Very pleased. The Little Falls Township Planning Board meeting of Thursday, June 5th, 2025 is called to order. Please take notice that adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with NJSA104-8 and
NJSA104-10 as follows. Notice that the meeting was promptly posted on the bulletin board at the municipal building located at 225 Main Street, Little Falls, New Jersey on January 9th, 2025. Copy of the notice was sent via email to the North Jersey Heralded News on same
date. Additionally, a copy of the notice was filed in the office of the township club. Please note that this meeting is being taped. Therefore, we ask that you speak loud and clear into the microphones. Thank you. Please call the role. Mr. Barry here.
Mr. Karaj here. Mr. Luke Damiano here. Mr. Gataldo here. Mr. Sber here. Mr. Potch here. Mayor Damiano here. Councilman Scoba here. Dr. Abdi present. Mr. Waj.
Mr. Dolan here. Mr. Remma here. Mr. Brickladoro here. Mr. Coplars here. Mr. Barry. Mr. Kilpatrick here. Do we have any comments from the council? Chairman, no one came before
the governing body at our last council meeting. Thank you very much. May I have a motion for the approval of the very quick meeting of May 1st, 2025. Make a motion. Second. Mr. Barry, yes. Mr. Kas, yes. Miss
Gataldo, yes. Mr. Sber, yes. Dr. Abdi, yes. Miss Arman, yes. Mr. Kilpatrick, yes. Minutes are approved. There are no resolutions to memorialize. Does anybody see Mr. Veter?
H, you want me to go? Please. While we're waiting, I do have an announcement. Uh there will not be a meeting of the planning board on July 3rd, 2025 as it is the day before Fourth of July holiday.
Welcome. Hello. Welcome. Hi everyone. Good evening. Entering my appearance for the record on behalf of Zen Real Estate LLC, John Veter 3 University Plaza, Sweet 207, Hackinack, New Jersey. I regret to inform you we're
going to make this an early night because we've been having some discussions with the uh with the professionals with regard to an issue pertaining to access to the site. So, Mr. Chairman, if you allow me a little bit of time just to explain that and we're going to respectfully request an adjournment to come back um after having
the ability to potentially um look at some access issues from this site. So let me just give a little bit of uh because we are on the record um and M Mr. Wrigleyorf would confirm because there were some questions from members of the public with respect to notice that we have adequately notice we
presented you certified mail slips. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vetery did provide me with proof of notice of the application. I did review it and it does conform to all the requirements of the municipal law so that the board does have jurisdiction to proceed with this
hearing. Thank you. And I understand from members of the public that sometimes these letters either don't get delivered, we have no control over it. We did actually send them a little bit early so that everyone could get notice and it was put in the newspaper um as well which is now online also. So just
to give a little summary. So this is a site. It was uh vacant land for many years. Uh it was built in 1964 1965 I believe by uh Aetta uh paper tube company. Some of you remember the a
betet a sign maybe not. Um and at that time this property was 75 Harrison. It had an access from Harrison and it wasn't until later that there is a negotiation of an easement to go through u through sindle through the property
that's at 53 synindle and we can show this next time on the map. So the there's an there's an easement there are two private parties. This property always had access from 75 Harrison and that access was then verified and
acknowledged in 2005 when this board approved an addition to the building. So there was a 16,500 foot addition that was approved by this board back in 2005. Uh Mr. Chairman, you were the only member of the board that was still here uh that voted on that. It was a
unanimous vote and it allowed for a loading zone on the Harrison Avenue side and the addition wrapped the building. It um it acknowledged the only variance that we were seeking this evening which is to allow a buffer between the residential neighborhood and this lot in
terms of parking. And so on the Harrison side, it's fine. It's more than 40 ft. It's the area by the field. Even though the field is used uh as a as a field, a municipal purpose, it is actually in the R1B zone. So, it necessitated that. But when when it was built, the parking was
there and then that was verified and acknowledged back in the 2005 approvals. And I believe that those resolutions were submitted along with our application. Okay. Now, fast forward to 2024. applicant came before this board with a plan and that plan called for um
something that's very high in demand which was a 40 foot ceiling. Anyone that knows the warehousing business that's something that's very um very important for a warehouse building to have that ceiling height at 20 at 40 feet whereas only 30 feet is uh allowable in the
