Okay, we're on the air. >> Okay, bringing the township of Long Hill Planning Board meeting into order. Madam Secretary, if you would please read >> Absolutely. >> Sorry. Read the announcements.
>> The intros. Yeah. Uh, number one, call to order and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting dates on the municipal bulletin board and website, by sending a copy to the Echo Sentinel newspaper, and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Number two, standard board procedures.
Any meeting conducted by the board as a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial meeting must be maintained at all times. Number three, electronic devices. All in
attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceedings. Number four, pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, now roll call. Mayor Purchia is currently absent. Miss Dill, >> present. >> Committeeman Lavender, >> present. >> Mr. Hans >> here.
>> Mr. Labario >> here. >> Miss Ojins >> here. >> Mr. Opala >> here. >> Vice Chairman Jones >> present. >> And chairman Richardson >> here. >> Chairman we have a quorum. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. We are going to postpone uh our
review of meeting minutes. We'll pick that up next next meeting. So our next agenda item are some resolutions. Uh the first resolution is a designation of an official online news publication resolution
uh 2026-10-PB. You should have that in your packet. Fairly straightforward. It's uh addressing uh both publication echo sentinel and the municipal website. Yes. >> Is there anything to add? This is simply in compliance with the
new statute that requires that public notices now be posted on municipal websites. Uh the municipality, well, the board in this case or any public agency still has to designate an official newspaper in the event something still
has to be published in the newspaper. and the newspapers have to comply with certain statutory requirements to be able to be considered as online news publications. Echo meets that test. So Echo is being designated along with the
municipal website. >> Excellent. Thank you. Any any uh questions we move on? >> So the timing of all publications still holds true. Nothing changes. This is only just formalizing that we're using the Echo Sentinel on the Long Hill website.
>> Correct. So, if applicants still need to send notice to their neighbors within 200 feet, they still have to send it. They have to mail it. None of that changes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> City comment. >> I'm sorry.
>> Comment. >> Okay. because it has the pages the pages ads legal ads on the website. Is that a reason that could not be changed to notices on the website itself? >> It is noticing >> uh I well legal ads and uh I don't know
I didn't put it up there. It's a separate company that does it. Yeah. >> I had the same reaction to that. Mhm. >> It shouldn't be. >> So, you feel it should be legal notices versus legal ads. >> Website, but the location of it >> or or public notices
>> the website just says and it says see notices or something. >> Yeah, it's it's it's um misleading. >> Yeah, public notices would be >> I think that's a good thing for you to bring up, Committee Lavender, with the uh TC. Yeah,
>> I I understand that we were given this um web >> correct >> page from everything else is fine. It's just I wouldn't stop this as a comment. >> So they should >> So I'm looking at the site and it says legal ads. So I'm wondering if they
dedicated a page just for this. >> They're supposed to. >> So this is it. >> They are required to do that. >> I've called it up and it just says legal ads. And if you're notices as well underneath >> those label of like we're issuing RFPs and stuff like that, it shows up in there.
>> Yes, because the township is also required to post all their notices, RFPs, all of that on their municipal website. Um, and the secretary of state is also has a website which is now up and running uh where all of those notices will also be located. So,
>> keep it separate. >> If the um I guess web master who created this >> could change the wording because we're just going by whatever was given to us by the township as what the web page is called. >> I I literally saw this today and I was
like, what the heck is this? >> I'll bring it up tomorrow. >> Should be like legal notice or something like that. something that's more in line with what >> every other every other newspaper in the world says public notices. >> With that said, guys, do we want to uh
still make a motion to accept this with any conditions or would that be appropriate >> with that change? We can do a quick aandatory resolution at our next whenever it's changed. I don't want to
say next meeting if it's not changed by the next meeting. But whenever the name is changed because right now people are going to be looking for this because that's where it is located current. >> How about how about this real quick? You know, I'll make a motion that we pass this with an amendment that we take out
that website link there and just say available on the town township's website and an appropriate link. >> Can we do that? >> That's up to you because I thought legally we had to put the link. point them in the direction where it is right now. And that's where it is. When we
change the website name, we can do a quick a mandatory resolution just saying the website's changed. This is the new website. >> Well, you you can still do that. Just take out the page/legal ads because it's on long hellnj.gov and it should be available right on the top. >> It's supposed to be available right on
the front page as soon as you land there. So, yes, we can take the >> landing page. Long landing page. >> So, let me amend my amended motion. You can amend it just to the landing page because the buttons on there should be >> right. So we would be the homeage we would be deleting page and legal ads.
>> Yes. Right. >> That that's acceptable. That's fine. Now do I have to notice this resolution? >> I'm sorry. I don't have to notice this resolution, do I? Okay. That's what I found. >> Okay. So is there a motion? >> Yeah. So moved. >> Excellent. Can you just state your
motion? >> All right. Right. So, I make a motion that we pass resolutions 26-10-PB with the uh uh modification that we remove uh slashpage/legal- ads out of the website link.
>> Second. >> Okay. Uh Committeeman Lavender, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Jones, >> yes. >> Miss Dill, >> yes. >> Mr. Hans, >> yes. >> Mr. Lavario, >> yes. >> Miss Ojins, >> yes. >> Mr. Opelka, >> yes. >> Chairman Richardson, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
Okay, next up is the adoption of the redevelopment plan for 11:06-122 Valley Road. This is uh the uh guess is this a yes
this is a resolution number 2026-11-P. Do you want to provide some background? >> Sure. Um, >> this particular resolution, >> as the resolution indicates, this is part of the redevelopment. Um, this is part of the redevelopment of
block 11401, lot 7. Uh, back in 2021, the planning board conducted the public hearing to determine whether that lot qualified as an area in need of redevelopment. the board at the time found that it did. So, it went then to
the township committee uh to consider whether to actually designate it. The uh township committee did designated uh back in 2022. Uh and then over the last couple of years, uh this redevelopment plan uh I'm
assuming since it has been a couple of years, uh wasn't being developed until now. Uh and that stands to reason because right now we're looking at a new housing round, a new affordable housing round and this redevelopment is going to
be a part of the new uh affordable housing round. So, the planning board had uh I'm sorry, the township committee had the township planner prepare this redevelopment plan for this redevelopment area and the township committee has introduced the ordinance
so far um to adopt this uh redevelopment plan. So, they have introduced the ordinance and upon introduction they are now required to send it to the planning board which they have uh for a consistency determination. So, what the planning board is tasked with doing
right now is reviewing this redevelopment plan. And you are, of course, able to rely on your professional planner on Liz. That's why she's here today. uh with regard to any questions about master plan consistency because the board's job is to review
this plan, ensure that it is not inconsistent with the master plan that has been adopted and also to make any other recommendations to the township committee that you'd like to see in this redevelopment plan. So, if you look at the um at the resolution, there is a
reference in um to an exhibit A at the end in section two. Uh, exhibit A will contain any recommendations that the planning board has for the township committee with regard to this redevelopment plan. >> Okay. Well, I think probably the most
appropriate thing would be um Liz, if we could open up the floor to questions. >> Yeah. I mean, I >> I mean, maybe you could give us a quick synop. >> Sure. >> Especially with how it relates back to the master plan. >> Sure. So, um this is the car wash site
just I think it's convention or whatever colloially known as the car wash site and there was a at one point um a redevelopment plan that allowed for an assisted living facility and then another assisted living facility moved in down the street or wanted to moved in
down the street and and that uh project I think just sort of didn't materialize. So, um, as I think everybody knows the and obviously Jessica came and spoke with the board last May, I think, uh, in 2025, but the Fair Housing Act was
amended in March of 2024, and in it, it established, um, very strict deadlines. I mean, it literally has the date and year. So there's been a quite a fast pace between
sort of October of 2024 when the state gave the affordable housing obligation numbers to the municipalities, there have been a series of very quick deadlines and quick turnarounds. So um when Jessica came to the board uh and spoke with us last May, she talked about
this site and that it was a new redevelopment scenario. uh and that was what this board adopted back in June. And so as you also know is the housing element uh is part of the
master plan. And so this this redevelopment plan just to be just to cut to the chase, this redevelopment plan is consistent with the housing element of the master plan. Um, and I think it's not inconsistent with some of
the ideas that we had in the 2023 master plan with regard to Valley Road and the BD zone, you uh, and some sort of revitalization and development initiatives. Um, so just to give everybody a timeline after, you know,
there was a June 30th, 2025 deadline for municipalities to get their housing plans in. Longill did that. Um then objectors had until August 31st to object and Longhill appar, as Equourts
tells me, Long Hill received one objection from Fair Share Housing Center, which is a housing advocacy group that objected to just about every single plan in the state. So, you know, then >> the rationale for their objection.
