protection there are but I mean they also can adopt regulations that are you know there is the supremacy clause is the gentleman reference then you know those regulations are in place and they have to abide by those just if these if this is if these things do go into the water and they do live for hundreds of years before they break down you guys are setting yourselves up for for big lawsuits if you start to develop
and more cancer comes to that area I mean this is we've seen this before thank you very much thank you we'll take I think it would be helpful um and we know that because of the well the high well numbers that have been reported to the D not only in Lambertville but in West Amwell that D has then said that they were going to open an investigation as to the P
contamination as to where it's coming from so it's almost like there's a new set of data and we would also I would think a question um that we I don't know if we we don't have an answer to but the question is is what is the status of the Department's investigation and in getting back to us because it seems to be an important piece of this information um environmental regulation is is very
complicated as to who doing what but we do know that DP Not only would have ation which will certainly have a lot of impact on on our area on the area here on the area for homes in lamille and for there's sir I just want to finish it that there's nothing you can do about
what you have before it's all there excuse with what you're going to build future excuse me others who have questions it's not a question it's a statement about looking into this thank you very much and we appreciate the effort that you're putting I have a question on over but I'll answer his question quickly please don't answer his question we will answer the questions Mr ex program privatize it's up to the consultant for the develop for the property owner not the D so just you
understand that's where the cleanup comes from That's the Law my question is to you is you're talking about this contract that was negotiated in private um that no longer is valid so the purpose of your closed sessions and the minutes of them are no longer protected because you're not withholding things from the applicant or the previous applicant you're withholding it from the public they know what you said to them
they have those documents they have those emails the public doesn't so I'm going to give you a case on point Ram Ser may have a question please yes give you a case on point have you ever looked at Ram Ser versus D Sierra Club was a party of that lawsuit the state of newers negotiated a contract to lease part of Liberty State Park to a private golf developer the opra was denied we sued the appet division ruled in our favor that those minutes and emails had
to be released and that's a case on point I'm sorry what was the question the question is have you looked at that case that's a case Point have you looked at that case my head I don't recall um I I have it I just pulled it up so I'll take a look at it um I okay okay uh how many people do we have online uh right now we have 32 online and I have somebody who's had their hand up for for quick so so we'll ask one more we have one more question in the room this is specifically about the
Redevelopment uh law okay just about the Redevelopment law we have all night long we can stay and and get into the weeds here as much as not the weeds but we can get into the details as much as people want but it's important we just take things at one p piece at a time go ahead you could please stand up and ask your question yeah I just wanted to follow up on something that Mr opal said um about that investigation that uh so I was watching the affordable housing um
committee's video and uh the city planner elen chisel I think is her name said that there was the city did in the investigation that determined the landfill could be developed did she did she miss was that just us taking the kobs word that it was redevelop without seeing anything because this this company has lied and had to settle law
across the country for storm water runoff problems and Clean Water Act violations so we have the question thank you yeah since I've been here the city has not done an environment environmental investigation no due diligence on the part since 2020 is c can I just and there's no investigation there so DP is doing the source investigation that but the city has not
undertaken as it's set forth in the Redevelopment plan the whoever ultimately develop develops it whether it's a purchaser from the owner or the they're responsible for their remediation so the city hasn't hasn't done any independent CH circumstance then because we didn't know about this we can talk about that later that's address it we will get to all the questions so let's now we're gonna go to to online I'll come back to I
promise Ed please go ahead and state your name and ask your question or for the governing body you have to unmute yourself Ed did you have a question yes I want to tell you that we can't hear every word you're saying it keeps going in and out okay okay uh well we will do our
best to speak loudly this is one of it isn't whether you speak loudly whatever system you're using shuts you off every few seconds that's the the noise in the room a microphone which is pulling away from it so we'll do the best we can all right thank you you couple more questions and then we're gonna move on I'm sorry I first hi Stephanie from um stre I was just wondering when you started speaking about the whole process found myself wondering what is the
initial process that the city engages in so is to Asain what Parcels of land are um adequate for redevelopment I mean we're here today because people believe that that that part of land is not adequate for development because Jo so I guess going back to the
very beginning what did the city do and what will it be doing in the future when it's looking at other part for development what is your process it's statuto it's it's all laid out in the Redevelopment law um the but how are you assessing yeah's what's to benefit the people of This Town based on the topography the the landfill Etc the old term was blighted
it was properties that were blighted um were candidates for redevelopment and back in 2018 as I was going through the history of of how this property came into being considered for development um the Redevelopment law lays out six to eight criteria that has to meet has to meet one of the six or eight criteria in order to be designated and the city planner will visit the site they'll prepare a report they'll look at
old records and they'll put together a report that says this property doesn't meet the statutory standard or it does and it's for these reasons so back in 2018 at least one of the reasons um applicable to this site and I I can tell you just physically looking at the site it's and without getting into what's in the soil or anything like that but it's dilapidated um it's underutilized and I
imagine those are some and the report is definitely a public record if you want to take a look at that report I'm sure somebody has it on file somewhere if it's not already on the city website but that would go through all of the criteria for why it was designated so that there is a basis for what meets that and going forward without getting too much in hypotheticals if the city looks at any other sites in the city that it thinks might meet these criteria the same statutory reasons would apply
have but I mean it's incumbent on us to dig a Little Deeper right to ascertain if it's if it's adequate for the usage that you have in mind right when you know there's an open land when you know there was a ton plant we know that it's on a hill that could if it is is right for or should be revelop we're not in that particular way I I understand what you're saying we're the city isn't developers we have
professional planners we have attorneys but the city is not a developer if it designates the site and the whole purpose of the Redevelopment plan how we designate that's the point yeah understand you have to designate yeah you have to designate it first but then when you get to the plan determine what the uses can be and what regulations have to be in place so for this site there was a lot of you know it was considered for residential there's a lot of built-in regulations in the Redevelopment plan that say you have to
comply with the city's storm water ordinances or you have to exceed them in certain circumstances you have to um these are the steep slope issues you have to account for that you know there's a lot that goes into the plan as far as development regulations that are spefic specific to the site and you only get there if you reach the if you designated that site so to be designated to to take on 200 plus units given no it's currently it's currently designated
as an area need of Redevelopment with 139 units on it so so I guess I guess that is the Perpetual that's the ongoing question here how did it ever get designated to possibly hold 139 that's two cards and two card per I mean you've heard it we've all been to these meetings it goes to different and then that's and the regulations that are
