here. Miss Wishnu here, Mr. Santo here. Mr. Fernandez here. Um, our uh planning consultants are also present. Please call the first first and only. This is uh the public hearing for the
proposed new housing element and fair share plan and related addendum to the land use plan element of the 2018 master plan being considered for adoption. Thank you. Uh the purpose of tonight's meeting is to conduct a public hearing on the on a proposed amendment to
Livingston's master plan. This amendment relates to amending uh amendments to the town's uh plan housing element and fair share plan and spending plan establishing a new framework for determining enforcing municipalities affordable housing obligations under the New Jersey Supreme
Court's Mount Laurel doctrine and in the state's fair housing act. There will be a presentation of the draft amendment after which the public will have the opportunity for public comment. When all the comments have been heard, the board shall discuss the amendment uh whether the amendments are appropriate and if
the board concludes that no amendments to the draft are needed, uh vote on the housing element and fair share plan and spending plan will take place. Uh so at this time, I would like to ask our professional planners to introduce themselves and to please go through the proposed amendment.
Good evening. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board here in Livingston. Uh my name is Graham Pedo, uh principal with the firm topology here uh this evening as your affordable housing planner. Um and we are happy to share the um fourth round uh housing element fair share plan um which will be in effect for the township
uh moving forward into the fourth round period of 2025 through 2035. I'm also here this evening with a colleague of mine from our office, Mark Linser, who helped co-author the report with me. Um and we will uh you know walk through the plan for for you this evening. Uh we have a couple of slides that we'd like to get on the screen to to kick us off
and get started. Um there we go. Um so to start things off, um Mark will walk through kind of the the high level state compliance process and then I'll go into the details with respect to Livingston itself. So I'm going to turn it over to Mark to allow him to walk us through with the state compliance. Thank you, Graeme, and good evening to the board.
Thank you for making the special meeting. Um okay, so we can proceed to the next slide. Wonderful. So as we all know, um this is very different than the prior rounds. We are operating under news legislation. Um and how do we get here ultimately to adopt uh this plan
that you see before you? Um in terms of items from this year 2025, on January 27th of this year, the tip of council adopted uh their present and perspective need obligation numbers um consistent with uh methodology prescribed by the
statute and analysis performed uh by yours truly as your affordable housing consultants um adjusting the number from the advisory numbers provided by the DCA. Um there was then a challenge period um specific to uh the obligation
numbers um which for which objection was filed against the township's adjustment of its obligation. Uh this was ultimately settled uh on April 10th of this year for an obligation of 430 for the prospective need obligation. Uh and based on that number, we have prepared
the housing element and fair share plan before you today to satisfy the township's uh obligation for the fourth round 2025 by 2035. Following uh June 30, which is the deadline for adoption and submission to the program of the adopted plan, there is a challenge
period from July 1 to August 31st uh where interested parties may challenge the plan as adopted uh based on methodology and criteria uh upon which the plan may be considered deficient or non-compliant with state statute. uh following the challenge period
there's a uh dispute resolution period through the end of 2025 from September to December um through what during this period any uh arbitration or negotiation will occur to resolve any disputes and ultimately come March 15th of next year 2026 is the
deadline for the township to implement any and all mechanisms to uh effectuate the compliance strategy as uh stipulated in the plan. So to o uh review and summarize the elements of the master plan and how we
get to uh where we are, there are three items to discuss. Adjusting the perspective need obligation based on the vacant land adjustment provided the housing element and fair share plan uh contents and structure as well as additional requirements specified for inclusion in the plan.
So what is the prospective need obligation? As defined in state statute, it is the projection of low and moderate housing needs based on development and growth which is reasonably likely to occur in a region or a municipality. Uh the township of Livingston must
provide enough credit to satisfy their obligation. However, as we have conducted a VA, there is some math that we need to go through to get to the final adjusted obligation. Yes. Um thank you. through a vacant land adjustment, we have adjusted the obligation consistent with methodology prescribed
in the statute. um the VA and the analysis of vacant land um that may or may not be suitable to provide for affordable housing um at a 20% set aside and specified densities uh generates a realistic development
potential or RDP being the sum of potential affordable housing units um maybe yielded from all vacant unconstrained developable land at a minimum presumptive density of six dwelling units an acre at that 20% affordable set aside that is assumed. Then we get to what we call the likely
to redevelop obligation which uh again going through the math is that perspective need obligation um uh subtracted by the realistic development potential and then that value is divided by four. Uh we've cited below the
specific requirements um that stipulate the methodology from the statute where uh we identify sufficient parcels likely to redevelop during the current round of obligation to address at least 25% of the prospective need obligation that has been adjusted and adopt realistic zoning
to implement same uh lastly um the to get to our final adjusted forth on obligation we add the RDP and the likely to redevelop and that is the number to which the township must address.