zone. That application was denied. It was a Dix variance. I I didn't handle that application. I believe it was bifurcated to do the D variance first and then they were going to proceed with the uh preliminary and final site plan. Never got that far because the D6 um the
six variance was denied. So now fast forward to 2025 and what we're doing tonight. So, the application tonight was essentially just for a preliminary and final site plan approval. Um, going back
to the 2005 approvals, but shrinking it and moving the loading, keeping the loading zone where they are away from the residential neighborhood. The '05 approval had it on that side. During the discussions at the last meeting, it looks like from the minute there was
some discussion about access and and I completely appreciate from the perspective of the neighbors that that access is an issue. assets on on Harrison Avenue is an issue and and I acknowledge and respect that and and I also acknowledge that people on the
other side because I've heard from them as well, people on Synindle Avenue, people on FES believe that it is there's a fair sharing by allowing the access from both. So where are we right now? We have uh we have a dispute frankly with
the neighbor that owns 53 Cindle. That dispute has to do with this very easement because that the owner of that building is saying it was never intended that a 100% of the traffic go through my property. He owns that property. This applicant does not own that property.
It's subject to an easement. It's unclear whether it would survive litigation to say that 100% of the traffic should now go through his property. That's 100% of, you know, um, use, snow plowing use, trucks going
through there. It's 100% going through Synindle Avenue. They to further complicate things, they have loading zones in their building. So when their 53 foot trailers pull up to their building, it's a right that they have. They you can't get in. So that causes someone trying to come in from Synindle
Avenue having to wait and idle in the parking area and not being able to get through. So it it you know we we've had some discussions with the professionals. We're going to see if we can and this is the reason we're requesting this adjournment. Um we're going to see if we
can negotiate with this property owner has they have their legal rights. This property owner has um his legal rights. But we're going to make an attempt um and I appreciate everything from Mr. Copelars and the planner, Mr. Wrigliadoro. And I'm going to share and
I don't know if I've shared these um easement agreements um with you. I'll do that so that you can see you can see them. They're um you can't sleep tonight. Members of the board, I will definitely share them with you as well. They're a little arcane going back to
the 60s, but um we're going to have to see. So, we'll make an attempt to see if there's something that we can do, but we have to understand that there are property owners here that have rights. And and it may be that we, the township, or even if the applicant wanted to
doesn't have the right, the mandate to an owner of a private building to say, "We're going to use Synindle, your property, albeit there's an easement that goes through it, but we're going to use that 100% of the time, and we're going to close off 75,000." That's the
So that's the crux of of what we're going to attempt to do. You know, from a from a legal perspective, the only it's essentially a preliminary and final site plan application we're asking for there. The only variance is a request for a
variance that under the code in Little Falls under section 28099, there's a code that says you have to have a a 40 foot buffer from the residential neighbor. And this property never had that. So, as you know, like where the field is, where the new fencing is, where the turf field was put
in, the parking is maybe, I think, 11 ft from that area, but that's a pre-existing condition. And and it was also acknowledged and affirmed in the 2005 approval. So, there's some debate as to whether there's even a legal requirement to ask this board for that again. But to air on the side of
conservatism, we asked for it. So, uh that's a summary of what we're trying to do. We're going to be as transparent as possible with everyone. That's what we're That's what we're attempting to do. I'm not sure we'll be able to accomplish it to be honest with you, but uh we'll make an attempt and we'll
report back to the board. We'll share everything with you. Um I thought perhaps this evening we might be met by the attorney and the owner of 53 Synindle. I don't see them here this evening, but um so stay tuned and u I'm here and our professionals are here if
anyone has any preliminary questions and then we will um we'll report back. Uh just just one item. I'm not sure if you were in the room. We have cancelled the meeting of July 3rd. I kind of figured it's much having been here for a few years.
Okay. So then we'll uh we'll have more than enough time to take a look at this and uh report back at the August meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, members of the board. Chairman, you want to carry this further notice to the public?