>> I'm just reading it now. But I I think you know some of it is I think the first thing I saw was it doesn't provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing that there needed to% >> well that they you know maybe more details needed to be provided to
convince fair share housing center that these were real projects and >> the same I read in the paper it said 20% which I thought >> the 20% what >> 20% for fair share >> the set aside side is 20%. Yeah. Which
is is statutory. That is the state law. >> Yeah. But no, you need to you need to specify specific projects. So back in October of 2024, the state gave longill uh an obl an obligation um to provide
between 2025 and 2035 102 affordable housing units. So you had to in this housing element, right, identify projects as to how the township would provide um those 102 units. So basically
the fall was spent uh in every town sort of mediating between municipalities and fair share center, fair share housing center and other objectors in front of the judge. Everybody had until December 31st to do that. Uh,
Long Hill was able to get a settlement agreement uh, which is a good thing. That means that the program, the judge is going to recommend approval of the plan. Then you have until March 15, 2026, which is this Sunday, which of course
the law put uh in their in the legislation a Sunday, which of course isn't courts aren't open, but it doesn't matter. uh they put you know um March 15, 2026, you had to have all of your implementing ordinances adopted. So I
know I I understood or I do understand people's frustration. We just got this. We don't have a lot of time and all I can say is you're not alone. It's happening in every town and every town is sort of extremely irritated by the
fast-paced time frame because residents let you know let alone the planning board residents don't have a lot of opportunity to review these organ um >> ordinances. Thank you. And so people are
kind of feeling pressed and annoyed. And I don't blame anybody. I don't certainly don't blame Jessica because I'm in her position in a lot of other towns and it it just is how the process has worked out. It that everything is just oh my
god now we're racing to get this deadline and you know and you can't move forward until you get sign off on this and so it seems like oh you've had two years to work on this but in reality it's more like six weeks. Um and of course the ordinances have to be not
only prepared but then they have to be noticed and then that notice is you know a week or two in advance of a first reading which then needs to have 10 days before adoption and in between you have to have a planning board hearing on consistency. So you know March 15th
while on January 1 oh March 15th well it comes quickly and so that's where we are today. So I think the redevelopment plan in short is not inconsistent with the housing element that was adopted by this
board in June >> which doesn't mean sorry that you can't as Yolanta suggested if there are specific issues that you have that you can't point that out you know whatever issues with with with any of the specified
details in the plan >> just for a point of clar clarification. The details that are in this plan that Jessica wrote came out of the approval for that project that then
didn't happen. Is that fair? >> I I think >> because I noticed certain things in there that seem very specific like hype related issues, things of that sort that seem to cater to the proposed development that I guess never happened.
Well, I my guess and I don't know this is that she has a rough concept of what the prospective developer wants to do on this site and she crafted regulations to allow that. >> Right. >> And that's typical and that is typ that
typically happens. >> No, I'm not I'm just I'm just really more trying to validate in my mind where a lot of the specific language came from in her plan. That's my guess. It's my guess is it doesn't this is a departure from what had been uh anticipated on
that site when it was going to be the assisted living >> that this is all new. >> So we'll open it up to the board. So yeah, please just coordinate through me and I'll acknowledge you. So Mr. Hans, you want to you have some questions?
>> We're in the questioning. >> So there is somebody about I don't know. And >> that would be a question for the mayor and for the commission. >> No, no. I'm just if if there is a prospective developer or if there is a
concept a concept plan >> that um those regulations were probably based on a concept plan. I can't speak and and honestly it shouldn't matter if you have issu specific issues with the redevelopment plan. >> Yeah. Yeah, I have to point this out.
>> This doesn't refer to this. What are you supposed to do? >> Well, right. And and this is coming up in a lot of towns and a couple of things and that's why I was saying that the housing element is an element in the master plan
and um this is consistent with that housing element that this board adopted in June. focus is a focus on the housing element only or other stuff as well. >> It's both I mean I think that it's clearly the housing
>> element should be amended. >> Well the housing element is a component of the master plan. >> Yes. Yes. But you're saying in addition the >> I would indicate that there's not this is irrelevant to be honest. focus on the 2023 market. But that does
open up the question, how much of this is now consistent with this as opposed to the old? >> Well, what I would say is that we had some language in there first of all about comply providing for our affordable housing, our fair share of affordable housing. That's one of the
goals of our master plan and one of the objectives. And I think we also had some language about um taking a hard look at Valley Road. which is, you know, >> I I'm not advocating either way, but I
think that it's not my recommendation to you, you take it or not, is that this is not inconsistent. What what what we can do is we can provide to the township committee a comment which indicates that on page six
the planning board uh would like to include a reference to the most recent master plan together with the housing element and fair share plan as adopted in what's that date >> our our plan >> yes I think it was December 2023
>> the master plan was December 2023 >> right but the housing >> but the housing element June 2025. I can give it to you. >> So, it's June of 25. >> I just so just so we're we're clear. So, uh adopted master plan adopted >> December of 2023.
>> 2023. This is a very simple fix that we can >> so question along those lines is if it was approved by the town council before that update, is it relying on the master plan as of the time rather than the
current one? Well, this redevelopment plan is being introduced right now, >> right? So, but the >> So, it has to comply with this one right now. >> So, it doesn't matter the date that the town council approved the area. >> No. >> Okay. So, everything is as of today.
There's no retroactive due the last approval time frame. >> Good question. >> The redevelopment plan is based on what is what is uh material right now, what the law is at at the moment. >> Okay. So, >> and the designation is separate, right? The designation which was happened
several years ago is totally separate from the plan. >> Yes. >> The does the designation hinges on whether or not it's an area that's right for redevelopment and it really doesn't matter uh what any other law says because the redevelopment law transcends
other laws. It's uh we call it legal spot zoning. >> Yeah. Here's here's the question I would have if um if Jessica grabbed the section plan consistency review from something previous when we were looking at um the assisted living.
>> Maybe what we're talking about here is just a miss on her part having to gone back and edit that and add 2023 because the date on this document is 2026. >> Correct. Right. >> Correct. >> Right. Like so in the corporate world, you know what I would do right now? I'd get her on the phone and ask her,
>> "Is this a miss?" >> Well, we can't do that and we are um considering it right now, this resolution. So, what the board can do is simply uh to put this comment in exhibit A1 that will go back to the township committee simply indicating that this
language should be altered so that it uh reflects reality. >> Right. Right. >> But here's my problem. >> Yes. >> We have to kick it back to the TC. needs to be done by by the 15th of March which is five days away which happens to land on a Sunday. So we have three days
>> if less than >> less than that it has to be before the >> so we received this yesterday. All right so here's going to be my pitch to the the TC. We received this yesterday and here we're asking fundamental questions
saying is this really consistent? I haven't really reviewed against the master plan and master plan's mentioned eight times and has a chapter all in to itself and I'm starting to pick out things just with a quick read that I did that I've got some issues with with the height. >> Yes.