And to address the obligation, we must provide uh a reasonable likelihood that the affordable housing in municipalities housing element and fair share plan will actually be constructed or provided during the 10-year period of certification based upon a careful analysis of the elements in the municipalities plan including the financial feasibility of each proposed
mechanism and the suitability of the specific sites identified. This can take a variety of forms uh and compliance mechanisms. Uh as is the case uh for Livingston, we are applying surplus credits and projects identified from the third round. We are also identifying uh
you can also rather uh include applications um that are anticipated to receive site plan approval after June 30, 2025. Being that the fourth round of affordable housing compliance runs from July 1 of 2025 through June 30, 2035,
we can uh adopt zoning ordinances and redevelopment plans to provide the affordable housing. Uh the municipality may allocate land or funds to support affordable housing projects as well as bonus credits that are generated um by these uh these compliance strategies and
and projects uh which may be up to 25% of the prospected need obligation. And compared to prior rounds, there are a variety of bonus credits available uh to the township to avail themselves of falling into two buckets. The first
smaller bucket generates one bonus credit per each unit of affordable housing provided. These include special needs housing, permanent supportive housing, and similar projects, market to affordable conversions where an existing market rate unit is uh bought down, so
to speak, and d-restricted as an affordable unit, as well as municipal contributions of land or funds to a 100% affordable development. The larger bucket uh provides half a bonus credit per each unit of affordable housing provided including partnerships with
nonprofit developers to build such housing. Transit development oriented transit oriented development rather uh which is defined as the crow flies as a half mile radius from public rail and bus stops. Age restricted housing. Redevelopment of
commercial sites for affordable housing. extension of affordability controls that are set to expire during the fourth round as well as any excess very low or threebedroom in uh rather excess very lowincome units or excess three-bedroom
units that are provided through projects. So there are three main components or um sections rather of the housing element and fair share plan. beginning is an orientation rather uh providing the introduction and legal background to how
we got here uh to the statue that we are responding to from the original Mount Laurel doctrine to today. Next there was the housing element uh which provides a summary of municipal characteristics that might inform housing needs such as housing conditions, demographic conditions and employment data. And
lastly, the fair share plan, which is kind of the meat and potatoes of this document, uh, which includes the township's compliance strategies to address its adjusted obligation. Lastly, the program has identified additional requirements through
administrative directive 14-24 that must be included in the housing element and fair share plan. These make up uh a significant number of the appendices that are included in this document. This includes uh all ordinances and resolutions that will be required to implement the plan. These do not need to
be adopted. Uh these can include draft versions and ultimately these are the documents that will facilitate implementation by the March 15, 2026 deadline. Further uh it includes an affirmative marketing plan, spending plan and uh resolutions
or ordinances appointing the municipal housing leaison and administrative agent. Thank you, Mark. Um, before I get into the strategy compliance, I just want to commend the township on their uh third round compliance which resulted in a an excessive surplus of credit opportunities to carry forward here into
the fourth round. Um, this is one of the unique situations that we have not seen in many other communities. So, um it is really a benefit to the township and has made uh the compliance approach that we put together here uh quite easy to facilitate um as we move forward into the fourth round. Um so as uh my colleague Mark noted um
the township did undertake a vacant land adjustment process. Um this is uh an exercise to identify as he noted um vacant properties uh without constraint uh without constraints um that may yield affordable development um given the size of the properties. Um, as such, you
know, at six dwelling units an acre, each of these sites needs to yield at least five uh dwelling units because with the 20% set aside, then one uh would result in the affordable housing compliance component. Um, through this process, we've identified the um eight properties listed here on the screen.
Um, and each of these sites would yield um at le minimum one affordable dwelling unit. I do want to note um and characterize this um importantly that these sites are not proposed for development. These are uh the the vacant land adjustment analysis requires the
municipalities to undertake an exercise to figure out how many units could be built as of right on existing open available land at this point. Um by going through this exercise, we've identified that 13 affordable units could be constructed on existing vacant unconstrained land within the township.
