I think we're on the air. Light's not on. Jessica pulled the plug out. No, the board usually does. They forget to put it back. They mess with you. Okay. Oh, we're on the air.
Learn something new every day. Welcome to the meeting of the Long Hill Township Planning Board of April 22nd, 2025. The time is a little bit after 7:30. Uh welcome all. Uh wanted to
welcome everyone to especially on this 55th anniversary of Earth Day uh that we're celebrating. Uh, I hope everyone had a good day and uh, we'll go from there. Madam Secretary, could you please do the honor? Absolutely. Number one, call to order and statement of
compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting or hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting or hearing 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 or hearing conducted by the
board is a quasi judic 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 or hearing 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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. Miss Dill, present. Mr. Hans here. Many Lavender present. Mr. Lavario
present. Mr. Mitchell is currently absent. Miss Ojins here. Mr. Robala here. Vice Chairman Jones present. Chairman Richardson here. Chairman, we have four. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, we're going to roll right into our
agenda. Item number six, uh, looking at old and new business under the ordinance review. I'm going to turn the meeting over to Mr. Jones. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so just here to give you a brief up or to give you an update on the um, ordinance review committee's
progress. Um we have the house of worship which we've uh spoken to uh at length and have done some revisions. Uh that will move to draft resolution for our May 7th meeting in hand. You have
the HPAC um name change from commission to advisory draft resolution. You can see it's section uh D of the LU1 171.1 uh township land use ordinance and it is
changing the uh H uh historic preservation commission to historic preservation advisory committee and the reason for that change is under the term commission there's a lot more um administrative uh activity that needs to
take place and with with uh uh chairs vice chair s there's an a whole structure uh and uh in speaking with the um president of uh or the leader of the HPAC um they have been requesting this change for quite some time. So I finally
found where the issue was um confirmed with him that that is the uh what they want to change that to and it is changing just two parts of the um section D of L171.1. So question to the board is
there any concerns with that change from HPC to HPAC? So hearing none, um I would like to uh make make a motion for uh SE sections LU171.1 land use ordinance to send this
draft resolution to the township committee. Second. Okay. Do we do an all of fame receive or a roll call? I'm sorry. The the this is to forward it. It's to the forward it to the township committee. Yeah. This is not a formal resolution. So we could do
a voice vote. Okay. Okay. Yeah. All in favor. All in favor? I Thank you very much. So that will go to probably the May it might make the May 8th um uh TC meetings. Usually got to go about 10 days before, right? Thank you very much.
Uh moving on to some um uh updates for the planning board. So I sent to um administr administrator um or township administrator uh Randy Bar uh a list of about 20 zoning map changes um that came
out of the 2023 U Long Township master plan. um he is going to work with our uh township engineer to uh get this in the book of work. There are a lot of other uh zoning map uh uh administration that
needs to be done. So uh Randy was in agreement that this needs to be in the bucket of work for the zoning maps. So it's not just done as a one-off that it gets done as a project. Uh so I'm waiting to get a timeline uh back from uh Randy to understand where this falls
in uh where's the priorities and how it's uh going to ma match up with the other work that needs to be done. Any questions on zoning maps? I can send around the list of items that were sent. So what will be the process then? So the changes will be made by the
township or our port engineer. that would be made by the town engineer by map first and then any of the other verbiage that goes along with that that will be part of that that just
there's okay so there's there's the zoning map changes which is moving um uh parcels of land into the correct zones because they're not in the right zones um and again I have a list of that there is also the name changes to the zones
which is a different activity ity that Miss Dill is working on to uh get that sent to draft resolution so that way we can then move that on. I do not have that on the agenda for today to talk about, but we'll make sure we'll put that on the May. So that I just want to
make sure we kind of marry those two things together so the maps are accurate with the zoning map changes. Right. So with the name changes there, that too needs to feed the project. So, I will make sure that Randy Bar or administrator Bar is aware that there's that zoning map name changes for the
various like Millington village zone and uh Sterling Village zone and a host of other changes that we were going to uh put forward. Great. So, I will make sure that that makes its way. Mr. You know, I I take it then the ultimate product uh is envisioned to be an ordinance uh that
will be introduced at the governing body level will be master plan consistency reviewing it and then back for a second public hearing once all those items are completed and that is correct. That is correct. We'll have the honey and and all of that is coming out of the master
plan from the 2023 longill township master plan. So by de facto the consistency should already be there but we will make sure to reinsure that that consist that consistency check is performed so that way uh we stay harmonized with the with the that's an
excellent point because we are uh involved in the drafting process. Um but regardless it will always come back to us in between introduction and and and adoption. That's correct. So educational, teaching moment,
teachable moment. It is a teaching moment for for all of us. Uh because as we move them forward, there is a little bit of table tennis that goes back between the two boards and or the boards and the committee. Um and also talking to the zoning board of adjustment to make sure if they come across something that is brought to our attention that if
we need to address it, we address it. Or if we leave it status quo, we leave it status quo. And their role being through the annual report. But don't get me started because when I start talking about the annual report, I get on the soap box. Okay? But but it's government in action and in all in all truth it is local government in action and the
zoning board the planning board and the governing body executive legislative and quasi judicial branches all working together and so this is textbook how it's supposed to happen. So kud kudos to
long township. Great. Thank you. And I think, Don, what you're getting at is that when you make one change, it implicates a lot of others. Yes. And David, Tom and I have discussed that like we want to move swiftly with the one the remaining ones
that get impacted. So I just want to encourage everybody else as we're trying on our side to like identify any other ordinances that now might be different because of say the zoning map update. Um, we want to like keep a good rhythm
going. Um, I I would venture to say we actually don't have a great stride yet, but hopefully we can get there. Yeah, practice makes perfect. Exactly. It's fine. I'm just I think we're getting there. Yeah. Well, if I may interject to the um the draft is already started for the annual report for the zoning board
and they are scheduled right now to start reviewing that um the end of May. So really pending uh the zoning board's time with that and us getting through the planning board getting through the affordable housing, you should have it in June or first part of July, right?