>> Parking. Where does where does the height start? Because if you think of some of the other uh uh buildings that we've had uh that are going to be developed here, it starts at the first floor. You don't count the parking area underneath. So where does that grade start? Now we're talking about, oh, it's
midpoint of the roof of a slanted roof. I have an issue with that. We don't talk about circulation. You try to walk across that street over there, you can't get across the street from there. There's no access. You try to put a sidewalk, you got Prima Vera to the
right, you've got um uh >> the the club, I'm forgetting the club to the left, the lodge to the left. There's nowhere to put a sidewalk. There's a sidewalk in front of Prima, but it ends right at the driveway. If you go past that to the west, there's no there's no sidewalk. There's no way to get across
the street from there. That's another issue that I have. So, actually, you want to And can I ask a question? Sure. I I don't believe we have to get every bulk item >> answered. It it has to be in principle exactly what you said right from the beginning. >> Yes.
>> It is consistent with the master plan. We're not asking whether the height is all that can be edited or >> Right. But it's in the document >> before us with an application >> they will be with application which then >> at which point >> so but I think in fairness to what Tom's
saying so because it's a really good line of probing if we approve this does this put us in a bad position with regards to an applicant coming in. >> Well the planning board is not approving this. The planning board is only stating
whether or not the board believes that it is not inconsistent with the master plan as it is right now and also providing any commentary to the township committee that it wishes. If the if even if the board right now finds this to be
wholly inconsistent with the master plan, the township committee at its next meeting can still adopt this redevelopment plan with a majority vote of its full authorized membership. >> Yolanta, can we include in our comments
um like a provision stating that we reserve the right to change like these provisions if they come before us or something or not? And by we, I mean the township committee. >> Well, then that that's for the township committee to decide. >> Right. But can we put that in our notes to send to the township committee to add
as >> Well, I was going to ask something along those lines. I was going to suggest is it legal for us to suggest to the township committee that we take out that they take remove any bulk requirements for the zone? >> Exact. No, they can't.
>> No. I mean, first of all, it was introduced. Secondly, this has to be I mean, it's not to the township committee that has to adopt it, it has to go to the court. Yes. >> And if this doesn't provide a realistic opportunity, >> it's going to >> But what happens out if we if the board
wants to amend those bulk requirements, >> the board cannot amend the bulk requirements. What I would suggest is well the best case scenario you you get this you get your judgment of compliance on March 18th and then you look at it again
>> but then >> that that that politically that you don't agree with what's in the plan or whatever. There's no >> but that has to come from the township committee because what happens when you introduce an ordinance it is what it is. This is being sent to you. what was
introduced is being sent to you. >> If the township committee proceeds to change something material about this ordinance, they have to start the introduction process again. You're not allowed to go back and amend something materially and then proceed to public
hearing and adoption. >> So, what defines materiality? >> Well, well, taking out the bulk standards is pretty material. >> Yeah. I mean there's material court order that this site has to produce a certain amount of units and that's a court order and so
>> once you start messing with height and setback you're potentially taking away the potential like the realistic >> number of units that you need >> is it that we just amend this ordinance down the road if we want to >> that's what I would suggest that that >> okay so it's not that like we are
absolutely bound by this without any sort of >> I mean that's up to the TC. >> Yes. Right. I understand that. >> All right. Does that help Tom at all with knowing that like there is recourse down the road? >> Which is why I would suggesting with Yolanda,
>> no. >> Put put verbiage in there that the planning board has concerns. >> Yes. >> A number of concerns such as you don't have to be exhaustive. You know, height, >> width, >> color. We wouldn't go with color.
>> Another question. Can can the board request that the TC provide to the board reasons why these bulk standards were provided? In other words, so perhaps the site >> Well, I can tell you why they were
because there's a a there's a plan that was provided to Jessica. It's it's a concept. >> No, no, no. I know that. But what I'm saying is that but see the board's not aware of that. Okay. they haven't been informed and >> there could be site restrictions like D issues or other things that the reason
why these bulk standards are now in this resolution >> are what they landed on. Does that make s am I making sense? >> Well, we have two members of the township committee here. >> Exactly. >> If you'd like to This is your moment. >> Yeah. Well, I think we need to come back
to the board. This is this is my big concern. None of us had the opportunity since this document was dated as of the 23rd of February. We only got it yesterday and I have not really been able to do a deep dive
sidebyside comparison to make sure that it is consistent with >> I have four I have four answer for you Mr. Jones. Welcome to our world >> that that's the nature of this beast. >> Yes. >> If I can just elaborate on an example, >> my friend. I can't argue that. This will
just build on what Tom is saying that there there's inconsistencies with the master plan and allow me to if to cite you an example. >> Master plan under the redevelopment says consider increasing maximum permitted
height on environmentally constrained areas. Uh this BD zone currently is two stories 35 and then it it says greater heights can be tied to greater setbacks in order to avoid a canyonlike feel on
Valley Road. 15 ft setback is not a greater setback >> than what we currently have and it will create that canyon-like >> the one thing and this is true and you have to keep in mind with affordable housing and something Yolanda said
earlier it's spot zoning we're not saying everything on the BD on Long Valley Road can be 15 feet back or however high it's this one site >> and we're going to end up looking like excuse me Berkeley height that has
housing practically on their sidewalk. >> Well, this is just the one site that we're being asked in the plan. Now, >> it is it's only one site. >> It's the redevelopment zone and not other portions of the BD are not in the redevelopment zone. It's only this one
lot. So, this is the only thing that you're being asked to see whether it's, you know, consistent with the master plan, not the BD zone, not the zoning ordinance, but the master plan as a whole. and the master plan, the uh the housing element does contain this within it.
>> I will say this, this planning board has done a really good job with some of the zone some of the reasonzoning that's been done on Valley Road to make sure that it's not sitting on top of Valley Road >> and I know that we've uh uh the ORC has had a that's the ordinance review
committee has discussed what to do with the Valley Road and the setbacks in uh on the business district and we want that to be a vibrant b business district. So, I'm not trying to take away from that, but I do have some concerns with what is written here that
is not been properly vetted. So, my position right now is I think it is inconsistent with the master plan and I will probably um either um abstain or vote no is my position. >> Okay. This is the first time that I've
seen anything close to five stories 70 feet to I mean do we have any building in town that's 70 feet tall? >> Five stories 70 ft maximum height of the north building >> page seven. >> Page seven
>> bottom of page seven the table. >> Uh that's totally inconsistent. >> Yeah. Right. I was looking at 50 ft. >> Right. So >> no, but this is maximum >> building the stansions behind this property that are 150 ft.
>> Yeah. >> What's behind >> no say over >> what's behind >> electrical stansions that go bisect our town. >> Yeah. It's a little different from a building though. >> That's in the power right of way. That's in the power of rightway. >> It's definitely different though. This
is a big footprint. >> Yeah. Because previously >> I I'm with Tom. I can't approve. >> Let's draw back. Let's draw back to questions that we have for Liz with regards to her review because we are
having to greatly rely upon Liz and her professional expertise in regards to the consistency. >> Well, I what's the absolute minimum that we have to provide for bulk requirements? I don't think we um
>> I would advise not getting into the bulk requirements tonight except to say in in exhibit A that you have >> concerns >> you have concerns >> a lot of concerns about >> you can list out all of the concerns I wouldn't try to reszone it or redesign
it here >> it sounds like the problem is and maybe I'm wrong here but once we send it to the town council it's up to them to send it back to us right so even if we note the concern. >> I think it's up to them to pass it at this point, >> right? >> Not
coming back to reopen it. >> Oh, down the road. It's got to come from them. Yes. >> So, >> once we approve, we have to rely on them to send it back. So, the concerns that are coming up here do not have to be
addressed in a formal manner by the town council unless I'm misunderstood. >> Correct. Can the can this be something that is does it have to come from the town council or can the orc handle this down the road? >> No, it has to anything that has to do with rewriting legislation ordinances
has to start with the legislative body which is the township committee. >> And if the township committee wishes to have its own attorney draft their ordinances, then Jack Pigeon is is perfectly capable of doing so. If the plan if the uh township committee
believes that the planning board is better equipped to draft certain land use ordinances, then they can certainly send it to the planning board and then the board chairman can determine whether or not to send it to the ORC for drafting. >> But the one thing if this board decides tonight and it's valid that this is not
consistent, the TC can still adopt it. >> Yes. >> You know, it's it's not a >> that's absolutely 100%. But I think this board as a responsible responsible body needs needs to cast the vote that they feel is appropriate. >> That's fine. That that's fine. I I I
don't argue that point. But I guess my point is that we're not adopting it, right? We're just making a a recommendation on consistenc if if it were to go down that path where this board would vote no, I would ask you to elucidate. Look at me using big
words. >> Why? I think it's very clear why >> it's inconsistent with the master. We were going to put it in writing as an exhibit. >> There's an example and anything
like 35 stories 45 even four stories 55 nowhere near 65 and 70 >> right >> so very very clearly there's a couple of minor other things >> right >> but fundamentally >> that's the big one everything ready to
go. There's there's things on trees and stuff and whatever, right? >> This is the big one and it's absolutely inconsistent with everything we discussed. >> Can we can we can we dig into that because our professional >> originally said it's not inconsistent
and I hear contradictions here. So, let's get specific about where we have a disconnect with our professional. >> You said the height. >> Um, yeah, >> Liz. Why is that height not inconsistent?