However, the legislation allows for us to accommodate those elsewhere within the community. We do not need to use these these sites and we are not planning to use these sites either. Just want to importantly characterize that for everyone here. Um so as such as noted the the total realistic development potential that
we've identified um goes from 430 down to 13 units which we have uh you know uh targeted for the RDP. The next we have just a couple of series of maps that just demonstrate um our analytical approach using uh GIS software or geographic information science software.
Um so here is a map uh demonstrating the vacant properties that would be eligible for environmental constraint analysis obviously over that um 0.83 acres or a property of at least that size which would yield six dwelling units per acre uh at six dwelling units per acre which would yield five units one of which
would be affordable. So those properties are shown in green on this map. Um the blue properties listed on this map are eligible for environmental analysis um given that they're in common ownership or adjacent to one another. So that's groupings of properties and then the red sites which are quite small um are
unders sized and not available for the analysis given the small size that they present. We undertook a very detailed siteby-sight analysis of those qualifying size properties to identify those constraints on each of those pieces of property. So here we have an
example um and this is contained within the vacant land adjustment appendix uh that's a fixed uh to the plan. Um so here this property at Baker Road and Walnut Street blocks 6001 and lots 132 and 103. Um we overlaid with uh flood zones, streams, water bodies, preserved
open space areas, wetlands, wetland buffers, and steep slope constraints um to determine uh you know the exact developable area of these lots. In this example, as we've shown um we've identified that um the property is 100% constrained and not available for development. So despite the fact that if
it's listing as vacant, um this property would not yield any affordable housing. um and thus presents a zero value. Um so this is just an example of the detailed analysis that we undertook um through this process. So uh kind of following up and and building on the uh summary calculation
that Mark talked about. Um so you know again uh first I just want to touch on the present need obligation. present need um is a uh statistical census analysis um conducted to identify those housing units that exist within the township that are presently occupied by
lower moderate income households um that are deficient or lacking uh uh that are considered substandard or lacking uh one of four four required components and these include uh satisfactory uh heating systems uh plumbing or if there have an overcrowding condition um through this
is done at a high level analysis that the DCA published Um and through that analysis that uh there were no no such units identified within the township of Livingston. Um if should those units have been identified those are what we call rehabilitation units or units that are existing low or moderate income
occupied that need uh rehabilitation um to ensure that those uh those uh residents of those those properties can maintain their status within the township. However, we have uh zero here. So we that is not a requirement to address uh here within the fourth round plan. Second line here in the table is
the total perspective need obligation as the township has adopted at 430 units. Then undertaking our adjustment exercise uh through the vacant land adjustment process we've identified a realistic development potential on existing vacant lands of 13 units or credits. Um and then we take uh that 430 value subtract
13 and multiply by 25% and that results in 81 units or credits on properties likely to redevelop. Just want to expand a little bit on the likely to redevelop provision and its inclusion here within the fourth round and all subsequent rounds. Um the drafters of the legislation foresaw that many communities would have little vacant
land available to affectuate uh development of affordable housing and as such they added this provision to um require that municipalities undertake an exercise to look at existing improved properties to identify opportunities to redevelop sites um to create additional affordable housing opportunities. So
that's why we have this provision now within this this round and all subsequent rounds to look at um those areas likely to redevelop over the next 10-year period. So So even if there's no vacant land, uh they're asking you to the state is requiring you to look at um
property that already has buildings on it and saying you must convert you you must include this in your numbers in uh reaching the state's required affordable housing operation. That's correct. Yes. Um yeah, just um you know, we've worked uh in a number of communities throughout
this process. I have two uh communities uh plans that I did um where we had a an RDP or realistic development potential of zero. We had no vacant land in those communities. Yet, they still had to identify at least 25% of their overall obligation on properties likely. So, you can have a completely built out town
without a stitch of vacant land and the state still requires you to build affordable units. I I want to I want to make sure that I characterize this correctly in that the state is not requiring municipalities to do physical construction. The state is requiring that municipalities place land use
policy frameworks in place through realistic zoning require to allow the private market to develop those sites. Thank you. Uh hope that answers the question. Okay, good. Thank you. Um so then finally the last line here within
our table um presents the adjusted fourth round obligation um which is the sum of the RDP value plus the likely to redevelop value which is uh 94 units or credits that the township needs to provide for here in the fourth round plan. Again just summarizing the obligation
compliance strategy as I mentioned the present need obligation of zero. Um however, despite the zero value, the township uh still maintains a development fee ordinance um and the affordable housing trust fund, which can support rehabilitation improvements for um you know, existing affordable uh existing uh low and moderate income
units within the township. And then the perspective need obligation, as we noted, was 430 credits, but yet we've adjusted that now down um to 94 units or credits. Okay, so this is really kind of the the key crux slide and I apologize for the smaller font, but um we'll kind of talk through it um in sequence to um