in there require and if nobody if you can't do it if a developer a real estate developer cannot meet the standards in the Redevelopment plan they can't build so the city put these regulations in place and said the only way you're going to get to build is if you check all these boxes you satisfy all these regulations how could they Che the flooding box that's up to them there somebody else online there is May but wasn't
this is there is there anybody question Kon please go ahead and unmute yourself and ask your question Karen Atwood please go ahead and unmute yourself and ask your
question Jif towns 14 hanc stre I just have a question for my understanding you stand up so others can hear you please yeah thank you um Jennifer towns 14 Hancock just curious about for my understanding when you went back to the beginning when you said the two parties formed a contract with each other that you know whoever owns the property he talks to a developer
they contract with somebody on my property does that mean lamberville has to like do whatever I want to do so did you change your zoning to meet so we could build housing on there is that what happened no you don't live as far as I know in a Redevelopment area that's been designated so the city you I'm trying to understand I don't understand how that happen the city's not involved in like if you want to sell your house like the city wouldn't be involved no
but if I sell it to you know a developer and I want to put you know a small apartment complex that's fine it depends what the size is and where you live and whether the zoning allows for that that's entally a plan or zoning board issue but it's not a okay so it was designated a Redevelopment issue whatever
before we're gonna move on uh John Town Sport Hancock I I guess the bigger question that everybody's having is is um how was it that the High School site is Point them out because that's not making it to thank you the the High School site is the only site at the moment that is an area uh
that is a designated Redevelopment area we do have the village departments which has been declared an area development plan and put it in on that property so we have a redevelop so the village departments been declared an area in need of Redevelopment the High School site has a Redevelopment plan so it's already gone through all of those steps and what's is there police station the police station thank you very much
the police forgot about the police station the police station is also an area in need of Redevelopment um that has been declared um I think that will hopefully answer the question Judy we'll make you the last question if you could stand up please Judy pleas I I just wondered I just wondered two quick things one the December 6th letter from the mayor said
we had decided to step away from the site from The High School site and the huanian deal we were stepping away we weren't doing it so part of the reason some people are here is why are we talking about this we said we weren't doing it in December and we all saw that letter but the second thing is from seeing the closed but then opened minutes from the June I think 6th city council meeting there was a plan presented to the council from a developer who wanted to do something
with the apartments uh of you know that you just said we didn't have a plan for we do have a plan for they gave you a plan for that so I'm just wondering I'm just struggling to stay with what we came here for did we back away from the havan people and did they give and do we have a plan to look at other places because as we have said many times I for one of the times I've located in July six months ago said why are we not doing
other things we keep talking about we have to look at other sites why are we not looking at other sites thank you you're welcome we're here tonight because uh I think that there's a misunderstanding and I'm going to do my best to clear that up um so I'm just about to speak a little bit to the timeline and I will get to the question of December 6th and everything else so if you give me a little latitude it's coming um with respect to the um the village departments even though we're not talking about that tonight uh
because it had been declared an area in need of Redevelopment the city council did have conversations with the contract purchaser those conversations ended the moment the contract purchaser to my surprise the surprise of everybody on on the the council came to a close session meeting uh and and declared board so they said they were going to proceed directly to the
planning board we released those minutes those plans and we have not heard back from them and it's no longer up to the city council to engage with them because they said they were going to go before the planning board it's inappropriate for me to have a conversation we're going to move on um to uh to just I'm going to go through uh a little bit just to remind everybody of
the just going back uh to um how how we got here so Mr op mentioned that he Manan came to the city uh noted had been working with the with the owner and they proposed a plan so the city began to have uh conversations and uh negotiations um the the the short time
the most direct route here and then if we have questions after we can do that so um in April of 2022 I'm sorry August of of 2022 so this is just a five or six months after they initially came to the city there was enough there was enough information uh and enough forward movement that the city uh the city
council and I designated they have in the conditional redeveloper and basically what that does is that allows us to set up an esir account um so that uh so that when our planner gets involved when our engineer gets involved when Mr Opel is involved that kab naan pays for everything so you know just the point is shouldn't be lost on anybody that to date the city has not really expended anything there may be some minor costs but uh all of the the burden of presenting their plan to us and
review from our professionals was all paid for through caman so in August of 2022 um the city uh uh declared them conditionally developer was a unanimous vote um and uh uh and in that um uh in that resolution of August 18th 2022 was also noted that g
was in public on public record since August of 2022 um I will note that the process slowed down we were having conversations the process slowed down in late 2022 because of the elections so we had two new Council people who were elected in November um it took us a while you know they was to deal with any questions or concerns that they had um and then we
continued the city uh Council continued to have conversations with Kia uh in good faith and I will note that by the time so between the time we we um designated them the conditional developer and the day that the uh the ordinance was introduced in 2024 we had extended that designation five times um the city council had had done
that okay if we wer we come to an impass we would have said no right so that's an important thing to keep in mind this is really a long process I understand that there's uh some unease about the process the intro the ordinance of the Redevelopment Plan was introduced uh in May of 2024 uh unanimously I would add which is also another indication that uh
everybody on the city council felt that there was enough forward movement with this plan to continue uh forward the city held a special meeting on May 30th to address residents concerns and questions um and then uh subsequently in the summer the the ordinance was table as everybody knows um in the summer we continued the city continued to meet with K howan through the summer into the fall uh negotiations
continued uh but but they continued in good faith until we reach a moment where uh city council decided that we were not going to continue moving forward so uh on December 6 I lettering informing that we were not going to bring their status as the conditionality developer I also sent a copy of that letter to judge Miller uh and the court adjudicator Bish so for
those of you who have not heard me talked about this before concurrent with these conversations with kahal I was meeting with the court and fair share housing and the court adjudicator probably about every six to eight weeks over the course of the two years two and a half years cour was very interested in us moving forward with some kind of plan um given that we hav't met all of our third round requirements given up the station five units did not move forward um and we all talked about this and you know the time was felt that this was going to be enough for us to show
continued good faith um the letter went out on December 6th couple of things that probably the public doesn't know and I'll just highlight these um following that letter they have meing and requested a meeting with the city um and uh council president tonight with Bill and a couple of other professionals who was at the meeting bill was you and council