>> Well, I what I was suggesting is that this ordinance is not inconsistent with the housing element of the master plan, which is what we adopted here. >> Okay. So, your scope is a little bit smaller. >> It's a little bit smaller. I think some of the specific um
bulk requirements I would say that I I share the board's concerns but I think that it's not necessarily our task to >> tonight is not to interrupt the is if we don't nothing's going to happen and this is going to go forward as it's guarantee
100% >> it does have to go forward though as >> Mr. H not with this >> Mr. proactively, >> but it comes with credibility on how we vote, >> right? When we send a message to the TC, regardless of how we vote, we send a
message to the TC that says this is what this is what we're seeing. This is our opinion. We don't like the height. We don't like I don't like the fact that I don't have a demarcation as to where >> height is measured from because we've
had an example in this town where somebody put a parking garage under the building and they said we don't start measuring until the first living floor >> because I don't think she's going to come back ever. >> That's exactly what I think. So hold on.
Let's get some more. Yeah. Sorry. Yep. >> So, I guess I'm confused because we're saying that we're not going to go through all the bulk requirements and note everything, but now we want to note everything so that the town council knows. So, are we going page by page to >> No. What we said before is we're not
removing anything or we're not even suggesting that it be removed because the board doesn't have the authority to remove anything. The board is being tasked with review, comments, and a consistency determination. So if the board has any issue with anything that
is in the bulk standards, I will put that into exhibit A1 to forward to the township committee so that they can consider it either before the adoption of this ordinance or perhaps in the future before anything else is
implemented about this. Um, so you know, it's important now to tell the township committee in this exhibit what your concerns are about the So I've heard height that it's too high >> parking. >> I have a concern with parking too
>> and parking and what would you limit the height to? What is the maximum height? >> Said we have 3545 and 455. I would not go above 455. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yolanda, I think uh Tony's question was that we're not going through this, but in order to make
comments, we do have to go through this. >> So So >> Oh, no, no, no. Of course. No. And and that's why we're here. We do have to go through it, >> right? So, but maybe we do that with Don with some >> Yes. We want to do it with a little elocity so we're not here designing.
>> That's poor sight. >> Lot of big words here tonight. the the the the other uh question I have in the resolution is Liz, what I'm hearing is that we're pretty much saying is consistent with the housing element. I know that's a component of the town
master plan, but would we could we be more and feel more comfortable if we just reference the housing element. Would that help alleviate some of the concerns also that the board is raising? Because the housing element is written in very different way than some of what
we've put in the master plan. Does that hurt our ability? >> No, you can you can still say that the planning board hereby finds and determines that the redevelopment plan is consistent with the town's master plan, specifically the housing element, >> but we have to leave the master plan in there.
>> Yes. Because that's what we're looking at. Consistency with the master plan. >> That's under the land use uh municipal land use law. >> That that's under the redevelopment and housing law. Gotcha. Okay. >> Can I just point of clarification? So, we had one applicant for our site plans
that are not going forward and it it was determined to get 167 units on this plot of land. These were the bulk requirements. Aren't there other
experts? Maybe parking can be underground. Maybe there's a sight uh ceiling heights can come down. Other things that can be done to still get that 167 without having this excessive height and
extremely close to the road. We're just looking at one person's plans. >> Well, I think we've lodged the height concern. >> Yes. >> Have we lodged the setback? >> Setback. >> There's a setback >> parking. I have a concern with parking. >> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. >> The front yard setback. specific
>> front yard. >> I mean, wouldn't it be faster just to list every like everything like go down by line? >> Say the planning board has a problem with everything >> and it needs >> just going around to each person, but however you want. >> I would go person by person because it seems like everyone's got their minds on
what they want to uh address. I think Pam, Miss Ojins has already listed her height and the parking, right? >> Set back and front yard setback height. >> Front, let's be specific. The front setback. >> The front back. Yeah. The setback of 15. >> I mean, it's addressing specifically the
canyon effect. >> Exactly. Exactly. And that's in the master plan, >> right? So the minimum front yard is 15 feet, >> right? >> And the idea is that it should be >> greater than 15
>> and that's specifically as I quoted to you in the master plan that yes, we can have greater heights, but they have to be tied to greater setbacks. And this is not counts for this is not exhibiting that in parking. Um
our our land use uh 151.1- C off-site parking for apartments and is two parking spots per unit. This is listed at 1.6 per unit. So
>> is this RSIS? Um, it's not necessarily, but it >> I mean the problem is I didn't write this. >> No, I I know I understand it. >> Um, >> I can only tell you that is not crazy. It's It's low. >> It's low, but it's not
>> My recommendation then for the parking is use the RA >> use RSIS. >> That that we should use that to get a proper determination made on that. Okay. >> Okay. I mean, all right. Um, I had the same concern as as Tom brought
out about the midpoint of a pitched roof versus why not the top of the roof for the measurement. Uh, >> this is measurement of height. >> Yeah, this is on page eight and it's line uh it's under five.
>> So height should be measured from the top rather than the midpoint. That's yes >> from the ridge. >> Um the parking is inconsistent with land use um 151.1C.
>> Again, this is not changing the zoning. You just have to keep that in mind. It's really sight specific. >> I think we're documenting what it is the concerns that we have. >> I understand, but I'm just saying we're not changing it for the whole town. It's just this one site. Mayor is after a list. He's going to get a list.
>> All right. >> You wanted a list. Mayor, >> you will have you will have a list. >> So, those are the inconsistencies that I picked up. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Yes. So, Mr. Lavier, would you
like to have anything to add? I think we don't need to rehash things, >> right? Without rehashing what's been said. Okay. Because a couple of those issues were on on my list. So, I'm going to leave them off. Um, the other thing
that I was concerned about is how it was consistent with the circulation element. Um because when I look at that location and I look at the current traffic light locations,
I'm really struggling with what you're doing at the the corner of Shopright, you know, 150 ft past that and then uh the Sterling Road traffic light by the the what now is a
Wendy's, right? you you could literally end up with three traffic lights to allow circulation from 160 units onto Valley Road. Um, and
I don't think that that's well thought out from a circulation perspective. >> I would just note I we actually have no control of that because it's not our >> That's okay because I have Okay. All right. Okay. I I'm not
criticizing. I'm just saying I don't know why it's >> right. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And I I will note that in in the plan it does talk about uh an or for the parking
being below ground. So there there is there is an or >> that implies that that would be an acceptable option, >> right? And that would have a an impact
on height clearly, right? Um so beyond that, I'll those are my thoughts. >> Okay. >> So So would you say that the board would encourage underground parking or not? I would say
>> I would say encourage >> encourage >> it's permiss >> and I also want to know where does the measurement start? >> Does it start at around the dirt line or first living space? >> What I would >> measure that's not in here.
