Hey, Mike. How are you? >> Hello, Mayor. Are you excited for our town hall tonight? >> I am actually. Are you all prep? >> I am too. I'm like, these are like kind of like one of the more fun planning events that we get to do where we're actually hands-on and involved. So,
looking forward to getting some feedback. I think I lost you there for a minute. >> Oh, sorry. Those on Zoom, can you hear us? >> Those on Zoom, can you hear us? >> Very good. >> Okay, >> I can hear you.
>> Yes. >> Excellent. Thank you. Madam chair, we do have a quorum. So back here recording and everything's good. >> Okay, great. The March 11th, 2026 special meeting of
the joint land use Boardman come to order. Please stand for the pledge of >> 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. >> Public notice of this meeting pursuant to the open public speaking act has been given in the following manner. Notifying the township clerk March 4th, 2026. posting on the township's web uh public notice web page www.mmapleshade.compublic
notices on March 4th, 2026 and posting notice on the official municipal bulletin board on March 4th, 2026. Board agendas, meeting minutes, and all other land use information and forms can be downloaded from the township website at www.mapleshade.com
under the land use board page. Roll call, please. Miss Beepitch >> present. >> Madame vice pres vice chair uh Miss Bruce >> present. >> Miss Capay >> here. >> Miss Dansen >> here. >> Miss Kazerachi.
>> Mayor Telerico. Madame Chair Valent. >> I'm here on Zoom. I don't know if you need me to say that. Sorry. >> Um Miss Wallace, Deputy Mayor Zeradnik >> present. >> Mr. McDonald,
Mr. Zera >> here. >> Mr. Jacobe, two. So, we have seven. >> One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Yes. >> Okay. Uh, discussion items. Fair housing. Fair
share housing consistency. Uh, it's Michael. So, it's uh we have Michael Davis and Bill Serenian uh both joining our township planner and our um fair share housing attorney. So, Mike or Bill, if you want to take it. >> Perfect. I I I can go ahead and jump in,
Susan, if that's okay. >> That's great. >> Great. So, my name is Michael Davis. I'm the township planner for Maple Shade. And um what we have in front of you tonight is a review of two ordinances for master plan consistency. Um these
ordinances are directly related to the housing element and fair share plan that this planning board now land use board adopted last June. Um these the first ordinance ordinance 2026-04 is really a a template omnibus type
ordinance that every municipal throughout the state is required to adopt. What this ordinance does is it updates all of the regulations in accordance with the fair housing act uh and the regulations that the state changed uh back in 2024 where they kind of revamped the affordable housing
process. Um it establishes requirements for municipal housing liaison administrative major positions as well as development fee and uh for non-residential and residential development. We the intent was to maintain the consistent standards with
what the ordinance previously had in it for development fees and fines and penalties and things like that. So it is largely similar to what it used to be, but there are updates to the uniform housing affordability controls which regulate bedroom distribution and income
levels and all these different little details that uh are important for affordable housing compliance. So essentially the first ordinance is a relatively straightforward uh template ordinance that every municipality is going is scrambling to have adopted by
March 15th. Um and then the second ordinance 2026-05 that effectuates the rec the uh fourth round housing plan for the township which is reszoning properties along 73
uh and 38 to address the fourth round affordable housing obligation. So um that creates a new zoning district which requires that a certain number of affordable housing units align with the housing element uh are constructed in that area. So overall, I can say that
these two ordinances are are very consistent and are not inconsistent with the 2025 housing element uh that was adopted in June by this land use board. Um and if there's any specific questions, I'd be glad to go into any more detail. And Bill, feel free to jump
in if you think I missed anything that you wanted to add. >> No, I just I just want to thank everybody for for agreeing to do this meeting. Um, the Fair Housing Act requires that these uh ordinances be adopted by March 15, 2026. Uh, which is
why we have the emergency meeting. >> Yeah. And ju just as a note, we've we've uh gone through the processes. Bill's office has been working through the program and filing all of these documents in an appropriate fashion. Um, we have program recommendations, uh, and
Mount Laurel George recommendation basically stating these are the final things that the township needs to address to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act. So, that's really what we're here doing is effectuating all of the orders that we were given um, by the
Mount Laurel judge and program recommendations. >> And gentlemen, just if I understand correctly, the board, we don't vote on these. This is just getting our um approval that we say it's consistent and then our council will vote on these. Correct. Like that's that's the process.
>> Correct. So the proc Yeah, the proc this has already been introduced by the governing body. Um and the municipal land use law prescribes that development regulations go to the planning board to be reviewed for any inconsistencies with the master plan. Um and then it goes back to the governing body for second
reading and final adoption. >> Right. Thank you. Does the board have any questions? >> And that's just one point of clarification. The deadline of March 15th, again, that applies to every municipality throughout the state. Um we are just one small
piece of that entire process. The March 15th is for the town council to adopt um at second reading the ordinance >> bas bas based on the referral from this board >> that it is consistent with the master plan,
>> right? which I town council had introduced this back at their February meeting. This is a these are conversations that we've been having about the area that we're looking at. So, this isn't something that we're just springing on them either. But, um I think it's important to is everybody familiar with the area that we're
talking about? It's from the Billows area, right? Billows, uh I believe is where it is on 73 down around the corner on to Collins and Waverly. Um basically down to Lenola, I believe, right? That's where we took it down to Mike. And that would be and that we're
>> and if I'm repeating, it doesn't mean that we are building units there. We don't have a developer for there. It's saying that we're it's us telling fair share that we are allowing that. Should a developer come in, it would be allowed. Correct. And we're saying how many units that we think we could get there.