I don't think we have an option. Yes. So just remembers. So the August 3rd I believe is August 7th. I don't know. Let me just double check. Val says it's August 7th. I trust that Valerie says it's August 7. It's August 7th.
So any member of the public that was here tonight, we're going to carry this matter to board's hearing date on August 7th. There'll be no further notice to the public. So, you should come back to this room on August 7 at 7 o'clock if
you want to hear the continuation of this application. Uh, Mr. Veter, you want to get word to the other owners? Sure. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Sorry for the short night. I
had something else to do. Apology accepted. If anyone doesn't want to say, you can feel free to leave. We're moving on to different business. No, what you are allowed to do is to question the applications professionals
after they make their presentations. There have been no presentations. So no, sorry. Mr. Barry, do you need a moment? Are you good? I'm good. But as long as the crowd's good. You seem to be enjoying
your shot. No. Take the entertainment where we can get it. Our next application is a public hearing. Township of Little Falls fourth round housing element and fair share plan prepared by John Barry
AICP PP of Higher Cruel and Associates public hearing and adoption of the housing element and fair share plan. And I can only tell you that a lot of work has gone into this over a long time. Mr.
Barry, thank you. Um, can you address this one? Yes. Yes. You swear from the testimony that you're about to before this board is going to be the truth, the whole truth. In other words, I do. Um, obviously we know who you are, but just for the record, confirm that you're the board planner
and what your credentials were. Uh John Barry uh professional planner licensed in New Jersey for a little over a decade and uh worked for the firm hire grow associates and the board's planner and township's planner. So um board members I'm going to I'm going to do the quick version. If we
have questions we can blow it out as much as we need to but we'll start we'll start small and see where we end up. The document that's been on file for the last uh 10 or 11 days is the the township's fourth round housing element and fair share plan. It is a component
of the township master plan. So, it's adopted by the planning board. And basically, we have uh state law going back, you know, over 50 years at this point and most recently amended in 2024 that outlines this process where every town in the state has an obligation to
plan for its fair share of affordable housing. Um we have a number of affordable housing units for the fourth round that was established through and initially a number was provided by the department of community affairs. We went through and reviewed that number and
ended up reducing it by about 111. It went from 285 down to 174. The township governing body adopted a resolution back in January fixing that number of 174. there was a challenge to that number by
a interested party. Um ultimately we went through a process with uh with the program that's designed to mediate or adjudicate those those challenges and the number that we established of 174 was upheld. So that's the that's the the township's obligation for the fourth
round. The township as everyone well knows has gone through a planning process with affordable housing previously. The third round plan was very robust and put a number of different mechanisms in place to address the township's obligations at that time.
All of that remains and is a solid foundation for where we are today. In looking at the 174 number, obviously there's very little developable land left in the township, especially considering the changes to the flood hazard regulations that have come about.
We're familiar with that with um the application on Main Street that um was approved and then was ultimately unable to to get its permitting from D to construct residential. So the number of areas in in the town where residential development can be built has shrunk over, you know, especially since the the
third round plan with the changes to those regulations. So we did a vacant land assessment which is part of the the process for planning for affordable housing. We identified basically one area in town, one parcel that has changed circumstances from the third
round. Obviously, there's other things that have happened. Things have been built, torn down, rebuilt, but um most notably at the corner of Main Street and Stevens there, there was a gas station uh for many years and that was demolished and now you have a a vacant
piece of property uh that's certainly developable and is zoned for development that could accommodate multif family residential. So we identified a realistic development potential of three units based on the availability of that
property. So with that we have our 174 topline number say well realistically we have land for three. So the unmet need is what it's called is the remainder that 171 after we subtract our realistic three from that that topline obligation
of 174. So, in how do we satisfy our obligation, keep everybody um happy and out of trouble? The three units that are anticipated through this process for that that Main Street and Stevens
property um they essentially take care of themselves. It's zoned for uh multif family residential development. Now, can be expected to generate those units if somebody comes in with an application to the board. So, in terms of planning for it, we say, "Well, here's land. this is