>> Yeah. I I uh the way our ordinance is written is from lowest grade >> lowest grade. So it would be parking. We had the issue over here um with the Gillette um redevelopment where it is they they came at us and they said nope
it starts the first living space and right below that is the parking garage and they said nope you can't count that as part of the height >> well it says here height in this zone is measured from the proposed grade around each individual building foundation. This is on page eight.
>> Page eight. >> Under additional use in bulk standards. >> Number f. Uh yeah, number five. >> Number five. >> Yeah. Can we're gonna we're gonna move down the line. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That is my question. >> Scott, do you want to participate giving
a list to the mayor or you got how would you like to handle it? >> It's up to you. >> No, I'll I'll defer to the rest because I'm on the committee. >> Yep. Understood. I think I I will make a comment though is um you know kind of doing this in the
dark from the stats >> right numbers and not seeing the concept plan >> and furthermore I'd caution everybody life is full of compromises and we have a number to hit >> and there's a penalty for not hitting
that number >> and you can decide whether you want to concentrate that number somewhere in town that you might not like it but it could absorb it or do you want to spread it out all over town?
>> Good point. >> Right. >> And so keep the compromise in mind. Keep an open mind. Anybody wants to see this what it looks like? >> What is it? >> This is the concept plan. >> That's it. >> Those five stories are in the back.
They're not on the street. There's an open corridor connecting the two things. They're trying to make something attractive >> and yet help us hit our numbers. >> Right. >> Sure. But part of it is we don't know if the units are 500 square feet or 2,000
square feet >> because you you you don't have the plan in front of you. All you have is the numbers. >> Are they one, two, three bedroom? can't say that >> exactly will be a shooting blind >> to further >> I'm not going to advocate in one direction or other but what I will add
to committeeman Lavender's statement and please correct me if I'm wrong >> this site was deemed a site in need of redevelopment >> yes >> by this board years ago >> that being said and again I'm not advocating on one direction or another
but that being said when the township committee is going over with a potential develop Veler and again aligning trying to align everything the needs the etc etc to meet our legal obligations because it's a site for redevelopment
there are going to be a number of compromises that normally would not be okay >> the other the other thing I'll mention is the tax revenue that this site's returning right now is not exciting >> 45 grand
>> right if that if that assisted living if that assisted living had gone through the tax revenues would have gone from 40 up to 500 >> immediately a million plus a year whatever >> right so so you know there's a lot of different dimensions to a problem we
we'd all prefer not to be building in town >> right >> Mr. >> Anyway I'm done with my comments >> yeah Mr. hands. >> The township will see the redeveloper. We have a plan. That's not will.
>> It's a concept plan and it's not ours. >> No, I know. I know. So, we're fine. We never agreed to these before. We made that point hopefully. And I just have a minor stupid comment.
um landscaping is still indicative. We just put non invasive speeches what we said in the market real >> I'm going to continue defer down the line a couple comments at the end. Yep. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Um thank you. So on page 12 B, pedestrian access circulation number two, it says you should put sidewalks along the front the frontage of Valley Road. 100% stand behind that. Properties left
and right have no connecting sidewalk and there's no way to get across the street without putting a traffic light there. That's my issue. I want a sidewalk there to make it walkable. But and that's what we've been promoting. But if you look at a lot of the properties on the north side of Valley Road, it's not very conducive to
walking. So, I would like that to be addressed. I I agree with you uh that this is about compromise, but we only got this 24 hours ago, so you're you're getting the first reaction. Um, so I think we should put a
comprehensive list together so this way the developer and the township committee can look at the concerns and find the compromise. >> And by the way, that thing with a crosswalk or light there, >> I I seem to remember that coming up in
the conversations too >> in this conversation or >> in previous conversations. >> Yes. And someone voted no to continuing the sidewalk down Valley Road. I I will not share the name. I'll let people go look at the videotape.
>> Wolf. That's right. So, um, those were those are my two pieces. Heights already been addressed. I'd like to know the demarcation. If it says ground level, great. I'm happy with that. But it needs to include if it's underground parking or first floor parking that it starts
where the dirt line is. >> Would you be more comfortable under >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair, just one. Somebody I'm just >> repeating what somebody said and I don't know who it was that was concerned about uh emergency vehicle access. So you
should include that in your list to the mayor. >> Whoever that is. >> Yeah, that that was Brendan actually. >> No, somebody said it here. >> I know. No, but >> Brendan actually dug into that at the time.
>> There were all kinds of measurements for um the size of fire trucks and ladders, >> this and the other. >> But put put it put it down in there. >> I think or something
new going down there. So, it's not certainly not >> Teresa. >> Uh on page 12 under sign standards, it says one sign up to 16 ft. I think we should just change that to I forget
where we landed on the ordinance >> because we talked about it a few times. >> Yeah. Square and half high and 100 square feet seems kind of >> big. I think that should >> How about just to be consistent with their ordinance? >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Um and then a general comment that I just like I agree that this is compromised so I understand the predicament that we're in and I just would ask the township committee to readress this down the road and hopefully we can actually just clean it up.
>> Actually a ground sign 100 square feet. That's enormous. Yeah, that that's >> that that's a story and a half high and six feet wide. >> You know how many people on bicycles could get in trouble there? >> Um, do you have anything? >> So, I have a question. So, the varian
variations in site plan design on page 13. Can you explain it to me where basically we can make it we can permit exceptions that exceed but we can't almost have tradeoffs if I'm reading it
correctly. So if I the way I'm reading that whole section is if we want to allow 90 ft high we're perfectly allowed to but we can't suggest reconfigurations in other ways of compromise. It's only exceeding whatever is in here. Is that
>> No. uh the the development plan that will come before the planning board at some point as a site plan approval uh will have to comply with the standards and the use standards in this redevelopment plan. So
for example, if they are permitting if you permit here residential uses, they can't come back with an industrial use. They cannot come back with a wholly commercial use. they are only allowed to do what this redevelopment allows them to do because the planning board uh is
not uh it is not within the P planning board's jurisdiction or authority to grant devariances. So if they want a height that exceeds the height that is uh in this redevelopment plan and that height is exceeded by 10% or 10 feet
they'll have they'll need a devariance which this board cannot grant. >> I mean I was just using that as an example. Right. Right. But I'm just saying that that the when the plan comes in, >> this is the baseline. This is a new baseline that we're working off of >> this for this site and this site only
this spot zoning. >> This will be the legislation and if they exceed let's say the sideyard setback, you have the authority to grant that variance to them. uh if you uh suggest that they do something on site that then
creates an issue where they're violating some setback or something like that then you have the authority then to grant that because that's a C variance which is within your jurisdiction >> but we can't do a trade-off right so if they come in and we say you know what you want to be a little bit closer fine but now you got to be 20 feet off they
can come back and say that this is what was agreed upon right >> yes >> okay that's what I was >> right yes correct >> so the only other thing is acquisition plan. There's nothing in here right now, right? It says there's no plan, no property acquisition by the township
anticipated by this plan. Is that standard? Is that what you put? >> That's boiler plate. Yeah. >> So that's a But what happens if we do decide, >> right? What's So right now there's obviously no plans. The town isn't going to do it. We're we're thinking about going third party
developer, but falls through. We still have to meet the requirements which we've talked about repeatedly here and let's say the town decides to >> well >> how does that work in practicality to >> I wasn't here when this site was designated but my understanding that it
is that it was designated as a non-condemnation area need redevelopment which means that there the township has not reserved any condemnation powers to itself so they cannot acquire this that's why that's in here because it's a non-condemnation
area in need. The township would have to designate it a condemnation area in need for the township to then acquire condemnation powers and be able to acquire this. >> Why does the town need condemnation powers if it buys it at a free market price? But I understand the point of
condemnation you would go back to 2022 get a value as of that time. But >> well, my understanding because I'm dealing with this in another town is even if it's a friendly sale. Yes. >> Yeah, that's what I mean. uh condemnation powers allow in case talks fall apart
>> in case the friendliness falls apart and it often does. Yep. >> Uh and under the redevelopment law, that's the only way to do it. So it's either and you have to designate it as such. Uh it is now a requirement of the redevelopment law. We used to we used to be able to say just area need
of redevelopment. Now it's a requirement to say either non-condemnation or condemnation. We actually h have to actually put that in our designation now by law, >> right? >> Yes, please. Yeah. >> So, and and I like when I sit next to the attorney because when I start
coloring outside the lines, Jack will often just like kick me. You're too far away to kick me. I would remind this board that the owner of this property is also the owner of two other properties in town. So, this this friendliness
aspect to it There's a strong encouragement for them to work with the township. >> Would I have gotten kicked if I was sitting next to you? >> No. >> All right. >> I mean, it's all it's public record, >> right? I know. I know. >> I just meant if it falls apart, right?