>> Correct. So the the charge of the township is that you provide a realistic opportunity for these units to be constructed. And that's essentially what this resoning does is it provides the opportunity for someone to come in and build them. >> Yeah. And I think it's important too to
recall we and we've had these conversations that back in 2020 what was the arbors now Woods Edge sold to a new owner who went all market rate. The state allowed them to go to all market rate. So we lost all of those units in
that building. Um so we have been trying to catch as affordable housing. Um so and it was a surprise to us. We didn't know again it was during COVID we got an email that said just so you know the deed's been transferred. Um so since that time we have been working trying to hopefully you know we've been looking at
every unit possible. Um we have been I think we even went to homes that had group homes and and trying anything that we could in in the town to make sure that we had the units but we still came up short. So it was to find something. We wanted to make sure that we could put it in an area where it would be
acceptable um as opposed to having a developer come in and and do a you know a builder's remedy lawsuit against us for not being able to. So this will allow us the ability to meet our fair share hob obligation. Um and then again as we're working towards the master plan look at different things.
>> And Susan, correct me if I'm wrong, but any developer that wants to build there still has to come before this board. >> 100%. They still have right and this doesn't mean that they can go to one of those they can go to one of those business owners and say we're putting
units in there. It still has to come >> still has to come to the board and get township approval on everything >> 100%. >> This is just to become created by zoning. >> This is compliance. This is and again as Mike had said that it has to come before the board this board first as a recommendation to go back to council. Council will make the final
determination. Okay. Or the final vote. >> Any further questions? >> I have questions. No. Can I have a motion to approve? >> Well, if I may, if we can do them individually. >> Okay. >> So, ordinance number 2026-04,
affordable housing development fee. May I have a motion to approve? >> There will be a public portion after >> after this. >> No. >> What the hell are we here for? >> What's the point? >> We're not approving this. Oh, I know.
What's the point of public meeting there? Open public meeting. >> Well, we will have a public portion after this. This has to go to council anyway. So, you >> excuse me, there's not a public portion. There will be a public >> Yeah.
>> And and to clarify, there will be a public hearing on the ordinances on Friday. A special meeting on Friday. >> Correct. So there is a there is a special meeting on Friday um on the ordinances and that is the hearing. That's where the questions on the
ordinance come in. The motion that we're making currently right now and please correct me if I'm wrong. The motion is clear is just only that the land use board is saying that excuse me it is not the public portion. I I'm just psychologist that it is to this board's attention
>> and I think they should consider that we're against this. >> Our motion is for that we're saying that it is in compliance with our land our our municipal master plan >> allowing it to move forward. That's all we're doing here. >> Right. >> Gene has a question. Do you have a question?
>> Question just in their point in in full transparency wouldn't >> I don't have a problem making a motion either way. However, I am curious um and and whatever the board decides or the attorney decides. I am curious
though to see the points before I I will feel comfortable um moving forward. That's just me because I I'm I'm new and I want to like get the lay of the land. But however you guys decide, but it would be curious to see the points that >> um
>> Are we allowed to do that though? >> Yes. >> It just need to make a motion has a public session >> only because like I guess in taking myself off this board and I don't know if this is appropriate so tell me if it's not and putting myself in the audience, I would want my voice heard
before a decision's made. And if the decision goes the way that they don't like, at least we heard them. Do you know what I mean? And this is what I think the problem has been going forward. I've been getting questions, you know, about this as well. >> Well, the questions would come up when it goes to council. I think I guess in
moving forward to hear I guess in in Joe's point um and trust we don't always agree but we we can agree to disagree but I would be curious to see from his point of view why he thinks that this wouldn't be a good idea. I however I
>> He didn't say that. >> No, I'm just saying well he's not for it again but he has points to make. So I would be curious >> to see that lose. Well, it's just it was just a I mean, however you guys it was just more curiosity on on what he would
I'm gonna open up the meeting to the public. Anyone want to come up and speak? >> Well, I'm going to start by saying good afternoon, Joseph Walters, 163 Frederick Avenue. And that good afternoon is the first time in my life history been here
all my life as a resident that I've addressed anybody in council chambers whether it be planning zoning council or any other board as good afternoon. I understand this was an emergency meeting but I want to put on record that your board itself uh may have been illegally
formed as you know there's litigation on that. So I want to bring that up with that on record. So anything in the planners, the attorney, anybody that is watching, anybody at home, any any of this action or council's action on this specific thing may be null and void. That's not for me to to decide, but I
did want to bring up some points on the um on the issue itself at hand here. Um has anybody on this land? First of all, the planner made relevance that this board adopted this sometime I think you said