president um at their request we met with them and we listened and we didn't say anything we just listened um uh following that meeting uh the council briefly discussed in post session um that the the the meet of that meeting uh and then on January 28th we finish that discussion um the city's position has not changed let me be clear about that the city's position has not changed since we sent a letter December 6th so what we have here
and I will take questions and I will answer them is a failure to miscommunicate as Lieutenant Brown says um there has been some misunderstanding perhaps people haven't expressed themselves very clearly but the city's position as of now as of December 6th has not changed we have left it conditional Redevelopment conditional redeveloper um St expired and that's where that's where the city is um that's where the city
is uh I think some of the confusion may come from uh the affordable housing advisory committee meeting um that was uh the first one that we had um and during that meeting early in that meeting I said I did not want to speak about the third round um housing obligation and perhaps I could have said it a little bit better um what I was trying to what I was trying to project was that we have a group of volunteers here you have a lot of work and I didn't
I was concerned that who started to talk about this having this conversation that it was going to be difficult for our volunteers to do the work and was going to be uh it was going to been uh there's never been a moment when I have said publicly I stopped talking about cab Naan in the summertime I stopped talking about it publicly I I I'm very confident that nobody in this
room can find any record of public comments that I made I know when it's time to stop talking and I did not talk our conversations were held in clot session and uh I thought it was wise not to talk for a while and I have not spoken publicly about this uh and uh if anybody can find anything to the contrary that would astonish me because I don't believe it exists so I want to be clear about that when we get back to conversation a little bit later on about
you know I'm a liar um you know the point is is that I may have said something in eloquently but there was at no time what I have ever said that the city was not going to meet its obligation the High School site is a mechanism so it's a it's a means to the to fulfill the for everybody um but but that's where that's where we are um so I just
want to talk a couple more things before I before I take question it I'll be next you'll be next okay you'll be next when's next um I think it's important to to noce a couple of things about the summer as well right so um after this was tabled or during this was tabled in July uh we had a resident contact us to let us know that there was a positive PS result and then um we started to see more and uh those we asked residents if they were
going to share that information we took that information send these for into the county and to the state um we know what well the the state has been involved we held a special meeting uh to inform people and answer questions about the skill fund and what the D has promised to do um that's all I can say about P at the moment and we're not going to be able to talk about P tonight uh for for some reasons that made it clear to some people um and if not I'll ask Mr hope to do his best to
not talk about it and talk about it um so um I think that's pretty much uh those are the main points though I just wanted to talk about in terms of the process from the start to where we are today then so so um also I think I want to say is where it was confusing was back in December whenever you sent the letter to say you're not we're not following through with the recond conditional developer or whatever they're called I think I know I did
I people took it and then to hear you be like oh we're still building houses up there it's like he's a liar he just said to all of us that it's canceled and it's not happening because maybe it wasn't clear enough for people to know down at my level they need to understand it that way that's just honestly that's how I took it when I heard that the question okay this this is supposed to be a conversation between the council
and the community but we're trying to get to facts here we're not trying this is I'm trying to give you facts that was my un disconnect which is they thought that all that development was not going to happen thank you yes and I understand your point I think a lot of people thought and that's why and you know please we're the residents of this community I'm not sitting here my
opinion or comment may not be a specific question but it needs to be heard by the council and I don't need snarkiness from the day when I speak I think that's rude thank you other other questions um yeah you know we're going to go to somebody can I just follow I just would like it's a designation as I said a little earlier it's a designation that
the council would vote on so we the council voted that K Manan was a conditional redeveloper and basically that is a tool that allows us to process escro funds so it's not a bill can you just only reason I did that was so heyob would pay for all this stuff as we're looking into it so so we're
sending that we're dealing with that we're pay that City we can't pass that on to the conditional development well there are no additional cost right so once so it's our professionals to charge you know x amount of research or whatever it is to to to an escro account so basically it it
has negotiations with any developer it's it's their project so the city shouldn't have to pay for it so when you have the conditional developer they agree with that they put 15 or $25,000 into an account and my time the planner's time anybody's time that um is used towards you know furthering negotiations on that project it's drawn after that and the
city doesn't have to come out of pocket for that so it's not passed on will consider it but you kind of have to pay for it so that's how that works the conditional design ended in December City wasn't was no longer negotiating with KOB Manan so at that point and the the designation I think we kept extending it for either 90 or 120 days at a time it was expiring I believe the
day the week after expired no expired I think two days before i s two days after I sent the letter and then the council would have had an act at its next meeting and the council wasn't the mayor negotiations means what so we were the negotiations that we were engaged in were right now the Redevelopment plan allows for 139 units they were asking for 200 and the city was trying
to we got to a point in December probably before that where we realized that there's not the support for this project as it's currently conceived so we let K many know that the conditional designation status wasn't being renewed and that there was really 22 South Union
Street okay you sent the letter out to the developer of December 6 with something that okay and that reflected uh the decisions that we sort of I thought mutually came to in our previous meetings that the uh that the project wasn't going to be feasible in you know current form and it had to be tabled for the time being and I guess that's what the
letter developer status so okay well basically that's where I meant right okay now you said you had a meeting where you said nothing and the developers did all the Cy pretty much was that a threat of a lawsuit because they already had previous agreements and they and we were going to take them out of it so now we owe them $10 million or something I can't speak to that well the there was no explicit threat of a lawsuit just knowing what the the law is
it's it's out there I you know I had to be honest it's a possibility um in a case like this but they did not explicitly threaten what they were going to Su the city and the damage that you reference not right right okay monary Michelle Michelle GL who owns the land now is it haban or is it the original owners of the land our as far as we know the the original
owners still own it we um we have not been made aware of the fact that it's change SS hi Beth O'Brien to hcock Street um I think there might be some confusion during the affordable committees recording that I listened to it appeared that there was still an intent to develop on the hill and I thought the affordable affordable
committee was put together to look for alternative locations for the third round I understand that Our obligation in the third round doesn't change but isn't the location still up for negotiation and so is can we renegotiate other sites and if that 139 unit development is still in our plans can another developer walk up and say hey I can do that for you and then
we end up doing this all over again so all I will say um cor turn this over Kelly is that if I was unclear I apologize uh we don't always speak I don't always speak eloquently I I rarely speak eloquently and it's quite possible that you know we never really I I don't know that we ever specifically talked about the affordable housing advisory committee dealing with third round um it's possible I'm G to say as possible I