Because the the whole conversation is and I'm not against building in the town, right? And I don't think you know that's not the point of some of the commentary here. But if we need to approve it and we started off by talking that we had the one objection because
was it feasible based on the plan. So the fallback is if this falls through and we have to do something or the town has to step in. Should there be something noted in the acquisition plan in that boilerplate section? Is there a boilerplate sentence or something we can put in so it doesn't have to come back?
Almost being proactive in that section. >> Well, no. I mean, if it falls apart, all of this falls apart. And the and the township committee now has to >> have a whole new redevelopment plan drafted and go through the whole process again. If there's something in here that doesn't work, it they're it's back to
the drawing board. and uh fairer housing center is going to probably be babysitting this and ensuring that it happens that the township is proactive in making it happen again. I mean there's a very good chance I mean it could happen anything could happen where
the developer could walk away and say well this doesn't work for us financially >> and Mr. Can I say something? And perhaps Yolanto or Liz, you can opine on it. The the reason why I see that as less dangerous in this moment. In years past,
you negotiated a settlement. For example, our round three was 54, right? >> When we know darn well the number was significantly higher than that, it was a negotiated uh number, >> right? >> This number was assigned. So, if this were to maybe fall off the
rails a little bit, our number is still going to be 102. >> Correct. >> And we're still going to meet that number somehow or some way. >> We wouldn't be forced. It was a lot harder. Well, it was a little bit more scary in the past because if you didn't
uh accommodate the number, >> correct? you were subject to something that could be uh unfriendly from >> correct. Correct. >> There was in the third round people may remember the thermoplastic site was in the housing plan initially and that
didn't work out and then we >> they had to go down the road >> and and make up the units. >> Well, the units will be made up if not on this site than in some other site. But to Liz's point, I mean, we we received encouragement,
>> right, >> from Fair Share in that moment when that deal fell through. >> We were uh encouraged to work very closely with the owner of the property that you're referring to, Liz, and the number was no longer 90, it
was 130. And we were strongly encouraged to take the 130. the property owner calmed down a little bit and we reverted back to the original number. My point is I don't see that kind of uh issue this
time. >> Look, these are what honestly if I were on this board and not uh the mayor, I mean we would have the same concerns. I just have a couple of just uh final so
we can round out our comments there. Uh specifically the one concern I had was this very prescriptive 50 foot tree frontage. It kind of goes to the setback that Pam mentioned on B on page 12 item
B a minimum of one street tree per 50 ft. that should really be reviewed and consistent with the uh rest of the frontage unless we're going to set again deliberately a street uh tree frontage
um uh specification which I'm not aware of right now along. So that's I would want that to be more flexible possibly even a tighter spacing. And then specifically back to what we're
being asked as a resolution. I I would feel much better to have the suggestion of the addition of the specifically the housing element of the master plan in the resolution itself. >> And then I also noticed there we're
missing a reference to in the in the resolution itself right up here introduced. I think that's supposed to be a number. >> Yes, the ordinance number. We'll we'll fill that in. Sure. >> All right. I just want to make sure we don't miss that.
>> Is there any other questions in regards to the actual resolution? I know we've looked at the plan just one quick very just is the 167 residential units what we
stipulated in. >> Uh it it is in the housing plan 167 20% set aside. Yes. >> And so they're trying to meet it by the size that suggested. >> That's right. >> So there's 34 >> 33 actually.
>> 33. So it's not 167 is >> in there. It's just the 33 is listed in there as a point of clarification. >> No, no. I I can you let me double check. I actually think both are in the housing plan. >> So if you wanted to build 33 all
affordable units based on the housing plan, you couldn't. You have to build 167. >> I think that's correct. Let me >> Well, because of what we're agreeing to, >> right? But if >> if we decide just build 33 to meet the requirements, could they still have an objection to the plan?
>> Yeah, the housing plan says 167 unit multif family rental development which will have 20% set aside. >> If this developer wanted to give the township 33 affordable units and nothing else, I'm sure they would take it and no developer would ever do that.
>> Right. Trust me, I I understand. I it's more of a question of what's actually in there, right? Is it the housing total number of housing units or was it just the affordable units? >> Mr. Ch, can I point something out here? >> Sure.
>> And and and actually very good point and I I would remind this board if or maybe you are not aware typically these things include 15% set aside. >> Yes. >> Part of the agreement, the negotiating was that they would make it 20%. >> And that's not irrelevant. That's
actually 15 is minimum. >> I totally get it. I was just trying to understand. >> No, but I I you all of a sudden it hit me when you reminded me that it's 20% not 15. That was part of the negotiation. >> Is the court or fair share housing center going to complain if 33 units
it's 100% affordable and the plan has changed? I doubt it 100%. But the plan does say 167. >> Right. And that's that's what they're that's what's being proposed. That's what the redevelopment plan is being, you know, drafted to cover and and it is
in the plan. So that that's what ties it together is that that's what was conceived in the first place and that's why it's here. Um but if the township if this were to fall apart, sometimes they do. Sometimes redevelopments do fall apart for one reason or another, the township would
have to locate some other place to put 33 more units. >> Right. No, thermoplastics. Perfect example. >> Yep. That fell apart because of the felting, >> but you can't do it, >> right? Fell apart. >> Okay. So, uh let's uh wrap this up uh
with respect to um my hope is a motion. >> Can we go over what the planning board comments are so I can make sure that we have everything? Um, so the comments that the planning board has to that will be relayed to the township committee and
will be in exhibit A1, which I will email to the board secretary today so that we can have them. Um, is that on page six, we need to include reference to the most recent master plan adopted December of 2023 together with
the housing element and fair share plan as adopted in June 2025. Uh the concerns with regard to certain bulk standards, specifically height should be limited to 45 ft. Uh the height should be measured from the
ground dirt level uh to the ridge rather than the midpoint that's located on page eight. Uh I'm sorry, the ground line um to the ridge. The front yard setback should be greater than 15 feet to
account for the greater height. Parking should be calculated according to the RSIS and the township should encourage underground parking if it can be accomplished. Uh landscaping should include
non-invasive species. Um they need to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to access and circulate throughout the site. On page 12, the signed standards
uh will be consistent with the ordinance and the sign that is depicted in that on that page 12 under sign standards that also has to be um limited to be consistent with the ordinance. Uh the
tree street tree standards and please correct me if I'm wrong on this. um should be consistent with the rest of Valley Road and should provide for tighter spacing, more flexibility in that regard.
And there was also there was discussion and this I want to discuss for a minute on page 12 regarding the sidewalks that should be provided on the site. Is it the the planning board's uh
recommendation that they be provided or not be provided. >> Be provided. Okay. So, we keep it the way that it is. >> Okay. And then >> going to connect left and right. I'm not sure how people across the street, but I want
>> Well, generally what what happens sometimes is when you do require a redevelopment to do sidewalks, then the township can have the other property owners continue those sidewalks or the township can get grants or if it's a county road, the county can install the
sidewalks. But it starts somewhere, >> right? It starts hope if you don't start. >> Then you have no hope if you don't start somewhere. And now anything about the crosswalk or the light because there was discussion. Is there anything that you want in here? >> The sidewalks will be able to
incorporate where the lights are today. >> Okay. >> That should foster the continuation of sidewalk development. properties that don't have sidewalks currently. >> How about just a provision that that be
looked at though for crossing because there really isn't >> Yeah, >> I mean the closest crossings are way down here. Walgreens and >> Shopight. Look at that. You're right in the middle two. >> Exactly right. >> That's exactly right.