in June >> it was the planning board >> last year but that was a different board all all together that was a different board it was a planning board back then of a whole different makeup so I want to put that on record it wasn't this land use board everybody can agree with that >> absolutely
>> okay so the question that I have and Miss Capay thank you for your uh your comments for opening this up to the public and thank you chairwoman for opening this up to the public. Uh I've been selling real estate commercially and residentially in this town for over
35 years full-time. I know the town pretty well. I'm asking the members of this board, have you looked at and I don't know if council has, and I don't know where this came about to pick this spot, but when you pick any parcel of
land in town for consideration like this, and I'm going to ask our manager cuz she's probably the one or maybe the planner, are we talking about 20 28 units that were short? >> Did I hear that somewhere? >> It was 78. >> Seven. What is the number? Mike, do you
have the the total number of of units that >> the total number of units on the tract is 170 or 34 units? >> I didn't >> 170 units. Did you say >> 170? >> 170. >> So, we're short with our housing
obligation to the state of 170 units. So, >> no, >> it is 170 total units for 34 a set aside of 34 affordable units. So, the 34 170 units, 34 affordable units. Is that
correct? >> Yes. 170 total on the site, 34 affordable. >> So when you pick up track of land in any town, uh you have to as a board and as in council has to and Mr. Zeradnik still in council. Uh this is a question if I can make it Friday. Friday at 3:00 is
that meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> Correct. So, one of the questions you have to ask yourself, regardless of who came up with it, I guess it's really a moot point, whether it was the planner, the township council, our manager, or everybody combined, the question you want to ask yourself is what does this
potentially end up costing our town dollar and in other uh aspects where you put something like this or or anything for that matter. In this case, when you're talking about housing, it involves
children. We're not talking about senior housing here. So, this can potentially involve children. I kind of understand what you're trying to do. Say we're going to stick it here where it's probably not going to happen. I mean, let's talk outside the box for a minute. That's probably really what's going on here. But,
uh, chairwoman, if I were to offer you $1,000 for that bottle of water right now, you'd probably sell it to me. That can happen anywhere with any kind of development. The right developer comes in just like happened at Woods Edge. The right developer comes in with the right
money. Anything can happen at any time. And then you say, "Well, they have to come before this board for approval and council and everything else." That's true. But if they comply with everything, you can't stop a freight train. Here's where I'm getting with my point. Once you approve anything,
whatever it is, through this board to go in a specific part of town, you have to consider the busing for those kids, the water and sewer, the fire safety, the fire hydrants access, the lines that are going in, the gas
lines, the water man, the sewer main, all these types of things. Can they handle it? Well, that's you're thinking well when it happens it happens the developer developer will have to pay for certain amount of what about the the traffic that the problems that that's going to cause to upgrade those
utilities. So all these types of things. So when you ask those types of questions you start to say to yourself is this really the best spot to put this? I don't think it is. >> And then then you say to yourself wellated
>> look look at where we're at. and our professionals determine what >> you say. Look at where we're at on Route 73. Again, remember I said I've been full-time real estate agent selling commercial real estate in this town for
over 35 years. That section of Route 73 is probably one of the most valued spots on Route 73. So to lose a commercial ratable to put something potentially put something like
in this in down the road is really stripping the commercial aspect of that whole section. That's something that can happen. >> I'm going to have to stop you there and have someone else I'm sure someone else has to come up. We have a threeminut limit. >> I didn't there's no three minute.
>> Is that part of your rules? >> Yes. >> Oh that's that's >> council has five minutes. We have three minutes. >> Again, I I know how this stuff's been working around here and uh I I think the points that I just brought up, if the board asked them questions, you you may
want to think twice about your decision on that because it's something that you can't overturn later down the road when it does cost the township a lot of money. >> Thank you. >> Your votes will be reported. >> Can I just ask you, are we allowed to ask questions? Could we ask questions? >> Absolutely.
Uh, so you're saying that this this is in your opinion not a good area to do it. On the flip side, where would you suggest we tutu? >> I'd be happy to meet with you. There there's a lot of areas in town to meet. I I'll give you I'll give you just one example. Um, give you one example.
Somewhere where it's more again, we have a lot of we have the highways in town, which when I talk about school and busing, if potentially if you could keep it in town, it would be ideal. Gina, you know all about the busing. So anytime you go So any anytime you go over a
highway, you're automatically busing every one of those kids, even if it's >> We're already busing out there, though. >> So So yes, >> we are already busing out there. So it wouldn't be added added. We are busing out there to all the motel. There are buses going out there currently. >> Yeah. So we are additional children.