discuss the compliance strategy that we've put together here for uh the township. Um so the first uh strategy that has been identified is Cedar Street Commons um property located at 156 East Cedar Street. Um this is a a rental property
um and uh has 53 affordable housing units. Um and this is an age restricted property. Um so it's noted that while we have listed uh 53 affordable units um there's a maximum number of senior units that can be provided through the compliance process. So five of these
units will be uh provided towards um the uh the required number here within the fourth round. Um and these uh these units are also available uh to leverage two uh different bonus types of bonus crediting uh either transit oriented development or also extension of
existing affordability controls as well. Next is the property at 45 South Livingston Avenue where um uh supportive uh needs and family uh uh housing is proposed. Um we have 34 uh affordable housing units here provided. Um, and the bonus credit strategy, uh, would yield
an additional 25.5 bonus credits here. Um, 17 for the support of needs units, um, which each get one bonus credit. Um, and then the remaining balance, um, approximate to transit service, uh, via bus bus stops in the immediate area. So that's an additional 8.5 credits. And
then finally, we have the Bright View property at 321 South Livingston Avenue. Um, where we have 14 affordable units um and uh seven total um uh and one capped bonus credit available. Um and again, we have kind of capping of bonus credits
for uh senior units as well. So, you can't have uh you can't have more senior units than you required to have. You can't also can't have more senior bonus credits um than a certain amount as well. Um but in sum total of all of these strategies um you know we have
produced 160 total credits um and um you know 79.5 credits are available uh under the applicable caps and limits and we're also have 93 round three surplus credits that have been applied to this approach as well. Um so in total and looking at
this um we have uh 172 credits applied plus the 94 and we have 94 credits required. So in to in some total um we actually have a 78.5 credit surplus that's been generated here in round four that will be available to carry it forward to the future rounds and I just
want to note that you know that is based on the fact that we had such a surplus in the third round that we're able to carry that forward um and demonstrate full compliance as we move beyond. Let me also interject. Yeah, go ahead. Um, so just to clarify as well the extent of surplus that we have going into the fifth round, we've identified 74.5
credits that are generated from these projects that create a surplus in round four. In addition, uh, as noted on around page 25, uh, of your document, uh, we identified various projects from the township's third round settlement
agreement that were specified as providing towards the 124 unit surplus that uh, the township availed itself of in this round. However, given these age restricted caps that Graham was discussing, we did not avail ourselves
of all of those bonus credits from the third round and those will also carry forward into round five. Um, so just to get make sure I'm getting all my values right, we are applying 93 of the 124 surplus credits. Um, so we are also
carrying forward 31 surplus credits from round three. Yes. So in addition to the 78.5 credits from surplus from this round, the total surplus carried forward into round five is 109.5
credits. And again that that's over and above the 25% that were realistic redevelopment opportunity. That's correct. Yes. So even after doing that we still that's correct. Um yeah and in further into that point um should um you know as we
move beyond adoption into the challenge period um you know should any interested party you know try and attempt to you know introduce a challenge to the compliance plan given the amount of surplus credit that that the township has any challenge needs to disqualify
those other credits um to get it below the 25% threshold to then say you know this project or this entity should replace some a strategy that we've identified here within the plan. But given the strong compliance and the addition the additional credits that we have um this is a very strong fortified
position that the township has to to you know respond to any challenging uh party. Is there a net number at this point that we were obligated to based on what you have calculated thus far for round four and or round five after you apply the credits and assuming they're
not challenged a net number meaning how what is our number obligation that that we still have the the minimum compliance obligation as we've calculated is uh the result of the RDP plus the 25% so the the number required
to clear is 94 as we as demonstrated. Um, and then the the maps here we've uh prepared just uh note the location of the compliance strategies that we've identified. Uh, and the purple site is C the Cedar Street Commons property. Uh, labeled number one. Uh, number two is the Bright View property and number uh
three shown in red is the 45 South Livingston Avenue site. Um, so what are the next steps? Um so we have um you know facilitated this plan through a number of different means and we want to thank uh and express appreciation to the township both the township uh council and the planning
board for their advisement uh through this process. Um this evening here June 26, 2025 is a planning board hearing and adoption as scheduled. Um the uh should the board act favorably this evening on the fourth round housing element fair share plan. the uh plan and the uh
adopting resolution shall be filed with within 48 hours with the uh affordable housing dispute resolution program and the department of community affairs. Um that is a statutory requirement. The deadline for that filing is June 30th and then scheduled on June July 17th uh
is the township council's uh endorsement of the adopted uh housing element fair share plan should the board uh act favorably this evening. Um and then the challenge period begins July 1st as I mentioned previously. Um, I guess we can clarify that because I think we understood the endorsement
had to also be done by June 30th and we currently have a special council meeting scheduled for Monday, June 30th at 5:30 for that purpose. Okay, very good. So, but if we could wait till June July 17th having a special meeting. Okay. So, uh, updating my my comments I just made on