>> Okay. How about this? Um the planning board also recommends that the township encourage uh the creation of sidewalks all along Valley Road. >> Correct. >> Um >> for public Yeah. >> which I think is consistent with the master. >> That is definitely consistent with
>> walkability. >> Walkability. >> Mr. Chair, I was just I was going to remind you that Robert's point about circulation both vehicular and pedestrian. I don't think he mentioned it. He wanted us to look at that >> to drive in and out,
>> I believe. >> What was the recommendation? >> Well, I'll let Robert speak. He speaks more eloquently than >> I think he was concerned about multiple traffic lights in a in a quarter mile area, >> but I think Liz said it's not, >> but we don't have jurisdiction over that that road, >> right? Was said,
>> but it's still still a concern. You're going to end up with three traffic lights >> or people having to cross into that drive. Yeah, >> not just walking, but just traffic trying to make the turn in. Anyone traveling east has to cross over the
westbound traffic. >> What pages? >> And then the last thing was the sign, right? >> Yeah. What? What pages? You just said that. >> Yeah. >> The sign to comply with the sign ordinance. So, it's not as large >> because the sign ordinance doesn't allow for something that big.
>> Yes. The circulation is on what? >> You pointed out? Well, circulation standards is also on page 12. >> 12, >> but it it's really superficial in the description. It just says the primary access points will be from Valley Road.
Yeah. But you're basically ignoring that half the PRA traffic is going to want to be coming either um westbound trying to turn north across Valley Road to get in or coming out east
coming out from the property and wanting to turn westbound. And all of that traffic is going to be across Valley Road. I I think that's covered in in um number three on page 12 of the circulation standards A3 where it says access and right-of-way dedication if
required will be subject to the requirements of Morris County since it is a county road. >> Okay. So any access if if they have to have a a you know a crosshatch or painted or some crosswalk or something like that they have to get
>> and the township committee is very aware of that as was the board of adjustment back when I think I think it was the board of adjustment that Walgreens was it this board >> I forget >> sorry >> but my only point is you could see the way the circulation worked there where you had to have two exit so you can make
a left or a right >> and one of the reasons why the committee worked with the owner of Wolverines property to get access to that light for the park across the street because we went to the county and the county >> categorically said don't come to us for
another light. We're not going to we're not going to do it. >> Right. >> So we needed to have access we the township access to that light. So this complicates things now doesn't it? >> It does. >> So I I don't know what the solution is. So pointing out that it is a
problem is should be >> which is why I remembered what you said and I said add it >> and and the redevelopment plan does address it because it is a county road. So any any and this plan may change because they still have to go to the
county for uh an approval as well. So, if once the county takes a look at this, that that may that may slightly change their their development uh depending on what conditions the county uh provides >> because there's the potential mate. I I'm not saying this is the case, but the
county may want to have a reserve some land. >> They may want to correct, >> you know, request that something not be too close in the event that they have to widen at some point. >> Yes. So, how do we ensure this exhibit gets tied to this resolution? Do we just
we are we creating an exhibit reference in this resolution? >> Yes, and it is referenced right here. Exhibit A. >> Exhibit A. Okay. >> Yes. >> As set forth. Well, that's the redevelopment plan, right? Or no, the additional recommend as set forth in exhibit A.
>> Perfect. Okay. >> Yes. >> Excellent. >> We did. So, >> anticipated comments. So, so are we okay on circulation or is there anything else that the >> Yes, guys, any anything else that we can
move on as far as >> things that we want to add to the list? >> I think we're good, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to accept this resolution
>> with with the amendment to exhibit A >> and the amendment >> and the the amendment specifically for the housing element. >> Tell me again what exhibit A is. >> It's the conditions that I just read. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> That's exhibit. Which one? >> The the the motion would be on >> 2611 PB. 2611-PB >> and that that is finding that the
redevelopment plan is not inconsistent with the master plan uh because it is consistent with the housing element uh as amended in this resolution together with the conditions uh from the board in
exhibit A. >> I refuse to the way it >> David just like you was like the fighter manager just threw in the towel. >> So your hand right? >> No, we really are.
>> So what are you going to do? >> So as as I just said >> second. >> Okay. Mr. Hans. >> Yes. >> Mr. Opelka. >> Yes. >> Mayor Persia. >> Yes. >> Miss Dill.
>> Yes. Committee Lavender. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavarian. >> Yes. >> Miss Ojins. >> Just to be sure, it's with those conditions that we identified. >> Yes. >> If we say yes, it's only with these conditions.
>> It is with with sending those recommendations to the township committee together with this resolution. Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> That's a yes. >> Vice Chairman Jones, >> I'm going to abstain. and Chairman Richardson. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> I just wanted to uh again thank Liz for her work in reviewing this. I know you've had a lot going on and I really appreciate your efforts to provide guidance in this case, especially given
a plan that you did not write. >> Makes it doubly difficult. >> Thank you. My concern is that others will will use this as a prototype for additional properties in need of redevelopment on Valley Road.
>> Yeah, Miss Sergent, we've already voted on that, so let's move on with the Thank you. >> Just an addendum. >> Okay, so our next item is uh a master plan consistency review on ordinance 583-26.
>> All right, this should be easier. I I think last words I'll tell you why. >> Right. Well, let's see what else. >> Yeah. Um I got this at the same time frame. >> All right. So here here we go. So what this is
there are and I think we we have sometimes dealt with this them at this board but there's the uniform housing affordability controls which is U-Hack. Uh governs all affordable housing in New Jersey. And it's to down to the minutia. this is how many three bedrooms, this is
the income that they need to be, etc. This is how you have to market them, blah blah blah. Uh, it covers everything and it has the last time it was uh amended was I think 2004
or maybe 2001. It just got amended in the end of December in 2025. We had ordinances on our books or, you know, something along those lines that dealt with both uh affordable housing and development fees.
All of that had to be amended um based on uh hacks, the new U-Hack. So, one condition that was standard in all of the settlement agreements and in the court orders was that every town had to
adopt a new affordable housing ordinance and development fee ordinance to be consistent with this brand new U-Hack and the amended fair housing act. So, everybody kind of was everybody meaning planners were all kind of like well what do we do? And so a group of
people got together of affordable housing professionals and they drafted a model and that model was provided fair share housing center who signed off on the model and this is that model. And so
uh essentially it it's a lot of it's really opaque why they can't just say see U-Hack and everybody goes to U-Hack. But that's just the way it goes. and everybody is adopting essentially this same ordinance um as as required and
it's a model that has just been uniformly circulated um so my suggestion is it's there's really not very much that's specific to Longhill it's it's sort of generic and um probably all the only thing that was
you know insert name of municipality here and that that it's fairly um standard And so what I would suggest is we do have some language in the housing um not not the housing plan in the master plan
about complying with affordable housing requirements. It's a sort of generic language and this is just that it's it's really just sort of checking a box um that is every town is having to do. But if you have any specific questions,
I can go through them. But it's it's really just the state law. >> So this is again just a consistency review. Pure and simple >> referring back to the township committee
because I guess we're in the first reading or first publication and now we're in the referral of planning board looking at the last page. >> 100%. Yes. What I would suggest is that you don't make any recommended changes because this is a model. >> I don't even want to attempt to know
where I'll go. I know where I will go for a definition. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> For anything in the state >> and everything. I know. I know. I know. >> So, so the board's job as with the last is to determine whether or not this is
not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Little double negative. >> So, My understanding this is going in section 138. >> It's in the land use code. I'm not sure where it looks like it's going in the
area that was entitled affordable housing requirements. Yes. >> I thought that's where it was done. >> It should it should go if you repealing chapter 15 of the township code. >> Right. But that that's only like a
couple paragraphs of stuff. It's not really >> delineate. Doesn't delineate to any extent. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, this is putting everything in one location is what I'm trying to get at instead of >> two or three different spots. >> Yeah. Correct. >> And it's a lot more because
>> you folks spent a lot of time on it. >> For whatever reason, and I don't know why, but in the third round, Long Hill didn't have to adopt a very lengthy affordable housing ordinance. I had to in all my other towns, but Hill didn't. We did. All right. And I don't I don't
know why. Um so this is uh repealing and then supplementing what was there. >> Right. Because when I went in and looked at the ordinances and looked at the references to what was being removed, it was really very short. >> There wasn't much at all. And and even a
lot of the definitions weren't the same or the titles weren't the same as to what was in this. So I was kind of surprised how different >> I'm not sure when the other ordinance was implemented but this is the latest and greatest. Yeah.