Additional. Okay. >> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. So you hear what you're saying. So that would require more buses. Whereas if it were on the inside of these highways, you wouldn't need busing and therefore no more buses, no more drivers, no more. >> You seem to give it a lot of thought and
I would also welcome you to not just the >> I'll give you I'll give you an example then. So here's one just one example and there's many there's many and this is what I think the board should pause and consider. I Brian I Mr. L I don't know with this time frame and the planner saying there's this emergency meeting. I
don't know about all that, but I'm going to give Mr. uh Zeg, I'm going to give you one example, and that's something that we're talking about with our nursing home that's in town. I believe the township's negotiating or trying to purchase that next to M uh Yokum School. Okay. So, if you were to take something
like this and approve it for that section of town, which is on the outskirt of Maple Shade, okay? Um, if you put something like that to butt up against maybe Dana Run and all that land, that track of land there where the school could expand and you could have
something like this. Don't you think it would be great to have those kids walking out of that housing unit right into the school building? >> These units that make more sense children. >> They don't have to be, but they they can be >> and they and they likely will be. >> The point is is it's going to be more
busing. They could be affordable housing for seniors. It could be adults which would eliminate the busing and the extra not all the extra traffic but >> people with disabilities, >> right? But you're just assuming that it's going to be children and all that stuff there. That's what you're saying. >> But you can't let you're not limiting
with this approval. You're not limiting it to that. >> Absolutely not. >> So that being said, again, back to real estate and Joanne, back me up if I'm wrong here. Joanne Mortimer is here. If you were to build, if you're a developer and you're going to spend millions of dollars on a parcel and then millions of
dollars in construction, are you going to go after lowinccome with seniors or are you going to try and go after families and fill two bedrooms versus maybe one? You're going to do everything you can to bring your price up to to the highest amount you can, which happened, as Miss Dansson said, with Woods Woods
Edge. There's other parcels in town that should be considered before this is jumped on. This is one of the most crit and that's why I'm here today mainly. This is one of the most critical pieces of commercial real estate on Route 73. I think it needs to be reconsidered. >> Thank you. >> So,
>> if I'm not mistaken, that zone is already in our redevelopment overlay. Is it not, >> Mike? Or did that >> You're muted. >> I do not believe it is. >> It's not. Okay. I know WAWA is in the O is in the redevelopment overlay which
would automatically permit uh some sort of >> Yeah, I don't believe it extends that far, >> right? Okay. >> What would happen if we didn't? Are we fine? What what would what would happen to us as far as not being compliant? >> That's it. >> Well, let me Yeah, I just want to make
some comments before moving forward. I'm Bill Olsson from Serenian Edwards Buzzac and Nolan and I'm the Township uh affordable housing council. Um, so just to kind of start where we are, I understand the comments that were made. I do think that that is probably more appropriate for a second reading of an
ordinance. Um, because the question today is whether or not the proposed ordinances are consistent with the township's master plan. But but in Mount Laurel generally, the the Mount Laurel doctrine basically states that a municipality has an obligation to address what is called its fair share of
affordable housing. And so in the township's case and in particularly in round four, um the township's round four obligation is 78 units, we already have a certain number of mechanisms that we need to meet. Um we already meet our senior requirement. So for senior housing, there is a limit as to how much
senior housing you can have and I can tell you is at this point the township has an ample amount which is why this is proposed as being a uh multifamily. I can also tell you is that you know we had discussions you know me Mike Davis and then um Susan and we had
communications with the township committee in relation to you know as we're trying to find an area to address this obligation and we create the realistic opportunity um you know where in the township do we think would be the most appropriate and the the currently proposed site is what was um discussed
and agreed upon amongst the township officials um in choosing this site. And if I may to address Mr. Walder's point, the Mount Laurel doctrine as council indicated it's an extremely complex >> very familiar with it. >> Right.
>> I've been a partner in a land in Medford that I was involved in and it was a force developer type situation. >> Yeah, >> totally familiar with it. >> So I could tell you collectively as a board we would prefer not to be here at at 12:30 on a weekday. Unfortunately,
the deadlines that have been imposed are beyond the control of the township as what would the fine be? What would the >> Well, that that I'm getting to that because that's an excellent question. Um, every municipality has a deadline of March 15th to meet the deadline where
the ordinances have to be adopted at second reading. The exposure and the urgency quite frankly is if we do not receive certification or if we miss a potential deadline, the township is potentially exposed to a developer remedy suit, which is why towns
participate in this process to provide the township with protections from builder's remedy suits. And for those of you that are unfamiliar with what that looks like, every municipality is broken up into different zoning districts where certain uses are permitted in certain
zones. A builder's remedy suit is where a developer comes in essentially sues the township because they are not in compliance for whatever reason. It because the town has taken no steps to update their zoning code or master plan or if they are out of compliance with
respect to their affordable housing obligation. So, as the developer, if you're successful on that suit, you could essentially pick your own zoning. So that, you know, if we've designated a commercial zone in town and the developer wants to put a 300 unit apartment complex, if they're
successful, that's the exposure we have. You know, by by staying compliant, we control the zoning in town by by having a weak link of not being exposed or deferring adoption. That is the risk. And it's a risk quite frankly that's too
great for a municipality like Maple Shade that does have a wealth of not only housing opportunities but commercial opportunities as well. >> So I hope hopefully that >> I understand it but >> yeah and to follow up too a builder's
remedy is basically site plan approval from the court. So it would go outside of the township's control over its own. >> Anyone else from the public? Thank you uh for that explanation by the way. It makes things a little more open.