That'll help quite a bit. Yeah. Okay. Absolutely. Legislative process just continued. This is the given. Okay. This is this is has no end. Um Tom Tom, very quickly. So on the zoning map, would it come back here? Do you think can we see a draft when it's done, do you think?
Yeah. See that? Just to double check it. Most definitely. Okay. Yep. Okay. Um, so we have two ordinances that we have sent to the township uh committee for review. Uh, it has gone through first reading. It has come back
to us uh at our last meeting and it's going to go for second reading uh tomorrow. Um, however, this group had a discussion around fences and it was around pool fence. So if I'm going to be making a
recommendation to the TC tomorrow on what's the way how to progress, I want to first talk about it here and then talk about it there. It may be that it comes back to us again. So um this is
regarding pool fence height and it the township requires 54 in in accordance to LU154.1 which is fences, walls and hedges. We had three proposals was to follow the the current con uh
construction code which is 36 inches. The other is remove actual height and leave it generic where we reference the construction code. So there is no height mentioned. And the the last is leave asis. And I'd like to cite um an
application that came before the zoning board of adjustment last year on May 21st where the applicant followed the town code which is the higher fence the 54 in fence. So um I want to talk to this group to have an idea of what is
what is the recommendation coming from us or do we just let the TC decide for themselves how they want to deal with that? And I I pause if I can ask a procedural question just so I fully understand where it is in the process.
Did you say it was already introduced uh by the governing body? It was introd and we had master plan with consistency review with our recommendation. Correct. Uh, and now what did it have in the original
introduction? It had 54 in. It kept it as correct. Um, yeah, because I I think what you're alluding to is it may be that if if there if there's a change proposed, uh, the township attorney will have to make a determination as to whether that's a
substantial enough change to warrant reintroduction, remaster plan, consistency review, and and then back for a second second read, if you will, uh, and uh, and public. And I'm fair. I'm I'm aware that that may come back to
us. Uh I just want to be in a position that we make a recommendation even if it does come back to us. Uh we make that uh um if I get called to the podium. Uh I know that uh uh Committeeman Lavender did mention that um we were talk
discussing the two the signs and fences and then fences. There seemed to be some uh discussion around uh the pools the pool fence on on the pools. Is there a is there a state regulation and so why wouldn't we just reference
that it must be in compliance with the New Jersey state regulation and then just and it's fluid. Yeah, that's the easy route. But I didn't want to make that executive decision. I'd rather make it uh uh be a consensus from the
planning board. So it's 36 not 48 Deborah. pool fences. What's the mandatory? I don't remember off the All right. So, whatever that is, whether it's you think it's 48. I thought it was 48. I don't think it's right. It's definitely less.
3 foot doesn't sound very ins. I believe I I believe it's 48, but I one issue with this is that there are conflicting regulations in the code, which I think has been in the zoning report. Um is that under the 124.5
swimming pools has a height of um sorry that requires one of them requires a height of 54 inches and one of them requires 48. So they're we just need to be consistent, right? Whatever we decide, right? So the 54 is sitting in
154.1, right? And the 48 is in the one that you just referenced, right? And and I apologize for forgetting, but the introduced ordinance that we master plan consistency reviewed,
was that that left the 54 and the 48 in as is in the two different places? Yes. was 54 in the one that we introduced with the changes and it's 48 in the one that she's bringing up that we did not introduce
right meaning certainly you want to reconcile them and uh and hence the house cleaning sir yeah but the the the uh can't we just go back and reintroduce or not reintroduce but just set up about
adjusting the other ordinance I think at this stage if it's before the governing body uh uh someone can make a recommendation uh tomorrow at at the governing body meeting. Why don't we come to a consensus here? We'll bring it up tomorrow and then Jack will decide whether it's material enough change to
reintroduce. What I'm hearing is that we align with the 48 and go with the 48. That is the construction code. I guess the state's construction code and that's already in one ordinance. We don't have to touch that if we adjust this one to 48.
So, I guess all that's left is a voice vote if we're all in agreement. Exactly. Wait. Or can we can we use I mean more generic language to include UCCC code in case it changes. That's even easier if they adjust that. We don't have as a zoning officer. I would prefer that you
use language that for UC universal construction code because that way if the code changes, state changes, then we're covered under the ordinance. The only thing is change. What's that? You might have to change the other one. We'll have to go back and change the other one. Change both to I don't have a
problem going back and change. That's a simple line change. It's not a heavy lift. I mean, Liz has to write the resolution for me, but other than that, it's a it's a quick So, you're giving me a look, Steve. No, look. So, it sounds like the consensus is
follow the universal construction code and then we're done instead of instead of dictating a a specific heist. So, and then if we have to change it in the other section of the ordinance, we can do that. timekeeper on myself. So, um, so just to be clear, that's on that
LU54.1 D section three, right? That's the piece we're talking about now. A private residential swimming pool shall be surrounded by a fence of at least 54 in in height, but no more than 6 ft in height with self latching gate. Is that's a section, I believe. That's a section. Yes. So, we would change that
to as as as in accordance with the uh UCC. UCC, but then it says but no more than six feet in height. Yeah. So I think we're going to keep that maximum. So we've got between four the minimum of the UCCC and then we maximum height.