>> So just a question. >> Sure please. >> Not about the document. Fine with it. More of so municipal housing liaison. >> The definition says someone who is responsible for the oversight or appointed municipal employee who is
responsible for oversight and administrative. Does that come from the township or does that come from town council? Does it come from us? Because we're approving. So the town committee determines who that liaison. >> Yes, somebody was probably appointed by
resolution. >> Okay. Administrator. >> Okay. >> So is this is more just at is it so do you designate person or do you designate a role? >> It's a person. >> You can do either or. >> You can do either or. >> Yeah. They basically in here it's they I think that I think the way they did it
was they did the role administrative >> okay >> because just in case somebody leaves right do we get caught up because a lot of the back section is you have to have that person who's overseeing everything so it was more of a question because I couldn't find in here >> how the town actually
>> in most of my communities it's a by uh the governing body adopts a resolution appointing a person >> and that person then has to do everything that's in here and go to all the education and you know >> and if that person leaves then the town appoints >> to just appoint somebody else.
>> Got it. Okay, that's fine. >> They appoint the office of the township administrator then whoever is serving >> the new administrator doesn't >> that seems like a much easier path to have the role of the township >> administrator. a new administrator doesn't come in, then it probably falls to me. >> And and the the one thing I have to
note, the one thing that's changed in U-Hack that I have to note that I I think is important is that rental units have to be restricted for 40 years. Now that's a requirement. It used to be 30 years. So that gives towns a little bit
of, you know, kind of breathing room because it doesn't expire after the 30. You get an extra 10. Uh for sale units are still at 30, but the rentals are at 40. So that I think that's >> that's a big change. >> That's an important change. Yeah. >> So our municipal housing leaison's Randy
Bar. >> Yeah. >> Well, okay. >> Okay. >> Um everything you said before you mentioned it the reasons why this came for sometimes aware of all that
information. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Say so. What? What do you mean? Well, you said the reason why we had to do something something in December, right? >> Yeah. >> Sometimes detail in the warehouse. >> Oh, I Yeah, I didn't I didn't prepare.
>> I I didn't prepare this either. >> Yeah. >> Which detail in the warehouse? >> In the warehouse. >> Okay. >> About the communication back and forth a little bit more. I've asked that before anywhere.
>> I am totally confused what you're talking about. What do you on our resolution going to the back to the TC? >> You know, David is saying that there's none of the sort of background that about like the U-Hack being amended in December. That's not in any of the warehouses to understand the context of the is that is the context of the
ordinance. >> Correct. Is it in theirs or is it not just are you just >> It's not in the t in the planning boards. >> However, it is it is in the township's ordinance. They have all of the >> the background >> the the I think they have the background. Do it.
>> I think I think this is this is a point from the past as well. Bit more into background on some of this stuff would be helpful so we're not wasting time. Is that is that clear? It is. You're not alone. So I that's all I'll say is just
about every planning board that I'm working with is furious about this process because they feel like they're got a gun to their head and and they didn't have the input and quite frankly it it the law is is ridiculous >> more statement. Yeah.
>> As an example bit more background when we get stuff. >> Thank you. Uh one last question. >> Yeah. Thanks Mr. Chair. Um, so with with the adoption of this and it supersedes chapter 15, are there any other ordinances that this is going to
supersede? Because from an OC perspective, there may be an an ordinance that didn't get picked up, but this is now covering it. Does this supersede any ordinances that may be on the books? >> It should, but you know what? It's a good double check that the OC should
undertake to make sure that there isn't some reference >> some work for us to do some clean up because I wouldn't want >> chairman I I started a cleanup ordinance and there are many things that um I've identified already that need uh clean up >> shocked when totally shocked
>> when we had our our uh previous OC meeting I went through a list I'm sure Mr. hands remembers. >> We remember um >> this is going to belver the point but >> right this is going to be one of those things and there's something else that I just realized while going through this
process is we have definitions in the front of our land use ordinance and then we have definitions in certain sections. So I I think that a part of any cleanup ordinance has to be a statement to the
effect that these definitions are the definitions for this ordinance other unless there are specific definitions that apply to a specific section. So I think that that's something that we need to add to the code as well.
>> Uh just to make it clear because every time the state makes us do something like this they provide definitions. >> Yeah. And it would be nice to have all those in one place like it is here and then refer to this >> but then it isn't once it you know once it lands
>> it isn't once it lands in the ordinance and just looking at the sections that are being amended it's not going to land in the definition section. >> Okay. >> Just to complicate things. So >> just to complicate things but that's okay. We have other sections that do the same thing that we had to adopt like the
storm water regulations. We have a whole bunch of definitions there that don't necessarily comport exactly with our definitional section. And I think that that clarification needs to be in the code because we used to have >> applicants when I was still here a couple of years ago, we would have
applicants that would, you know, play pick and choose between definitions and we have to make that clear that that, you know, where they apply. >> Agreed. >> Could we get a motion now for consistency? Motion to accept this resolution as not
inconsistent with the master plan. >> Second. >> Who should I take? >> Okay. >> Chairman, I heard you were louder. >> I was louder. >> What is a shot? >> Okay. Miss Dill. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Jones.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Peria. >> Yes. >> Committeeman Lavender. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hanss. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavarerio. >> Yes. >> Ojins. >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Opala. >> Yes. >> Chairman Richardson. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Thank you, Liz. >> Thank you again.
>> That was a quick one. >> You didn't write this one. I >> didn't either. 45. >> I'm going to quiz you on the definition. >> Yeah, I know. >> But you know what? The state also put out a separate thing, a different branch, the state related at the same time. The definitions, same words, different definitions.
>> Why would we be expecting? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Uh we are on to item number nine, ordinance discussion and are any ORC update. I'll turn it over to Mr. Jones. >> Yeah, thank you very much. I know that the ORC uh met a couple weeks back uh to
uh that our attorney has just alluded to uh some of the topics. Um I was not at that meeting. I was attending another uh function. Uh but they met for a while and actually came into the TC meeting later on that evening. So it was good to see we had representation at the TC meeting. Um there will be a couple of
things that uh I've seen come through on uh on email uh that's been handed down by the TC. Uh so we will have to take a look at those and I think our next meeting is the 18th. All right. So 18th I think it's is our next meeting that will help and that's where we'll go into
some deeper dive stuff. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I just wanted to acknowledge again I I I hope a lot of the affordable housing is becoming kind of behind us so that we can get access to planning professionals to help us with drafting. >> Of course, >> for legal assistance in this area. I
know it's been crazy. >> March 15th is is the big deadline. >> Perfect. >> Okay, >> that's all from me. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for the report? >> So those ordinances that we got sent for snow and
the uh and stuff that >> we're going to save that for that meeting. That's where we will do the discussions. >> Houses of worship will be in that too. >> Say again. >> Houses of worship. >> That'll be in that meeting. Yes. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh
any old or new business before this board? Hearing none. Is there a motion for >> So moved. Yes.