I don't remember it and what I meant to say and what I believe Julia me right was that the affordable housing advisory committee which talk about a little bit at some point um uh is there to help us identify and advise the city council on oural numbers right so we we know that our numbers will not change the mechanisms may change it's possible
and I'm going to kick it right over here in a second it's possible that just mechanism mechanism so so that so the um the affordable the high school Redevelopment area a plan is a mechanism it's a way for us to to fire number so the number stays the same the city uh and have Kelly explain
this was entered into in May of 2018 and at that time City's obligation with 88 units in our settle in the settlement agreement that was negotiated uh there were a variety of mechanisms to fulfill the 88 units right so number one in there um is the lamber lamberville High School development site and again as we all know it's for 139 total units with the 20% set aside
to the point that this letter in December went out or the confusion yes it's correct that the 200 unit count plan is no longer being discussed um from my understanding Redevelopment plan that the city did adopt consistent with the 2018 settlement agreement that allows for 139 units on that site producing 28 affortable units that
still has to be solved for you solve I think was asking to those is if a developer came today and says I have a contract on this property I want to build $13 units in the Redevelopment plan can I do this and I believe if the plan is consistent with what the Redevelopment plan their the developers plan is consistent with all the uh the outline in the Redevelopment plan the answer is yes that 139 unit plan is in place ask I'm GNA ask one
other question because I think it's important here if the city gets to a place this site from its plan and find a different mechanism to fulfill the 28 units that are required by the settlement agreement
um so how what would what would happen with the property let's say let's say the city was successful the property would revert to previous to Prior zoning that's correct so there was um again my understanding before my time I think representing the city till 2019 so this negotiation and the settlement and the Redevelopment plan was done prior to to to me helping out the city um I understand that the record owner has approval for 67 homes on the lot that's
an as of right so again if you were to resin the Redevelopment plan um of 139 units you he gets what he always had the the zoning that rang with the land um whatever that is uh so you cannot
take with climate change and and then uh flooding studies and and statistics and you know that I mean the impacts are changing you know the world is dynamic it's not static so what can we use other criteria okay maybe a d will get involved maybe they won't I don't really know how well that works but what about the flooding issues what about the traffic issues what about all these other things that impact what we approve and what we don't and how do we protect
ourselves how can you protect us from the negative impacts of any kind of development up there simply um and Bill certainly all let you supplement but simply those criteria would be included in any Redevelopment plan standards that the city would be interested in uh by storm water for slopes for density for traffic all of that is comprised in the Redevelopment plan independent of affordable housing and so are we able to
give updated information and updated criteria um based on the flooding based on the destruction to certain homes based on I mean there's a lot of new information now we agreed to it how many many years ago so now it's I mean there has to be a way to protect us from perils I mean there
has to be so I think you're talking about any development there right not just the plan so you're you you're asking can we prevent all development there because of change of circumstances climate change and that correct about all I don't really know I just know that that those are two different ansers that scope is insane and I don't know I would like to not have any but I realize that's private property so I'm just you guys
put development plan that is in place now is is designed to account for those issues if things change obviously the Redevelopment plan can be amended to and that's and I and I'll I'll also mention that apart from the the proposed Redevelopment plan that was being considered last summer that didn't just account we didn't just cross out 139 and
put 200 units we accounted for an updated storm water management ordinance that the city adopted we we changed um regulations related to steep slopes uh we require we put language in there specifically that um they would be discussed I don't know if we want up final but we we did discuss um requiring them to obtain a parking uh traffic circulation report prior to going to the planning board if they got to that point so certain things were
definitely considered Beyond just the density for that so the Redevelopment plan is generally what what encompasses those change circumstances and and the city I think our professionals did as good a job as we could could have bolstering the regulations that were in there to account for I mean since 2018 a lot has happened in am bill um so you know we we changed we changed our St water ordance made specific reference to that and and made other requirements that would have gone along with you
know okay we're gonna go to Sandy and then Jeff and then uh Sean Ken you mentioned Sandy Hannah possibly that there's something going on where they're going to explore it or no as far well the department said that that they were going to be looking into the posos and starting an investigation
I don't know they don't communicate back to me but I would imagine that they should be communicating back to the city down if they got into that is there anybody spearheading that from so the D can just give you the I haven't talked to it we've had an email from the D in the last week or so the D has already conducted some uh sample testing in Wells on K
Hill as well as the data that they have presently so uh in my first email exchange with I don't remember the name of the gentleman from the ep the EP did commit to doing doing a source investigation but they also he was also very clear that uh he was going to put a timeline on it there's a lot of there's a lot of PE B there's a lot of uh the state has a lot of issues and uh I don't know you know I don't know where we land in kind of the priority of the of that
of that but they have committed to doing a source investigation yes into that property correct well no not that's not that would not be correct um they will do a source investigation don't correct me if I'm wrong but there's I can no one in this room can definitively say where the past is coming from so I will say that there was another recently another example another
house that I heard of that was nowhere near anything way out in the woods and it tested it's well tested positive so we don't we don't know enough about kind of how the water runs underground and what the source so I think that I just think that it is you know the information that they're going to be collect that they're going to collect
does lend itself towards you know some of the discussion of what's Happening Here Right I mean only Bears you know so it's kind of like just saying and when it comes to the source if you give it a grade it's in complete you know and and so that is part of the process and that's certainly you know a problem it's problematic it is problematic and I don't what what I don't want to do tonight is get into kind of the what is but at some point it's likely that some
some entity is going to be held some somehow responsible for this right it's not possible for us to say who that might be or to what extent um please go ahead and ask your question yeah this is a question i' asked much at every council meeting will last four or five months so will the council remove the Hill from the town's affordable housing plan petition the judge because of all the problems with the site from
water to contamination so that's one which I've asked at least a dozen times second question is will you then direct a planner to develop alternative sites for those 29 units from round three and whatever we need to do on thanks I'll take the second question first because it's easier to answer um we will be looking at every available site so um when portable housing committee meets on Monday I meant to give you guys an up I shouldn't call you guys I meant to give
you an update about the committee's work uh today uh Cindy sent out a number of uh documents and resources I will be sending um out a letter to councilman Li will be presiding over the meeting I have a college tour up in New England my son so I will not be there um and uh we we had a meeting with our planner um a couple weeks ago we've included that document uh The Memo from that from that meeting um which also generated a spreadsheet which effectively looks at almost every property in the city um and