I will say most pools have the shorter. I mean you're going to have a lot of fences. But if it does if you do that one place you should do it the other. Okay. So that where's the other section? That's one two or Lu124.5. We'll do that represent. What's
that entitled as a matter of interest? I'm not going to go to it. What is it? What's that entitled? 124.5F. It was 12 two. Sorry. 124.5 subsection F is entitled What is
that? Oh, swimming pools. Okay. Swimming pools. Sorry. 124.5. Swimming pools. 124.5. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. So, so it sounds like the consensus is follow the UCCC boom and
fix and adjust 124.5. So, most likely that's one's going to get pulled from tomorrow's agenda because it's got to get sent back to us. It would ultimately be a deter determination by the governing body with the advice of their council, but I think it's a fair uh assumption that this
should be made to reintroduce, but we'll see how it goes. We'll see how it goes. All right, Mike got lucky. I was going to say, so well there's one of two things have to happen then. I either have to tell the clerk tomorrow that we're reintroducing both of these or is Liz or Steve are you going to revise it and then send it to me to send it to the
governing body? I don't have it. No. No. Yeah. No. We're not doing This is where I'm confused. So, my recommendation is we pull we tell um clerk the clerk we pull the fences so we can make an
adjustment to uh the language to follow the UCCC and then in parallel I'll work on 124.5 so I can get that one amended to follow the UCC and I will also search the uh the rest of the code book to see if there's any other references to pool
fences. Okay. Okay. And Steve, it's acceptable uh from the planning board to uh for me to write a just an email to the clerk to say we're we're pulling that ordinance. We don't pull ordinance. We're not the governing body. That's what I'm trying to explain to people. We're not the governing body. We're
going to we're going to have a discussion, right? Because it's second reading. I'll make the comment. I'll invite Tom up. Say to Jack, he's like, "We want to make this consistent with the UCCC. How about this wording?" Jack will look at it. He'll say we'll have to
reintroduce it or he'll say this is a minor enough change where we can just do it on the get off the plate. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. Okay. And I think the planning board just by acclamation should have a voice saying this is what should have a voice that that's what
we're requesting. So the mo so the motion is to amend um I I can I make the motion? Yes, please. I I I I make the motion that we make a minor change to this ordinance to conform the height of the pool fences to
whatever UCC says for both 154.1 and 124.5. Correct. All in favor? Was there a second? Tony. Okay, great. All in favor? Thank you very much. The other item is signs.
There's nothing coming back to us, so that'll be a second reading for tomorrow. Okay. And now we'll move over to uh items for discussion. Um first coming up is the ground floor apartment. So I'll turn that over to Miss Dill to take us
through that. Sure. I have updated the ORC template that we all reviewed last time with some more information to further kind of explain the background on some of this and provide support for it. And then subsequently I also was
able to have some conversations offline with other members of the board where we were able to dig even deeper into very valid observations just about um what's going on in the villages. And so the biggest thing I want to start by
saying is just to reiterate that this is not to really change much of what's already happening. That's the first point. Um, and then the second point is just to give greater flexibility to kind of this funny phase that we're in in our
world right now where like there's not a huge need for storefronts anymore. I agree there's like way too much housing going on, but at least in these villages, we want people there to encourage hopefully
future like coffee shops or, you know, a spa or like something like that. that would be great in the village, but this is to support hopefully future businesses. So, I just wanted to reiterate those two things, which is this is not to change the vision of what
we would want as a village and it's also to really just bring into um compliance what exists now. Um so, with that in mind, um I went through the master plan and pulled some sections. But I won't go into um I won't quote them word for word
unless anybody has a specific question, but I pulled some quotes uh from the master plan that I think support it. And see, correct me if I'm wrong. The standard is that it's not inconsistent. But I also would argue that it is actually consistent. There's nothing wrong with it being
affirmatively consistent. It's just that the bar is a little lower in that it need only be substantially consistent or not inconsistent. Right. So I and I pulled quotes that I think show that it's actually in fact consistent. Um and then I pulled some quotes from the New
Jersey state master plan which after I I read through quite a bit of it and David thank you for bringing that to my attention. They really stress the idea of redevelopment, which they define um as not just like development, which
which is what we're seeing all the time, but redevelopment specifically includes the word reuse and um adapting what's already there. Thanks for having me. So there's a lot of quotes in there from the state plan that I think are actually again consistent with not only not consistent not inconsistent but
consistent with um specifically around the idea of redevelopment and reuse. Um, I'm not gonna say this as well as the state master plan does, but the idea is also in one of their sections to
encourage areas that are already populated so we don't go into open spaces and then develop there. So, I thought that was another great thing that I even regardless of the Sterling Villages was just like, oh, that's a great, you know, any town should be
utilizing kind of their village space, their downtown space. Um, so we're not affecting all of our open spaces, which are coming becoming few and far between. Um, and then, uh, you know, I know there were some concerns about fair share housing, but I would hope that this
actually helps some of the housing situations, especially again being that, um, a lot of the groundf flooror apartments in the villages already exist and hopefully are affordable. I know that there's a standard that we have to
abide by in in regards to like meeting our quota for fair share housing, but just in regards to like a broader policy outlook like this is where people have been living for so long in these villages and again many of them on the ground floor or even just like single
family homes in these um areas. So I don't I don't see any way that it affects our negotiation for our next round of fair share housing. Um so that is in here also. And then the parking, Don, I think you raised that. I did a drive by. I'm I'm more than happy to do
this and and I will do this little exercise hopefully in the next week or so. I've just been so busy. But um just for example, in Sterling, I was driving by and I think when all of these u properties and lots were built, they all had driveways and many of them have
driveways that actually lead into like rear parking lots. Um so I don't know that off streetet on street parking would actually become any more um impacted and the development of any bigger property would end up having to
come before us anyway for some sort of like site plan approval anyway. So, I I don't foresee and I was looking just this afternoon at all. They all tend to have even like I said like a rear parking lot with several spaces in them. So, I don't see that being a huge issue.