I appreciate that. Uh the only thing I have to add to Mr. Walter's presentation which was very good is that I feel having been a zoning board member this is a zoning board issue. Okay. And I
understand that the joint use land slam board is a combination of both. However, at the same time I realize there is not a quirum for the zoning board here.
I want to put that on record. We're >> a joint. >> Morner, I thank you for your question. Just to clarify, we are a joint board, but under the municipal land use law, if in fact we were a bifurcated board with a separate planning and zoning board, the ordinances would be referred to the
planning board. That is by statute, not by, you know, we willy-nilly decided to have before the joint board. >> But here on the ordinance right next to Ordinance 202605.
What word is used there? >> Reszoning. >> Reszoning. Thank you. >> That's correct. >> I feel this is a zoning board issue. That's the only thing I'm bringing to the attention of the board. >> And planning boards have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the master
plan adoption and any underlying ordinances such as zoning ordinances as well. I understand with the adoption, but you're reszoning. >> We have to get their name >> as she >> your name and address, please.
>> It's uh Dawn Lawler, 219 L Avenue. >> Why is it such an emergency? We did not have enough time to uh properly look at other places besides where you want to go. >> It's an emergency that's imposed by the state with respect to municipalities
that are participating. >> How much time did they give you? >> Do you want to address that? >> Sure. So, we filed our um housing fair share plan in June of last year, which outlined how a municipality intended to
comply. The original step forward was to pass a binding resolution in January of last year, then file a declaratory judgment action with the court, which we did. Uh, and in our housing element fair share plan, which is about 5 months between the two, there was a potential for a challenge to the round four number. However, the township did not
receive one. We then passed the housing ament fair share plan, which had this site and was subject to a fully noticed uh housing fair share plan hearing in June of last year. We then filed that with court. the fair share housing center filed a letter, you know, basically requesting more information. We have been going back and forth with
the fair share housing center pursuant to court orders. Um, and we just entered into a consent order in February of this year kind of outlining the townships around four compliance and it requires that we pass pursuant to the Fair Housing Act all of our ordinances uh by the 15th of March.
>> When did Matt Laurel tell you when this had to be done? When did you first get notice that this had to be all of a sudden now it's taking that long to be an emergency that we have no time to try to look for other places? >> I I think he addressed that that it was in the consent order again. This
>> then what time what what time? What year? What date? >> This >> February of 26. >> February 26. So they only gave you a year to do this. >> A month. >> A month. >> A month. Seriously? >> That's when we got all the paperwork, the final paperwork back. >> Yeah. Our our housing home and fair
share plan proposed this site in June of last year. >> Did somebody drop the ball here? >> No, it went before the boards. It went before all the boards and was at the township meetings as well. Council has already seen this. Council Township council has already seen this and approved this site. Yes. Is there any
way to add other areas that could be considered so that when council votes on it they can ultimately by Friday I mean the one suggestion that I gave you I think is I think it's great but the board may feel that way too council may feel that way. I don't know if it's
been discussed but maybe that area should be considered or as an alternate or >> would we be able to put that in as a recommendation of hours to council for Friday? There's a couple other and be gladly give Susan if you don't and put them as >> Hold on. I'm I want to get their
comment. I don't know, Bill and uh Mike, is that something that the board here could say as our recommendation that you know, yes, we're recommending what's stated here, but we're also recommending X location to council for Friday.
>> I think that the charge in front of the board tonight is to review the ordinances for any inconsistencies with the master plan. if there are any comments that they would like to add to that consistency review to the governing body. I don't think that would be inappropriate, but I will add that we
have 4 days to get everything adopted and submitted. So, there's not enough time to make any changes to uh any ordinances prior to March 15th, >> but it is something that we could change again after March 15th. >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. This is this
is a housing element. This is a compliance matter that we need to get resolved and submitted right now. If the township feels otherwise in six months, we can absolutely take another look at the housing element in fair share plan and consider additional appropriate areas and we would have to approach fair
share and bill likely the program judges to get approval of a of a revised plan. But right now, we are attempting to obtain certification of compliance by March 15th for the township's immunity
from builder's remedy lawsuits. >> Yeah, I'd agree with Mike on this is right now this is what kind of what we're charged with in getting this done by March 15th. But just because we get a compliance certification now doesn't mean in the future that if the township is interested in saying, you know, we
would prefer to do X, Y, and Z, I don't think there's anything necessarily stopping you from that. um subject to obviously you know fair housing center and court sign off. We just have to go through the court process at that point. >> Absolutely. >> My concern is if if you approve this >> Wait a minute. We still have someone speaking. Are you done?