the affordable housing advisory committee will start to look at those properties and begin to make recommendations and have conversations about those properties we have to meet the number and we've got to find where where we're going to do it right so but that's that's what I can say about that uh I'll just speak very generally about the first question I don't think um and I'll let Mr opal and any other council member speak to this uh I I don't think
that we are currently in a position to consider that given the given the possible ramifications of conversation with the court so uh that's all I want to say on it and and Bill Kell if you want to flesh if you can flesh that out for me or for us and if the council members once something the council can unilaterally considered it's it's part of the 2018 settlement and we would need
consent from parare housing center and we would need courts the Court's approval in order to reopen that settlement agreement and and and then try to do that so it's not just the council can propose the ordinance next meeting dialog I would just add Jeff I think you know those are two really good questions I think we need to do the second one first we got to come up with a plan and then when we have a plan we go to the
court because the Court's not going to let us do anything until we have a plan and you know we've been talking about that for a while we need to have a plan and so that's the best that's the most important thing the we gotta find another site I think the question really is too in terms of like the confusion confusion confuses me is is I think folks want to know well what what are we going to do next now that we we s this letter in December because logically you
think well gee then the city right goes back to the court and says oh we this site and and and I know there's a focus on the plan of how replace it but I think we also have the du jence to talk to the judge about the problems on on the site that were there that are there that we uncovered after you know with all the discussions that we had in the past year when we first designated it was one thing we've learned certainly a lot nobody ever knew
that they had all this posos in their well nobody knew that you that this high school was used for anything other than a spooky building after it closed but it turns out that you know somebody was manufacturing something that maybe there's a problem from maybe there's not but to kind of that you have that discussion so then the court recognized gives some opines on that or something and then you move into okay this is what we're going to do for the to replace
those unit judge where you know this is good fith we really want to do this you know something like that is that the process like how do we deal with the court because it is kind of a a mystery do we have a a case management conference or do we you know does the judge call it it would be interesting I think for everyone to understand how the court you know behaves and court process we know about government and people vote Yes or No but it's interesting to
everyone my point was because you don't want to Blindside pay a share or judge I've been through those things well that that is kind of my question Karen based on what you're saying it sounds like the judge is not aware of um the ch circumstances in that there also uh are is this new storm water ordinance or ordinance and New Jersey law that prohibits
groundwater recharge meaning that you really they have to really figure out where they're going to put that water right so is the judge not aware of this so sit down happy Kelly and I have been in all the call councilman live for whom I thanks very much has started to participate in these calls as well uh we have we have told the judge about uh p in the neighborhood um we have shared concerns about the St water um and special Master too with the
special yes the court of judicator the special master so all of these conversations have been discussed and I would also say that um you know throughout the conversations that the subject of the landfill has come up in a general way with the court the court that judge Miller knows Lambertville very well he knows the history of lamberville he's very familiar with the city he's familiar with our culture yes you know he's got a lot of
information uh and we've not kept anything from him we we' told him every every one of their concerns so Beth and then we're gonna go to I'm sorry Dave we'll go Dave Beth Dave and then um all students and and then the lady in the back who I can't quite see so I want to know if there is a specific timeline that we need to meet for third round and fourth round I understand fourth
rounds obligations unit is considered our third round fulfilling our third round obligation if we try to find alternate sites for third round do we have a date that it has to be provided by can I just add one thing too before Kelly answers and that's we're already out of compliance so we already need to do this because we took the police station we said we're not going to do it here um
and so we're already out of compliance so the clock has been ticking for a while yeah I mean is it fair to say not sure it's to say that we're on the 2025 but in our most recent settlement agreement there were certain timelines in it that required us to take action on the police site right we didn't do any
of that that puts us in uh that makes us non-compliant what you're talking about is switching sites yeah okay yeah presenting new sit a whole new thing that that Avenue hasn't even open you know we've that discussion's never been had uh again you have to NE you have to negotiate with fair share first before you do anything uh with court approval and again what you need
uh offer one other thing too you know if you go to fair share think about this if we haven't been complying and they look and they say hey you guys haven't been complying you never did the police station do you think they're going to work with us with pulling off off the the hill you know we've got to show that we've got a plan that's going to work and so that really is what this comes down the starting point is a plan that they're going to agree with that they're going to say hey we really we do want to
comply with fair share because fair share is the just the side late there are the folks that sued us that brought us into court on affordable housing obligation so they're the folks that filed the papers so that is why when we talk about it and we're not talking about other people or other sites they're the litigant so they're the one who sits in court and they they have to and their
opinion matters and you know just in terms of timing so I've said I've related the story before I met with the judge and fair share and Kelly I think it was four days after I was sworn in and that was only two or three weeks after the police site was uh the Redevelopment plan was Ted I think right was Ted so you know the very first conversation uh you know question from the court Sher was what are you going to do about these my police station units um and uh we were out of compliance and
it became uh it was not not the way a new guy wants to start uh mayorip but uh but we we got through the conversation and it was shortly thereafter that he approached us in I think it was either March or late February um and you know fair share and the judge were cautious and uh and that's why I had to go and have multiple meetings with them on a regular basis they wanted to see you know if there was some possibility that the city could move
forward and pick up 28 or 40 even which is what K originally um uh that was part of the original plan 40 units the court was very interested in the 40 units and if you stop talking about the five units because uh you know this was this was moving forward and and and it did move forward and it did move forward in good faith all along and so um I think that that's an important factor and I don't know what's going to happen with the court but I'd like to think that we've
had a good strong open relationship with the judge and the court adjudicator and and I trust that judge M knows the city well and uh that we'll we'll hear what we hear next time we hear something I'm going to go to dat bird and then it's called this is a a simple Dave bird 255 Brunswick Avenue uh this is a I hope a simple question for the City attorney all right recognizing everybody has a right to sue everybody all right when the mayor sent the letter in on December
6th of 2024 did that completely end the relationship between KOB and the city the contractual relationship we had by appointing them as condition developer and the funding agreement and ended the contractual relationship done but as the may they reached out they wanted to talk further about why we sent the letter said he obviously agreed but there's no contractual Rel and that's that's what are over the over the dam you know whether we're done we're done all right