Um, but certainly can like get actual numbers, but it was hard. I was think I was talking to you about this. It's kind of hard to calculate like how many spots are in each. Yeah. But I think there's a formula. It's either 1.5 or it's two, which they definitely need. Yeah. Is it two parking spots per apartment or is it
1.5? I think it's 1.5. It's RSI. It's dependent on the number of bedrooms, right? Oh, okay. Which again like I I'm thinking about that 224 226. They have like eight parking spots there, you know. So, I think there's
there's um plenty of parking for all the funny enough again like in in a lot of other towns where parking is limited, those properties all tend to have sufficient parking. Um and then in the last section, I just included the uh
case studies that we've discussed before that 224 226 Main Avenue, they had the application that was before the zoning board and I think 329 was before the zoning board, too. But I'm sorry, 329 Main Avenue. um just where people have come and kind of pleaded before the
zoning board about being like a hard time finding commercial tenants at this point in time. So um I think this gives people the option to um in five years have an apartment and
then maybe the town is bustling in five more years and we can have a little more commercial storefront which I think we would all love to see. Um but you know needs to be seen. Um, so that's just some further information I put in here. So I, you know, take any questions or other comments or concerns.
I guess my initial comment is that I like the idea of not having empty storefronts. Now, I I think there's a a bit of a screening question if we have to identify what that screening is uh for those in the uh in in the ground floor apartments, especially those that may be uh facing the main avenue or the
mains thoroughfare. Um, but that'll be something that we can overcome. Uh, again, I I like that word. I hate going by and seeing empty storefronts. All right. I mean, you just go in over here and there's 10 stores and the big anchor store is empty. Uh, and they carve a big
hole in it. So, that I like. I I I guess it's the RSI just RSI. Yeah. So, we just need to make sure that we align with what the RSI recommendation formula is to find out what those parking I think that can be easily overcome and and you don't have to go around in the back of these buildings and count parking spots
or or do a Zillow or Map Quest or whatever. Um, and I and I would be looking for one big change I've noticed it's moving from 1,000 square feet to 1500 square feet or how does that work? change came from a like we talked about this like
two or and I want to say Dennis brought something up in regards to like what was and again we can make it like 1200 that's not something that you know we can I I welcome anybody's opinion on that it's something that came from somebody else like a year or two or
three ago. I think the idea was why if somebody wants to build a nice 1500 foot apartment, why should they be penalized, you know? And if anything that that prevents from like a ton of apartments, you know, makes nicer, right? That why what's the benefit of capping it at
1,000 square feet? Maybe that's the discussion that happened a few years ago. Um I mean it could be 1,200. But I don't think 1500 is I know that the 224 226 I haven't seen their site plans but um some of them were even two stories which is like
a nice weren't they like no that particular property was only one I think you're thinking about 44 playing field okay the top level of that had some loft areas if I recall I don't know I'd have to look but I'm I'm pretty sure that the main street one did not okay but I'm I
agree I just know that they they're they were doing three stories. So maybe I was maybe I was like assuming is there any benefit Liz to capping a like why do we even need to put a cap on uh the maximum apartment? Is there any benefit square footage? I I don't Can you think of
anything Jessica? I can't think of anything. I suppose you could get more apartments in a building but with the lesser square foot but you don't lower square footage. But I I I think yeah, you wouldn't I mean in particular usually the cap is on the low side,
right? So that you don't have substandard units, not you mean a a minimum? Yeah. A minimum of 800 square feet or 600 square feet or whatever. So someone doesn't try to create a substandard type unit. But a cap on the
high part doesn't doesn't make any sense. the low end unless maybe they were looking at bedrooms but then you you know like yeah but then the reason I'm saying that too because there's a situation right now where there's a you know on Main Street where there's a developer is looking to he wants to
develop a property with residential he wanted 10 units but he's also but butts up to the flood plane so he's been working with the DM the D and the D basically in the last discussion I said the kid maybe he could only have four so if you're a developer going from
10 units although you want for financially right down to four because of restrictions on a property and we say they can only be you know what I mean like you got to increase the area maybe those four units become condos at 2400 square feet I don't think you know I'm
thinking now that you're you're bringing this up I even envision like I was in um Morristown recently and they have like kind of bigger like not big but like town like it actually might not be the worst thing to allow a bigger
residential area and it's just like a nice dwelling unit as opposed to like a bunch of smaller ones. That's inevitably going to scream developer. That's also going to scream nonaffordable, right? So, and downtown I think for me it's a workers village
still in particular. So, I would not favor expanding sizes to whatever 25 whatever. I don't think that's the right look or feel character for downtown Sterling. Well, it's not 25, it's 1500. There's Oh, no. Oh, you said being
generic. Yeah, I think 15. Yeah, the developer has less at that. You're saying don't remove like the cap completely. No, I wouldn't remove the cap. I don't think I would keep it open-ended, but keep a minimum. Is that what I'm hearing? Keep a maximum. Some
people keep a maximum. Keep a max. Stephen Liz talking about apartments if Stephen Liz and Jessica if they put a cap let's say if we keep it at 1500 square feet that's still a bulk variance right so if somebody comes for a site
plan this is actually a question that we could have a further conversation about but the way it's we've treated it it's actually a devariance it because it's these are conditional use standards they wind up being conditional use if it's a conditional use and it's a conditional
use and you violate any standard then it's a D3 to the zoning board. Yeah. Which is how we've treated it. Okay. If you if you were if it were a permitted use then these would be regulations that would require C variance only and not D
variance. Okay. And if it was associated with subdivision site planner conditional use not well site planner subdivision then it would be in front of us. So that that's where that came from. That's good to discuss too. Any other
comments? I have uh just a couple things with um the other impacted ordinances uh adding LU122.11 and LU 122.11 has in it one of those is the
Myersville one pam correct? Okay. And it's B6. It says apartments in accordance with provisions of sub subsection 124.1, which is this one, right? Yeah. Okay. I would add that one
as as also an ordinance that um is impacted. Um I had a a question about parking and uh ordinance 151.1. And the example that's given is for
accessory apartments. Accessory apartment one for unit. So what would differentiate between just apartment with different um off-
streetet parking requirements than accessory apartments. I think of like my my neighbor has an ADU which is very different from an apartment. It's freestanding. It's above
their garage sort of thing. So I I just wondered if we wanted to address that since accessory apartments number of required spaces is one per unit. regular apartments is two per unit with
a 50% reduction for the Sterling Business District. Well, so now I'm wondering, Liz, how this which is on Do you have this form in front of you? Um, no. Oh, maybe I do. Sorry. How you So, the template if you flip to the back of