>> So this housing is it going to be totally senior housing or is it going to be a mix? >> We don't know. >> We don't know. Doesn't make a difference on the developer. All we're saying is that what this board is being charged with right now is to say that what this
plan is being put in place complies with our master plan. So that's all we're agreeing to. But the plan itself is saying that housing can go there. But we would never know if it's going to be senior housing, if it's going to that's what's going to be proposed or if it's just going to be a multi-use, if it's going to have children in it. We're
saying that it should be a component because we've already met our obligation for senior housing. We're not going to get any more credit for having additional senior housing in in the township through fair share. Fair share as we've met. >> We have plenty. >> All right.
Anyone else? Anthony Tersy, 147 South Copper Avenue. My question, well, I'll start with this. Putting apartments up are the worst thing you could do. They're nothing but a drain on the township. We had a beautiful golf course back in the 70s
and now we got a apartment complex over it. And ever since that was the first major one going up, our town's been getting hit and hit because they don't pay taxes like the residents do, right? You all know that, right? They don't pay taxes like we do.
>> The apartments pay taxes. >> They they pay taxes, but not on the rate that we do. Like when uh Fox Meadow came up to put their uh clubhouse up, the owner come up here and he was like bragging. Yeah, we we pay $3 million in taxes. How much you think of that goes
into the school system? A lot of it plus all the other stuff that we got to do for them. And that's not the only complex, but there's like six or seven other ones. Now, why are we building 170 units when we only need 34?
>> We don't know what's going to be built. >> We're not building any. We're not building. >> I know, but the proposal is 170 units. The requirement for low-inccome housing is only 34. >> Is that correct, Mr. I don't know. I'm sorry. >> So, so yeah, to do that, there's there's
two ways um that projects generally get developed. It's what's called an internal subsidy and then it's what's called, you know, an external subsidy or an outside subsidy. Mount Laurel prefers and Mount Laurel 2 and the builder's remedy is generally
what's called inclusionary. Basically, there's market rate housing to prop up the affordable units. Um, when you do a 100% project, which is what you're suggesting suggesting for the 34 units, it requires an outside subsidy. Um, at which point, you know, the township
would have to take certain measures. They would have to meet with developers. They would have to, you know, potentially be on the hook for the cost of those units. So the reason why you do it as a traditional inclusionary is that it doesn't require any kind of outside subsidy from from either the township or
from somebody else. It's just the development itself would be able to be sustained economically. >> Okay, here's another thing. Like I stated earlier, we got six major uh rental communities. We need 34 units to comply with the law.
Why can't we open the the apartments up to put them a couple give them each a couple let the apartments open up so it's not a drain on the township >> the way that municipality gets credit >> the way the municipality gets credit is through what's called a deed restriction
and so those specific units are deed restricted for low and moderate income households there are certain you know rules and requirements that a an administrative agent has to kind of go through for the municipality to receive credit. So in that instance where you already have existing apartment
complexes, it's possible that there just are not deed restrictions there. If the municipality does want to do deed restrictions, the municipality would generally have to provide some type of, you know, monetary value to the developer. They would have to go through a process of reviewing it. They might have to spend more money in terms of
rehabilitating units to make sure that they're up to code. And so that's generally why we're proposing this is that you know it's a more expensive route to just go down go to an apartment complex giving a certain amount of person you know whatever amount they're going to be willing to take to have the
deed restriction on it and then going through the process of rehabilitating inspecting and making sure every unit is up to code. >> I have a question that may help answer your question because I think we're both on the same page here. I do also agree that there's enough uh rental complexes. I think I lost count at 23. Um, could
this potentially be a to meet the requirement a townhouse type of development that is deed restricted with 34 units for low income and that's staggered whatever the the the other units are sold at market value. The rest
are sold at a deed restricted low income. Is something like that and would it that meet the the requirement as well? Second part of the question is if it was in this area because there is commercial there could the bottom half be like on Main Street where you'd still have the opportunity for some commercial
properties to be in the lower part or um in an area there like um the main street mansion in Vorhees something where it's multi-mix and you have deed properties that are taxpayers. >> Right. That was my next >> Yeah, >> you beat me to the punch. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. I was going to say how
about like condos or town houses or Yes. Or even even a home. people this way >> people on rent what's the American dream home ownership right is not the American dream >> so if 170 units are up as town houses or
whatever or some are com some condos some town houses and then 34 are designated as low income >> and if I'm understanding right they're that they're deed as low income >> and you can make them condos so people can buy them >> as as part of the requirements the
municipality has has what I would call micro requirements. So, you have to hit a certain number of family. You have to have a certain number of for sale. You you can have a certain number for sale, but you also have to have a certain number of rental. And at this point, we do not have enough rental units, which is why these are being proposed as
rental. Um, in terms of the market rate units, I do think that um, there might be some some leeway and and truthfully is I I'm not positive that we would be able to to say that they couldn't be rental if they wanted to anyway cuz it's it's difficult generally to dictate
tenure in an ordinance. Um, but that's why these are being proposed as rentals is because the township has to have a certain number of rental units uh to be deed restricted. And just to clarify too so that everyone knows that we did go back to the apartment complexes that we thought that we might be able to get
deed restrictions on and we can't force them to do it. They did not respond to us. We went to the to the larger apartment complexes and asked them if they would consider um a deed restriction >> for monetary compensation. >> They would have to be they would have to be the state.