and so we're done uh the question on the 139 all right is is there a are the permits been issued all right to a developer uh for the 139 or would uh if that was brought back up by a developer we go through the whole process again and if we went through it again all of the concerns that were raised on during the uh 200 number if you will would have
to be addressed again you mentioned permits I missed that part just can you just clarify yeah there no no building no we're not even not yet not even close to that point if somebody approach the city with 139 um I I think the existing Redevelopment plan I have to pull it up sorry I don't know the out my head but I think the plan requires that somebody has that anybody the city entertains has some sort of site control so that's a
complicating issue because right now there's an owner and there's a contract purchaser anyone else who just came in under the blue they don't have any unless something changes they don't have control as of right now those are the only two we so the 139 is a relatively minor uh potential at this point it's an existing cont contractual you're GNA have that a relationship with the owner to be able
to move ahead one way or another so it's kind of like Nothing Stops either those two entities the current owner the contract purchaser for coming up with a plan for the 139 as we unless I'm sorry we've got an order here right before I take Paul's right before we take Paul's question I also just want to highlight one other thing uh you know over the course of these two and a half years there was a loud conversation about the village departments and Redevelopment there there was a lot of conversation with the contract purchaser
there was a lot of conversation with the court um we were acting in good faith with the I don't think was reason unreasonable to for anyone on the day to think that something wasn't going to happen right and unfortunately I I'm not going to I shouldn't say unfortunately it didn't happen and there there we are but the the same time we were working with PAB M and we were also working with the with the we we we never got to the
status of TR conditional redeveloper with that entity but we were having a lot of forthite conversations about the kind of property that about about the kind of development that the city wanted to see there so there was a lot going on and now Paul what's your question reconfirm that we are in U we're not in a what was said with the comp compliant
right now and it's important to understand this it's because of the five units it's not because of the ones up on conet Hill uh first thing we need to do is get in compliance and there's be a lot more uh acceptance of trying to potentially change the other units okay but we'd also have to come up with a plan for that to present a reasonable plan at that time I would assume yes and to that I would say that
you know when when when we started to at some point during the early fall uh and I believe this was raised the question was raised in a couple of different meetings about what are we doing elsewhere um that's when I began to explore the possibility that we could put Habitat for Humanity houses up at H park right so it took me a couple of months to do some behind the scenes asking of the D and you know different entities and getting Engineers up there
um just to see whether it was viable so that we can continue to have good faith with the court right that and and whether or not whether and Kelly can respond to this we haven't gone to the I mean I don't I don't remember have we talked to the court about habitat we no so we haven't even talked to the court about habitat it's possible I we're definitely going to talk to them about it and I don't know what what that we did discuss option very preliminary but I I
want to I you know I want to do everything that we can to stay in good stead with the court and I agree and so in my tell me if I'm wrong I see we have some shortterm needs some really short-term needs coming up some of them are part three and some are part four and then we have a more medium-term need completing out part three okay
um oh and what happens if we don't do this if we don't get in good if we don't get back into what compliance compliance thank you yeah with the CL what then could happen to us you should I don't know I'm not sure everybody understands what could happen that's what I'm why I'm asking that again that's a good question so our immunity from Builders
remedy lawsuits would be stripped which means what's a builder remedy lawsuit so a developer um again rough numbers we have a whole in rough numbers we have a whole in the third round of 55 units we just agreed to the fourth round number of 39 someone can come in and say tomorrow I can build uh X here at this density at and um because you are uh out
of compliance in round three and you don't have a plan in round four we lose the ability of uh to control our zoning and um things that you would have ADD things that you also would address in Redevelopment plans like uh density for example the Builder's remedy comes and says I can do it the court is inclined to look at someone that says I can do it and rather than look at the city and says you have 15 years to try what have
you done um so that is the issue is is the risk of losing immunity yes I just wanted to ask as of 2018 you had a plan and agreement is that agreement still in place with whom what we had in 2018 was the initial uh settlement agreement with fair share housing center and the way that the
Supreme agreement with this party you go back to court and they do two things in the first instance they decide whether it's fair fair is it good enough does it does it meet your obligation are the sites suitable developable Etc then you go back uh 180 days thereafter and and show them the plan the judge then says your compliance so you get two orders and
then you have your immunity for that entire period of time okay in 2018 there was an amendment that took us to the 2020 plan because some of the overlays at the time were not uh favorable we see favorable we were not approving uh Clin for example that was a requirement to put an overlay that was uh council at the
time when we made those swaps the swap was essentially for the police site that I went to court in 2023 with another amended plan we took it to the J we took it to fair share housing center we said they said okay swap swap no Clon and a few others ymac and Fishers Mark found familiar forgive me a couple overlays we didn't do so we
swapped it for the the police site we went to the judge and we got through the fairness hearing at the fairness hearing the court found the developer was suitable appropriate and the obligation of course the number stay the same that's always important there we have not gone back to get our final stamp that says you have immunity through July 1 of 25 because we are not complying that second piece is the compliance order we can't go back and ask for it
because we can't say here's all the ordinances theyve city council adopted them exhibit ABC we done we did everything so that's yeah we're in between right now just real quick is the police department off the books completely it's not off the books at all okay so we're not comp wait we're not in compliance but if we work on that first like it's easy J but then we we
are remember we are then spending money to relocate the police department so okay there's a you know there's a little C you know on on all this but what's really interesting though is it just the great history that you talked about to the the courts uh the court has worked with us a great deal and it's not the first time that we've swapped sites I mean we took an overlay all the Poli property and bought it and
turned it into open space which went along with but again the TR there is a trust factor in that that you know that you know perhaps a cynical B we have been working with the court in good faith we have a good relationship with the court that I would hope would continue especially understanding now we're not removing uh
overlay property to make a park we have some significant concerns with the site that will you know that where we want to talk about if you follow than no questions no yes please and Michelle I have a question and I know and I don't know and I understand like developers have to be incentivized right in order they to do 20% set aside or 20% affordable
health kind of relates to um Village Apartments and I know that you explained there was something brewing and it kind of walked away but there aren't there developers that just do affordable hous like RPM development Corp I know just enough to make mistakes in what I'm saying so like wouldn't it be like more effective to try to work with a developer that specializes in affordable housing that's not worried about the set ofde so instead of developing 100 you
know units and getting 20 affordable you work with somebody like RPM that would just do all of work so the the first I'm going to say problem with that is that the property is owned privately and uh and the second concern or the second challenge with the Village Apartment site is that 85% of it is in the 100 flood plane which makes construction much more expensive to to uh to meet all the the new requirements