the first page. I think I'm looking at the wrong thing. Hold on. Yeah. Is that one? the one that says u the cover page says LU124.1. Oh, got it. Okay. So, we have an ordinance that and it's
not just these um zones that this LU151.1 says in all zones in connection with every industrial, business, institutional, recreational, res, residential or any other use of. So like how does that um correlate or possibly there's a
discrepancy between what you're saying what I think happened so the RSIS is was instituted I don't know 20 years ago 25 years ago almost 30 years ago and my guess is that and it's referenced in our ordinance and it's it says it's
incorporated by reference okay so it's it applies in our ordinance I theoretically applies everywhere in the state my guess is when it was sort of this blanket. Nobody went through the ordinance to take out standards that conflicted with it. So that might be
just a cleanup item. So we have to abide by this state one. It I think you do. I mean I it's What do you think? Every time I've had an application in before a municipal board where they had something different ultimately it was uh
that you you know RSIS governs. Yeah. So I I think that's the cleanest. It's it's cleaner because it's also uniform. So Pam, it sounds like LU151.1 needs to be updated to reflect
the RSI guidance. Yeah. Is it RSI? RSI says is they've determined it to be a maximum, right? So you can have a lower standard, but you're not permitted to have a higher standard. Okay. I what you always see is ordinances that require
more than RSI and that's where I think I've ever seen one had less for instance you could have the one parking space per unit that you could do she can make clean if we have to make change
changes elsewhere and it's technically the recommendation right so that way you have it yeah they use the terminology minimous exception and we're going to find this could have predated RSI. Yeah, the term used deviation from
that standard. The u the section where we reference RSIs is LU 15A and it literally just says incorporated by it is. Yes, it is. It's very 15 uh what did I just say? 150A. 150A.
Yeah, thank you. They maybe they're not out of maybe they're not um contradicting each other if it's Well, the the only the what I would say is if you have that RSI applies in one section, you should probably just take out any other section
that doesn't just say RSIs. But this is this this is like a weird ordinance. It says in all zones in connection with every industrial, business, institutional, recreational, residential, or any other use. Wait, a really broad just everything within the
Long Hill Township border that touches each other. Wait, I'm sorry. Where are you reading? This is the 151.1 off streetet parking. It's on It's in the back page of the this document. Oh, I see. So, yeah,
we get Yeah. If we're getting into an ordinance that applies to both residential and non-residential, then it's different. You have to break it up. Yeah. the the typically ordinances will have for residential just you have to follow our SIS. Anything that's not residential
then they have standards. So it sounds like we should change this LU151 and almost have two two separate or one ordinances that has two parts or or you put it all in one and just say if it's a residence it goes RSIs. If it's a non-resident here are the standards.
Yeah, it seems easier. Well, but that should maybe be the next one I take on. Yep. Just very quickly. It just keeps getting Wasn't there a study done by Tom Mer? Tom, please. Tony, just Tony had a
comment. Did you have something? Oh, it's on the park. Just finish. It's on the parking. There was a study that Tom did a few years back on parking in Sterling. I couldn't find it quickly. Do you wouldn't remember? I don't I don't recall. Yeah, there was a study done. I feel like there was, but I I'm
not sure if it was before my time or It may well have been just before your time. Is anyway we can find it and just circulate it back to the board. I mean, I could look at it. So, Sterling, it was Sterling Parking. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We went through. It would make sense with the timing of this ordinance here. And I
just may get some more information if nothing else. A little bit more information to support Theresa. Any thoughts you may have? Yes. Good. Oh, go ahead. No, I was going to go to a different point. So, if you Well, I was just gonna say now that
we're talking about it, I actually don't know if the parking changes this specific ordinance as much as we need to make sure that our parking ordinances are right. So, right, I just want to make that clear that I don't think it's that anything because like we're not
referencing parking in 1241. No. So, it seems like it's going to be this one 151.1. Maybe this will be I'll put it on my list of so I I have some background I can give you on the parking as well just from the master plan related stuff. So
So just a couple things. One is where we say three units per quarter acre. It seems high. So it was five per acre before. I think some of the documents that we're talking about are more
of two per quarter acre. So maybe ratcheting that down kind of to the point that we don't have too many small units that are on a site and it matches up with um things that other documents
that are coming out to what does ground floor mean because it's not in the land use right so there's a lot of definitions in here because to David's point about the threetory town home town home is defined separately than a apartment. So there
might be something that just needs to define what ground floor actually means, right? Is it even with the street? So if I put a garage on the first floor and now I have an apartment above inside this business district, does that mean that it no longer needs to comply with all the other rules that are inside the
business district? So I think it's just one of those cleanup things to make sure that we're noting what ground floor is. I wonder if I I'll check. I wonder if apartment is defined somewhere because apartment is defined inside the the land use because then presumably you couldn't do a garage
there. Well, apartment's pretty vague in terms of what it is in here. Um, sorry, scrolling back. Um, it's just one independent self-contained dwelling unit with a private bath and kitchen facilities located within a building
containing at least one other dwelling. Right. So it doesn't say where it has to be in the building, right? So that's why if we're saying ground floor, it just might mean walk in on street level, right? I think that we all know what it means, but it's more of just if we're
going to clean it up, let's clean it up. Yeah. But I think that's updating the definition section. So that could just be another or like or we just put what ground floor means in the definition section. One of the two ways to just make sure that it's consistent. Um, I think you may also want to address
whether you would be willing to permit ground floor parking. Um, in in these meaning structure, not structured parking, but sort of where the parking becomes like sometimes you see um the building is sort of on stilts basically and there's
parking underneath and you may not want that. Um, and so you may just want to clarify that. Well, so that's going to be that's going to be covered in like the parent ordinance, I think. Okay. So, the parent ordinance for um Sterling Village, Millington Village, Gillette
Village is um permitted primary uses. It's going to be on the first and second page of everybody's worksheet. And um and so that's considered a permitted accessory use. Like that's already indicated. Maybe that's a good thing to
remind everybody is there is like a parent ordinance for all of these villages which is LU122.5. But you're talking about parking within the apartment dwelling with within the building envelope basically. And you know I know throughout the state
especially with our train line that a very popular thing is to use parking to kind of insulate the building from noise of the train. Right. And that would start at the ground floor because if you think about the um the beauty parlor
next to Anana, how they've built up over it, right? So who's to say that they don't just, you know, take the first floor, slab it, and then make that into a garage and then put apartments above because I don't think that's allowed in the parent ordinance.