June 30th uh, 2025, the township council is scheduled to endorse the housing element fair share plan should the planning board act favorably this evening and adopt the plan as presented. And that concludes our presentation. Happy to answer any questions or entertain any further discussion. Can can you if if you can can you just talk
a little bit about the initial numbers that came from the state through to all municipalities including Livingston and then what we what what what you and the governing body did in response to that.
Sure. Sure. Certainly. Um so um it was back in I believe it was October of 2024 the Department of Community Affairs uh as required under the statute published um and a detailed analysis methodology document um and corresponding set of numbers um presenting a prospective need
obligation for all municipalities across the state. Um following that introduction and presentation, um the DCA also made available all of the backend supporting data to quantify those numbers, uh including the Excel spreadsheets as well as the GIS mapping
analysis which presented um the uh areas that they had identified as developable um consistent with the the obligation uh assignment criteria. I want to I want to make sure that I characterize developable is kind of in two different buckets. So we're talking about how they
assign the number of units. Um the developable land is set forth under a very specific criteria within legislation. It needs to be grassland, agricultural land, forest land. Um there's a set of criteria that establishes what is developable and essentially that developable land um is
a share of uh Livingston's developable land is a share of the region's land and those communities with more land are assigned a higher value because they have a greater share of developable area. Um as part of the analysis support that we did uh on behalf of the township, we went through that um DCA
GIS uh output of developable land forensically and um identified a series of constraints that existed on those sites um such as deed restrictions or open space or other environmental considerations. And through our an analytical work, we reduced that value
significantly and identified a revised number um that should be adopted by the burrow by the um township given the uh constraints presented on the developable land that was presented by DCA. Um as such then the governing body effectuated and adopted uh the revi our revised
number based upon the analysis that we had done at the end of January. Um and there was a challenge period identified by the affordable housing dispute dispute resolution program and in uh concurrence with the law um between February 1st and the end of February uh interested parties could challenge uh
the New Jersey Builders Association entered challenges for essentially every municipality that adjusted their number. Um so uh you know it was kind of a blanket challenge uh to all municipalities. Um and uh the township and um discussed that challenge and uh
had a a settlement session with the builder's association and uh and a selected judge to adjudicate that process. Um and a settlement was reached uh and uh the township effectuated a settlement at a at a slightly modified number from the uh number that was uh
originally adopted by the township. And you know in in part of the process working with the state what you know one of the things that you know you hear here and throughout all municipalities um is we don't have the room we don't have the infrastructure we don't have the school systems uh the school facilities to handle you know this
influx what's the response from the state sure so um I think what's important is that you know through this process we are guided by the site's suitability criteria that's set forth in NJAC 593-1.3 I think done this a few times um which
clearly stipulates four prongs of um analysis related to each site that we have to identify or review. And that includes the site's availability, whether it's uh you know free of tit has a clear title and freely available. Um whether it's approvable, whether in its
condition, um it is perhaps not zoned at this point, but it it it presents an approvable location where development can be approved. uh whether it is suitable given its proximity location uh amongst other compatible land uses with access to uh roads and then whether it
is developable and developable is where uh the the statutory criteria talks about infrastructure in particular and its developability is with respect to water and sewer infrastructure only. It does not speak to any other infrastructure requirement to be met in
order for the site to be developable. Um so that is that is the location of the gap that you're referencing with respect to schools or other uh public service provisions to support development. Um you know the the township is required to only look at water and sewer infrastructure um specifically uh in
accordance with the statute. Thank you. Sure. when you say water and sewer that it's the municipality's requirement as part of having to provide the builder to do this is to make sure that you've got the water and sewer for them to do
it essentially. Yes. That the selected site has access to the water and sewer to facilitate construct development. municipality doesn't have the capacity uh if if the should the municipality not have capacity in future rounds, there is
what's called a durational adjustment for certain municipalities. Other conditions include those municipalities that lack fully provisioned water and sewer service areas um whereby you know it needs to be part of a an amendment or a forthcoming amendment to the water and
sewer service area under pursuant to D. But you're not but the municipality is not going to be forgiven from the obligation to the number that they've got to do. They've got to go out and figure out how to spend the money to get the water and sew it. So it it it depends on on the characterization. Some
municipalities are leveraging a durational adjustment process saying that at this time they're not able to but once they have to make a commitment that once uh capacity is available they will ensure that it is allocated to effectuate inclusionary development as
part of the municipalities. power andor as part of development agreements. Is it something that in your opinion is suitable to be added to development agreements that per unit there's an additional charge for infrastructure?