uh for building in blood planes right so already we have two strikes against us for that site in terms of the the the economic incentive to to build on it so it's top there are first develop I'm sure that we could all talk about companies that just do 100% development um I I guess the key is too there's two things about look there are some a of right units that could go on the 95 North Main Street Village Apartments you
get a lower set aside I mean the incentive for these developers is the four you know is the 20% set aside that's what pays for so when you have developers that come in that do a portion that's 100% or like a Presbyterian Homes but work with the community there's also a great deal of subsidies and tax credits and things that you have to you create a deal and so if if look if it was affordable or easy for for municipalities to be able to build their whole obligation
themselves people would be doing it and that's part of the discussion even at the state level is that we we where we have this new round four but um we don't have like a a bond issue that can go to to help to try to pay for some of these things to to do some of these things so it there are they're great projects you know I I I've worked on some of them for vets and things like that but they're they are smaller scale and and and you know they do take a lot of time and and
we have that um incentive in that fisher with to work with Fisher on things up at at you know at the caution property so it but just to say that like you can't you know for a a lot of units it's a lot of money but councilwoman I mean it couldn't is there any way the city can act as a Max maker for lack of better word on trying to like use connections or whatever or
reaching out or kind of getting a relationship potentially with the owner with the owner if somebody wants to donate property it takes a lot of the cost off it a project right then and there I mean we would certainly be willing to be a a a Matchmaker or facilitate something but again we're or I think if they're maybe for smaller projects definely I think it's going to be harder to do for a big project
and it can happen because you're going to donate it and we don't know any the land that would be able to you know that we could use for a portable house and the other thing too with 100% affordable sometimes you know that is not as preferred because of the issue where it's just everyone knows it's 100% affordable like the nice thing about some portable housing is it's sort of mixed in so we had a developer in our community right up that hill at Heritage Village Community investment strategies that's
their specialty you know is doing doing 100% affordable but a lot of the times too they do have the seniors unit so then and then we get into only so we need the there are a lot of people and we would you know like definitely you know you know that's why but that's why initially the focus is on smaller ones funds are available we on the land yeah so um we do have an ordinance
about Abandoned prop properties and uh that allows the city to um basically take over land that is a nuisance that's been abandoned um and uh by eminent domain which I don't know if has anybody considered that as a possibility for you know 100% affordable housing or or to at least fulfill our
third and fourth I think is in the PT record 18 million dollar that the city would have to bond and come up with so that's yes you could do that but again that cost a lot of yeah as a policy uh you know it's a
policy discussion this Council has not had uh I would not uh Advocate that taken by condemnation The Village Apartment site for example uh paying the market value for that and then you know it's not cost and in the city and setting for Value the property it's just more you lock it down and you say you got it yeah and I mean I don't know alternatively if they've Bing for like
five years what exactly is the property value well if if this developer is not interested in doing any I mean if this property owner isn't interested in doing anything I mean like last I checked they were not up to date on their taxes um you know I know a lot of places Mari Wilson acquired a lot of his land because it went to auction because he you know petitioned to have it you know City
basic potential possibility as well um to to get somebody who is maybe I'm not ay so I don't want to say the mayor can this as well we we undertook some tax sale foreclosures recently and the law changed in the middle so we filed the complaint and the law changed uh after United States Supreme Court decision and then uh State Health Court decision and it put all
these different requirements in long story short municipalities used to be able to they foreclosed on a tax on a property that was Del on on its taxes the all it had to do has filed the final Judgment of foreclosure and owned the property now the property has to go to if you get that final judgment it has to go to Sheriff sale because the this Supreme Court decision requires the property own get any Equity out so even if you know if somebody owned the property for they owed 10,000 in taxes and the property is sold at Sheriff sale
for $100,000 that person gets $90,000 they lose the house but they get the $90,000 e me that never used to be the case until the Supreme Court decision so these properties the city would have to bid on it at the sheriff sale and again while it may not rise to the level of fair market value it's still going to be expensive proposition on a buildable lot in lamberville I I could imagine someone who can build a house on there that they could sell for500 $600,000 they'd be willing to spend
$200,000 to buy the land of Sheriff sale and then build the the properties that we're working on now are not buildable they're just you couldn't build anything on them so they're not candidates for report housing but if something come up in the future you're we're still looking at spending probably close to six figures for a buildable lill um so it's it's a really and that goes along with the domain argument it's not like the city can just take it for free it's our market value foral
remember just be a single family home is expensive never mind something you put ton of units on so those are the considerations that you know we have to go through and it us expensive are there any other questions so so just to clarify then I know we are non-compliant and to commited compliance do we need to work down the police
station we need to work on five units which in all likelihood would then mostly involved with police station credits built in so that's why I don't want to say five but the important thing is we need to come up with a small project that's going to meet that obligation get us back in compliance and we are working on it and we're working on it okay in the meantime can we not
kind of have a double attacked prong two prongs and with the CL Hill still kind of looming out there it sounds like as we were saying it can just back well maybe not in the near future but is there a way we can amend work on amending the Redevelopment plan as it stands for conet Hill given all the information we have about it I know that it's zoned that and so that the owner private owner
right and it's zoned for X number of or a certain type of building can we then reduce the scope of what the Redevelopment plan provides for so that it's it's it's in line with what it's already zoned for at this point in time as opposed to 139 plus plus whatever the amount yeah um that goes back to the I think what we discussed previously that
that wouldn't be something the council can do unilaterally because the existing plan is part of the settlement agreement we would have to go to court we would have to get fair share housing centers consent and practically speaking we probably couldn't go empty handed we would have to go with with a new plan account for that in order for and fair sure to consider one things you said too I just want to make sure said like there are multiple things that we're trying to do to try to accomplish this and you can't just say hey we're going to do this and then wait and then pick up I mean we've
got multiple things we're trying to do because we do have a time frame that we need to work with in June for the fourth round and we're already out of compliance so we do not have the luxury of time and just sitting back and saying we're just going on this one track also uh would explain that you know now that we have these deadlines for the fourth round you know the committee and we've identified basically every place in town where something could be built um you know there's a little bit of an opportunity here to dovetail uh and to work on the bigger
number not just you know one or the other right I mean question timing does give us the opportunity to look at the city completely has a design and has the funding for four units would the city be