Like, do you want it? It's It's on your worksheet right here. on it. LU122.5 permitted primary uses retail trade, retail service, business, restaurants, financial, apartments in
accordance with 1241, which is why we're working on that, child care, and any other use. So, parking is already indicated as a only as a permitted accessory use. I think though someone would might argue that it's accessory, it's just on the
ground floor. Yeah. I mean, so it it just you might want to just be clear, right? No, I know. But I'm just saying how is that different from what's here now? Well, because if you accessory use could mean, oh, you have a parking lot or like a driveway behind your building. But what we're saying is there's a
potential there's a loophole potentially where somebody could come in and say, "Okay, well, on the ground floor we're going to have parking and then we're going to build two levels of residence above." I don't think this ordinance is what's is is going to am I like how does this ordinance do that because if I've
got a a 200t building and split it right so I keep the storefront for a th00and then I take the back side and I put it so there's not parking but you that has nothing to do with the apartment you could do that now but I guess the question is maybe you want don't want that so it's just something to think about but then you you build up and you
create the density right so that's how I'm looking at it as if I have a building that's 2,000 square F feet and I want to get these other apartments and I need to pass with the parking to tie it together. I might take half the first floor, put a 500 foot
apartment, put 500 foot street front, take the back, thousand square feet, create three parking spaces, and now I can build. Yeah, I guess I'm not I'm not maybe I'm the only one. I'm not following how that is affected by I'm not saying that maybe
there's not another issue that needs to be resolved. I'm just not following how like this change there like it's this is already this ordinance already exists. No, it could. You're right. I think what we're but so then let's maybe table that for another discussion except that if
this ordinance gets revamped that should probably but that goes to the density side is what I'm saying. Yeah. Right. So if I want to get around the density requirement and I need to get the parking I can convert part of the existing building to parking to get more
apartments above if I can have so so let's go to the density thing for a minute. So again that dates back to Dennis where and I don't disagree with him that what what it is now I mean just go to what it so that is like so far
beyond what is in existence now like what's actually happening so like none of those properties are even acre they're all like 0.1 so the reason we as we like ran some numbers and landed on
quarter three three per per quarter acre is like to better reflect like what's there now. So again, like we're really not increasing density. What is in the ordinance now does not ex exist anywhere because there's no lots that are an acre
that have whatever the calculation is. So I just want to make sure that that's also clear is like that was highlighted highlighted as like an update that should be made because it's like incorrect. Well, I think in the I can't remember if it wound up in the final
master plan or not, but we the zoning board kept getting applications in these types of zones for this type of housing that we're talking about and the the uh densities far exable. I think they were going to try to go three stories, right? They were
trying to go they were trying to go height. It's like not necessar if you have such small lots. It doesn't take very much building to exceed five dwelling units per acre, you know. So, um I think what it was was that the
projects we were seeing there seemed to be a market for 12 units per acre and I think that seemed to be consistent with some of the other multif family developments were happening in town. There's a lot of fruitful conversation on this and seems like we have some more
work to do. Thankfully, this is all recorded so we can do the playback. Yeah, I know. I'm not I'm not sure what the work is though. I'm thinking I'm thinking it's reviewing parking in and of itself. Yes. Which is separate from this. So there's the gift that keeps on
giving. Yeah. So I I've got a note here to review the parking and to figure out what what that looks like, what it's saying, and then see how we can incorporate that um into what's going on here. And it would be good to know if the zoning board of adjustments is
having these type of issues. It would be good for us to know since we're working on these ordinance, right? So, yeah, I just want to annual report. Well, that's what's coming out. That's the vehicle. I If you understand that I am like I'm going to Yeah. No,
no. Like we're we're like all over the place because you're talking about density and people building parking underneath which is like I want to also make sure like we were talking about this with the houses of worship. I want to make sure we're also not just thinking of every single possible scenario. That's part of our job, but we
will be here forever. So, like we do have to like stop at a certain point and move these forward. This is the stride that I'm talking Let me just finish. I This is the stride that we're not hitting and and it's not that I'm saying that there's not other ordinances that need to be changed. I'm happy to change
the parking ordinance also. And I'm happy to change other ordinances that are implicated also. But, and I'm not even just talking about this one. I'm just talking about how many times we've had to bring back fences and sheds. So, I I just want to like implore the board
here to start like also moving things forward and actually highlighting like possible issues. So, like I'm not actually totally following how that is different based on what's happening. Now if you want to change the existing ordinance to
on LU1225 then we can also do that but I'm not following how this scenario is affected by the apartment subordinance. If you're following it then we can table it for another I don't
think anything that you've done impacts it at all. I think it's just a scenario that maybe it's kind of common and it may be more common with the flood the flood elevation. I'm not saying it's not common. I'm saying how what what ordinance are you saying it
impacts that needs to be changed? I if you wanted to prohibit it. I was thinking more if you wanted to prohibit it or and sometimes ordinances will be specific about masking like if you have parking on that ground level that you have to have something along the street
that's masking it so it doesn't you're not looking at like So which ordinance is getting changed? It would be this one. Which one? I think you're calling it the parent 1225. Okay. Okay. So then let's add that to our list for another ordinance that
needs to get changed. 1225. No, we can talk after it's this one. It's it's the one that you're proposing. Yeah. 1241. That is not the parent one. No, it's this one here that I'm referring to. It's not the parent one. Okay.