>> Oh yeah. So the conversation the conversation >> the state compensates them though. No, the township compensates them, >> right? >> Not the not the state. This any compensation that would happen has to come from us if we are going to >> this is a state mandate in the state. >> No, that's that's a question for the
state. >> Mr. Attorney bring our own decision. >> The mount the Mount Laurel doctrine states that it's a municipality's obligation. >> If they're people in Trenton money, they can join us. >> Let them pay the freight.
>> Okay. Your time's up. Thank you. >> I understand. Yeah, I understand your frustration, but that's that's just how the doctrine is set up and how the law is written. >> Thank you. >> So, okay. What I'm saying is >> thank you. >> Let's go to the least amount and make
them condos or town houses. >> Anyone else in the public? >> Why is the meeting at 3 tonight 12:30 and 3:00 when the working people can't be here? that you can't have any of residents of Maple Shade that might want
to be here can't be here like what happened it was like quick and you wouldn't have most of the people here seriously why is it >> because we have a we have a deadline to meet the deadline is Sunday on on which
is Sunday March 15th and the quickest that we could get all of council here in person is Friday at 3:00 >> their job why not tomorrow night why not you We're unable. There's several people that can't between the professionals that can't be here. Council can't be
here. So 3:00 on Friday was the >> Did you want to come back up? >> Yeah. >> So if I understand this, if you were to add a couple other options on on this for council to consider, can the one that's before the board now
be removed at that point? I'm going to assume yes, but I don't want to assume. >> I think you can hit >> because they're making a decision today on on this and if you say, "Well, you can change that at any time or in 6 months come back to it." Does that
remove this parcel for reasonzoning from that equation? Number one. Number two, I think we all know that even if that can be done, in the meantime, let's say it's 6 months, a builder or developer could walk in here, hit the ground running, and say, I I just made a deal with X
property owner. I'm buying it. We have here's our conditions. I'm doing my due diligence, and I'm applying to the board for housing. If they comply with everything, you just ate it. So, can you answer that question for me?
Well, what I would say is that what this zoning ordinance is going to do is going to provide the zoning entitlements to try and create the requisite realistic opportunity. If if a developer comes in and agrees to do it, I think that that's, you know, obviously something
that that the township is permitting and it's it it would certainly go towards the fact that the zoning itself is realistic. in relation to your question of water and sewer and public infrastructure. That's also going to be part of the land use board and the Mount Laurel doctrine doesn't remove those considerations. So, the developer is
going to have to do that due diligence himself and say I can meet the the sewer, I can meet the water, I can meet these requirements. Um, he's still going to have to go they're still going to have to go through that process to make sure that they're compliant with it. um and that they have the requisite, you
know, public infrastructure to support the the development >> and that's when you can come and make your comments. >> Mr. Rogers, I quite frankly I agree with you with respect to the location. I
think you know for the board's consideration maybe one recommendation for council is that as part of the presentation because at the second reading I believe that's Friday Susan >> um there will be a public portion on the second reading just
>> prior to that I'm willing to meet with the manager after this meeting circle the map with her >> I think it would be incumbent upon the town professionals uh particularly these two gentlemen to um explain to the public the thought process that went into identifying this particular area
because it was not picked willy-nilly. There were again professionals involved in identifying a location whether it meets the needs of the township. Unfortunately, this board does not have those answers which are again legitimate questions. But there is a tremendous
amount of work involved in identifying any affordable housing zone in any municipality quite frankly because it is an extremely sensitive topic. >> And just to back up on the manager's comments, the to go back and approach an individual or several complexes that can
always be done with deed restriction. And yes, the the township would have to pay them for that deed restriction. And that kind of makes the problem go away. They would have to comply, make their units comply with the housing and everything. But you're not talking about tearing up the highway, gas lines coming in, sewer lines, water line, all that
stuff, all the disruption that it would cause the township. >> Understood. But you have to realize that our administrator to our credit was proactive in trying to secure those deeds. >> And it can still be done though is what I'm saying. >> Not if they don't. We cannot force them to respond. >> Sure.
>> We cannot force them to participate. >> But if you're a good salesman, you make that second phone call. that second phone call eventually, I mean, somebody eventually, you know, you probably have a car warranty, don't you? Eventually, somebody bites and does it. When the right dollar amount is put out there and you look at the pros and the cons of off
offsetting what it would cost the township that way versus going the other route, it may be beneficial to do it, but it's always an option. And and just ironically, this the Mount Laurel doctrine all started, Mr. Lazuk will tell you, with Trisha Meadows, correct? Mount Laurel.
>> I believe that is correct. It's correct. So the Mount Laurel decision was made and the person who owned Trisha Meadows was Roger Davis. Davis Enterprises. Davis Enterprises owns Ryan's Run. Okay.
Also owned Mapleh Cable and TKR Cable. Well, sold it to TKR Cable. So Roger Davis has a lot of lot of history here in this town. Maybe we should go back to Ryan's Run and Davis Enterprises and see if they're interested in working with
something like this, too. But it all started right there. Uh they forced a hand with the Mount Laurel doctrine and that's when it started and the whole state had to comply with this. That's why we're where we're at. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Joanne. Joanne.