Um I don't necessarily want to opine too much on that. I don't know much about finances of water and sewer infrastructure and what may be necessary. Um, you know, I can just convey to you that, um, redevelopment is is an opportunity to discuss financial contributions in those strategies. Um,
but with respect to routine charges or maintenance fees, I'm I'm not fully aware of the laws that govern that process and don't want to. Okay. Thank you. If I may add just an additional note in terms of mechanisms available to the township. All these applications or projects rather will eventually become
site plan applications before this body and as part of that they are required to submit environmental impact statements which also must assess impacts on municipal facilities whether that be schools traffic or municipal water and sewer. So that's also a separate time point in the development process where those deficiencies may be identified and
corrected as part of the development as part of the master as part of a master plan adopting of what we're talking about here. Is there anything that could be implemented to help the municipality cover these costs
that are permissible within the the confines of what's being sent to us by the state? without that thought process from them. Sure. Uh so I think that for the purposes of the housing element and fair share plan, we are bound by the statutory criteria of
the four prongs which I explained available, approvable, developable, suitable. Um we're limited in scope to you know site identification or selection based on those four parameters. Um I think it is certainly permissible for the board and the municipality to talk about some of those things as it relates to other you know
planning exercises or larger scale uh planning activities and considerations. Um but as far as the statutory requirement as it relates to the housing element fair share plan it's it's pretty much bound by this process that we've discussed this evening and and the infrastructure impact doesn't uh uh only
delays uh at best. That's correct. Uh the um uh construction of these projects. It doesn't do away with the construction of these projects. That's right. Okay. Um board have any other questions? Uh seeing none, thanks uh Graham and
Mark. Appreciate it. And at this point, we'll now open the uh floor to uh public comment. If you wish to speak, please come up to the microphone uh and your name and address for the record and please provide your comments. Hi, I'm Pretty Ma. I live at three Bonnie View Drive in Livingston. And for
the record, can you spell your name, please? Can you spell it? Okay. Um, P R E T Y is my first name, last name is M as in Mary, E as in elephant, H as in hat, T as in Tom, A as an apple. Thank you. Um, I not very familiar with all of
these regulations and stuff like that. So my question for you is we're seeing the town develop. I keep on hearing about how towns and municipalities have to comply with these affordable housing um requirements. I wonder what affordable housing by the
way looks like in Livingston. But um on another note, is there any um revenue that the town receives? Like do these houses pay taxes or is there any income that because they're called affordable are they just like sheltered from taxes
from property taxes and other taxes or yeah like I'm just wondering this is a a good assessment question. Um you know typically um it kind of depends on the characteristic of the project that's being presented and how it's being affectuated. Um typically I can tell you
most projects are inclusionary developments whereby 80% are market rate units and 20% are affordable units. Um and the property is still assessed um on the whole and is you know assigned a tax contribution requirement or the amount of taxes that they are to pay. Um typically obviously you know deed
restricted affordable units um are may receive a slightly less valuation than market rate units because of the deed restriction that it must only be occupied by an affordable tenant. Um so perhaps that slightly reduces it but given the situation of these pro projects um typically as inclusionary
8020 um there is still tax revenue that's generated and received by the municipalities. Do do we have any idea of what that looks like right now or no or on any of the particular projects or this one like the affordable ones that are the ones
that are well yes so so as Mr. Pedto indicated some of the affordable units in town um already existing and whatever may be for example Habitat for Humanity built for sale single family homes uh they are deed restricted and because they're affordable they cannot be sold for more than a certain amount so
obviously that amount if it can only be sold for 250,000 we can't assess it for 700,000 so it gets assessed at 250 and they pay taxes based on that value um an apartment complex is a little more difficult because you you may have say you have 100 apartments 80 or more market 20 are affordable. When we assess
it, we look at the overall uh income generated by the project. So 80 of it's going to be generating more higher rents. Um but the affordables still do generate rents and those rents and that revenue counts in the overall assessment. So it's really it, you know, we couldn't put specific numbers. It'd
be on a case- by case basis of every project, but but every unit um with the singular exception I think of um group homes that if they're nonprofit, they may be taxexempt. But um but other other than that they all do there's property taxes that are generated by it. Okay.
Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Just to just to add Barry, maybe you can you can corroborate this. Some of the properties may even turn into from ratable non-ratable to ratable. Uh so one of them is is on the
on the site here is a bright view. Uh right. So that that actually increases the pie for for the town. Correct. As Councilman Vatani U Bright View will be built on the existing YMCA site which was taxexempt. The YMCA moved
over to the church which was taxexempt. So we instead of two tax exempts there will now be so that's all brand new revenue that will be generated by Brightville which includes some affordable housing units. Okay. Seeing no further comment, I will
now close the public portion. Uh board members, do you have any questions or comments? Um I would just like to and having been part of this process for seems like forever, uh I'd like to recognize and really thank uh Mr. Pedto uh and Mr.
Lincer and and Topology as a whole. Uh as well as our our affordable housing uh council, Jared Caner, who's township attorney. Um it basically an overall team effort. Uh Jackie's been involved, the board's been involved, the council's been involved. I think it's a credit to the township that we got so far ahead of
it. Uh that and and and listen, I there's certainly towns out there that, you know, do everything they can to avoid it and and Livingston is not that case. I think there is uh as a community, uh we recognize a need for, you know, the less fortunate people to have places to live and and I think
we've stepped up, but at the same time, it's realistic. How many can you put in? How much land do you have? And uh topology did an outstanding job. We were initially given a number I think of 461 from the state. We came back at 407. We then got the challenge from the builders association. Actually got a better
settlement than most towns. Um to reduce that number. Uh Mr. Pedto spoke to the vacant land adjustment because the state kind of just took a satellite map and said, "Oh, this looks like vacant land. You can build everywhere." And uh topology put in the time and effort went through every single parcel and
identified is it constrained? Is it this? Is it green acres? and and and to to come up with realistic numbers and and I think it's a real credit that we have been able to meet uh our RDP plus the 25% likely to redevelop and then still have I know it was 79 but I think
Mark indicated there was some additional bonus credits appearing on now we're up to 94. Um so to put that in perspective that's more than what our 25% was. Um, so it's uh just a big um thank you to Topology for for their guidance and expertise and and all the professionals
in the mayor and council and the planning board. I think it's a credit to the township. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further comments, Mr. Just one small ones. So yeah, absolutely agree. I think great job uh to Mr. Po and team and topology.
Uh look, I mean this is something that is mandated by the state uh and the local governing bodies are uh required as we heard it numerous times even in this presentation uh to to oblige by and sort of comply to these requirements. Uh
each of these units uh bring in additional housing for our town. Uh and we in the govern governing body are very very sensitive about it. We are I personally can't talk about myself. I'm a resident first 22 years in town and I've seen my kids go through the
schools. So some of the concerns are besides the infrastructure that you mentioned Mr. Pedro our schools. So one of the things that we do is really share um you know all of the future projects and that's how we can we can govern in town to kind of make sure our our
facilities are are improved accordingly. But the at the end of the day we do have to comply and that's the part that you articulated well here. So thank you uh thank you to Mr. Lewis as well. He has done a great job uh you know from the
township management perspective to Mr. Caner who was our who was our attorney working through with with Mr. Pedro and the and the topology uh working through this this process is is laborious. It's been several months going in in the
council. Um and it has it has uh resulted to what the number we saw was 94 as the obligation left for us to do which is I think puts us in a remarkable state compared to let's say many of the towns around us or in the in the state.