All right. For the sake of time, and I agree with you on moving things forward, uh, because it can be a little frustrating when you think you're there and all. I'm sorry. And things ahead of time would also be super helpful because like we've spent hours doing this stuff and it's
becoming like Yeah, we don't want to create more frustration than you need. Thank you. Um one more question as new kid on the block. Um under ro Roman numeral number five, it's compliance with zoning ratios. Can you
just point me where I can find those zoning ratios? Which one? It's um existing parking infrastructure is sufficient to support updated apartment standards and it the third second bullet is compliance with
zoning ratios. Is is that the table with the parking spaces per unit? No, it would be the ordinance 155 that provides the ratio of what is needed. But now we need to change that anyway. Okay. So it's ratio parking. Yeah. Because it
says ratio for residential commercial. It's not comparing residential to commercial. Oh, I'm sorry. It's residential to parking. I You know what? Let if you want to email that to me. It sounds like Tom wants to keep moving. I'll I'm happy to answer your question, Pam. Got Thank you.
Um Yeah. And we do work on email. Uh just don't CC everybody. Um Will Mitchell's not here to talk about the um maximum setbacks on Valley Road. So, we're going to table that. I'll turn it over to Mr. hands on um his topic. My
favorite subject, your favorite subject? Yes. I won't take long. I'm not going because I haven't got just to prep it perhaps. So, we're talking about the uh zoning um use, right, Tom? Uses
in in business and commercial uses and office uses, right, Tom? Just want to make sure I'm sorry. We're talking about uses, right? Uses in the That's correct. Yeah. All right. So, way back when when we're doing the master plan, we went through an exercise of starting to map
out what the uses are in all the zones, but let's focus on the commercial and office and and office is going to go away. I think we were moving office to a large degree anyhow. So it's just um an exercise of looking at two two ones two
two uh what's currently prohibited and this has been a favorite subject of mine for a while and I use jagger lumber as my typical example right there but I'm not I have gone through this in the past my favorite subject so something like jagger lumber may not be permitted
use in today's world but they exist for many many years so why are we penalizing in some good businesses such as that especially where they have issues here and they don't have issues in other towns where they probably are not they are permitted so they don't have to go
through the rigma of of this place. So a couple of things is just to go through perhaps what exists and is prohibited. Gas stations are prohibited to a large degree in town. Um auto repair is prohibited I think in many places in
town but we have them. So one is going back to what you're saying Theresa just correct not correcting the past but getting us up to where we are and accounting for where we are. So that's one aspect of this and the other aspect
is how then do we maybe either I don't know if it's a case of broadening or reducing the the use definitions especially if we want to be more encouraging on the state plan with say mixed use I mean are we going to go crazy and define everything or prohibit
a lot of stuff so on a prohibit list is quite you know there's the old Um you the what I can't remember is the vermin or something. We had some fox you know some crazy stuff that exists today. Farms. Mink that's the one I think of
mint farms. That's one I came to. We've got a lot of those. Yeah. I mean golf driving range fantastic idea. Love to have it. But so it's just really for my mind unless anybody disagrees it's cleaning up the use is within town
today. get it current and then think about how the master plan talks about any changes to that. So that's that's basically it. So if we can start thinking about that and I'll try I've got some spreadsheets and stuff I can start to share when we get to that point but this is quite an important one and especially for the BD
district. So you know because there's a various things we probably need to look at. Sorry, David. If I may, Liz, could you opine just a little bit in regards to Jessica about how towns handle use in their ordinances?