interested in that it's on it's it's been it's been passed around all right somebody an organization in this city owns the property is got it is a plan already in place throughout the throughout the state of New Jersey and and the United States all right development and the plan and the money and the funding okay
for four units that's four out of five that would be getting in the right direction if there's interest somebody can talk to me any final questions uh I'll note that now but I I just want you to keep that in mind so real quick um two two pieces so because we moved where the previous mayor moved the five units from
B and farm to the police station that nobody wanted to sell this kind of triggered this whole mess that part of the mess and now we may go back and put it back up close farm so it's sort of an interesting irony but point I wanted to kind of make is so what's our a real deadline for round three because my concern is that we may bump up against it again I think when you
say that we have in 2023 with fair share housing center that is half a approved again we have a fairness uh determination but we're not we don't have a compliance order when that needs to be uh issued that's unknown right that the period is till July 1 2025 but um again the police site had
very specific uh deadlines in it because to the ironic point you make there sure wasn't also all too happy about to switch I understand so it was 6 months 10 months thereafter rfps naming redevelopers Etc all of those deadlines have blown by and then so what is it for for the for the 28 minut a deadline on that
no no um that there is no non-compliant issues so 28 units 22 credits 50 5050 total uh providing that we keep the current plan and we don't move it I'm saying correct what's we only have a small what's the window we have to try to move it is my point I'm I'm thinking because in the
fourth round the new law requires look backs and midpoint reviews to occur similarly like we've done from the beginning of the malal doctrine and and we just haven't um done so many fiveyear look backs because we haven't gotten a compliance order yet but we update our annual monitoring my point being is in the new law if there are sites that aren't being redeveloped that you
designate Redevelopment for they require a review um so five years be clear the wall just came in no I read folks aren't this isn't the issue that we're working but I I would say I think because the third round is still in limbo perhaps um it's reasonable to assume that any judge
that's looking at us in the fourth round may look back and see our prior mechanism that's why I raised the question my concern is that coming into the fourth round someone then challenge well you haven't done anything on the third round we can now meet your third round so give it to us and that's my concern how this a if they have a viable forth round that is flourishing and and the mechanisms are being met these these four units and Market rates are
affordable an accessory apartment all of those things are working and the look back did go into the third round I think we're in a better position showing how app or an a solid fourth round uh is versus reopening something in the third round property owner developer my yeah you have that too that does that's my point under the fourth you can challenge yes yes answer my question okay any
final questions comments thank you for opening this up to comment back and forth like this um so I'm ask for motion to close the public comment period I still have a few remarks before I ask for a motion to adjourn favor you say I I I thank you I
just talk a little bit about what it is to be the mayor and what it is to communicate and um this has been a difficult week for me um I will first start off by saying that I never lied in this job I don't need this job I don't need to lie to anybody um and that is hurtful on a personal level and I think it does the community a disservice in terms of how we
communicate I work very hard to communicate well and thoroughly and often this community and I may not as I said earlier always be eloquent but I Earnest and I am and the thing that is very hard for me as mayor is to see something like this and something like Mr Ellis's letter which refers to me as a liar so I'm comfortable with who I am I will not resign I would not
consider resigning ever I do a good job and I work well with this Council and I respect every person in this room I have a blast with the city employees we have a good time we work hard I will never consider resigning and uh if there's a move of put go ahead I would might do it every turn I love Public Service too much to even consider it I will say however though that this kind of communication is deeply troubling to me so when I was sworn in when I decided to
run for mayor one thing I thought I could do pretty well was calm this town down right it was full of the triol and and uh there was a lot of problems there was a lot of conversation people were not respectful it was loud and I thought I could do that and I think I've done a pretty good job of it put modesty aside and I think it's time for us to talk a little bit about the community again so
it's not just how I communicate it's what's responsible communication on behalf of residents I will meet with anyone at any time and I disagree I think that sometimes if people would call me I had two email I had an email this week from somebody who was irate and I had a lady conversation with the lady and I think I got more out of the conversation with the lady than I did out of spending 45 minutes writing an email trying to
explain something to people that uh that should be that that is born out of these kinds of things I'm responsible my communication you're responsible for your communication and for how this community moves a couple of other things when we talk about when we come to these meetings and we talk about Community or when we write to the mayor and say the community does not want this I would appreciate you telling me
what community you're talking about because this is a community of 4,000 Souls right if you want to give me names that's fine but please speak for yourself let your neighbors speak for themselves just because there's a general sense here among you know a certain number of people that I the number of which I could not identify that this is problematic fine come do we did tonight I will always make time to have a conversation and I will always
tell you the truth I'm going to say that I really don't like these things they're upsetting to me I had one of the hardest Summers I've ever had in my life life this year answering emails about this project and a lot of them were emails that were the result of this kind of communication on behalf of members of this community and I'm going to give a shout out here to Mr Jeff tile who on Facebook is free and easy with stating what he what he purports to be my uh my
ideas my perspective and my point of view pin cushion for social media and I'm going to start to voice My Views and I'm going to start to spar with you in these meetings if you continue to behave back uh impolite and I think that uh
it's not helpful it's just not helpful all of these things are not helpful I I I will work 60 hours a week for the next three years but I'll tell you what public service is important but not you know at some point there's a Tipping Point with myself with with my selfcare and my and how I how I how I am so I would like the community really no we're not have public comments done I
would like the community really reflect on these uh values and how I think we should communicate with kindness with Clarity we can Clarity by simply asking a question so the questions were not asked I was not given an opportunity to reflect or say I think I may have misspoken or my intent was this or whatever and unfortunately because a couple of people have have some idea that that they're willing to perpetrate uh I I'm I I I have to answer
emails that I shouldn't have to answer and charges are specifically lobed at my at my Integrity so I I don't want it and I'm not going to have it anymore you want to have a conversation have a conversation in the public form look to the public record do not do not do not uh do not say what you think is going to happen or what you think I said quote me come and see me uh I'm done with this
it's too hard for me as a person um to to to have this kind of communication happen in our community it is and as jally can ATT test uh I lost my pool this week I'm not a person who loses his pool very often um but uh I want more respect because I think I've earned it and I think that as a I think that as a community as 4,000 people we should be uh we should be kind to each other and respectful and so on that note I'm going
to ask for a motion to aour close well yeah I'm sorry we have to go to close session so motion to go in a close session please you read the thing have candidates no we're not there's no no I mentioned that at the beginning of the meeting we have matters related to attorney client privilege pursu it
to njsa 10
e
e e