So with that I think I just wanted to make sure uh we have that acknowledgement and Mr. Chairman thank you as you said uh it is something that that we we have to comply by. So thank you Rudy one more. not necessarily a comment and again
thank you for the hard work that went into it and I don't know how you stay awake putting these things together but congratulations um but some assistance too I mean basically the planning board is ultimately going to say oh it's in keeping with the
master plan and we're done we haven't accomplished anything um maybe there's some assistance that you could provide in adjusting what we have in the master plan to help obviously the commitment that we have to
make that we're pardon stuck with um but that to help in the funding of those items which is kind of what I was asking before um that verbiage in our master plan that maybe
gives some ability to the council and um and the planning board in dealing with these projects as they come up that there's the opportunity to pass some of these infrastructure costs back along not just as taxes but
um the initial build. Um, and I'm I'm hoping that, you know, I don't know, I can't ask you to do that, but I'm hoping that we do, whoever does ask you to provide some of that information back to us so that when we're ultimately saying, yes, it's in
keeping that the master plan has things in it that are more beneficial to the municipality with regard to um projects that are coming up. It should be noted too though that there's a hookup fee for shore and water
for every unit that gets built and that's based on capital contributions that are required. So that's all statutory how you come up with that number. And I'm not 100% sure where Livingston's number is right now, but um so when the sewer plant gets upgraded,
the future people who come online pay $300 a unit or $700 a unit and that money is capital for to to cover the cost of that upgrade. Okay. So there is some thought to it in the state process. But if you have to run the sewer line
further down the street, that's the kind of thing I think that the developer should be picking up. Yeah. And to Mr. Diner's point, certainly we are always cognizant and uh to some degree our hands are tied. The municipal land use law has very specific what you can or
can't charge for offtrack improvements and things. You can always get proportional shares based on their actual addition. Uh we do that. We've done that. We got contributions from PY for example when they had to run uh the lines over there and and and we do that and and to Mr. Santo's point yeah the
connection fees unfortunately they are significantly higher than $300 a unit. They're like thousands and thousands of dollars a unit. So, you know, so for example, if you had a uh 100 unit now, um generally the the connection fees on the affordables are either they're lower
waved or paid out of the affordable housing trust fund, 50%, right? But then uh you know, so say you had 100 market rate units uh in the sewer that's I think it's closing in on around $5,000. There's $500,000 that they would pay in
connection fees that would go to help fund those improvements. So there there is some opportunities and we certainly look for and explore and and hold every developer accountable for every pay we can get out of them. So and and thank you and
I understand you know sewer connections feed. What I'm just hoping for is that maybe there's some more language that we could throw in that will be more beneficial to you when the time comes to go here's the bill dude. Oh yeah. No, I'm assuming that if if any of these
require redevelopment plans, they can be part of uh that process as well. Right. If you do it via redevelopment plan and financial agreements, there's opportunities there to get uh concessions or contributions over and above and different from just general MLUL. But again, I promise you we try
and get every nickel we can. Well, to uh Mr. Dino's point and to the conversation in the same vein, I feel the four prongs that you mentioned, buildability, developability, and all all of that. to others. I think to Mr. Dino's point, sustainability is missing.
So I think who decides the four prongs, the state or us? It's it's in the state administrative code. So it's state. So talking about verbiage. Yeah. Well, but thank you for the detailed report. And do we get any uh pat on the back for
being good towns who have complied without contention? That's what you get. Literally, you don't get sued. You stay you stay out of court. Yeah, I think that's the best outcome. Um,
anything further? Um, hearing none. If I can have a motion to adopt the amendment to the master plan as presented. I'd like to make that motion. And is there a second? Is there a second? Anybody? I'll second. I'll second it. Thank you, Katherine.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to also uh put on the record that Miss Khan and Mr. Ratner did join the meeting earlier and was present for the presentation. Katherine Kana. Kana, I'm so sorry. Kn uh Mr. Lewis. Yes. Mr. Duffford. Yes.
Mr. Ratner. Yes. Mr. Diner. Yes. Mr. Bhutani. Yes. Miss Wishnu. Yes. Miss Kana, yes. Mr. Santo, yes. Mr. Fernandez, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Great. Um, so that's it. Thank you
all for participating. Mark Graham, thank you both very much for the presentation. Thanks, uh, members of the public that came out. Uh, Trip, thank you for coming out. Great job covering for Jackie Andy in the back and Katherine, great job as always.
Uh, Mr. Diner. Thank you.