what it can produce and we've got zoning in place already that takes care of that. Under the more recent amendments to the Fair Housing Act, the fourth round rules that we're operating under, they say we need to identify a realistic potential or a opportunity for
redevelopment that might construct 25% of that unmet need number. Um, so we were targeting uh do the math off the top of my head. I have it written down. 43 units is 25% of the unmet need. So in
looking around, we already in the township already had some stuff in place that was done since the third round plan was adopted that wasn't already considered in the third round plan. The downtown redevelopment plan was put in place in uh believe it was in 2020 um or
more recently than that. Um there was also some uh there's the uh central business district the transit village central business district zone that permits um multif family development or mixeduse development that includes affordable units that wasn't accounted
for in the third round plan. So with those two areas, parts of town that are already that have already been zoned or put into a redevelopment plan, looking at the amount of land that's available there, the relative density that is
consistent with the other um zones nearby and just extrapolating out that math for how many units might be built if redevelopment takes place, we more than cover that 43. um probably looking at more like 90 to 100 units depending
on um which parcels get built out. So the long and the short of it is we have an obligation to hit. We have a realistic number that is vacant land that already has zoning in place and then we have this unmet need that we can factor in two different areas that
weren't counted in the third round. So we're not double counting. We're we're looking at new new land and new zoning that was put in place since that third round plan. And with the potential buildout of those areas, we've more than satisfied the chunk of unmet need
obligation that we have an obligation to plan for. And subject to just, I think, some minor amendments to those ordinances just to clarify the densities that are permitted because in both cases, it's a little open-ended how many units per acre are
allowed. But honing in on that number, in the case of the Transit Village CBD district, the other Transit Village districts allow 35 units per acre. So, uh a minor amendment to that ordinance to permit the same would take care of
that. And then with the uh main street or the the downtown redevelopment area, the um uh implementing is a density in that that does not have a a density clarified in the plan, but um we had the prior to
my time, but the board had the 16-50 uh Patterson Avenue approval set both sides of the street, the two different approvals. If we look at the densities that were approved there and basically apply a similar density to the remainder of the redevelopment area, that more than takes care of our
obligation. So, two minor changes may need to be implemented by the governing body to follow through. We have um under the rules, we have until March for the township to make those changes to be consistent with the timelines that are in place. But um hearing and adopting
the plan this evening uh will take care of the most pressing deadline which is uh June 30th for for everybody around the state to get these plans done and submitted. Um and then from there there's very little left to do. We have a couple resolutions, just some housekeeping kinds of things that the uh
governing body will need to adopt. But otherwise, hopefully uh absent any any push back or challenges from parties who have not yet made themselves known, uh we should be in good shape and the the township's plan should be solid moving forward.
Thank you for all the hard work you put into this, Mr. Barry. Any questions to the board? We've got a professional here if you want any information on this. Very well. Um, chairman. Yes.
He didn't give me the one minute to call you. Go ahead. She indicate on the record there are no members of the public here. Uh we're going to indicate on the record that no members of the public are present in the uh building.
Thank you. Um should I just do the motion to approve and you'll have some comments after? Well, the motion would be to adopt and approve the housing element and fair share plan as an amendment to the township's master basket plan and also
to memorialize the resolution that's been provided in Port. May I have a motion based on what Mr. Brigade Ro has just recommended? So moved. May I have a second? Any
discussion? Please pull the board. Mr. Barry, yes. Mr. Kash, yes. Mr. Luke Damiano, yes. Miss Catalo, yes. Mr. Sber, yes. Mr. Pochius, yes. Mayor Damiano, yes. Councilman Silva, yes. Mr. Kilpatrick, chairman votes, yes.
Announces that the application is approved and that the res do we need a separate resolution memorializing? We did it all in one vote. Very good. Um then I'll just continue on as the resolution has been
memorialized. Thank you very much everyone. Uh is there any old business? Any new business going forward? I'm recommending we drop the approval of bills because we don't get to see bills. So that must be going
through our finance office. Um anyone have any questions or comments? I thank all those that are attending the uh session from the NJPO which is what New Jersey professional. Thank you. Planning
official organization. We will all be trained by the end of June. Um may I have a motion for adjournment? Second. Second.