You have to first is it all over the place or Well, there's there's two schools of thought. So, one is you're very specific, right? And you list everything that you're permitting. And the other is that you're more general
and you list kind of general categories. And in both cases, you really want to tighten up your definitions so that you know, whatever is coming in, you can determine if it meets either one of, you know, the
listed uses or one of the categories. What I found more of of the municipalities I work we're doing is going more into the categories because you are getting all these kind of novel uses like escape rooms what is that you
know what does that fit under and it's not it's you know not necessarily things you don't want but so trying to come up with broader categories and then being very specific potentially about things you don't want prohibited uses or
non-permitted uses so that you know you can say yeah we like all of these but you know we're not into you know these few uses that you know whatever they the typical bad uses that you don't want in your town. So you can prohibit those so
that way you don't sort of throw out the baby with the bath water if you're like retail retail services and just make sure that you define them really well. It gives you more market flexibility too. I mean because you don't know what the market escape rooms might be really
popular just constantly coming up with new things which tend some really great and you don't want to necessarily throw them into use variance where they decide not to bring their business to your town because they have to get a use variance to come into and the way you find that
out on the on the back end if you do it quote unquote wrong is you end up with applications for D1 use variances and one of the standards the second prong of the negative criteria you have to you've heard the enhanced Medici standard for those of us who have been on zoning boards know the enhanced Medici stand
you have to reconcile well why is that use not on the list of permitted uses and often the answer is because it didn't exist 10 years ago when you last changed the list of permitted uses it's an escape room we just invented these two years ago I mean now they're older
but so so you you they have to go through the long process the D1 use the hardest most costly, most difficult relief to get to demonstrate that hey, you you just haven't thought of this yet because it's it's new. So, it's it is
better to keep it up to date, keep it I I agree with that concept of broad on the permitted, specific on the prohibited. Then, I always I always laugh, what's the difference between a prohibited use and a list that's not permitted? A use that's not permitted. Yeah. Yeah, I guess it's just clear that
we don't we it's not that we don't want, it's that we really don't want. It's hard to meet the Medici standard if it's a list prohibited. That's a good point. You're kind of usually saying you're saying, well, why didn't the master plan permit this use? Well, if the master plan specifically prohibited, it's kind
of hard to say, well, you overlooked it or you Yeah. Nobody's going to come in and say, it's not on the list of permitted uses, but it really should be permitted here. It's a D1 use variants. you there's some sort of reconciliation. If you have it on your list that says it's absolutely prohibited, they're not
going to bother to come ask for a D1 use. Yeah, but we just got in this day and age, we got to be smarter. I mean, whether it's by size or feature or something like that. I mean, like Yeah. Mink farms, fox farms, and commercial pigies. Now, do we really have to spell
that out? Yeah. Right. No, I agree with you. It's more about it's more about capacity, use, purpose, and those type of things. Not just general. Yeah, those I I think our or our prohibited uses falls into what Jessica is saying is the
the the pitfall of trying to list every permitted use because you wind up with things that are so outdated and and so I think there must be a smart you guys can pine but there must be a smarter way of doing it around I think you deserve yeah
categories not even categories okay I see what your categories are to think about I mean you know I don't want to try to come up with them now, but let's just Exactly. Right. I'd be curious to see what other towns have cost in that frame and even the state
plan. Yeah. Most towns that I work in I maybe Jessica you feel differently or Steve but they just have the catch all if it's not explicitly permitted it's prohibited which is fine. Yeah. That's typical which is you know I think some of the towns I had like back in 2000
2010 they created these lists and now you look back at them you're like what is it? you know, yeah, just mention nobody has printing presses anymore. Right. Right. Right. Right. So, I mean, they're really hard to keep up to date. So, I think if you if you look at, you know, categories like retail, retail
services, you know, office, commercial, give a good define them because retail services could actually include restaurants, you know, it could include spas, it could include a lot of different things depending on what the definition is. So, it's really important that your definitions are really good.
Then the zoning officer, administrative officer knows what those definitions mean. And when one comes in, they they can accurately he or she can actually say accur accurately say this is one of those. It's permitted. You don't have to
go to the board for use. So how do we is that something Liz you could help come up with these categories? Certainly. Would you mind just starting that because I don't want to make this stuff up. 60 seconds. And then is it fair to say that we do want to pursue
um good use today that is not permitted that we may want to think about how to make them permitted and as long you know hopefully the categories will cover some of these. Right. Because as like Deb just said they're they're uses that are new relatively new like a micro brewery or something or ones that we've had for
years that haven't gone. Right. Right. All right. Thank you Mr. Hands. Um, so I just want to say kudos to David for pulling up that chart. I haven't seen that in six years. I know. I just found it. All right. For for the sake of time,
um, thank you. I want to thank Miss Still and Mr. Hanss for all the hard work that they're putting in. Absolutely. Uh it's extremely important that uh as we send this information out, you look at it, digest it, and come back to us with clean, clear, crisp, um uh
guidance or input because we are spending a copious amount of time to putting this stuff together. And we're trying to think of everything. We're not going to get everything. Um but your input is valuable and that's why we're having these discussions. So again, thank you to the hard work that
everybody's putting forward to get this done. and there's gonna be a lot of house cleaning to do. So, apologies for that. So, Mr. Chair, that concludes the OC update. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you for keeping us on track.
Uh so, going forward now, we're um uh planning to do an executive session. Uh I think we need a motion. Yeah. And and do we need how how should we go into this? We we technically should have a resolution. and I'm going to read it
into the record real quick. I promise. Um, but I do believe we have one board member who may be recusing herself uh from uh from even the executive session. So, we just want to make that clear. Uh so but for everyone else who's going into executive session uh whereas
NJSA104-12 the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances and whereas it's necessary for the planning board to discuss in a session not open to the public certain matters relating to items authorized by NJSA
104-12B7 sorry the exceptions to the open public meeting act. Now therefore be it resolved by the planning board uh as follows. The public shall be excluded from the discussion of uh the following matter. Pending litigation affordable housing including draft housing element
fair share plan of the general nature and the subject matter to be discussed uh our attorney client privilege and litigation privilege. It's anticipated deliberations conducted in close session may be disclosed to the public upon the determination of the board that the public interest will no longer be served
by such confidentiality and this resolution shall take effect immediately. Motion second and a roll call vote please. I make a motion that we move to executive with no further action. Second. Committee Lavender. Yes.
Vice Chairman Jones. Yes. Miss Dill. Yes, Mr. Hans. Yes, Mr. Labario. Yes, Mr. Opela. Yes, Chairman Richardson. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Um Oh, yeah. So, that's we could do it
here, right? We could just You're on the air. Oh, no. But I mean, if we come to shut down, I would highly, it was highly suggested that we go into the conference room and close. We could do it normally. You come in there. Oh, okay. Now, do we need to come back to adjourn or can we adjourn in executive session? Just
adjourned. Okay. Well, I he just read no further action. That's right. No further action. Correct. Well, we That was the motion. So, meeting Yeah, we we'll have when we adjourn the executive, we'll have adjourned the the open meeting as well. Yes. Can I ask one question? Um