>> Joanne, >> you already spoke. W7617 overbook. Can we get an extension? What happens? What's the worst case scenario if we're not ready on the 15th? What's the worst case? >> I explained that that the the >> Can we get an extension? >> You cannot get an extension. The
exposure is you risk a developer remedy lawsuit being filed >> even if it's a week a week. >> But again, this is not unique to Maple Shade. This is a challenge of that every municipality is facing. I understand what you're saying, but do you understand what he's saying?
>> Absolutely. >> And that's making me worry for my >> I agree that can happen. >> Yeah. I just wanted to ask a question. Uh in my experience, I've been to a lot of planning board meetings and a lot of
zoning board meetings. Never have I experienced where there's a first reading of an ordinance. The first reading, I'm sorry, of what? >> Of an ordinance. Any type of ordinance.
Ordinances are handled by the township council. I have never experienced the reading, a first reading of an ordinance at a board. >> Miss Border, this is not a first reading. This is a refer. >> You said it is a first reading. No, I
did not. What what I said is that the council originally adopted this part of the statutory mandate is that upon adoption of first reading, it is referred to the planning board for one specific person purpose to ensure that
the proposed ordinances are consistent with our master plan. That is our sole function here today. We are not approving or disproving the ordinances. We are merely essentially certifying that the ordinances as drafted are compliant with
our master plan of our housing element. >> Okay. Thank you for explaining that. When was the first reading done at the township council meeting? >> February 26th. >> Excuse me. >> February 26th. >> February 26th. The first reading was
officially done. >> Yes. >> At that >> and introduced there. >> Okay. Yes. So the second reading will be Friday >> afternoon >> and the council meeting is at 3:30. >> 3 o'clock. >> 3 o'clock. >> 3 o'clock. >> Okay. 3:00. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the public? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion. We'll come back to the board. Any further questions? I just want to clarify the current complexes that we have do not have to comply with
affordable housing. They do not have to provide it. >> No, >> no, that's not true. There's some that do have affordable housing. >> You've went to them and they don't want to add anymore is what you said. >> We cannot force them to add. Correct. We have we have reached out to those complexes that we would like to thought
that it would work. there's enough units to absorb because remember now to there's different cost elements for them and there's a cost for the owners as well they were not interested in in changing up >> and this would truly be rental properties again >> there could be some I mean I believe
that Bill had announced that there could be the affordables both >> the affordables at least are are are almost more than likely going to be rental um the market rate units tenure-wise if a developer wants to do them for sale they can be for Oh
>> yeah. >> So I look So I look almost like I mean I I look at but it's because we have to we have to have the rentals to and to make to Matt to meet our affordable >> rental properties already in the township of Maple Shade. 23 complexes is
a lot. It's a lot of our schools to absorb. >> There's over 4,000 units. There's over 4,000 rental units. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not so >> but again this isn't what we're voting on. We're voting on whether or not this is compliant with our current master plan and it can go. So it has nothing
we're not saying that yes this is what we like what we want to see happen. It's does it meet our current master plan? >> So we pass this and this developer comes to us and we have the right to then to >> we're not passing anything. We're not passing anything. All we're saying is no, we're not passing anything. All
we're saying today is that this meets our master plan requirements. Council will have it'll be charged on council to decide whether or not to pass it or not. >> But I believe your question was >> if a property is developed, it absolutely would appear before >> for us. That's what I was trying to ask.
And then we would have the right to say we do not want 170 more rental properties. >> Well, >> no, you won't have that right to say that. >> No. Right. No, >> you would just have to make them comply with everything, >> right? If they meet the requirements. Yes. Right. >> But they come before the board.
>> They have to concern with the location. >> I'm just concerned in general >> of of that many more apartment complexes. >> That's the state. We can't do anything about that. >> We can't do anything about that. >> And I can offer you two units. >> And it's unfortunate, you know, that we have this many as it is where we're at.
It is. >> Let's the situation we're in. >> Anyone else? Any further questions from the board? No. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to approve? >> I'll make that motion. >> Uh John Dradnik makes a motion. Seconded.
>> Second >> by Bill. >> And just for the record to clarify, that would be for master plan consistency for ordinance number 2026-04, right? And ordinance number 2026-05
>> just to be presented to council. >> Correct. >> Okay. Real cool. Miss Bebitch >> approve. >> Madame vice chair. Miss Bruce >> approve. Miss Capade. >> I approve on the premise just to send it
to council. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Miss Dansen. >> Yes. >> Madame Chair Valentino. >> Approve. >> Deputy Mayor Zeradnik. >> Approved. >> Mr. Zera. >> You have and Mayor Telerico on too. She's >> Mayor Telerico
>> approve. It goes to council. >> Okay. Uh, can I have a motion to adjurnn, please? >> Who was that? >> Me. >> Gina. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I.
>> I. Next meeting will be Wednesday, March 18th at 6:30. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.